Your Argus
TEXT your pictures, videos and messages to 80360. Start your message with SUPIC or email your tip-offs »
Anti-Falmer Lib Dems given a bloody nose
4:03pm Friday 4th May 2007
Comments (73)
By Simon Barrett »
Three political heavyweights lost their seats as the Liberal Democrat's grip on Lewes District Council loosened.
Senior Lib Dem members Marina Pepper, David Neighbour and Liz Lee were ousted from the East Saltdean and Telscombe Cliffes ward.
Mr Neighbour, who was lead member for planning, opposed Albion's plans for a new stadium at Falmer - one of the big issues in a hard-fought election.
The Lib Dems maintained control of the council but their majority over the Tories was slashed from 16 to six. The Lib Dems have 23 seats, while the Tories have 17 and the Independents one.
The Seagulls Party, backing Albion's plans for the stadium, fielded four candidates who polled more 1,600 votes between them to send shockwaves through the council.
Ms Pepper, a former Playboy model who was council chairwoman, was booed off stage last week at the 76th reunion of the Royal Sussex Regimental Association when she made anti-war comments.
Mr Neighbour was an outspoken opponent of the Falmer stadium plans, while Ms Lee was lead member for community services.
The trio were ousted by Conservative councillors Phillip Howson, James Page and Ron Maskell. The Tories also made vital gains on the coast, claiming seats in Seaford and Peacehaven.
Conservative election agent Charlotte Beaupere said: "We are delighted to have gained so many seats, it has been an excellent day for us. We were hoping for more gains in Seaford, but the Lib Dems hold on the council is certainly loosening."
Lib Dem council leader Ann De Vecchi retained her Lewes Priory seat with 1,264 votes, some 800 less than Independent candidate Ruth O'Keeffe, who was also elected to council.
Lib Dem spokesman James MacCleary said: "We have suffered some losses and it is always a shame to lose experienced councillors like Marina Pepper, David Neighbour and Liz Lee.
"However our objective at the start of this campaign was to retain control of the council and we have achieved that, despite a lot of mud-slinging from the opposition."
The counts were held today at the leisure centres at Lewes and Seaford.
Ed Bassford, of the Seagulls Party, said: "We are very heartened by the results and I think proves that the Seagulls Party is a serious political party. It also shows the stadium issue is taken very seriously by the electorate, and that is reflected in the Lib Dem losses.
"We got the stadium issue onto the agenda, and I have no doubt that contributed to the demise of the likes of Marina Pepper and David Neighbour."
Your Say YourArgus
S. Matson, Brighton says...
4:24pm Fri 4 May 07
Yes, tru Argus biased reporting... "Bloody noses".. I know bullying tactics are involved to try and get the stadium built, but we're not in the playground now are we? Why not some sensible reporting for a change, and asking why Brighton lost a central stadium in the first place - The Goldstone Ground!
G. Mason, Brighton says...
4:26pm Fri 4 May 07
Yes, true Argus biased reporting... "Bloody noses".. I know bullying tactics are involved to try and get the stadium built, but we're not in the playground now are we? Why not some sensible reporting for a change, and asking why Brighton lost a central stadium in the first place - The Goldstone Ground!
Peter, Queens Park says...
4:31pm Fri 4 May 07
We've already had a city wide referendum, CM.
And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!
And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!
Don Cropone, says...
4:31pm Fri 4 May 07
S. Matson wrote:How dare you display such ignorance about how Brighton 'lost' the Goldstone Ground? How DARE you? Perhaps if you actually WANTED to discover the reasons why, you might have read the thousands of articles that have appeared in the Argus over the last 12 years.
Yes, tru Argus biased reporting... "Bloody noses".. I know bullying tactics are involved to try and get the stadium built, but we're not in the playground now are we? Why not some sensible reporting for a change, and asking why Brighton lost a central stadium in the first place - The Goldstone Ground!
Don Cropone, Ringmer says...
4:32pm Fri 4 May 07
G. Mason wrote:And you sir...How dare YOU also display such ignorance about how Brighton 'lost' the Goldstone Ground? How DARE you? Perhaps if you actually WANTED to discover the reasons why, you might have read the thousands of articles that have appeared in the Argus over the last 12 years.
Yes, true Argus biased reporting... \\\"Bloody noses\\\".. I know bullying tactics are involved to try and get the stadium built, but we\\\'re not in the playground now are we? Why not some sensible reporting for a change, and asking why Brighton lost a central stadium in the first place - The Goldstone Ground!
James T.Kirk, Falmer By Sea says...
4:34pm Fri 4 May 07
CM wrote:Keep up or go home. It's been done and overwhelmingly Falmer was chosen. Rightfully so
Another typically biased article from the Argus.
Obviously there is more than just one issue involved for the voters in Lewes.
Maybe we can have a city-wide referendum for the location of the stadium and then hopefully the noisy minority who want to build in an unsuitable place will go away...preferably to Sheepcote Valley!
Pat Roberts, Brighton says...
4:45pm Fri 4 May 07
Peter wrote:But there has not been a referendum of the area they want to build in has there!!!!
We've already had a city wide referendum, CM. And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!
Richard, Lewes says...
4:47pm Fri 4 May 07
But, to get back to the man's second point, I don't think the stadium had any bearing on Lib-Dem losses. There were no Seagulls candidates in the wards that lost seats.
Ms Pepper was probably undone by her speech last week and her relentless & hideous self-worship in the column she writes for Viva Lewes
Ms Pepper was probably undone by her speech last week and her relentless & hideous self-worship in the column she writes for Viva Lewes
James Blake, hassocks says...
4:49pm Fri 4 May 07
Actually the Argus is not being biased. As with pretty much every newspaper in the country it has its alligiences and campaigns which it supports. Thank God the Argus does back Falmer because there is, and I am tired of saying this there is no other site, and CM there WAS a city-wide referendum. It's such a pity that the anti-falmer nimbys never bother to look at the facts before spouting off their anti-Brighton, anti-Sussex and anti-sport gibberish
Rod Higgins, Hailsham says...
4:57pm Fri 4 May 07
Maybe we can have a city-wide referendum
or
why Brighton lost a central stadium in the first place - The Goldstone Ground!
Both these quotes just outline why so little is thought of the Lib Dems by a lot of people in Sussex. I used to vot Lib Dem, but then Bellotti, Baker and LDC came along. If they kept to the point and didn't make false statements I would be quite happy for the democatric rights of people to object to local issues. However the democratic process was bypassed by LDC with closed council meetings and the public were misled (as I assume the two quotes have been made in error by two misled individuals). No Falmer wasn't the only issue, why aren't LDC fighting harder against the incinerator (probably because it blows out over Eastbourne, Polegate and Hailsham and not over Falmer). Lib Dems to me are now the worst kind of chameleon politians. If you believe that Falmer was not a main issue in the Lib Dems quite visible bloody nose then what reasons can you give?
James Montgomery Scott, Bromley-By-Bow says...
4:59pm Fri 4 May 07
Pat Roberts wrote:But it's not being BUILT in Falmer is it?!!!!!
Peter wrote:But there has not been a referendum of the area they want to build in has there!!!!
We've already had a city wide referendum, CM. And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!
Paul, Brighton says...
5:01pm Fri 4 May 07
Pat Roberts wrote:Considering only a small percentage of the actual site (a bit of the coaches drop-off point) is in LDC jurisdiction and ALL of the actual stadium is planned on B&H land, then the referendum in 1999 is entirely valid!
Peter wrote: We've already had a city wide referendum, CM. And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!But there has not been a referendum of the area they want to build in has there!!!!
More to the point, why have LDC not held a referendum to finally demonstrate support for their heavily criticised & wasteful use of LDC tax-payers money? I'm pretty certain that the answer is because they are scared to expose their actions as undemocratic and baseless.
LDC have gone out on a limb to protect the interests of a handful of wealthy & influential people in Falmer whilst bigger issues affecting more of their electorate (Newhaven Incinerator) have suffered from LDCs blinkered infatuation with the community stadium.
One wonders why LDC have been pandering to the few in Falmer & not the many elsewhere in their constituency?
For those that posted crass comments earlier, perhaps some research is needed before you go spouting off? Oh, I forgot, that's exactly what LDC have been doing anyway - lying about where photos are taken, lying about how long it takes to walk from Brighton town centre to Sheepcote etc etc.
james blake, hassocks says...
5:02pm Fri 4 May 07
Hear hear Mr Higgins...I have never really understood what the Lib Dems are for, but then I probably am the sort of Albion supporting knucklehead that LDC seem to think will be wandering around Falmer village beating up the swans...Some of the comments they have made including that they believe the people of mouslecomb are too stupid to fill the jobs the new stadium will create is staggering in its ignorance...Falmer will happen get used to it!
Darren Wilson, Lancing says...
5:11pm Fri 4 May 07
Cheerio, Mr Neighbour. I enjoyed our e-mail correspondence, such as it was. It's a shame that you failed to answer most of what must have been inconvenient questions, such as the following. 'What is the basis for your statement that Brighton & Hove Albion chose the cheap option in Falmer?' Enjoy your retirement. If you find yourself at a loose end, you can always be a steward at the new stadium adjacent to Falmer.
Dean, Telscombe Cliffs says...
5:50pm Fri 4 May 07
I deliberately voted against the Lib Dems for the single issue of Falmer and their disgraceful behaviour and blatant lies. To criticise the Argus for "biased reporting" is a blinkered viewpoint to say the least. If the LD's had the integrity to tell the truth, then they wouldn't have had so many people's backs up.
The stadium was the issue for me. I'm not even a Brighton fan, but I'm a football fan, and to see LDC try to basically make Brighton go bankrupt before they can finalise the arrangements for Falmer is horrendous. As far as I can see, these people have reaped what they sowed. Good riddance to them.
The stadium was the issue for me. I'm not even a Brighton fan, but I'm a football fan, and to see LDC try to basically make Brighton go bankrupt before they can finalise the arrangements for Falmer is horrendous. As far as I can see, these people have reaped what they sowed. Good riddance to them.
Ha Ha, Peacehaven says...
6:32pm Fri 4 May 07
Told all the Libs in Peacehaven their time was up, and over the moon I was right. Well done to all that booted out the anti-Albion Libs.
john, Central Brighton says...
6:41pm Fri 4 May 07
Peter wrote:When did we have a city wide referendum and why wasn't I eligible to vote? It seems to me that this is just more propaganda in favour of green belt development by people who dont have to suffer the effects. STOP FALMER NOW!
We've already had a city wide referendum, CM.
And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!
Helen Smith, Hurst says...
8:10pm Fri 4 May 07
Why did brighton lose a city centre ground in the first place?
Better ask ex Liberal MP David Bellotti how come he forgot to pay BHAFC's tax bill.
Better ask ex Liberal MP David Bellotti how come he forgot to pay BHAFC's tax bill.
CM, Brighton says...
8:14pm Fri 4 May 07
@john - exactly!
No-one I know was given the opportunity to vote - maybe a few flyers were handed out at Withdean on alternate Saturdays.
Still, with the way B&HA are performing at the moment, even that stadium will soon be too large for them.
No-one I know was given the opportunity to vote - maybe a few flyers were handed out at Withdean on alternate Saturdays.
Still, with the way B&HA are performing at the moment, even that stadium will soon be too large for them.
adrian, saltdean says...
8:32pm Fri 4 May 07
The referendum was held in 1999 (look how successful lewes have been in holding things up since then!). There were two questions - 1) do you support the council's policy for a new permanent stadium for Brighton and Hove Albion in the city
2) Do you support the council's policy for the stadium at falmer
The votes were nearly 90% yes to the first and nearly 70% to the second.
Why one site? The council and club reviewed all sites and there was no other. There's no point suggesting sites that wont work - a fact borne out through public inquiry.
2) Do you support the council's policy for the stadium at falmer
The votes were nearly 90% yes to the first and nearly 70% to the second.
Why one site? The council and club reviewed all sites and there was no other. There's no point suggesting sites that wont work - a fact borne out through public inquiry.
Ian, Brighton says...
8:53pm Fri 4 May 07
We had a referendum during a council election day about 7 years ago.
Perhaps CM & John missed because they we too busy with their heads stuck up their backside.
The Albion have been suffering financially for years due to the mis management by a former lib dem MP & ignorant Falmer residents who seem to think that the University & southern water buildings are outstandily beautiful
Perhaps CM & John missed because they we too busy with their heads stuck up their backside.
The Albion have been suffering financially for years due to the mis management by a former lib dem MP & ignorant Falmer residents who seem to think that the University & southern water buildings are outstandily beautiful
Ian, Hove says...
9:41pm Fri 4 May 07
Maybe Lewes Lib-Dems will have a rethink now. It won't be long until the General Election. The stadium won't be the largest issue on peoples minds but this will cost them votes unnecessarily throughout Sussex. They may not care about the Albion or sport in general, but self-interest has always been upper-most in their minds.
John, Brunswick says...
9:50pm Fri 4 May 07
I would say people voted against the LDs on their stadium view (a) some because LDs were against the stadium but also (b) because they pledged substantial council funds in their obsessive fight.
John Duggan, brighton says...
10:27pm Fri 4 May 07
I do not know why Marina Pepper and Liz Lee stood as Liberal Democrats. During the protestations against the Ocean Hotel being used for asylum seekers both were heavily involved with the Socialist Workers party who bussed in protestors. Pepper was often seen swigging cider whilst walking down the street and both of them are foul mouthed. Good riddance I say.
septicman, Central Brighton says...
10:34pm Fri 4 May 07
Not a proper referendum as no real choice involved. Good to see the Seagulls party coming nowhere. Unfortunately, the stadium decision will be a yes regardless, but well done to LDC delaying it as long as they have. B&HCC have wasted way more ££ than LDC.
adrian, saltdean says...
11:18pm Fri 4 May 07
Welcome back septicman.
Just to clarify, referendums by nature are yes/no questions. NOT multiple choice!
If you think 24% of people in wards with a seagulls party candidate, voting sp is nowhere then you are clearly deluded. Also the two key areas that saw Tory candidates being pro falmer was east saltdean and seaford where 5 lib dems lost their seats.
Finally, B&HCC as planning authority have had to spend LESS on public inquiries that Lewes have spent opposing. Interestingly, B&HCC have a policy backed by referendum for their spending. LDC dont!
Just to clarify, referendums by nature are yes/no questions. NOT multiple choice!
If you think 24% of people in wards with a seagulls party candidate, voting sp is nowhere then you are clearly deluded. Also the two key areas that saw Tory candidates being pro falmer was east saltdean and seaford where 5 lib dems lost their seats.
Finally, B&HCC as planning authority have had to spend LESS on public inquiries that Lewes have spent opposing. Interestingly, B&HCC have a policy backed by referendum for their spending. LDC dont!
Si, Sussex says...
11:56pm Fri 4 May 07
What a banal 'debate'! Why not admit what everyone knows: i.e. that if you support B&HA (God knows why, but I won't mock the afflicted) you want a stadium built anywhere just as long as one is built, and that if you don't support B&HA then this issue either bores you to tears or you think any new stadium should really be located in a BROWN field site in a part of B&H where the traffic won't be snarled up for miles around every time the Seagulls play at home. Oh, and Seagulls fans, don't imagine for one second that the Fib Dems of LDC are the only people who would be quite happy if B&HA went bust before a new stadium gets built...
A Gold, Brighton says...
12:12am Sat 5 May 07
Well done to the Seagull Party. Around 22% of the voters got behind you. Not bad considering there is no national political machine to back you up.
Neighbour, Pepper, can you hear me?
You Lib Dems took one hell of a beating.
Neighbour, Pepper, can you hear me?
You Lib Dems took one hell of a beating.
aide van de aids, henfield says...
12:28am Sat 5 May 07
septicman wrote:What a total knob end you are
Not a proper referendum as no real choice involved. Good to see the Seagulls party coming nowhere. Unfortunately, the stadium decision will be a yes regardless, but well done to LDC delaying it as long as they have. B&HCC have wasted way more ££ than LDC.
G Po, Falmer says...
1:09am Sat 5 May 07
Ding-Dong the witch is dead !!!
Seagulls !!!!!!
Seagulls !!!!!!
Sergei Gotsmanov, Goldstone Ghost says...
3:45am Sat 5 May 07
Looking foward to meeting the trustafarian students that play at being scruffy and weering Cuba T Shirts for 3 years. We can enjoy Falmer together even if you think we are stupid and we know your treacles are fit and the blokes need a wash. A piece of Falmer will soon be for the people of Sussex. Bring on Falmer. Up the Albion. Lib Dems, you should bu wont be ashamed of yourselves.
IS, Brighton says...
6:41am Sat 5 May 07
Si wrote:It's one thing to have an opposing view but to actually wish something out of existance that benefits thousands of people shows a very selfish and stupid attitude. So you would prefer that the people who have had help with their literacy problems through the clubs workshops would cease to get any support ? Try engaging your brain before spouting mindless rubbish.
What a banal 'debate'! Why not admit what everyone knows: i.e. that if you support B&HA (God knows why, but I won't mock the afflicted) you want a stadium built anywhere just as long as one is built, and that if you don't support B&HA then this issue either bores you to tears or you think any new stadium should really be located in a BROWN field site in a part of B&H where the traffic won't be snarled up for miles around every time the Seagulls play at home. Oh, and Seagulls fans, don't imagine for one second that the Fib Dems of LDC are the only people who would be quite happy if B&HA went bust before a new stadium gets built...
David Elliott, says...
7:54am Sat 5 May 07
It high time that the Lib Dems abandon Marina Pepper and Liz Lee who are merely using the party as a vehicle for their left wing politics. It is now our civic duty to ensure that they do not get onto the Member of Parliament gravy train!
septicman, Brighton says...
8:03am Sat 5 May 07
This is all about property development for profit. Unfortunately, as there appears to be no middle ground where the stadium is concerned, the only thing that will prevent it being built is the club going bust. If that's the case, then so be it.
People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games.
The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.
People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games.
The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.
John, says...
8:21am Sat 5 May 07
septicman wrote:I think you are probably right. The turnout on the referendum was pretty low. Most people are apathetic about the club anyway.
This is all about property development for profit. Unfortunately, as there appears to be no middle ground where the stadium is concerned, the only thing that will prevent it being built is the club going bust. If that's the case, then so be it.
People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games.
The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.
The fact is that there are no suitable sites in our crowded city, just compromises. Falmer is probably the least worst site. I still have concerns over how the traffic will be managed. As a regular user of Stanmer park at the weekend I suspect that it will suffer as a result. I've lived near 2 big football clubs (Leeds, Newcastle) in the past and people can be very very inventive about parking their cars...!
Mace Windu, Coruscant City says...
8:59am Sat 5 May 07
John wrote:So first there was NO referendum John, and now you are saying it was really low. You really are a clutz. For info, a 64% turnout is extremely high comparitvely, but plesae don't let facts get in the way of your pathetic argument.
septicman wrote: This is all about property development for profit. Unfortunately, as there appears to be no middle ground where the stadium is concerned, the only thing that will prevent it being built is the club going bust. If that's the case, then so be it. People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games. The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.I think you are probably right. The turnout on the referendum was pretty low. Most people are apathetic about the club anyway. The fact is that there are no suitable sites in our crowded city, just compromises. Falmer is probably the least worst site. I still have concerns over how the traffic will be managed. As a regular user of Stanmer park at the weekend I suspect that it will suffer as a result. I've lived near 2 big football clubs (Leeds, Newcastle) in the past and people can be very very inventive about parking their cars...!
septicman, Brighton says...
9:26am Sat 5 May 07
Mace Windu wrote:The yes vote to a stadium was about 64% of a 38% turn out. The yes to Falmer vote was quite a bit lower. In other words, about 75% of available voters didn't vote positively for a stadium in Falmer.
John wrote:So first there was NO referendum John, and now you are saying it was really low. You really are a clutz. For info, a 64% turnout is extremely high comparitvely, but plesae don't let facts get in the way of your pathetic argument.
septicman wrote: This is all about property development for profit. Unfortunately, as there appears to be no middle ground where the stadium is concerned, the only thing that will prevent it being built is the club going bust. If that's the case, then so be it. People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games. The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.I think you are probably right. The turnout on the referendum was pretty low. Most people are apathetic about the club anyway. The fact is that there are no suitable sites in our crowded city, just compromises. Falmer is probably the least worst site. I still have concerns over how the traffic will be managed. As a regular user of Stanmer park at the weekend I suspect that it will suffer as a result. I've lived near 2 big football clubs (Leeds, Newcastle) in the past and people can be very very inventive about parking their cars...!
Sergei Gotsmanov, says...
9:35am Sat 5 May 07
Im not sur if you are right but if so, so what? You cant force people to vote. hen a UK gov wins an election by a landslide they never get more than 35-40% of the available vote. Tis all is a side show. Building a ground at Brighton Poly by a train station, on a site designated for development and by motorway is perfect.
mark, brighton says...
9:51am Sat 5 May 07
am so happy the anti falmers have gone, do any of you people saying its in a site of beauty, actully been there? i suggest you go and view the site. i asked a councillor to point it out on map... he picked stammer park. you people should get your facts straight... the truth is there is no wild life, and no access to walk on this field. and its on a busy motorway, surrounded by concrete uni buildings, if the lib dems dont back down there be gone in 4 years,
Kara Thrace, Kobol-Upon-Ouse says...
10:25am Sat 5 May 07
septicman wrote:No.. once again false info being spewed.
Mace Windu wrote:The yes vote to a stadium was about 64% of a 38% turn out. The yes to Falmer vote was quite a bit lower. In other words, about 75% of available voters didn\\\\\\\'t vote positively for a stadium in Falmer.
John wrote:So first there was NO referendum John, and now you are saying it was really low. You really are a clutz. For info, a 64% turnout is extremely high comparitvely, but plesae don\\\\\\\'t let facts get in the way of your pathetic argument.
septicman wrote: This is all about property development for profit. Unfortunately, as there appears to be no middle ground where the stadium is concerned, the only thing that will prevent it being built is the club going bust. If that\\\\\\\'s the case, then so be it. People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games. The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.I think you are probably right. The turnout on the referendum was pretty low. Most people are apathetic about the club anyway. The fact is that there are no suitable sites in our crowded city, just compromises. Falmer is probably the least worst site. I still have concerns over how the traffic will be managed. As a regular user of Stanmer park at the weekend I suspect that it will suffer as a result. I\\\\\\\'ve lived near 2 big football clubs (Leeds, Newcastle) in the past and people can be very very inventive about parking their cars...!
Here are the exact figures:
Thursday 6th May 1999
A historic day in the history of the Albion. Brighton & Hove awakes to 5,000 green and white YES YES balloons all over the two towns. 56,701 (83.5% of those voting) vote in favour of a permanent home for the Albion, while 44,985 (67.6%) people vote in favour of the stadium being at Falmer.
Would you like a calculator?
septicman, Brighton says...
10:54am Sat 5 May 07
67% of a 38% turn out.
So, no thanks.
So, no thanks.
Jamie, says...
11:18am Sat 5 May 07
You cant force people to vote and that is more votes than Csome MPs get elected on. But either way the issue is the site. Go to the site, and see for yourself, its at Brighton Poly and south of the motorway (unlike Sussex Uni which is built in the downs - how did / do they continue to get away with that by the way?), next to a motorway/train station/ Southern Water/Moulscom. The site is designated for development and is frankly ideal. Just like a sports stadium at a US uni. Just look at the site. The reason for the fuss is that a few people got on a hobby horse and then could not lose face by backing down,and they have now cost us all a lot of cash.
Chris, says...
2:37pm Sat 5 May 07
septicman wrote:Thats how voting works. You want to have your say you turn up and put your tick in the box.
67% of a 38% turn out.
So, no thanks.
The majority of those that did turn up voted yes. The rest are irrelevant to the argument as no one, even someone so clearly intelligent as yourself, could possibly know which way they would have voted. Chances are they couldn't care either way otherwise they would have turned up to have their say.
Matt, Brighton says...
6:21pm Sat 5 May 07
If Lewes District Council is so worried about the community stadium, why has it never held a referendum? The answer is the council knows it would lose.
Paul Baron, Brighton Seafront says...
7:27pm Sat 5 May 07
Some of these comments have been unbelievable. If the newcomers do not know why and how we lost our original stadium, I would suggest they read 'Build a Bonfire'. A copy can be found in the Jubilee Library. I would imagine you will need directions, so the post code is BN1 1GE.
The chosen site is not perfect, but it is the best site for the stadium. A stadium that brings vast benefits to the City and indeed Sussex. The vast majority of the opponents appear to be anti-football full stop and do not seem able to put forward a decent case as to why the stadium should not be built.
As for Green Belt? You are kidding yourselves. A proportion of the chosen site is Brownfield and the AONB was designated in the 60s - long before the latter developments such as Sussex Uni, Brighton Uni and Southern Water. It does not set a dangerous precedent of further development.
Good to see the backs of Neighbour, Pepper and Lee. Three people who were intent on spreading half truths/mistruths and disgraceful spin in an effort to stop the stadium.
Brighton & Hove Council gave us a chance to voice our opinion on where the stadium should be built. Did LDC consult their residents whether they wanted so much time and money spent on stopping the stadium? Er..no.
Well done to the Seagulls Party for taking a stand and it was a brave effort. Those criticising the party need to take a long and hard look at themselves. The Party was simply doing what you claim you were unable to do - voice their opinion.
Roll on July 9th and let us hope Ruth makes the right decision and The Albion can soon be in their new home.
The chosen site is not perfect, but it is the best site for the stadium. A stadium that brings vast benefits to the City and indeed Sussex. The vast majority of the opponents appear to be anti-football full stop and do not seem able to put forward a decent case as to why the stadium should not be built.
As for Green Belt? You are kidding yourselves. A proportion of the chosen site is Brownfield and the AONB was designated in the 60s - long before the latter developments such as Sussex Uni, Brighton Uni and Southern Water. It does not set a dangerous precedent of further development.
Good to see the backs of Neighbour, Pepper and Lee. Three people who were intent on spreading half truths/mistruths and disgraceful spin in an effort to stop the stadium.
Brighton & Hove Council gave us a chance to voice our opinion on where the stadium should be built. Did LDC consult their residents whether they wanted so much time and money spent on stopping the stadium? Er..no.
Well done to the Seagulls Party for taking a stand and it was a brave effort. Those criticising the party need to take a long and hard look at themselves. The Party was simply doing what you claim you were unable to do - voice their opinion.
Roll on July 9th and let us hope Ruth makes the right decision and The Albion can soon be in their new home.
Tom Hark, Preston Park, Preston Park says...
8:17pm Sat 5 May 07
Hm... interesting debate, this. But shouldn't it be taking place behind closed doors with the public excluded. That IS the Lewes District Council way after all.
Exiledfromlewes, Exiled says...
8:19pm Sat 5 May 07
As a Lewesian I don't usually venture your boards, but I did this time to see how the Argus would report the result. To be blunt the Argus has given a blatent misrepresentation of the result and has shown a complete lack of knowledge of the area. Firstly the LDC has been liberal since 1991 and therefore it was always deemed likely that it could fall to NOC (being historically a Conservative area.)In 2003 when expecting losses the Lib Dems made increases, which meant they had complete controll in all the towns. In Lewes 6 out of 7 seats, 5 out of 5 in Newhaven, 3 out of 3 in Telscombe and fantastically 8 out of 8 in Seaford (outside Peacehaven the most conservative town). Realistically having scored spectacular victories in 2003 it was inevitable that they would lose seats having reached as far as they could go. So lets forward to 2007 werethey lose 6 seats and gain 1. in Seaford i expected them to lose seats and the lib dem numbers returned to pre 2003 levels. On second glance though they lost 2 seats by only 50 votes, and that would of been avoided if there was not a lone Green Candidate. Finally to Telscombe, which is the only ward in the District not to be part of the Lewes constituency. The Conservatives were desperate to win the seats to make an assault of the Brighton Kemptown constituency. If your going to deduce any form of meaning from the result, than the Labour Party will probably lose at least two constituencies next time round. It tells us little about Lewes. Lastly Seagulls Party result was awful, although I would be happy for them to continue for future elections. An average of 400 votes per ward is not something to shout about. A Hamster would get at least 300 in a local election. I'm not being flipant, but as many parties don't put forward a full slate of candidates. It makes it likely that independents who can't get elected will get votes as they are not seen as threats.
adrian, saltdean says...
8:44pm Sat 5 May 07
What a fantastic thread:
First we have people who've obviously moved to brighton in last 7 years commenting on something the clearly know nothing about. Why else would they not know of the referendum and then try and ignore that it was a full electoral commision governed one?
Then we have the reappearance of septicman who has made a hobby of typing innaccurate statements which when corrected allows him to commence more ill informed bile. I can imagine him almost seething as he thumps his erroenous reply into the keyboard.
Then we have people saying, it wont have been the falmer issue that contributed to the losses only to see voters from that area confirm it was.
As per usual we get the 'not everybody voted' argument which falls over when it is statistically proved that it is easier to be anti than supportive on planning matters (see Robertson and McKenzie for the academics out there). Ipso facto - it means that the greater majority of antis than pros would turn out so therefore to get a majority is indeed an indicator that the majority either actively want or are not bothered by the proposals.
Finally we get the Lib dem sympathiser who will use any kind of statistics to try and cover up a less than satisfactory result for them. The lib dems didn't just lose seats, their vote dropped everywhere. Ann de Vecchi in 2003 had the largest majority and personal vote of any councillor. This time she struggled to come second and then only got half of the total that the highest candidate in her ward.
First we have people who've obviously moved to brighton in last 7 years commenting on something the clearly know nothing about. Why else would they not know of the referendum and then try and ignore that it was a full electoral commision governed one?
Then we have the reappearance of septicman who has made a hobby of typing innaccurate statements which when corrected allows him to commence more ill informed bile. I can imagine him almost seething as he thumps his erroenous reply into the keyboard.
Then we have people saying, it wont have been the falmer issue that contributed to the losses only to see voters from that area confirm it was.
As per usual we get the 'not everybody voted' argument which falls over when it is statistically proved that it is easier to be anti than supportive on planning matters (see Robertson and McKenzie for the academics out there). Ipso facto - it means that the greater majority of antis than pros would turn out so therefore to get a majority is indeed an indicator that the majority either actively want or are not bothered by the proposals.
Finally we get the Lib dem sympathiser who will use any kind of statistics to try and cover up a less than satisfactory result for them. The lib dems didn't just lose seats, their vote dropped everywhere. Ann de Vecchi in 2003 had the largest majority and personal vote of any councillor. This time she struggled to come second and then only got half of the total that the highest candidate in her ward.
Paul Baron, Brighton says...
10:03pm Sat 5 May 07
They ignore the facts, Adrian.
Something that the Lib Dems have proven to be very adept at.
Marvellous post, Sir. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments.
Something that the Lib Dems have proven to be very adept at.
Marvellous post, Sir. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments.
ExiledfromLewes, Exiled says...
10:35pm Sat 5 May 07
Fine you can believe what you want, I know that you will follow the Seagulls line. As for Statistics facts. In 2003 Ann De Vecchi got 1,166 votes. In 2007 she got 1,264, maybe you can explain to me where her vote exactly went.
You included the misnomer of the Independent, but this was a councillor who first got elected in 1999 as a Liberal Democrat, who then defected afterwards to the Greens before becoming an Inde just before 2003.
If you actaully know anything about Lewes (which evidently you don't)you would have known that on Southover street that are several houses with Lib Dem and R O'Keefe posters on them. Thats because despite the defection most Libs recognise that she has been a good councillor for the area. Many people in Priory will have voted for De Vecchi and O'Keefe. The only reason that she has 800 votes more is that Conservatives vote for her as they know that it is the only way the Lib Dems won't get a full slate elected.
To be fair they are correct as that is the only seat they didn't win.
Lastly in Priory ward Lib Dems got more votes, Castle ward they got more votes and Bridge Ward they got more votes.
I think that it is you who would need to dig up some statistics to prove how 1,600 votes over four candidates, against 1,200 just for Cllr De Vecchi is sending shockwaves around Lewes
You included the misnomer of the Independent, but this was a councillor who first got elected in 1999 as a Liberal Democrat, who then defected afterwards to the Greens before becoming an Inde just before 2003.
If you actaully know anything about Lewes (which evidently you don't)you would have known that on Southover street that are several houses with Lib Dem and R O'Keefe posters on them. Thats because despite the defection most Libs recognise that she has been a good councillor for the area. Many people in Priory will have voted for De Vecchi and O'Keefe. The only reason that she has 800 votes more is that Conservatives vote for her as they know that it is the only way the Lib Dems won't get a full slate elected.
To be fair they are correct as that is the only seat they didn't win.
Lastly in Priory ward Lib Dems got more votes, Castle ward they got more votes and Bridge Ward they got more votes.
I think that it is you who would need to dig up some statistics to prove how 1,600 votes over four candidates, against 1,200 just for Cllr De Vecchi is sending shockwaves around Lewes
adrian, saltdean says...
11:12pm Sat 5 May 07
how is it then - if I know nothing about Lewes District that I KNOW no conservatives were actively door to door canvassing in east saltdean but 2 of the 3 lib dems were. One on a sunday morning (obviously being a witch, a sunday is not so special)?
Also Ruth O'Keefe is no friend of the Lib Dems.
Also Ruth O'Keefe is no friend of the Lib Dems.
CM, Brighton says...
4:17pm Fri 4 May 07
Obviously there is more than just one issue involved for the voters in Lewes.
Maybe we can have a city-wide referendum for the location of the stadium and then hopefully the noisy minority who want to build in an unsuitable place will go away...preferably to Sheepcote Valley!