Final result: LibDems 12 seats, Conservatives 11 seats.

LibDems won a seat in St Johns and lost one in Brummel Grove.

Tories won a seat in Brummel and lost one in St Johns.

So LibDems hold:
Victoria - 4 seats
Northcroft - 4
Pyle Hill - 2
Clay Hill - 1
St Johns - 1

Conservatives hold:
Falkland - 4
Clay Hill - 3
St Johns - 3
Brummel Grove - 1

If the Tories could have found a 4th candidate for St John's they would be in control - why on earth did they put up candidates in wards where they would probably lose and go in one short in a ward where they could expect to win all 4 seats?

It's utterably unfathomable. I understand that there was a fair amount of joy in the LibDem camp when they saw the nominations and saw that they had won a seat without doing a thing except nominate a candidate.

Oh well, congratulations to the Lib Dems for retaining control of one council. I understand that Thatcham has gone blue from what people were saying just before I left the Racecourse?

Anyone got a list of town councillors in Thatcham?

Thatcham Town Council has not gone blue. The Liberal Democrats have retained control.

Big shame that NTC isn't under new management. It's equally unfathomable to many why the Lib Dems are not against the pavilion that no one asked for.

Now's the chance for NTC's Libs to support the emerging action group.

Are you still under the illusion that councillors have any say in the matter over what a developer wants?
Next you will come up with the outrageous suggestion that the coucillors listen to what the taxpayers want?

Correct. We need a cross party campaign against it, in addition to a non political campaign my members of the public and friends of the park.

Elections over and done with now so they will press on and get it built as soon as possible. What developers want.... developers get...

'We need'? Perhaps we should just not bother. Few are.

I think the public are generally against it, from what they have told us.

Does the pavilion have anything to do with NTC? The story as I understand it is that the bit of land that WBC want to build on was not leased to NTC. I suggest that NTC have enough to keep themselves busy finding a commercial operator for the charter market, handing the Christmas lights over to the TCP, scaling back the opulance of a £100k mayor, finding out what all that petrol gets used for at the cemetary, cutting out the profit from the councillors' milage allowance, putting a floral display together that justifies the new budget, spinning the bad news about the crack snafu, plus other challenges too I expect. It took them a year to buy some grit bins; any one of these things could occupy them for the whole of the next term.

Not to mention trying to get back in favour with the voters? Going to be hard not to get wiped out after the next general election, especially if the coalition does not last much longer, we have not even started on the real cuts yet?

No one voted for massive cuts and the turmoil of the NHS reforms, the EMA, etc etc. They only got in because voters did not want the Tory right wingers in and were fed up with Labour.

I am led to believe that in a lot of wards there were only two choices Cons or Lib Liars to vote for so Hobsons choice only really. Oh for democracy in dear old West Berkshire eh? Any one any idea on the percentage of voters that turned out?

I think I saw 48% mentioned somewhere?

So they get into power with only approx of 1/3 of the electorate voting for them then? Fair?

I agree.It is unfair. We should have proportional voting systems. But I don't agree with compulsory voting which is the only way I can think that you could get the other 52% who didn't vote to vote. They all had voting cards sent to them. They had the option of having postal votes by filling out a form which takes 10 seconds to fill out. They had ample warning and were reminded many times through various media. Or are you saying that because 52% of people can't be arsed to fill out a form and post a ballot, or walk a few minutes to vote, then that invalidates the whole democratic process of this country? That's radical.

Or you could say that 52% voted for all the candidates, so the rest casted the deciding votes.

There is so much apathy in West Berkshire, and it is rightly justified. Politicians are truly hated at present, mainly because of what our MP's have done in the past few years with expenses etc.

I think there is a bigger issue even than that. There is a sizable number of people who have actively disenfranchised themselves and are not registered anywhere to vote. They are not illegal immigrants but they are hiding because they are afraid of being traced - by abusive partners, stalkers, debt collectors etc.

People who owe money....

Indeed or who are abused and afraid...

Yes, but from what the public had told you, you thought Labour had a chance of taking control of the council.

I have never heard any candidate talk-down their chances in an election.

Agreed Charlie - and that is a tragedy because by just ticking one simple box on the registration form their name will be witheld from any publicly available electoral list (the edited list).

I've never heard them get it so amazingly wrong, not locally anyway.

It was a real "Kinnock in 92" moment.

You don't remember David Steele's 'prepare for governemnt' speech?

You mischievously 'encourage' people to stand for what they believe, only to seemingly 'enjoy' knocking them if unsuccessful.

Perhaps if what someone believes is so outlandishly wild and off the mark they deserve to be "knocked"?

They certainly did this to Kinnock and Steele.

Why? It seems to be something you enjoy doing and it is not very dignified of you.

Most common reason I have been given is "I don't want any of them so not bothering voting". The other reason is "it is not the MP's who run the country but the financial sector and the banks but not one is willing to take them on to make changes".

Also a lot of people only vote for a candidate not because he thinks he/she is the right person to do the job but purely to stop the one person they don't want to get voted in. I think this is why the Lib Liars paid the price nationally this time? They were voted for to stop the Tory right getting in but then allowed them to take control by going into coalition with them.

Also as Richard Garvie states the general public are so disillusioned with politicians that they are treated with the same contempt as double glazing salesmen.

Don't have the answer to the problem but I do believe things will have to change and the sooner the better?

On the other hand, maybe people are simply content with things and don't feel the need to vote; secure in the knowledge that the people that do, will vote for a reasonable person.

Until something happens, no-one can be sure. While RG spoke of wish to take control of the council, I am sure deep down that he knew this wouldn't happen.

I agree with User23 to a certain extent. I personally said that on the returns, we were going to do really well. It became clear in the week of the election that we needed a big turn out to take some seats. When we looked at likelyhood to vote, those who were certain to vote were typically blue and wanted to vote no to AV. A lot of those who said they would vote for Labour had said they were either not fussed about the AV vote or they would probably vote against it. But the likelyhood to vote was much lower.

As I've said before, I've learned so much from my first election campaign, likelyhood to vote will certainly be something I look at in the run up to an election so that we focus on trying to get those people out to vote. Labour HQ wanted to increase the vote on 2007 and maybe if we could even beat the general election total, that would be a fantastic achievement based on the result from 2010 where we lost a deposit. We got almost 10% of the vote, up from a couple of percent in 2007. The party are obviously delighted. My own opinion though is that to stop the things that we have campaigned against, we needed to win the council and that hasn't happened. But from being a bit gutted about not winning seats, the fact we have smashed all internal predictions has been a massive shot in the arm and shows we are making big process. Remember: I only joined the party six months ago and Rome wasn't built in a day.

It needs a good opposition to keep a good council on its toes and not to let the council get complacent.
Do not just knock them for the sake of it but give encouragement when they do something worthwhile.
But make sure you give them H-E-L-L when they get it wrong and ensure everyone gets to hear about the abuses of power and dodgy dealings that has been going on over the last few years.

Spot on.

Of course it is fair.

Explanation for why?

It's fair because everyone is entitled to vote for each seat in their ward. If people choose not to vote, that is their right. In my opinion, the winner should be the person with the most votes cast. So by that token, the result is fair.

But like in my case there were only two parties to vote for Con or Lib Liars and I wanted neither. Ergo did not vote.
Are you saying I should have voted for someone I did not want?

The only way is for there to be some way of selecting non of the above and if the majority of voters select this option then we will know for sure that things much change. Any suggestions as to how to overcome this very serious problem?

That wouldn't help. It is the full register that is available to credit reference agencies. And the credit agencies records are searchable by their customers, who could be anyone not just financial institutions.

By selecting to be on the edited register you are merely saying you don't want to be contacted for marketing purposes.

So basically the electoral roll can be used to trace anyone who is on it.

Which is contrary to Labour's manifesto, and all the other turn coats in your party.

And the way Labour elect their leader.

And the Tories. Lying Bs.

My understanding is that Labour proposed a referendum on AV? Personally, I don't think AV was any better than what we have now, in fact it was possibly worse. Just because it a referendum was proposed by the national party, it doesn't mean all of the Labour members would have to vote for it. How many Lib Dem members and MP's voted no? I'm sure there were some!!!

As I said last year, the fact we used AV to elect our leader was a bad decision. We now have Ed instead of David!!!

Why is AV worse?

Who wrote Labour's last manifesto (before you had to elect your leader and presumably a manifesto your 'preferred' leader subscribed to)? And you are their rep in Newbury, yet you dis your 'leader'. That'll work. Thank the Lord Labour have nothing to do with Newbury. Look what they did to Reading town centre; well your mates the Tories and Lib Dems are on the way to doing the same here.

Hold hard, chaps.....
I'm not exactly a defender of RG but surely it is better that the members of a political party demonstrate a breadth of thinking rather than meekly toeing the line? The members form the policy, not the party directs the members.
In any case, as AV has been given the heave-ho it is reasonable that the (up to now) obedient lines become more open.

I quite agree, but when you pin your flag to a party, you are essentially signing up. As for AV, yes, people didn't want it, but I have yet to hear one intellectually sensible reason why it isn't a good idea, or not better than FPTP.

I think RG means well, but he is politicly clumsy and ambiguous. Allowing a photo to be taken 'playing' with the opposition does not look good; it's flippant. I wonder what people who voted for him thought when weeks earlier he was knocking him for 'putting the elderly out on the street'. RG needs to wise up if he is to be a serious opposition.

PS - he is also a breath of fresh air, as despite what I have said above, he is miles more evocative than the lame Lib Dems.

You think David Milliband would have been any better? He's prettier than his brother, but no more substantial? Ed Balls would have made Labour a genuine, credible, substantial alternative to the Tories, and that's our loss, not yours.

Indeed. The Limp Demerols did rather well in Newbury considering the caning they got nationally, but they've sold out whatever principles they might have had and and it's impossible to take them seriously. WBC needs the balance of an effective opposition and the grandstanding handbags-at-dawn that we've had is hopeless - even RG was a more affective opposition from the sidelines.