It is very sad to see how this forum has declined in recent months. I used to love the informed debating that was taking place, it used to be THE place to come to find out about all of the hottest topics and local gossip. Whatever happened to Factfile and Threepwood?
There is another local forum, but that seems to be dominated by people seeking one upmanship. What can we do to revive this one?
I guess the problem is having good subjects to discuss and to avoid the mud slinging. The best bits have always, for me anyway, been the history and old photograph sections. The good thing is the almost nil amount of censorship by admin (Naughty words excepted of course.)
It is very sad to see how this forum has declined in recent months. I used to love the informed debating that was taking place, it used to be THE place to come to find out about all of the hottest topics and local gossip. Whatever happened to Factfile and Threepwood?
F**kin' Torys (and Lib Dems), but tw*ts in Newbury still vote for them!
That's why Westminster politics should not be allowed in local government. Each councillor should be elected on his own merits and it should be illegal for them to bond into partnerships once elected. We might then get decisions that are for the good of the community rather than for their party allegiance. I'm fed up with the 'them and us' squabbling which has well and truly raised its head over the Sandleford discussions in the local paper, if you can call Alan Law's letter on Thursday a discussion accusing Dr Tony Vickers of bringing the council into disrepute when all he is really is a NIMBY.
That's why Westminster politics should not be allowed in local government..
I completely agree with this. And you're right, the Sandelford Park debate is an excellent example of party allegiances trumping the interests of electors.
Incidentally, for the first time ever I complained to WBC about something a few weeks ago. I copied the email to both of my local district councillors. I received a pro-forma response from the council saying 'we'll get back to you in X days' (they haven't). And not even an acknowledgement from either of the councillors.
As Richard Garvie keeps asking, why do we spend £600K a year on these layabouts? Why? Who would complain if we halved their numbers and spent the £300K on something useful - like the day centres, youth services etc etc that the Tory/Useless Libdem coalition have cut. Anyone?
I wonder how many complaining about national political parties actually stood for election themselves?
Very few. No that I think your point is relevant. I don't need to play for Liverpool to know that they haven't got their monies worth from Andy Carroll.
Very few. No that I think your point is relevant. I don't need to play for Liverpool to know that they haven't got their monies worth from Andy Carroll.
This analogy doesn't work as almost anyone can stand as a Parish or District Councillor, not everyone can play for Liverpool.
Point is that many people are happy to moan but when it comes to try to prove they could do a better job there's only one forum user that consistently does so and puts his money where his mouth is.
Point is that many people are happy to moan but when it comes to try to prove they could do a better job there's only one forum user that consistently does so and puts his money where his mouth is.
I know what your point is as you have made the same one many times before, and I think it was erroneous back then as it is now. Unless you are a member of a main party, you would be wasting your time. In the main, people vote for parties, not personalities or 'manifestos'.
I think anyone can play for Liverpool if they are good enough. This is the same as being Parish or District Councillor.
What you seem to be saying is you don't think anyone posting on this board is good enough to be a Parish or District Councillor and that's the reason (BrianB aside) why they don't stand for election.
Quite a damning yet honest indictment our your fellow posters.
I know what your point is as you have made the same one many times before, and I think it was erroneous back then as it is now. Unless you are a member of a main party, you would be wasting your time. In the main, people vote for parties, not personalities or 'manifestos'.
Of course it's not erroneous.
If you're good enough you can be a Parish or District Councillor, so you say.
What you seem to be saying is you don't think anyone posting on this board is good enough to be a Parish or District Councillor and that's the reason (BrianB aside) why they don't stand for election.
I am not saying that at all; those are your words and putting words in to one's mouth doesn't improve your argument.
Of course it's not erroneous. If you're good enough you can be a Parish or District Councillor, so you say.
No, the point you erroneously make is that because someone might not be prepared to stand, means they have no right to complain about others. It is a point you frequently make and it is no more right now that it was before. It is a specious argument for the reasons we have gone over many times before.
Local politics is very cliquey and a closed party political shop.
Logged
Male
