Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: blackdog Apr 4 2013, 11:29 AM

Dear Julian,

In your latest Greenham Newsletter you explain the current decision making system at WBC and then add the following paragraph:

Democratic? Not very – but it is the system we currently have to work under at WBC, and despite our best efforts as an Opposition to get back to the old “Committee” system (where every Committee was made up of members from both political sides in proportion to the overall split, each of whom had the right to both speak and vote), the Conservative administration rather like the absolute power that the Executive system confers on the 10 Executive Tory councillors, and they will not entertain any discussion about changing it.

In the light of this I was wondering if you could explain why, when the Lib Dems were the majority party at WBC, they replaced the Committee system with the Executive system if they are so against it?

I trust that a commitment to revert to the Committee system will be part of your manifesto in 2015?

Yours sincerely

Blackdog

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 4 2013, 12:16 PM

I also wonder if his leaving the meeting in the way that he (they) did, means the tax payer have wasted their money on sponsoring his attending a conflict resolution course!

I do have to agree with him on one point though, just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean it is right to do something.


I think our present authoritative set-up is impeachable.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 4 2013, 04:39 PM

Any reply would be interesting!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 4 2013, 06:07 PM

Good ask blackdog.

I agree with AC, Gordon Lundie may well have had the right to shut the lib dems up, but maybe he might have served us better by allowing a free airing of the alternative views on Sandleford. I say maybe, because I wasn't there and so I don't know how much discussion had already passed before Gordon Lundie pulled the plug on them.

I have to say though, it's a bit rich for Swift-Half to whine on about not being on a committee when his attendance rate has been so poor - could he be trusted even to turn up if the Tories gave him a seat on the Executive?

And forgive me for bringing this up again, but I can't help by choke on Swift-Half's hypocrisy in bleating about his own shutting-up while leading the Town Council who would only let me keep my allotment if I signed a secret agreement not to criticise them - and then refusing the Thames Valley Police offer to mediate between us.

So please, Swift-Half, your contribution is always welcome here.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 4 2013, 07:05 PM

In some spiel I read from him recently, he complained how the Tories "will not entertain any discussion about changing" from the councils executive model, to the committee model.

There's a lot of this refusing to discuss about, isn't there.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 4 2013, 07:29 PM

I notice that RUP hasn't been around lately. I wonder if he's been told to shut up, or whether he's just finding it a bit difficult justifying his party's actions. It's one thing for councillors to spout in the council chamber or issue press releases to the NWN, but they don't like it when they can't control the agenda or discussion.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 4 2013, 08:12 PM

And the most elaborate post of the year goes to...

Posted by: blackdog Apr 5 2013, 08:42 AM

I don't know if my open letter on this forum is the reason - but Julian Swift Hook has replied in a special edition of his Greenham Newsletter:

Executive vs Committee

Following my comments in yesterday’s E-News about the Executive system of governance, I have been asked why the Liberal Democrat Administration presided over the change to the Executive system at WBC in 2002 if the Liberal Democrats were/are opposed to it.

In 2002, the change from traditional Committee governance to the Executive system of governance was imposed on all principal authorities covering a population of more than 85,000 by the then Labour Government. West Berkshire Council covers 150,000 people, so the then Lib Dem Administration at WBC had no choice in the matter.

(Parish/Town Councils were not affected and continue to use the Committee system.)

At the time, both Lib Dem and Conservative members at WBC condemned the Executive system as being undemocratic – the system effectively excludes the vast majority of councillors from the decision-making process, regardless of political persuasion, and power is almost exclusively in the hands of the 8-10 members of the ruling political group who make up the Executive.

The new Localism Act 2011 allows Councils to go back to the Committee system if they want to. The Liberal Democrats on West Berkshire Council have been pressing the Conservative administration to consider a return to Committee governance, but (contrary to the Conservative position 10 years ago) the Conservatives have been strongly resisting even considering it.

I hope this is helpful to those who are interested in the technicalities of how WBC is governed and makes its decisions - and my apologies to those who are not! I’m happy to answer further questions if I can.


Fair enough - I look forward to reading the Lib Dem manifesto in 2015.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 5 2013, 08:48 AM

Elaborate perhaps, but it seems to have got a quick response.

And now we know it was Labour's fault...

Posted by: CharlieF Apr 5 2013, 09:05 AM

Well done you for getting a response. It seems that someone does read this forum. There was even mention of the forum in the paper this week regarding opposition to the land give away. Who'd have thunk it?

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 5 2013, 03:46 PM

Yes strange when we have previously been informed that councillors don't read the forum!

Also strange that we get a response when the blame can be passed on but a wall of silence when it can't?

All councillors should respond to any questions or queries whatever the medium used to produce them.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 5 2013, 05:44 PM

Indeed.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 5 2013, 07:55 PM

Umm. Great that a response was made. Only damper for me is that isn't quite how I remember the options or the debate. Will try and find time to look up the old copies of NWN in library if I get some time. Anyway a response at least.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2013, 10:09 PM

You know why it was elaborate...

Posted by: blackdog Apr 5 2013, 10:13 PM

Coz that's how I wrote it?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 5 2013, 10:20 PM

This isn't a joke about Black Labradors is it?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2013, 10:26 PM

I find it amazing that after speaking to a senior Lib Dem about Julian Swift Hook and his alias on this forum, he then posts a question on this forum to himself less than two hours after that conversation took place.

For some people this thread may appear plausable, but then why would anyone question the leader of the TOWN council about the district leadership model? JSH is not the leader at district level, nor is he regarded as a "senior" Lib Dem in comparison to Brooks, Rendel and Vickers.

The fact he questioned himself and replied 24 hours later via a "special newsletter" sums up how far this guy will go to try and cover his tracks. When has JSH ever replied to a sensible question in such a timely manner??

Yes, Labour did restrict the options of governance and asked the council (like others) to select from the available options. The Labour Government did not pick the model for the council, no matter what Julian or his alter ego would have you believe.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2013, 10:42 PM

You are going to look really daft if this is not true, or a bit of a hero if it is!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_2000

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/local_authorities.pdf

Political structure

The Local Government Act 2000 imposed changes on local authorities that were designed to streamline and modernise their political structures. The act was intended to end the old committee system of local government which, it was argued, was slow and ineffective although, others may counter, democratic and accountable. These committees were to be replaced with a new streamlined cabinet system. Each local authority was asked to choose from one of the four options below:

1. A mayor elected by the electorate, with a cabinet of between 2 and 10 councillors.
2. A leader elected by the council, with a cabinet of between 2 and 10 councillors either selected by the leader or the full council.
3. An elected mayor with an officer appointed by the council known as a council manager.
4. A modified committee system could be chosen by district councils with a population below 85,000 (or for some exceptions when it was deemed ‘most suitable’ eg Brighton and Hove).

The most common option chosen was a council elected leader and cabinet system. A smaller number of communities have voted for a publicly elected mayor and cabinet. A small number have gone for the modified committee system, and only one (Stoke on Trent) for option 3

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 5 2013, 10:46 PM

Richard's called "Napoleon". Go on then Richard, I'm curious to see how this plays out.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 5 2013, 10:56 PM

So now I'm JSH?

Lol.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2013, 11:07 PM

But no denial??

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2013, 11:20 PM

I'm uncomfortable with this outing idea. I am much more interested in the quality of the posts, than who is behind them.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 5 2013, 11:22 PM

Would you believe one?

Anyway its far too much fun to think that there are people out there thinking I am the voice of NTC.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2013, 11:56 PM

Me too. I've known for a while now, I wouldn't have mentioned it but I was talking to someone yesterday and this thread is complete and utter BS as a result of that chat.

The lengths some people go to in order to deceive.

Come on Blackdog, I'd like you to deny it so that when everything is said and done, your true colours will be seen by everyone. I will also be looking at how many past posts you edit this week with interest ;-)

Posted by: blackdog Apr 6 2013, 12:05 AM

So, let me get this right - you wouldn't believe a denial - you just want me to deny it so you can expose me/JSH as a fraud?

And the incentive for me to deny it is?

Funny how this thread is drifting away from Labour's involvement in the de-democratisation of local government.

Still must be off now - 57 posts to edit before dawn.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 6 2013, 12:35 AM

Is that a double contradiction??

What you are saying essentially is that you won't deny it because it's true??

Was this thread about Labour's de-democratisation of politics or asking yourself why the Lib Dems changed the way West Berks operates?? There was no mention of Labour until you answered your own question, so I'm guessing only you would have known that it would eventually be about Labour.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 6 2013, 07:41 AM

No, I'm saying that I won't deny it because there's no point, have already intimated that you wouldn't believe me if I did and, let's face it, it's far more fun not to.

So what is your opinion of Labour's legislation that reduced local democracy?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 6 2013, 08:05 AM

I would put it to a referendum locally with all of the available options. I think committee is least effective and it can be a talking shop where little gets done. When Labour changed the available options, I believe the options available were the most effective ones. I'd remove the mayor and admin officer option though, and let choice be between:

Leader and cabinet (as current)
Directly elected Mayor and cabinet

Both are effective, the mayor model probably more so for a unitary.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 6 2013, 09:25 AM

Committee is a form of PR isn't it?

Posted by: blackdog Apr 6 2013, 10:31 AM

I thought you said that you had collected enough signatures to force a referendum on the mayor issue? If so why haven't we had one?

If there was to be a referendum could it include the committee system as an option?

Posted by: blackdog Apr 6 2013, 10:53 AM

In the same way the the House of Commons is a form of PR - ie not very.

The Executive system is as if the ConDem Cabinet was ruling without having to put their legislation to Parliament for approval. There is a 'scrutiny' system, which, in theory, will expose executive decisions to some form of more democratic oversight (cf Commons Select Committees) - but it really doesn't seem to work very well.

The Committee system is cumbersome, hence Labour's decision to abolish it, but it did expose the decision making process to scrutiny before the decision was made (not after). Most, if not all, councillors would serve on one or more committees and any decent councillor would get involved in the work of the committee (I'm not so naive as to think they would all bother). Obviously the majority party could still railroad through their pet projects, but open committee meetings exposes far more of the decision making to public scrutiny (a lot of council decisions these days go through on the Executive Member's signature with no public exposure whatsoever).

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 6 2013, 11:03 AM

And we can thank Labour for this?

Posted by: user23 Apr 6 2013, 02:38 PM

Aren't you getting a bit paranoid?

Would someone really start a thread to criticise themselves?

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 6 2013, 04:12 PM

Yes if they were part of NTC they don't come more devious! Especially if it gives them the means to raise a debate to enable them to deflect some of the criticism to others

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 6 2013, 07:15 PM

He only did it after I told one of his senior colleagues his alias on here. It's like he posted the thread to try and prove he wasn't blackdog, but ended up making himself look silly.

Is he criticising himself? As he pointed out, this thread is about Labour de-democratisation... something that everybody else only discovers when he makes that point. He started the thread, yet Labour wasn't even mentioned until he put out his "special newsletter". Did anyone actually get that newsletter??

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 6 2013, 07:41 PM

Why? What proof did you have and what purpose did you seek?

Posted by: blackdog Apr 6 2013, 08:59 PM

Good question. What proof do you have Richard?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 6 2013, 09:54 PM

You know.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 7 2013, 12:06 AM

Do I? News to me.

Why not share it so everyone can judge?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 7 2013, 05:55 AM

I was joking with one of his colleagues about the way he does business and how he writes something on here that sometimes varies from his party view and what he says publicly.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 7 2013, 06:56 AM

Richard, he is a LibDem; that's stock in trade!!!

Posted by: blackdog Apr 7 2013, 09:07 AM

Is this what you call proof?

Ever thought that my posts on here might differ from JSH's party/public view because I'm not JSH?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 7 2013, 11:32 AM

Deny it then!! You know exactly how I know... nobody really cares!! I only mentioned it because you started this absurd ego massaging thread asking yourself a question and then making out that the question had been answered in a special newsletter!!

You are not the only councillor or officer to post here using an alias, but at least User 23 or Dannyboy and such like do not use it to make themself appear holier than thou. This thread just shows how far you will go to manipulate the electorate. This is why I wouldn't let you run a bath, let alone a parish council!!

Posted by: user23 Apr 7 2013, 12:34 PM

Conspiracy theories, paranoia, you'll be telling us 'the truth is out there' next.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 7 2013, 12:49 PM

"Speaks Volumes" - When the councils watchdogs come out in force to deny..........

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Apr 7 2013, 01:49 PM

Well it certainly don't seem to be in here at the moment, does it?

Posted by: Roost Apr 7 2013, 01:59 PM

...But I'm Julian Swift-Hook...!

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 7 2013, 02:16 PM

Yeh but which one!

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 7 2013, 04:28 PM

Richard - you do yourself no favours. Maybe blackdog is JSH - I have no idea. But the fact that you think I'm some way involved with the council proves to me you are just talking bollocks.

I'm nothing to do with the local council. so, if you are wrong on that count, what else do you have wrong?

it would be laughable if it were not for the fact that you try & make out you are the voice of change & integrity yet you have to resort to stunts & cheap shots.

'oh ignore those posts - they only post like that because they work for the council. their opinion is worthless'.

you are all the same.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 7 2013, 05:15 PM

Richard,

You have made it very plain that you would not believe any denial. You claim it as proof that I am JSH that I post opinions that differ from JSH's!?! Your paranoia is causing you to dig yourself into an ever deeper hole.

However, if it will save you from digging any further - no I am not Julian Swift-Hook. The last and only time I have ever spoken to you was on election day in 2011 - when, believe it or not, I actually voted for you! I have never even met JSH. I am not a councillor at any level, nor have I ever worked in or for any form of local government.

However, I do subscribe to JSH's Greenham E-News - I'm surprised you don't - I would have thought you would want to keep in touch with the thoughts of your new arch-enemy. If you did you would have received the two 'newsletters' quoted at the start of this thread.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 7 2013, 05:31 PM

Ah well another exciting conspiracy theory goes phut then? Just have to go back to the Vicky Park Crack Scandal for some excitement then?
Still it was good whilst it lasted........just what alias is JSH hiding behind on the forum then? Come on Richard don't give up?

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 7 2013, 05:33 PM

I have it on good authority that is is Cognosco.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 7 2013, 05:37 PM

Cor do I come over as that devious then?

Posted by: user23 Apr 7 2013, 06:41 PM

I'm thinking perhaps Richard has been manoeuvred into falling for a fairly simple wind up.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Apr 7 2013, 08:20 PM

Are you? Now that's not true is it? JSH's alter ego has been known by some on here and the other forum for some time. If you truly didn't know that Phil, you've either been wasting your time up at WBC or have been deliberately kept out of the loop. Perhaps both.

Posted by: user23 Apr 7 2013, 08:51 PM

Another wind up? Great stuff!

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 7 2013, 09:02 PM

Is that how you deal with our Tourist Officer when you don't like what she says!

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 7 2013, 09:04 PM

Pass the popcorn will you?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2013, 09:14 PM

We might never know if blackdog is really JSH, but I like the fact the Swift-Hook is an anagram for woof shtik.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 7 2013, 10:42 PM

not for the first time.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 7 2013, 10:45 PM

Foot Whisk.

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 7 2013, 11:56 PM

W Fook Sh*t

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 8 2013, 06:43 AM

Julian, only you could know that I don't subscribe to your newsletter!! And don't flatter yourself about being by new "arch enimy". The fact is, you are self obsessed and ego driven, going to any desperate length to get someone to vote for you. When you start to focus on the issues and representing the majority rather than the vocal few, you'll find that more people will take you seriously.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Apr 8 2013, 08:24 AM

Busted!

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 8 2013, 08:37 AM

Bloody **** is he also in a boy band now?

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Apr 8 2013, 08:44 AM

wot like putting your ur photo on the top of a petition

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/eric-pickles-mp-stop-west-berkshire-council-giving-prime-development-land-away-for-free

Posted by: massifheed Apr 8 2013, 08:57 AM

Anyone else get the irony here?

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 09:25 AM

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 8 2013, 09:49 AM

Yes!

Posted by: Squelchy Apr 8 2013, 12:30 PM

At least Garvie let's us know it's him. And is open about it. As opposed to JSH who seems skulk about hidden in the darkness too afraid to come out. Credit to Garvie for being upfront.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Apr 8 2013, 12:39 PM

Much rather have a politico who stuck his face on something, said "this is what I believe" and let us decide for ourselves, than some idjit obviously worried about getting caught in the sunlight when his stone is removed.

one - nil to Garvie really.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 8 2013, 03:47 PM

Only one way to decide this........... FIGHT!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 8 2013, 04:34 PM

+1.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 8 2013, 04:42 PM

Simple assumption from your responses - you evidently hadn't seen the newsletters, therefore you are not a subscriber.

Or are you a subscriber and were just pretending that they didn't exist?

The real JSH must be having a great laugh about this thread!

As, I'm sure, are those who know who I really am.

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 8 2013, 05:05 PM

I know you're not JSH cos that's me. I'm JSH.

Methinks you assume too much Richard.

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 05:25 PM

What are you talking about Exhausted?
I'm JSH.

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Apr 8 2013, 05:36 PM

im jsh and so is my wife

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 8 2013, 07:40 PM

I can't see anyone wanting to admit to being the notorious JSH.........but there again there are people who admit to committing crimes they never carried out just for the notoriety.........

Posted by: On the edge Apr 8 2013, 09:00 PM

That's brilliant!

Why don't we have another 'Great newt of Orme' and all come dressed as JS-H!

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 09:48 PM

You know I couldn't really disguise myself as anyone tbh...

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2013, 09:45 AM

Here's a good costume - Captain Hook and first mate Smee, collecting the precept.

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 9 2013, 10:23 AM

Not actually a denial then! - In fact a true politicians style of reply!

Posted by: Sherlock Apr 9 2013, 12:40 PM

Tourist Officer? Sounds about right given the number of tourists visiting the area.

Anyway, how are User and the singular officer connected?

Posted by: blackdog Apr 9 2013, 12:46 PM

I and all other subscribers received the Greenham E-News from JSH. If anyone is interested enough to want to subscribe see - http://lists.libdems.org.uk/wws/info/greenham-news

I extracted a passage that I thought interesting and posted it here.

JSH responded in a way that he knew would reach me - in another posting of his E-News. Obviously he didn't want to expose himself directly to the forum.

Nevertheless, as I had made my question public, I felt it was only fair to give his reply the same exposure.

Richard then 'outed' me as JSH and demanded that I deny it.

I told him it was pointless my doing so because he wouldn't believe me.

He persisted.

So I obliged him and denied that I am JSH - as I most certainly am not.

He didn't believe me.

As I said, pointless.

Perhaps someone who knows us both has enlightened him, perhaps he still believes I'm JSH. If so it's his delusion, not mine.

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 9 2013, 12:56 PM

I wouldn't wish to embarrass the poor girl!

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 01:21 PM

Quick bucket of slime and the jobs a goodun.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 01:22 PM

+1