one of the issues that needs to get resolved is the fact that the editor, last time i looked, was appointed by the university corporate communications manager (who came from haliburton no less) and the business manager of the guild of students. how much news is going to come out of this cosy little set up? pathetic.

This article should be titled "Political Bias at Liverpool Guild of Students" which is not the same as "Liverpool University"

So you don't think the elected representative for the area that incorporates the University sites should be allowed to write a column for a paper? Fantastic approach to free speech you have.

Also, if you really think that students are going to be brainwashed by what Cllr Small writes then I think we should all get some tips from him!

Peter, this is sounding very much like sour grapes and I would have expected better. Yes, there may be a constitutional commitment to political neutrality but that would mean that you should not get a right to reply either. What about the BNP having their say? Doesn't sound quite as acceptable now does it?

The Green's so-called "continuous camapign" for an investigation into students not receiving the vote floundered when the people in charge of the halls accepted that they had received them and when the council put other arrangements into place. "The facts" are, therefore, your facts and not those accepted by the majority of other people.

And whilst you continue to accuse the Government of a cock-up with the postal ballot you let the Lib Dems and Tories who, in the Lords, forced it to be a convoluted system that confused many, get away with sounding like the bastions of democracy.

Altogether now:
Free Speech (On our terms)
Free Speech (On our terms)
Free Speech (On our terms)
Free Speech (On our terms)
etc

Let's set some facts straight:

1 This is a non-political column about my work as a councillor representing around 6,000 students. I understand there's a letters page in the paper and other features, so the Greens have plenty of chance to have their say.

2 As for students being denied the vote. I'm frankly amazed the Greens are still on about this. If - and it is an if - any students were denied the opportunity to vote in June, I would guess it was because they had gone away from Liverpool after the end of term. If ballot papers were not send out, then blame the Council or - perhaps more likely - the managers of those halls concerned. Talk of "the circumstances surrounding Nick's election", as though it was my fault anyone was disenfranchised is nothing short of sour grapes from the Greens.

3 Please stop trying to make out I'm pro tuition fees. I've publically opposed top-up fees and, before that tuition fees. I've got a record going back over 12 years fighting against student poverty and for improved access to higher education.

4 By the way Central Ward is not a four-way marginal. We may have only taken the last seat by 18 votes last time, but that was due to the intervention of a ex-Labour councillor standing as "Liverpool Labour". Add those votes to ours and what you've got is a safe Labour seat.

5 The Greens should start campaigning on issues (come clean on your plans to restrict commercial flying or the millions in Objective One money Merseyside would lose if you ever get to implement your plans to pull out of the EU).

OK, so I'm not qualified to comment on the Liverpool specific bit of this argument,
but if you're going to accuse people of distortions and over-reaction, Nick, you
shouldn't just make stuff up in your posts! The assertion that the Green Party's
policy is 'to pull out of the EU' is just a lie, and it discredits everything else
that you are trying to say. The Greens are opposed to the single currency - that's
hardly the same thing! It's this sort of unfounded accusation that makes people so
understandably pissed off with party politics.

Matt

P.S. I wouldn't have thought that its much of a secret that the Green Party favours
restrictions on flying. With the chilling climate change news yesterday, it seems
like a pretty sensible policy to me!

I'll do this one in reverse order in response to Nick and Eds.

5. We are pro the EU and won't be pulling out Nick. We are anti the single currency. I've actually had about four letters in the last year published in the Daily Post to criticise UKIP. Would we "restrict" commercial flights? We'd certainly make them reflect the true cost of their CO2 emissions, but we can do this on another thread.

4. If we add George Knibbs votes to the Green total, then it is a marginal. You of course assume all of George's supporters will come to you. What if he endorsed another party and passed on lists of his supporters? It a marginal seat in the sense that if student turnout ever matched resident turnout, any party could win this seat, which is precisely why we (and the Lib Dems) are so upset about your preferential treatment.

3. Nick - I am absolutely delighted that you are against both top up fees and tuition fees in general. I've never heard this before but I am a lot happier now that you are going to be representing these students effectively for the next year and a half.

2. I recognise this is not your personal fault Nick. It's not the Liverpool Labour Party's fault. It is a national policy decision by Labour that biased the election in your favour. Fault can be divided between the halls and the postal service locally, but this ill considered system was brought in to protect Labour seats and it helped to do that.

1. It is only a non-political column if it doesn't mention your party. It says "Labour Party". It will only be a non-political column if it is (at the very least) balanced by a regular Liberal Democrat writer and occasional outside writers. You represent 6000 students living in the city centre. A much larger number of students are spread elsewhere across the city, in Princes Park (1 Lib Dem), Greenbank, St Michaels and all the Liverpool Hope students also get this paper, all living in solid Lib Dem areas.

And Eds...

We can't go on for ever putting this down to sour grapes! I'm actually campaigning for the General Election in 2005/06 and the Council Elections in 2006. We are not going away. Nor are we going to sit back quietly and allow a competitor party an unfair advantage (and I would be just as vehement if it was a Lib Dem only column).

As for the extreme right party you mention... I'm a vice chair of Merseyside Coalition Against Racism and Fascism, I actually went out and delivered anti-BNP leaflets in Norris Green in May before the elections, and as Nick knows, I've been personally harassed by them. I don't particularly want them to have a say, but unlike us they haven't been building support at a council level in Liverpool.

Between 12-16% of people in Central, Princes Park, Greenbank and St Michaels voted for us. I might not be elected, but I am trying my best to represent these people, who supported us but do not get councillors under the first past the post system. I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking Labour. I'm not - I'm attacking political bias and just pointing out the irony that Nick would not have got elected if all the students had received their ballot papers on the 27th/28th May as they were supposed to. I appreciate your close monitoring!

Sorry. My better humoured 4.30pm ish post doesn't seem to have come up. Matt has kindly answered one of Nick's points, I'll try and deal with the others.

Point 1: It can't be a non-political column if it says, Nick Small, Labour Party.

Point 2: If just 19 of the 1000+ students denied a full opportunity to vote had chosen the second place party, Nick would not now be a councillor. I know Nick will challenge my assertion that students would have voted Green or Lib Dem, but realistically, Labour didn't expect student votes after the govt had just pushed through the top-up fees bill.

Point 3: I'm sure that you'll be better able to represent your student voters by recognising that tuition fees as a policy are wrong. What are you doing about it? It's not been in your column, even though it is the biggest single student issue.

Point 4: It would be a dangerous assumption for Nick to make that Liverpool Labour won't stand next time. It is an overconfident assumption that all these votes will return to New Labour during the mid-term blues of a third term Labour government.

And now Eds... come on now be fair ;) although I admire your Campbellisms...

You said: "So you don't think the elected representative for the area that incorporates the University sites should be allowed to write a column for a paper? Fantastic approach to free speech you have."

But what I had actually said was: "Up until now we have attempted to do this privately with no effect, so we are now going to ask publicly, and continue to press the Guild of Students to remove their pro-Labour political bias."

What we have asked for is a right to reply, and to remove this "exclusive", "New Labour only" column. If this was a Lib Dem councillor writing in the student paper, you would be vehemently supporting these arguments. I challenge you to say otherwise!

I'm willing to concede that an alternating Labour / Lib Dem column would be fairer, but I actually want a column that reflects the diversity of Liverpool's politics, so that would include Steve Radford's Liberal's, Greens and maybe even a minority party like the Tories.

"continuous camapign" - the only continuous campaign we have is through to the general election, the council elections after that and so on. If you need to know what we are doing, speak to the local CND group, speak to MICRA (Nick knows this), speak to Merseyside Coalition Against Racism and Fascism and you'll know we are campaigning. We are not going to go away, and we will win a seat in Central, if not 2006, then 2007 or 08 when Labour is suffering mid term blues.

In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with continuing to point out that Central is the most marginal ward in the city. TRUE. Nick got elected by just 18 votes. TRUE. There were less than 300 votes between Nick and Faye. TRUE. All good for our 2006 campaign, so we will of course keep talking about them.

Cheapshot on the BNP. We don't contravene Guild or Student Union rules on racism or fascism. Unnecessary. But I like your free speech point as it is superbly ironic if your read it after this reply.

Glad to hear you are helping tackle the BNP but you gloss over my point. If you demand the right to reply on the grounds of free speech, then the BNP could legitimately do the same and no one wants that. It is no good saying that they did not stand in Central or any other 'student' ward. You say that it is feasible for the Tories to have a say but they get hardly any more votes than the far right here in Liverpool. "Where do we stop?" is my point.

As for the sour grapes accusation - that is precisely what it is sounding like when you continue to imply that Nick was somehow to blame for getting elected. The faults you have highlighted from June are the responsibility of the Council and the Halls. As far as I am aware, the Halls say they did everything expected of them and the council provided opportunity to vote.

And your points you make regarding saying Nick won by only 18 votes being good for your campaigning are not borne out by history. If anything, it is more likely he will increase his majority.

You would also be well served checking out history when it comes to votes moving from Liverpool Labour (or Ward Labour as has been). They do, in the main, go to Labour. It may seem minor and may seem condescending to people but it is true that many people associate these "other Labour" parties with the "true" Labour Party rather than as a reaction to them.

Finally, it is an editorial decision by the paper to publish Nick's column and one they seem happy with. It very much comes across that simply because he is a political opponent you want to jeopardise this new student-elected representative communication.

And I fully accept the Free Speech thing but what should one expect when I'm in a crabby mood!!

I would also add that giving each political party an opportunity to write would, inevitably, result in it descending into a slanging match which would be of no use to the readership. How long before the Lib Dems begin saying what a wonderful job they are doing and how their projects are successful? This will then have to be rebutted by Labour stating what is Government cash and what is not etc etc
How soon until the Greens start talking about the June 2004 and "lost ballots", which will run into the same arguments as have been given against you?
How soon until the Liberals begin bashing the Euro which will then get rebutted by the pro-Euro parties?
Ad nauseum
You see, it begins to get politicised. At present it seems to be just a way of a local representative speaking to constituents and those affected by decisions for his ward. I praise his intiative - I can't recall any other elected representatives doing the same.

And I will be honest - I would not be too annoyed if it was a Lib Dem writing the column. I would be if they began shouting about the Lib Dems but simply writing a column would not send me potty!

I think we are in agreement Eds. Any political column, whoever writes it, will be editorially controlled. If the content is yah-boo politics, the editor can just say "no thanks". I do think it is important for us to have political balance, and that might mean 3 Labour and 3 Lib Dem columns to just 1 for the Greens (based on current political strength in Central), but I'd accept that for now.

One of the things I like about Indymedia is that if it is used properly, it can be quite a progressive forum to get ideas discussed. Often people will continue to disagree, but there is an opportunity for people to air alternative points of view.

Surely, freedom of speech is only ok for those who want to speak about freedom?

WHO CARES???? It's hardly going to set the working-class back decades is it? Get over it. Go and have a protest march or something.