I just wanted to ask if any of those who support the mayor system would like to help with a petition? This is not a party political petition, as far as I know two other political parties have requested information about forcing a referendum. Hundreds of people have already signed up, and the target date for submission is early February. I am personally planning to do Hungerford this Saturday with some colleagues, and Newbury on Friday and Saturday evening. There will be people in Newbury on Saturday daytime too.

The purpose of this petition is not because it's neccessarily my view or anyone in the Labour Party locally. We have decided to carry out this petition after the current administration refused to carry out a proper consultation on the leadership models available to the council. In correspondance with the leader of the council, I requested that the leadership decision be delayed so that a proper consultation could be carried out. I was told to "include it in my manifesto if it is something I care about". This shouldn't be about what I think, or what Graham Jones believes. There is a lot of support for the mayor option and it's only right that the general public should be allowed to have their views heard.

I would like to think all parties will be supportive of staging this referendum, especially the Lib Dems who are supposedly all for proportional representation. An elected mayor system would mean that the leader of the council would be elected by a large percentage of the district rather than 800 votes in one ward. The directly elected leader would also be accountable for when things go wrong, unlike at present when nobody seems to be accountable. Do you think Graham Jones would have closed the Ormonde Centre and Hillcroft House if he was accountable to the whole district? No, I don't think so either.

If you are available to assist with the petition, my mobile number is 07593 278690 or you can email richard.garvie@googlemail.com

What is the cost to the Taxpayer?

I shouldn't believe it would cost much more if any, the chairman of the council office and role would be scrapped, and that money would more than pay for the mayor. The ruling party at the time of the referendum will decide the cost and salary for the mayor, so it really depends on the party elected in May.

Plus the cost of the election.

Yes, because the consultation was fudged and the leadership model has to go to referendum, there will be the additional expense of an election next year as it won't be possible to have it all done before the elections this May. That shouldn't be used against the leadership model itself, but more a reflection of the local democracy we have under the current conservative regime. They chose to fudge the consultation from the word go, excluding any mention of support for the mayoral system. This is why we are petitioning for the referendum, so that the local community can actually have their say in an open and transparent process.

Like I have stated in other posts - a small elite only consults the people it knows will give the answer it wants - and only gives the options to vote on that will result in the outcome that they want!!!!

No prizes for guessing who'll be the first to put his name up for mayor.

Typical Labour, trying to introduce a new level of bureaucracy.Why haven't you taken part in any consultations?

Have you joined the Community Panel?

Typical User23 distorting the facts. It isn't another level, the only difference is that people will elect their ward councillors and also vote on who should be the leader of the council. This is in contrast to a political party nominating one of their own. So the mayor system is more proportional (something the Lib Dems claim to want) and there is more accountability. The coalition government want more elected mayors, Cameron said in Swindon recently that the elected mayor model should be adopted by cities, towns and unitaries. So why the objections from Graham Jones and his mates? Is it because he would have to step down as part time leader or leave his business???

Once again, we have to go along with what the leader of the Conservative Party in West Berkshire wants, not what the public ask for. That's how democracy works here at the moment, and that's why it needs to change.

PS. Like everyone else, I didn't even know about the consultation. You would think political parties would have recieved notification, wouldn't you?

The problem is all that would happen in West Berks is that the public would vote in a Conservative Mayor.

If there was a Conservative Mayor elected by West Berkshire, fine. At least they would be directly accountable to the electorate and would be working full time on council business. We need leadership, not the what we have now where nobody is really accountable for anything and the council lurches from one crisis to another crisis with no real consequence.

And you really think wasting money on a Mayorial election will put an end to lurching from one crisis to another?

Even you?

I'm going to be the second person in today to remind you that you're no better than us other mere mortal citizens of West Berkshire.

A hunger for power and this sort of arrogance are a dangerous combination.

Electing a mayor would ensure more transparency and more accountability. Once again, any cost implications must lay at the door of Cllr Graham Jones, who with his party fudged the consultation on the leadership options. If the consultation had been open and honest, and the council went with Strong Leader, there would be no argument. The fact is they railroaded through what they wanted, reegardless of public opinion.

A Mayor leadership option would not favour any one political party. The reason for doing it is to improve democracy, and is something all political parties should be looking to achive regardless of what model is used.

What are you going on about? I didn't know about it. Most of the people on this forum didn't know about it. Political parties were not informed about it. So how was it a "public consultation"???

And who has suggested that I'm more important than anyone else? I certainly haven't. A case of you trying to distort another thread, maybe?

It's fairly obvious what you're doing. You've realised that Labour won't win a seat in the local elections so you're looking for another way to gain some sort of power.

You've even said "A Mayor leadership option would not favour any one political party".

Are you suggesting that the leadership model used should favour a political party? Labour will win seats, and we will also help numerous candidates from other smaller parties and independent candidates to win seats too. The mayoral referendum is about giving the people of West Berkshire the opportunity to decide. Not Graham Jones or the Conservative Party, just because a mayor option would affect their own leadership options. We need more transparency and accountability, the mayor option would give us that.

For Labour to win seats, plural, they must do better then they've ever done in elections in West Berkshire or Newbury District.

If Labour don't win seats will you take the blame? Are you transparent and accountable?

Am I the leader of the party? If I was the leader and we didn't win any seats, I'd happily take full responsibility. Start another thread about the local elections, please stop distorting threads about other topics. The elected mayor petition doesn't have anything to do with the Labour Party as such, we are just facilitating it so that the people of West Berkshire can decide. What is obvious is that we are happy to stand up for what is right, whether it is something we personally believe in or not.

You're wriggling and trying to change the subject.

Let me ask you again. If Labour don't win seats will you take the blame or call for the resignation of your leader? Are you accountable?

This is what I said, and I have highlighted the answer you wanted. Unfortunately, I am not the leader of the party. As for changing the subject, what is the topic of this thread? Start a new one about the local elections and I'll happily take part.

Talking of changing the subject, you never answered my question, nor did you even attempt it.

Right, so if you don't win any seats it's all down to the leader and has nothing to do with you.

Hardly very accountable, are you?

You're rubbish at this Richard.

What makes me accountable if I'm not leading the party?

And why do you believe that the leadership option should favour the conservatives?

Only the leader of a party should be accountable?

Not at all. But as a candidate to the electorate, if they don't elect me I am already accountable.

Why do you believe the leadership model should favour one political party?

Have you been relieved of your community role for Newbury Labour party?

Not at all. If the party aren't happy with what I do after the election, the members have every right to deselect me from that role.

What would constitute not doing a very good job?

Perhaps not winning any seats after claiming you've win at least two.

I'm confident we will win a lot more than two. I'd say anything less than what we got last time is a failure.

Seeing as you won zero seats last time it might be hard to get less than last time, this time.

Given your prediction of "a lot more than two", I'd say anything less than three is a failure, wouldn't you admit?

Depends where you are sitting. The Labour Party will consider our success or failure on the vote share we get. So as you say, will be hard to get less than we did last time!!!

QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 9 2011, 02:23 PM) *
No prizes for guessing who'll be the first to put his name up for mayor.

Typical Labour, trying to introduce a new level of bureaucracy.Why haven't you taken part in any consultations?

Have you joined the Community Panel?

I have never even heard of the Community Panel!!

Several times now I have read on the forum of consultations on different items and it is the first I have heard of them. They are obviously well advertised then? Still like I have stated perhaps it is because the council only consults the people who they know will give the answers they require!!!

If you don't join in how can they get your views?

Go to their website and take a look.

You never answered mine either.

I did Dannyboy, I've highlighted the text above. The cost of the mayoral election is a result of the council choosing to fudge the consultation. Had they consulted on the mayor option properly, it may have been ruled out anyway. If it had been adopted, the election would have taken place at the same time as the locals, meaning there would be little to no extra cost at all.

Doesn't make much sense that as a consultation is different to a referendum.

How much will a referendum cost taxpayers is the real question.

Not that one.

And you really think wasting money on a Mayorial election will put an end to lurching from one crisis to another?

Had it been a fair consultation, there would be no need for a referendum.

With the mayor being accountable directly to every individual in West Berkshire, I believe so. It needn't have cost anything, but Graham Jones imposed his personal opinion on everyone.

Your poor Gran cannot take part in this either then User?

Thanks for the tip on the Community Panel I will have a browse.

I don't see it.

Any body as large as WBC is bound to have 'crisis' after 'crisis'. Having a Mayor won't change a thing.

Even if we had you as Mayor & a Labour council, nothing would change.

First of all, you are just presuming that I would want to be mayor. But what I will say is that things would be different under a Labour leader (whichever model was being used) on the basis that we have put pledges in our manifesto to set out exactly what we would do differently and how we would do it. And it's not a Nick Clegg pledge either!!!

As for the mayoral system, would Graham Jones have axed the Ormonde Centre or Hillcroft House if we was accountable to the wider electorate? He would personally be seeking out the person responsible for the CCTV issue, otherwise it would be him who takes the flack. A full time leader will that is directly accountable to the public will only be positive for the District.

What you mean is, had they chose the option you wanted there would be no need for a referendum.

Again, how much will this cost taxpayers?The difference is, with an elected mayor there's a (rather expensive) scapegoat to blame it all on.

Not at all. Had the consultation been advertised properly and had all available options been considered, then fine. West Berks Strategic Partnership had their comment excluded as it involved the mayor option, which at the start of the document had been excluded because "it risks introducing the possibility of personality into local politics".

I don't know the exact cost, but whatever it does cost would have been avoided if the mayor option had not been excluded from the consultation.

How much is it going to cost?

As you can see by the text you have quoted, I don't know the full cost. But it would have cost nothing if the consultation hadn't of been fudged.

Come on, you must have a rough idea.

You're not daft enough to have proposed this without taxpayers in mind, are you?

How, exactly? What is the difference between a (insert party of your choice) elected Mayor and the majority leader of the (same party) council? Because an elected Mayor is more than likely going to be the same party as the largest party on the council. And therefore have the same mindset.

There are those who think that party politics has no place outside national government in any case. Local decisions should be made by an apolitical committee to benefit the local community, not party dogma.

The elected mayor option allows the possibility of an independent mayor who can then appoint whoever he or she likes in the cabinet. Also, some wards have a very small population and some are very big in comparison, so rather than being about the number of seats a party will win, it will be decided on total votes. The only difference to the two leadership models is that one of them allows the wider public to elect the leader in addition to the wards councillors. The arguments for and against a mayor will be made nearer the referendum date of required, the petition will simply call for a referendum to allow the public to be given the choice. If the referendum goes ahead, the public will have to decide based on the facts available to them. On the timetable that is enforced by local government, we are looking at an August referendum should it go ahead.

User 23, the fact is this would have been avoided if the consultation was fair. If the council had acted properly, the referendum might not have been needed, but we'll never know because the council (yet again) acted in a dishonest way.

Fair = Reached the conclusion you wanted.

Why won't you tell people how much this will cost taxpayers?

It's because if people know the cost they wouldn't vote for it, isn't it?