Here's a cautionary tale from the 1997 General Election. The Lib Dems win Winchester by 2 votes, which the Tories challenged and was overturned. In the subsequent by-election the Lib Dems' majority increased to 21,556. The lesson - the electorate regard it as being against natural justice for courts to override democracy. The Lib Dems will be very foolish indeed if they try to overturn the result in Central Ward. Labour will walk any by-election, as they'd have walked the 10 June election had it not been for Liverpool "Labour" Community Party. If I was a Labour activist, I'd be saying "Bring it on."

And another thing, the Daily Post fails to tell us that the Council is looking into the Princes Park result, where all sorts of rumours abound.

Pete, I agree with a lot of what you say above and I do think that the Lib Dems will pull out all the stops for Central, from what I've heard.

On that note, I've been told that the Lib Dems have a well-known/respected student campaigner as part of their team and that he will be very involved if this goes forward. I can't remember his name but he stood elsewhere.

If they do get in to the halls, what next for the Greens?

Ant

Why what happened in Princes Park?
Whats the post up to?

I've just been interviewed on the Roger Phillips show regarding this, with Joe Anderson following on. More details of the story at:

 http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=14394217%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=election%2dmay%2dbe%2dheld%2dagain-name_page.html

It would be interesting to see, should any vote go ahead, what form it should take. Would previous candidates have to stand in order for it to be deemed fair? Who pays for the election expenses? (unsure of the legal stuff here). Also, would it have to be all 3 seats up? Spose it would!

I would be surprised if a re-election was allowed to be honest because the problems were highlighted at the time and measures were put in place. If it does go ahead I have a feeling that the large residential non-student areas would react against the Lib Dems or Greens.

My concerns are regarding the rumours I hear about Princes Park and the possible unsavoury aspects of what occurred there. Saying that, there's stuff you can point to all over!

I keep hearing the 'rumours' about Prince's Park... I live there.

What are these rumours?

I haven't heard anything about Princes Park. Care to share the rumours? Not sure about the student you mean. I know at least 9 students stood for the Greens but I'm not sure about the Lib Dems.

Liverpool Labour will be standing again if there is any re-election, I am assured by my friends on the left. They will also fancy their chances.

Difficult one for the Lib Dems to judge. People will be annoyed to be voting again, but they obviously believe they can bag all 74 Tory votes, which alone would be enough for them to take one seat, irrespective of students.

I can't honestly see how Labour or the Lib Dems will do better in terms of voting totals among local residents. They both had two weeks, saturation leafleting and lots of door knocking to chase up resident voters. Much tougher if it is a normal poll and people have to turn up on the day. Resident voting is likely to go down if people are annoyed with the election. Who will it affect most?

Lib Dems will go hard in the city centre residential area again I think. Frankly, I think it might play against both big parties when people can look at how many councillors each side already has. Liverpool Labour has a chance of making their case and the Greens will campaign hard but have the most to do.

More news as I get it.

"If a re-election goes ahead, we will certainly be entering the race as long as it was after October when the students return to the city" - Mr Cranie, Liverpool Green Party.

Yet not so long ago the cry was about Labour using the postal vote to get its own vote out. Now the Greens will only go into an election if they perceive the situation to be favourable to them!! Ha ha. Joke of a party, joke of so-called leader in Liverpool.

The bored fella hits the nail on the head about what are the legal aspects from the other side of the fence and also the fact that the authorities had been notified of the position beforehand.

And anyway, who says the students will want to vote?

Mr Bugner kept popping to the local church for a fortnight and was telling people there that he would fill in their "best-parishoner" nomination forms. And lo and behold - Mr Bugner won! However, the parishoners were not happy though they were mysteriously struck dumb other than when in private conversation.

Hope that clears it up!

I don't think the issue is about whether or not the students will want to vote; it's about the fact that many weren't given the chance in the first place.

I'm a student in Liverpool Central; I did not receive a ballot paper and therefore unable to vote... I wasn't given the choice.

If there is a re-election I will then decide if I vote or not, and who I will vote for... that's all I ask.

From the Green student website in Liverpool, just to show that the Greens are happy to rely on whatever hearsay they come across. No actual proof, just the words of one person without allowing the councillor and candidate in question to respond. Shameless!

"Last week I met with a labour councillor and a prospective councillor and they told me education funding was not important."

So they go and use this as a fact! Perhaps the lawyers should be called. And before people start going on about capitalist lawyers screwing the poor or whatever it is you cranks like to shout about, lies are the enemy of us all!

So why did the company that runs the halls say that they had all been delivered?

And, the idea that all students in halls are registered to vote is not necessarily true. Best checking to see if you actually are (it can often take months for registration to be completed in Liverpool - I know cos it happened to me!).

I am definatley registered; I called them early on this year to register. When I didn't receive my forms I got straight on and they said that there were delays; they never did turn up.

As for registering, all first-year students going in to halls are automatically registered on the electoral roll and, depending on the halls, as are many non-first year students.

Either way many people didn't get there ballots and this wasn't limited to students.

What Pingu fails to realise is that Liverpool "Labour" were never an ideological threat to the real Labour Party. They represented the worst kind of political clientism and aimed to confuse with their adoption of the term "Labour".

I'm willing to bet the shirt off my back that the overwhelming majority of the 300-odd voters who backed them last time would vote Labour in any by-election - especially in what would essentially be a straight fight with the Lib Dems. Liverpool "Labour" were impailed on the icepick of democracy on 10 June - dead, never to return.

You turn your back for a day or so and then all hell breaks loose on this forum! Central ward battle lines being set already without any legal backing for the fight at present (a little like the accusations over the Iraq war I recall, if I can use such a comparison!)

I think the comments on Liverpool Labour are justified. I cannot see them being much of a force anymore. And they have no ideology - they are self-serving poulists.

I would say that when this issue originally came around during the campaign, the people who run the halls said that they had received the election papers. So something is up! Also, it is important to note that there have been very few students protesting about this. Yes possibly a couple of Green activists but nothing more it seems.

I have every confidence in Labour increasing its majority. What I also find will work in Labour's favour is the fact that many in the residential areas (ie non-student) will resent the fact that they have to vote again because of the students. That's not to say it is right or acceptable but it is a reality. And they will, I believe, turn out more so than the students.

"Last week I met with a labour councillor and a prospective councillor and they told me education funding was not important."

Sharon Sullivan and Nick Small in discussions with a student organiser of a Litter Pick that took place in February. He was giving them a hard time about tuition fees but they did not exactly help themselves. This was widely quoted on University newsgroups and in Reload magazine (Liverpool John Moores student magazine) and we took our quote from that magazine.

I was on the litter pick. Near the end, along waltzed Sharon and Nick, put on some luminous bibs and got some photos taken. That was the day it happened. Call the lawyers and you get to the us in the student group after you've gone through the JMU magazine.

But my NEW FAVOURITE quote is:

"Students only spend a bit of time in Liverpool so there are some questions about whether they should have a say in what's happening in the city anyway."

Joe Anderson, Labour Group Leader, Daily Post 5 July

We'll shortly be adding this quote to the student site as well. Are you going to sue the Daily Post? You need to be a lot smarter than you are when giving quotes out.

Labour need to get their act together locally. The last thing the council needs is more Liberal Democrats, but you can't be expecting students to vote Labour if you are shafting them with top up tuition fees nationally. If you can get the Liv Labour vote (and they probably think they can stand 3 candidates this time), you should hold the seat. But if the Greens stand only one door knocking candidate because they are skint and have spent their election money already, it would leave the Lib Dems to go for the student vote, which is maybe why Henst is so upset. 230 odd students did vote (despite all the problems and the fact that many halls were half full). If 500 students vote and the Greens are not in the running, where do thread readers think these votes will go?

Finally. Louise Ellman MP voted for Top-Up Fees despite extensive student lobbying and despite a large number of students in her constituency. Central is in her Riverside seat and I think us students can be persuaded to vote against her, irrespective of what has been said by two or three local councillors.

That's obviously Pingu's opinion and, to be fair, there is some validity in it regarding the way students will vote. What I get dismayed at is this idea that politics should get reduced down to one issue as if everything happens in a vacuum. Whether it is student fees or Iraq, governing is about much more. To consider voting for a reprehensible party such as the Lib Dems based on their support (in England) for the anti-student fees lobby (without actually putting up a relaistic and credible alternative I may add) just strikes me as cutting your nose off to spite your face.

As if students don't live in the real world or something. Students like their bins being emptied (more regularly than most if my experience was anything to go by!), want the streets to be safe and free from crime, want roads to be safer and trasnport to be better, want children to have a better life, want jobs for when they leave university and don't want to be burdened with unrelaistic taxation levels.

But no, apparently they are so narrow-minded that all they are concerned about is student fees. That may be the case but it is a sad state of affairs when the people who are receiving a better education because universities have been opened up to accept people from all classes (with the safeguard that those who come from poor families are subsidised), are not using that education. University for me was about learning and broadening the mind (amongst other things!). How sad that people will campaign for the very opposite. I suppose all students want to privatise the post office?

What about the fact that Shirley Williams was the one who (admittedly under a Labour Govt) actually started paying the fees of students in the first place during the 1970s? Including to those attending Oxbridge (at that time, generally the privileged few in society - though not much better now) thus releasing funds for the more affluent parents to start paying for more public-school fees and therefore undermining the state system? All this as a sap to the middle-classes because the IMF forced the govt to raise fees on students.

And this is what the Panto Dame says:
"What worries me about New Labour, which in many ways is an interesting and impressive party, is its dedication to the concept of the redistribution of income and wealth is much less clear than it used to be" BBC

What can be more redistributive than top-up fees? But then the Lib Dem life peer would defend the privileged wouldn't she? And don't give me that "but not everyone is privileged" line because the whoel scheme is deisgned to so that students will have the ability to pay. I finished my degree by having to pay nearly a grand for one semester. Did I complain? A bit. Did I think I should have got it for free? No. Because it was my choice - I could have done something else and, besides, if the state had paid it would have meant less money for those kids on the council estate I left behind. Very magnanimous of me I know but it takes some broader thinking than we see here to be involved in politics. What every anti-fee person refuses to acknowledge is the fact that poorer students pay hardly anything if at all.

It seems strange also that the Greens make a big play of trying to be left-wing and want to be accepted for support from the far left but, when faced with a redistributive policy as top up fees go running towards the right wing and want to defend the idea that those with enough money to benefit from University should somehow get it scot-free. But then again, no one ever argued that the Greens were not a vote-grabbing opportunist party. Just a fairly well organised pressure group.

I don't agree with the idea that students should not have a say (and if you check the quote that is not exactly what it said - it suggested that there is some validity in the argument, and there is) but I disagree with the narrow-minded approach some people propagate that leads to dangerous policies being supported by the back door.

I've followed up this thread with an enquiry to the elections office. This was one line of the reply:

"If a challenge was made then the register that would be used would be the current one, as this is in force until 30th November. The latest date for alterations to the current register is 11th August. However, people on the current register can complete a postal vote re-direction form if they wanted their ballot papers sent elsewhere."

I'd advise city1 to complete a postal redirect form (available from electoral services in Liverpool) to get a polling card sent to her/his new student address just in case. We'll also ask for polling stations to be sited in the Guild of Students and the Haigh building if it is a normal election (there is a precedent for this with 2 polling stations for 1 electoral district in the old Abercromby ward). There will also have to be some kind of publicity campaign within the Student Unions to let people who were in halls last year know if a re-election is called.

Having said all that, I am sceptical that any re-election will go ahead. If we had been as close as the Lib Dems got, we would have challenged the result. We were not but I'd certainly support any moves to re-election. I think the Lib Dems are also weighing up all the pros and cons of the situation before making any moves (many of which have already been covered).

Henst. We don't do personal insults or gutter politics as it puts people off. The only other people who have insulted or threatened us in Liverpool are the BNP. It looks bad on you and reflects badly on the political party you support. I can understand you being threatened though, as our candidate finished ahead of all 3 Labour candidates in Church ward, and you perhaps see this as a sign of things to come. Just stick to the issues.

Edseam makes a good case (as always) and I'd love an online debate one of these days! I'd just reiterate that it is not always a question of either/or. We would like massive cuts in arms spending. We would redirect those funds into redistributive programmes. So we are not advocating either/or but both. It is also inconsistent to argue that the introduction of top-up fees was an either/or swap with some other welfare programme when the government has been able to find over £5 billion to spend on a war in Iraq.

I think he is absolutely right in saying that students won't just vote on the fees issue. I think if they decide to vote they will look at other issues as well before deciding who to vote for. Will they choose Labour, who broke a promise from the 2001 manifesto and because a Labour government will be imposing top-up fees from 2006 onwards? Doubtful.

I'd welcome that too.

Regarding the question of either/or, I don't believe it is necessary to have such stark choices as compromise is always sought after when deciding most policies. That is the nature of having to govern for the whole country.

Vis a vis the Iraq war, I suppose this comes down to whether you agree that we should have a decent level of defence spend or not (regardless of whether you believe that the term "defence" should be used!). Personally I believe it is ridiculous to suggest we should not. History dictates that a country needs to be able to defend itself and support an armed forces of some kind (some may say History shows that this is the problem) but it is dangerous to believe that just because we live in relatively peaceful times in the UK that we should reduce our defence capabilities.

So the question of finding the money for the Iraq war is a rather misleading one as such spend is always there in reserve. That isn't to say that it does not affect delivery of eveything else but the fact is that we will always have reserves that can be used for such occurences, in much the same way we have reserves that cover other shortfalls in spending.

I have personal difficulty in the fact that the armed forces is promoted as a way for poorer young men (and increasingly women) to make something of themselves. Somehow it is seen as 'noble' and decent for people of a more priviliged background to get a commission in the army but for those unfortunates who see it as their only choice, little care is given to them. That is not a government issue (or a party one), that is a society and media issue.
I suppose that ties in with the debate on top-up fees as those who are poorest will be supported. Remember, as opposed to now, a student starts paying back after they start earning a half-decent wage. I made my representations to a minister regarding, what I saw as, too low a wage before repayment but, saying that, it is still higher than the current system.

To believe we are capable of funding forever the university tuition of whoever wants to go is unrealistic. We do not live in an ideal world where joe public is prepared to pay ever higher taxes. The Conservatives suggest paying for all because they want to restrict whoever wants to better themselves, reserving university for the few. The Lib Dems opposed it in favour of the current, unsustainable system, being the opportunitic, ill-thought out party they are. I readily admit to not knowing much of the Green's policy on this but from what I see they are not offering anything realistic and seem to be being populists themselves. We must remember also that Universities are private concerns. LJM, for instance, has its own marketing director!

Lastly, let's not forget that there has been no decision made as to whether a re-election will go ahead in Central. Again, I reiterate that if there is and we debate it on all the issues, Labour is best-placed to serve the people of this city - students and all.

"We'll also ask for polling stations to be sited in the Guild of Students and the Haigh building if it is a normal election"

By that reasoning there should be ballot boxes sited in most places where people go. A lot of people in Central ward go to Booze Busters (or whatever it is Booze-something!) near Marybone, should there be one there? Should there be one in Church St? What about Bold Street, Lime Street station, Central Station?
I am all for making voting accessible and easier but, from electoral services' point of view, there are a lot more factors to be taken into consideration. The fact that Thursday is a popular "student night" for NUS buildings may go against any such idea.

In actual fact, the vast majority of ballot box sites are already selected by electoral services.

But then, this is only if there is an election and only if it is not postal (which I believe it would be). The fact that the people in charge of the halls said that they were delivered is a tough one to overcome for those pining for a re-election.

Pingupete

I must put you right on 2 points:

1) Cllr Sharon Sullivan and I were misquoted. What we said in a private, good natured conversation with Paul Twigger (former LJMU VP Education) was that HE funding was not the only issue affecting students in Liverpool. Quite different from "HE funding is not an issue". It was said in the context of a Lib Dem administration in Liverpool playing politics with students, slagging off Labour when they can, while, for example, refusing to fund a Tenancy Relations Officer. I have publically opposed top-up fees and am proud of that position. Paul Twigger knows I was misquoted and what's more so do you because I told you. Yet still you report the quote as though accurate.

2) We turned up for the first litter pick at Marybone for an hour - we would have come for longer but had a surgery. In the hour we filled two bags worth of rubbish. Yes we got our pictures taken (as did you), but we've never used the photos for political purposes - we don't think it's appropriate to highjack a community event in that way. Unlike the Greens, it seems who did use such photos on their leaflets and website. What's more where were the Greens on the Marybone litter pick on 5 June? The 3 local Labour councillors were there supporting our community, but no Greens. Perhaps they had something better to do. It was election week after all.

Here's a suggestion - get your facts right, treat your political opponents with some common courtesy and just maybe you'll start to get taken seriously.

I approached the person regarding this comment and he explained it to me, as well as the litter picks and I have to say his answer was very forthcoming... However, it seems that all you seem to do is bicker about it but no one has bothered to ask him what really happened; a war of words if ever I've heard one!

I also commend him for not getting embroiled in these arguments, we could all take a leave out of his book.

Cllr Nick Small,

you say you've not used the litter picks for election purposes, fair enough... but I'm sure the fact Cllr Sharon Sullivan was canvassing can be seen as using this event for politial purposes. I was on the litter pick on 5th of June and watched her knock on loads of doors and discuss the elections with residents, with litter picker and bag in hand. Oh I love politics:)

The Marybone resident needs to distinguish betwen what they think Cllr Small says and what he actually says.

"Yes we got our pictures taken (as did you), but we've never used the photos for political purposes - we don't think it's appropriate to highjack a community event in that way"
is the quote from Cllr Small. He says "...hijack a community event in that way" and is specifically referring to photos of the event being used on literature across the ward to portray someone in a particular light (as the Greens appear to have done). He is not saying that they would not use such an event to speak to local residents. The Labour candidates, unlike the Greens, have not used litter picks to show themselves as having certain credentials. What they have used it for (if I can believe what you say about Cllr Sullivan knocking on doors) is to actually speak to residents and allow residents to challenge them on whathever they see fit.
People tend to forget that communication is a two-way process. What do you think Sharon was doing - brainwashing people? Give the other Marybone residents some credit.

I fully understand that communication is a two way thing and it's good that Cllr Sullivan made the effort to discuss the elections with people, but I distinctly recall her using the event to say, "look at me doing this clean-up, I'm a great councillor... elect me!(paraphrased)" Whilst also using the fact that the Greens weren't there against them. Now I'm sure the greens, as other parties, were active that week but not everyone can spread themselves as far as others.
Also, I recall a candidate for another party was there but didn't use the event for their own gain. When you look at it in context, some people will use any means possible to get elected. To be fair, as long as it's legal, there's nothing wrong with that. It's what politics are all about!

I don't recall anyone saying "Look at me I'm a great councillor" (paraphrased or not), I don't recall anyone pointing out the Greens' absence on the day, nor for that matter do I recall any Labour Party member knocking on doors litter picks in hand. But obviously the anonymous Marybone resident remembers things differently. It's funny how namelessness and false memory syndrome often go hand in hand.

I merely drew attention to the Greens' use of Glitter Day photos and their subsequent non-attendance to illustrate their hypocrisy and double-standards on this.

The issue here is misrepresentation. Several times I asked the person who misquoted me either to clarify the quote he attributed to me or to withdraw it. My emails went unanswered.

But to confound matter the Greens on the website and elsewhere on the internet continue to attribute this quote to me, even though (1) none of them were there, (2) I've told them privately I've been misquoted and (3) I've publicly set out my views on top-up fees, which (now here's the surprise) are contrary to the quote attributed to me.

At best this is sloppiness and worse cynicism. Engage people on the issues if you want to be taken seriously.

But the person who said it seems happy to clarify it, several times in fact.
And isn't it funny how you can claim no Labour candidates knocked on doors, but no one else can clarify this! It's only your word against 'Marybone Resident's', maybe we should ask the people who were doing/organising the litter picks, maybe they can shed some light?

well, mikey, paul twigger (former ljmu vp) has not clarified his quote to me, despite the fact i emailed him on several occasions asking him to do so. i've explained my position and what i said more times than i care to remember. i really don't see what more i can do.

what really gets me is when people drag up (in this case inaccurate) quotes from six months ago and report them as a matter of record. the greens should remove this discredited quote from their website and stick to issue-politics.

now moving on to the glitter day, i've got better things to do than to get into a debate about this. we weren't canvassing or trying to be seen, we were just trying to do our bit. marybone resident can contradict me if (s)he wishes, but shouldn't hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

i've said it before, but i much rather have a serious debate on issues/facts than respond to carping about what i did or didn't say or what my motives may or may not have been.

I'd like to welcome Nick to the debate online.

To address a couple of points regarding litter picks. The Greens did not participate in the G-litter picks immediately before the election for two reasons. Firsly, we were unable to provide the recycling option we had brought to previous student/community litter picks (not G-litter as described above), which were organised by CVS in association with student societies.

Secondly, both of the previous litter picks took place well outside an election period and the Green Party / Young Greens supported both of these as a way of improving student / community relations. We felt the G-litter event was someone opportunistic in its timing (with the Lib Dems the obvious beneficiaries) and as pointed out by someone on the thread, we were working hard for the election. Expect to see us again at community organised events.

The fact is that community initiatives are the sort of thing we support and as an example of the work we are doing, it is of course something we put on record at an election. I'm surprised that "Greens claim credit for supporting litter pick" is quite so controversial! I also don't think that Sharon Sullivan (or Nick) should be criticised for door knocking on the back of the litter pick. If they were there, and Greens and Lib Dems were not, it is up to the voter to decide who is "electioneering". I personally could not be there (just as Nick couldn't for his surgery), but I know that some Young Greens were. Maybe they did it in a non-political way.

It is probably the other issue that has fanned the flames around the litter pick issue. Nick spoke to me about the alleged misquote when we were both interviewed on the Daily Politics back in April. As you can see from our newsdate on the Liverpool Green site, we had already publicised this quote. I was satisfied that as it had appeared in other media previously, that if there was going to be any legal challenge, it would have already taken place. We have taken our quote from the published media.

I'm also satisfied that there was a discussion between Paul Twigger, Nick and Sharon on the day of the Marybone litter pick. For Paul to make this quote up would be entirely out of character. Whether it is verbatim is up for debate, but why should we weigh one view more than the other? I think what we have is two versions of the same story. I'm glad Nick has clarified his position (I think you have a great opportunity to post a link to let us see this) to end the controversy. When our website is updated, the story will be archived and we stand by it, but I'm willing to put a link to Nick's response. However, we are not willing to be bullied about us quoting written media, especially when we've just been served Cllr Anderson's ill thought out comments in the Daily Post.

We all get misquoted (as I believe I did in the same Daily Post article):

"If a re-election goes ahead, we will certainly be entering the race as long as it was after October when the students return to the city". DAILY POST

"If a re-election goes ahead, we will certainly be contesting it. We can still win as long as it is after October when the students have returned to the city." MY MEMORY

If the misquote is important enough, you can mount a legal challenge. Practically this is very difficult, so it is important to be careful what you say. I'd also point out that Cllr Anderson's comments on the Roger Philips show in no way contradicted his quote in the Daily Post. I think that any subsequent comment from me will clarify that we will be standing at least one candidate. Following this clarification, let's return to the issues, as requested.

Issue 1 - Democracy

Nick won his seat by just 18 votes. Over 220 students in halls voted in Central ward. Yet 635 student voters from Marybone halls had, at best, one day to vote, if (and this is a big if) the Royal Mail delivered their ballot papers to their home addresses on time. The fact that they had this opportunity at all is thanks to the Green Party / University Green Group who spotted that not a single student had voted from these halls and followed it up with an investigation. In St Andrews Gardens (another hall with 400+ students) there were problems with distribution. None of the ballot papers had been distributed to the students and were all lying in a pile at reception.

We know that over 1000 students were disadvantaged in a ballot. Now if you consider that 200 students voted out of 4000 or so from the other student halls (not a great deal), statistically you would expect about 50 to vote from these two halls. A lot less than that did. Considering the winning margin was so small, this is a very serious issue. We think students were voting on a rough 2 to 1 margin between the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems thought they did better than that.

The issue is democracy. The postal vote was introduced by Labour. The ballot was not equal for all voters. The voters that were disenfranchised were highly likely to vote for people other than Labour. This is a serious issue and no doubt why there is intense speculation about this ward. The Labour group leader is now quoted in the Daily Post saying, "Students only spend a bit of time in Liverpool so there are some questions about whether they should have a say in what's happening in the city anyway."

I personally, and our local policy politically, leads us to reject any questioning about whether students are entitled to vote in student halls. I'd ask Nick or Joe to clarify Labour's local position on this issue.


Issue 2 - Top Up Tuition Fees

The reason this group of disenfranchised voters would not have been voting Labour (as a group, although you may have picked up 1 or 2 votes) is because the government has actually broken its promise on tuition fees.

2001 Labour Party Manifesto
"we will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them"

January 2004 the MP for Liverpool Riverside supports the government by voting to introduce Top Up Tuition Fees against the majority wishes of students.

I know Nick will back the government and talk about how support is available for those from the poorest backgrounds. I'd argue back that we seriously need to reorganise the major government priorities not tinker with the edges. Reduced spending on obselete nuclear weapons and their subsequent decommissioning would pay for the increases in spending the Greens would like to bring in. Part of that spending would be to restore a grant based system for funding students in higher education. That is our position. These are our priorities. But we are not going to get representatives elected to Westminster for at least another decade because of the First Past the Post system.

So the issue here is not a choice between Greens and Labour, it is one of trust. Students no longer trust Labour because the went back on a manifesto pledge. It is no use now saying that the government will not introduce variable top up fees in a third term, because students no longer trust them. This is not Nick's fault individually, but he is the local representative for the party that has inflicted this on students and therefore has to make his case to all Central ward voters either now (in the event of a re-election) or in 2006, the year top up fees are implemented. I don't envy him but I welcome his willingness to debate this and I hope we can continue to do so on future issues in an honest but civilised manner.

I look forward to standing against Nick in 2006 or even sooner, so if we can have these debates online, it will give online Central ward voters (and others across Liverpool) some guidance in choosing how to vote. I welcome this, but it would be up to Indymedia to decide, and the Greens are political but non-hierarchical, Labour are both. Comments from Indymedia editors?

err... come again? When did the Green's become a horizontal organisation. Have they discovered you can organise without leaders, or positions of power?

Greens = middle class woolly liberals. They have nothing to offer us except pisspoor radicalism.

liverpool imc guidelines:

"Hierarchy: The newswire is designed to generate a news resource, not a notice board for political parties or any other hierarchically structured organization."


the local election threads over the past few weeks have totally disregarded this. i for one have had enough.

Point taken from IMC editor. I'll leave comments on the site to our University Green Group from now on, unless it is to correct an inaccuracy or post factual stuff, which I'll do in a non-political way. I'd ask other parties to do the same and respect Indymedia guidelines.

So that would mean that you cannot discuss anything that is posted. Just because one person's opinion is influenced by their political affiliation from a recognised political party (as opposed to a political movement such as those who are anti-GM, pro-palestine etc) does not make the debate about the initial piece of news less valid.

The abuse elements are not helpful I would grant you that but the rest is useful as a news resource for people to see. They do not get it from the mainstream media so indymedia appears the best bet.

As for hierarchical structures, I have yet to see an organisation post on these sites that doesn't have any hierarchy. Even direct-action protestors generally have an organiser!

Just remembered News from Nowehere as a workers co-op. So they are the only ones allowed.

Kensington protestors - you are linked to the SLP so you cannot post
Sainsbury's demo - you had an organiser
Edge Hill College film - in a hierarchically structured college
Global Islamic Media and the Fallujah video - very political, internationally partisan, hierarchies abound etc etc

I could go on...

The main thing is if you don't want to read it don't. If Indymedia want to pull it then so be it. Though I have seen the mailing list threads where people are complaining about parties promoting themselves. Far from it I would have thought, it is more a debate on the issues and the direction of politics than any party promotional work I have ever seen. (And if that was the promotion from political parties then no one would think much of it!!

I spoke to the ERO today. The Lib Dems missed the deadline to appeal the election. The result will stand but Henshaw has ordered an investigation into both Central and Princes Park wards. I very much doubt that the finding will lead to any re-election.

Why is the to be an investigation in Prince's Park?

I thought everything was okay there?

Regarding Princes Park, read Hensts' entry entitled "Rumour" above. A wry attempt at explaining the situation requiring just a bit of lateral thinking!

The deadline for appeals passed a couple of weeks ago I believe. I think there was probably a bit of a Mexican stand-off regarding appealing against one (where Labour won) and the other (where the Lib Dems won). I am unsure exactly what Henshaw can do in either case. Regarding Central I believe he will do nothing because he will find no real case to answer. Princes park, on the other hand, is different and may be politically airbrushed out in my opinion.

Either way, voters have another chance in a year and a half's time.

So who is this Mr. Bugner? Never heard of him & he didn't win in Prince's Park!

"...requiring just a bit of lateral thinking"

I got it. Emphasis on the lateral thinking methinks

Joe Bugner was a heavyweight boxer, who fought some of the greatest fighters of the 70s and 80s - like ALI, Frazier, Bruno. He twice went the distance with ALI.