Newbury Debating Society, - Anyone interested in debating the EU? Options

[Cognosco]

I certainly struggle to believe that the lib dems would allow a free expression of political opinion, especially on anything real and meaningful.

If their record of free expression is the same as free expression as far as our local authorities are concerned then I will expect the vexatious list to grow very rapidly then? It would be far more useful if the Libliars cured the problem with freedom of information emanating from the local authorities before progressing to general debating?

[Simon Kirby]

It is a paradox that 'positive' liberalism can be illiberal!

The answer is that while Liberal Democrats purport to be centrist libertarians, they are in fact big-state centralist socialists. Liberalism has been a spent force in English politics since Thatcherism stole its free-market laissez-faire capitalist clothes and the radical fag end of Liberalism got lost in the merger with the Social Democrats and its subsequent spawning of the Liberal Democrats. Their claim to be centrist is just a positive way of saying that they don't really know what to believe but just desperately want to be in charge of it, and the idea that the lib-dems are libertarians is nothing but a conflation. But more than that, at a local level individual lib dems (and individual tories for that matter) just aren't particularly principled and don't believe that anything is important enough to upset the establishment apple cart over.

[Simon Kirby]

Subject for a future debate: This house believes that party politics have no place in local government.

Yes, I'd like to hear what they have to say about that. Loyalty to party rather then public does seem to be a problem, but in reality I believe their first loyalty is to the establishment - that middle-English, middle class embarrassment of speaking out and questioning authority. It's authority first, then party, and the public interest really doesn't get a look in. No particular reason why parties couldn't field candidates with some principles and moral fibre, and no particular reason to believe that independent candidates wouldn't be just as ineffectual, at the end of the day it all depends on who gets elected, and in Newbury we like it as it is.

[Andy Capp]

The answer is that while Liberal Democrats purport to be centrist libertarians, they are in fact big-state centralist socialists. Liberalism has been a spent force in English politics since Thatcherism stole its free-market laissez-faire capitalist clothes and the radical fag end of Liberalism got lost in the merger with the Social Democrats and its subsequent spawning of the Liberal Democrats. Their claim to be centrist is just a positive way of saying that they don't really know what to believe but just desperately want to be in charge of it, and the idea that the lib-dems are libertarians is nothing but a conflation. But more than that, at a local level individual lib dems (and individual tories for that matter) just aren't particularly principled and don't believe that anything is important enough to upset the establishment apple cart over.

Why use few words when many will do!

[Simon Kirby]

Why use few words when many will do!

I wanted to say that it was a false dichotomy because Liberal doesn't mean libertarian, and I thought it deserved some explaining.

[Andy Capp]

Yes, I'd like to hear what they have to say about that. Loyalty to party rather then public does seem to be a problem, but in reality I believe their first loyalty is to the establishment - that middle-English, middle class embarrassment of speaking out and questioning authority. It's authority first, then party, and the public interest really doesn't get a look in. No particular reason why parties couldn't field candidates with some principles and moral fibre, and no particular reason to believe that independent candidates wouldn't be just as ineffectual, at the end of the day it all depends on who gets elected, and in Newbury we like it as it is.

I would imagine there are many people with principles but are 'forced' to be loyal as they recognise the futility of being independent in a politically conservative town like Newbury.

It is a conundrum. No party will mean nothing gets decided, Parties; meanwhile, harbour conceit.

[Andy Capp]

I wanted to say that it was a false dichotomy because Liberal doesn't mean libertarian, and I thought it deserved some explaining.

Of course, but I was simply taking the opportunity to make a joke! But yours, nevertheless was an interesting thesis.

[Simon Kirby]

No party will mean nothing gets decided...

I've heard that said before in defence of local party politics, but it's nonsense. Local authorities will continue to run their services without any contribution from elected politicians. Policy decisions would still be made by majority voting, it's just our elected politicians would be making their own minds up according to their personal experience and preference rather than out of any loyalty to a party line decided by goodness knows who or what. Any member would be free to propose projects and only projects that got majority support would be taken forward.

The problem for the electorate is that they wouldn't have the party badge to differentiate between a ballot full of nobodies.

[Andy Capp]

I've heard that said before in defence of local party politics, but it's nonsense. Local authorities will continue to run their services without any contribution from elected politicians. Policy decisions would still be made by majority voting, it's just our elected politicians would be making their own minds up according to their personal experience and preference rather than out of any loyalty to a party line decided by goodness knows who or what. Any member would be free to propose projects and only projects that got majority support would be taken forward.

The problem for the electorate is that they wouldn't have the party badge to differentiate between a ballot full of nobodies.

You are only looking at it from one angle. Parties are like a co-op and they help each other. A house full of individuals would have to spend more effort forging coalitions. It could also just as easily create nepotism and corruption, as much as it is meant to solve. There'd be no parent party to clamp down on any rogue behaviour.

[Simon Kirby]

You are only looking at it from one angle. No parties are like a co-op and they help each other. A house full of individuals would have to spend more effort forging coalitions. It could also just as easily create nepotism and corruption, as much as it is meant to solve.

Like I said, I don't think party politics is actually the problem, I think it's the unhealthy deference to authority which is in the nature of the middle-class middle-English.

[On the edge]

I think you are partly right Simon. It's rather unfortunate that round here most politicians come from the public sector. Teaching, Nuclear or other such environments. Inevitably public sector organisations are bureaucratic - so those elected aren't used to being able to make decisions; without asking 'dad'. That then means over reliance on the paid administration and the 'experts'. This demographic challenge is also clearly apparent in the electorate. 'True blue or faded blue' - no choice at all. My personal take is that the only alternative, for those who believe everyoine should vote, is to spoil your ballot paper. That's affirmitive action and sends a clear message - that 'they' are more likely to understand than hearing it on door steps.

[Exhausted]

You are only looking at it from one angle. Parties are like a co-op and they help each other. A house full of individuals would have to spend more effort forging coalitions. It could also just as easily create nepotism and corruption, as much as it is meant to solve. There'd be no parent party to clamp down on any rogue behaviour.

I'm not sure that I go along with that premise. I would have thought that there was more likely to be nepotism and corruption when one person, the leader, holds the power stick. Coalitions do not need to be forged, the votes at a council meeting are by definition individual and do not need grouping. Go to a council meeting and watch the hand count on a slightly iffy decision. All Conservative hands go up for yes, all Libdem hands go up for no. Carried, (or otherwise) by the majority party vote no matter what the individuals might believe in their hearts.
As far as clamping down on rogue behaviour, what is that, do you mean dishonest behaviour as rogue tends to mean a person who doesn't do what they are expected to do. In my mind an element that might be welcome in local government. (So long as they don't become vexatious of course.)

[Andy Capp]

You're talking about one aspect of governance: voting. There are other features that require cooperation of a number people rather than individuals. The point I make is that changing the political landscape would not necessarily 'mend' local politics.

[On the edge]

In a perfect world, AndyC's observation is right - but the reality of power and human nature means that the process gets damaged by the pursuit of power as Exhasted suggests. In practice, in Newbury, you may well get elected, but it will be on a party ticket and you will be 'encouraged' to behave exactly as the local leadership demand. We can see that clearly when it erupts into the public domain - we've lost several good Councillors because they 'fell out with the leadership'. The leadership are simply interested in implementing their version of the party dogma - no matter how it fits locally.

[Simon Kirby]

Might be nice if theonlywayisnewbury gave us his thoughts on all this; it would be a bit off to use the forum to promote his lib dem society if it wasn't his intention to join the debate here.

[On the edge]

Might be nice if theonlywayisnewbury gave us his thoughts on all this; it would be a bit off to use the forum to promote his lib dem society if it wasn't his intention to join the debate here.

Quite agree and a bit of healthy e.debate might prompt even more to the physical one.

[Simon Kirby]

Quite agree and a bit of healthy e.debate might prompt even more to the physical one.

Absolutely.

[blackdog]

A house full of individuals would have to spend more effort forging coalitions.

Why?

Surely coalitions (otherwise known as parties) are the problem. In the old days any councillor could bring a proposal to council, other councillors could think about, debate it, get advice from experts, and ultimately decide if it was a good idea or not. The modern system of predefined voting blocks who vote as they are told to vote is fundamentally anti-democratic. It is even worse when the way they should vote is determined with input from unelected party apparatchiks whose motivation is the advancement of the party rather than the benefit of the electorate.

[Exhausted]

I believe, by observation, but it may not be so, that councils with a ruling party that matches the incumbent Westminster party get a better leg up from central government. Either by financial incentive or by not being capped so tightly. How this works with a Conservative/Libdem alliance in power, I'm not sure.

[blackdog]

I believe, by observation, but it may not be so, that councils with a ruling party that matches the incumbent Westminster party get a better leg up from central government. Either by financial incentive or by not being capped so tightly. How this works with a Conservative/Libdem alliance in power, I'm not sure.

You're certainly not the first to make that suggestion - there may be some truth in it.

It certainly raises one issue that councillors didn't have to face in the old days - constant fiddling by central government. Nowadays councils seem to spend most of their time working out how to do what the latest central government edicts/laws instruct them to do.