Forum Topic

Commons conservators elections

Can anyone tell me why John Cameron and Nick Evans are not standing?

Roger John Castle ● 1867d26 Comments

Lucille. No I cannot see why John is not standing. He has spent so long telling us what is wrong with WPCC I gave up reading his stuff long ago.John has not answered the question but as you seem to have the answer perhaps you could enlighten me in a sentence or two. Nick had the good grace to answer.Roger

Roger John Castle ● 1858d

got to love a good hedge, great for wildlife!

Matt Palmer ● 1862d

Nick, I don't plan to use that issue as a stick to beat you with forever, but it did seem relevant in responding to Ivonne Holliday's accusation that I was being foul to John.Thanks for providing the link to that analysis - when I first tried to access it I couldn't, but today I can. I think trying to develop insight into voter intentions from this level of data is not really feasible, especially in an election like this where each voter has up to 5 votes. I must admit I'm not totally familiar with the ward boundaries, but I don't think your analysis is correct - according to the spreadsheet I've just constructed, you have misread the figures, and the situation is reversed: in Wandsworth  34,177 votes were cast, as against 19,521 in Wimbledon.I don't really have a suggestion as to how we improve turnout - I had hoped that online voting would help, but looking at these figures shows that we had that in 2018, so we won't get any benefit from that, although maybe, given the familiarity people will have gained with the internet during lockdown, people will feel more confident in using it?Finally, thanks for distracting me from England's awful batting in the Test match!

Jim Cleary ● 1862d

Trying to wade through this again makes me realise why so many(not mine!) children want to become lawyers

Hugh Thompson ● 1862d

I'm not sure that these Commons belong together. Perhaps they should be separated. Obviously Merton would retain the majority of Wimbledon Common - The Windmill and below. Putney Lower Common and even the Heath can be of little concern to Merton. There might need to be a border marked on Wimbledon Common. A hedge would seem a good idea, with plenty of crossing-points, obviously. This might well help local employment.Perhaps there should be a local referendum of levypayers on whether the Commons should be separated by borough. They always help clarify a situation.

David Ainsworth ● 1862d

Jim, I’ve apologised for misremembering where John came in the 2018 election. I hope I don’t have to do so repeatedly. I thought it was interesting that he came in second in 2015 with roughly the same number of votes he got in 2018, despite the false facts campaigning. I provided a link to the data on how people voted by district.I then commented that the number of votes cast in Wimbledon are considerably higher than in Putney. Could you explain why that might be?How are we to get a greater turn-out? I think the publicity mounted by the Conservators is pretty poor. Could they not spend more time building a database of contact information on voters/levypayers? One mailing a year of the election form and candidate statements (with no contact details) is not enough. Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 1862d

The Wimbledon Hustings is tomorrow - still time to register if yiu missed the Putney one.

Caroline Whitehead ● 1862d

Nick Evans provided incorrect information about John Cameron's results in the 2018 WPCC Election, so I responded with the correct results. I fail to see how publishing the truth in this matter constitutes being foul.My line of thought is to publish accurate information, so I am very pleased to see that the Good Law Project is forcing the Government to defend their shocking record on PPE procurement.I believe that turnout in the WPCC elections has always been low; I think that greater turnout should provide a more democratic result, and I hope that the provision of remote access to the hustings, and online voting will help with this.

Jim Cleary ● 1862d

I seem to remember that many candidates promised more transparency at the last election. Those that did influenced my vote.I had a quick look but couldn't find the previous statements.

Ed Robinson ● 1862d

Hello Jim Cleary and Roger John Castle,I really do not understand why you are being so foul towards John Cameron.  He wanted to let everyone know what was happening at the heart of WPCC.So, following your line of thought, it would be incorrect to let people know that the Government has spent billions of pounds on unsuitable PPE (and obviously discarded subsequently). And you consider that a 16.4% and 21% voter turnout to be acceptable?  I certainly would not all it a democratic result - but a laughable one yes.I would say that an 83.6% and 79% apathy is incredibly worrying.Lack of education perhaps?  Or could I be so impertinent to say fewer friends in high places?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1863d

Says you but I say it's because Wimbledon Common is huge and Putney Common is tiny. More people live in Putney, but few of them have much to to with the Common, except to take the odd stroll. The proposal to build a school next to it got a lot of Putney people interested 2-3 elections ago but that has long been a fait accompli now.I will also assert (since we seem to be in the business of asserting on this thread) that one of the reasons JC's voting figures were so poor last time was his long-running campaign against the Spencer benches, something that a majority of the voters are in favour of, regardless of any Scaliaesque interpretation of the 1871 Act you may care to make.

Michael Winstanley ● 1863d

It’s worth looking at the analysis prepared by CES for the WPCC of the 2018 results. Go to https://www.wpcc.org.uk/downloads/wpcc-triennial-election-results---update---media-release.pdf.As we are often told around 60% of voters are Putney residents. Despite this, only 19,521 Putney people voted. Contrast this with Merton (Wimbledon) where 32,158 voted. Why? I would suggest this is partly because of history, partly because of the size of Wimbledon Common. More importantly it reflects the effectiveness and reach of the publicity campaign mounted by the Wimbledon-based candidates and the targeting of the social media against John in particular. There are fewer voters in Kingston: just 1,857.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 1864d

Nick,John came 2nd in 2015, on a voter turnout of 16.4%.He came 9th in 2018, on a voter turnout of 21%.That can be represented as an increase of voters from 2015 to 2018 of 26.7%. More voters gives a more democratic result, I think?

Jim Cleary ● 1864d

But John ran a concerted public campaign on this forum that was clearly rejected by the electorate.he didnt even come top of the Putney candidates.The fact the Wimbledon folk ran a more effective campaign is not their fault.

Andy Pike ● 1864d

Jiim, apologies that my memory was faulty. But John did get more votes in 2018 than he did in 2015. He was second in that election. The turnout was only 21%. I hope more Putney residents will vote this time.The Wimbledon clique who ran a concerted campaign of misinformation during the run-up to the 2018 election and for months beforehand were aided by the then Chair and CEO of the Conservators. John was away in South America on business when the Wimbledon Hustings were held, and I was prevented from reading his election statement on his behalf. His written statement which I brought along to the meeting was not distributed, and I had to put them on chairs as people filed out. The  Chairman made disparaging comments about his absence. Unbiased? I don’t think so - unlike the Putney Hustings of that time.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 1864d

I can quite understand why John would not want to stand again. Why can't you? He's given ample reasoning in his posts.

Lucille Grant ● 1864d

Nick has stated "In 2018 John Cameron was a candidate but came in 6th, even though he increased his vote share". This is totally inaccurate: in 2018, John Cameron actually came 9th out of 10 candidates, and his share of the valid votes fell from 37.5% in 2015 to 32% in 2018. He came 2nd in 2015, so if his share of the vote had increased, he would have been re-elected. As a reflection of a bigger turnout in 2018, he did increase his number of votes (from 3,999 to 4,335).  So while in 2015 John was 2nd in the voting, in 2018 he was 9th. I suggest that that shows a clear rejection of his policies & methodologies by the electorate.

Jim Cleary ● 1864d

The original question was why are you and Nick not standing. Nick has answered.  I am still waiting for you to do so.

Roger John Castle ● 1864d

@andy I have no idea why my full name did not appear, but the post above is mineWithout full transparency the WPCC cannot be held to account when they decide to ignore the 1871 or Charities Act.  It’s how they buried their deliberately undersale of land at PH, and are now denying access to the historic and (unlawful) new agreements with the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club. The Nolan principles for standards in public are clear....and also ignored, particularly 4 - 7. 1.4 AccountabilityHolders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.1.5 OpennessHolders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.1.6 HonestyHolders of public office should be truthful.1.7 LeadershipHolders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

John Cameron ● 1864d

The issue of transparency did come up at the hustings, raised by several attendees and put to all the candidates. The three incumbent trustees standing for re-election seemed satisfied with the current position but (in my view) wary of opening up processes more as this might merely provide critics with more ammunition for quote time-wasting demands for more information unquote. The comparison with how local authorities operate, where meetings are open to the public (even if they can’t participate in discussions) and there is full publication of agendas, supporting papers and minutes, is valid. I think WPCC could do well to learn from that especially as there are at least three former councillors amongst the 12 candidates. For those who missed the Putney Society hustings, the Wimbledon Society’s own hustings are on Thursday, pre-registration via their own website or via the WPCC’s.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1864d

Are we meant to guess who John is in this age of transparency? Or is there a reason why the surname is not included?

Andy Pike ● 1864d

Hmm. So why not then?

Michael Winstanley ● 1864d

The current board are spending a fortune, funded by levy payers, to ensure that the unlawful agreements that swop common land with the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club remain unseen. The fees of barristers from 11KBW and instructing solicitors at Gregsons will run to ten of thousands of £’s. At the beginning of January 2021 the board entered into new agreements with the RWGC. No consultation. The old agreements forced the WPCC to hand over the land to the private golf club if and when the 1871 Act allowed it. The new agreements are not for public consumption.  Why?The WPCC board intend to introduce, through Parliament, changes to the 1871 Act which they describe as not fit for purpose.  The Act is perfectly fit, it was well worded and has only failed when trustees do cosy deals with parties to whom they are close. The WPCC’s changes to the 1871 Act will cost several hundred thousand, again funded by levy payers, money the WPCC simply don’t have. The protection the Act affords will be diminished, the annual levy will rocket, the current limit linking increased to inflation will be scrapped.Over £100,000 has been spent on consultants to advise on how the commons will be developed - again has not been published. Their recommendations will turn the commons into a theme park of vanity projects.

John ● 1865d

My posting above should have said “Dear Roger” - apologies.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 1866d

John, as you know I resigned in protest in November 2015. For the next three years the majority of the board ganged up on John Cameron and excluded him. They ignored Shirley Gillbe. They then set about delaying everything, resulting in a Charity Commission Statutory Inquiry. This took four years. The Commission circulated draft reports. Over that time the Commission went from naming the pre-2015 board for maladministration and mismanagement until suddenly in 2020 they received a legal letter threatening a Judicial Review from Sir Ian Andrews that made them change their explanation and blame a “dispute” among the 2015 Trustees for the loss (they admitted to only £350,000, but spent more than £200,000 in legal fees). Go figure. The pre-2015 board were let off the hook. No one ever  saw the content of Sir Ian’s lawyers letter ...When I resigned back in 2015 I thought they would call a by-election to replace me. They didn’t. In 2018 John Cameron was a candidate but came in 6th, even though he increased his vote share, Five Wimbledon based Conservators ran as a group “Common-sense for the Commons”. The CEO went round all the Wimbledon residential associations extolling the virtues of the Wimbledon Five, and condemning John and other runners. Prue Whyte the Chairman circulated a letter saying that a small group was trying to destroy the Commons. This was widely circulated. They spent a fortune, including a social media blitz against John Cameron and Shirley Gillbe. Shirley got in, John didn’t and four of the five took control aided by the three Whitehall appointed Trustees. Just like in 2015.It remains a closed shop of Wimbledon residents, apart from Shirley. They mouth platitudes about openness and transparency which, surprise surprise, the Charity Commission swallows. They don’t publish documents discussed at board meetings, minutes of the meetings or allow attendance. The same applies to the “Stakeholders” Group, and the board sub-committees. Compare and contrast with Council committees and meetings. All contacts are directed to the “Rangers Office” no email addresses for anyone. Good luck if you want to discuss anything with a Conservator.I’m now 73 and just couldn’t face three further years of hassle trying to right the balance between Putney (which pays 60% of the levy) and Wimbledon. I hope very much that Diane Neil Mills, David Hince and Peter Hirsch don’t get re-elected. Don’t vote for them. Do vote for Donald James Roy. Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 1866d

Hopefully, they will be able to reply to you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1867d