Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Hazel Grove Elections May 2015 => Topic started by: admin on December 15, 2014, 10:37:08 AM
-
The candidates declared so far (as I understand it) are listed in alphabetical order below with links to their web sites and / or Social Media accounts where known :
DARRAN PALMER (UKIP)
https://twitter.com/DarranJPalmer
https://www.facebook.com/DarranpalmerUKIP
LISA SMART (Liberal Democrat)
https://twitter.com/Lisa_Smart
http://www.lisasmart.org.uk/
https://www.facebook.com/LisaSmartLibDem
MICHAEL TAYLOR (Labour)
https://twitter.com/MarpleLeaf
http://www.themarpleleaf.blogspot.co.uk/
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001698974271
https://hazelgrovelabourparty.wordpress.com/
WILLIAM WRAGG (Conservative)
https://twitter.com/William_Wragg
http://www.williamwragg.org.uk/
GRAHAM REID (Green Party)
http://stockport.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/04/02/hazel-grove-candidate-unveiled/
If I've missed any other candidates or any useful links about them, please let me know.
-
Following a hustings at Wednesday's Marple Business Forum Meeting you can now get a good look at the main candidates in action thanks to the camera of Arthur Procter:
From left to right, Lisa Smart, @Michael Taylor, @DarranPalmer and @William Wragg
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/11051982_800462290041193_1154393584186440983_o.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/1780242_800462380041184_5957998307194309690_o.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/1780120_800462396707849_7784264321007326354_o.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/11001672_800462470041175_5299725664307940903_o.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t31.0-8/10644588_800462440041178_6951013836968025366_o.jpg)
-
Is there no candidate for the Green Party?
-
Is there no candidate for the Green Party?
At the Education Hustings on 26 February was a chap who may become the Green Party candidate, but it hadn't been decided then.
Happy to add any other candidates' details when available.
-
It is still a difficult one this, for me anyway. Locally it is easy I'll be voting LibDem and I'll be happy to do so.
Nationally though, I just don't know. I've tried to focus on the individual candidates but it isn't easy to do that and ignore party politics.
I keep getting front-runners and then I read/hear/see some party politic thing and change my mind. It really seems to be that the individual impresses on some point and then their leadership in Westminster undermines them in some way.
Anyway, 6 weeks from the election and I've not made my mind up.
-
Dear fellow voters,
I'm sure that I am not alone in being curious about the background and qualifications of our prospective MP, so I started by looking at the bio on her website and left none the wiser. Lisa invites us to get in touch, so I did just that. I asked which charity she had been Chief Executive of, and in which businesses/roles she had gained her 12 years' experience in International Finance. Perfectly reasonable questions, I thought. There was no reply, so after 2 weeks I mailed again and got a response from a party caseworker, devoid of any facts.
By this point, my curiosity was increasing, so I mailed again and was told that a CV for Lisa would be posted to me at home. It didn't arrive. A week later I mailed again and a week after that a shiny leaflet containing absolutely no hard facts plopped onto my doormat.
By now, my curiosity was beginning to turn to suspicion. So I did some research of my own. I've presented the facts below, but please do make corrections if I have got anything wrong.
1) Lisa Smart is a founding trustee since 2006 of La Vida Vital Development Aid for Investment in South America, charity number 1115796 based in London. The average turnover for the last 5 years of published accounts is £55,489. All of the trustees act as unpaid volunteers. Once you know the name, it is easy to find out all about the charity on the web. According to the charities commission website, Miss Lisa Smart is not currently a trustee of any other charities.
2) Lisa worked for 9 years in London for Pictet Asset Management (PIC), a Swiss Private Bank. According to archived web pages from La Vida, her role was relationship manager for North American institutional clients.
3) According to her profile on Privatebanking.com, in 2010, Lisa joined Genesis Investment Management, LLP as Director of Client Relationships, with a focus on relationships with clients and investment consultants. In addition to her role with the Client Services team, she also runs the Genesis Charitable Trust. In her current profile on the LaVida website, she is described as Chief Executive of Genesis Charitable Trust.
4) Genesis Charitable Trust, charity number 1148643 is based in Westminster, London. It was established in 2012, funded exclusively by Genesis LLP. So far only accounts from 2013 have been filed, which show an income of £2.3m and expenditure of £1.5m. The annual report can be downloaded from the charities commission website. Lisa Smart is not listed as a current trustee. Her name does not appear anywhere in the 2013 annual report or on the Genesis website.
5) According to the Companies House database, Lisa Smart became a director of Stockport Canal Boat Trust on 29th October, 2014. She holds no other current directorships and has no closed or retired directorships.
6) According to her office, Lisa is a governor of Torkington Primary School. According to the website of Merton Lib Dems in her 2012 campaign to be elected to the London Assembly, Lisa was also a local candidate there, having lived in Wandsworth for 10 years and acted as a governor for a local school (Elliot school, since 2012 the ARK acadamy). The caseworker didn't think to include the last bit.
Opinion
I don't have a party political view on the above, I just wish people putting themselves forward for public office could find it within themselves to tell the straight-forward truth. My best guess is that someone has determined voters may not empathise with a "Local" candidate who clearly isn't and has actually had a career in Swiss Private Banking, or to some folks, "A Banker". Unfortunately for the politicians out there, the power of the web means that there is no hiding place and the truth will out.
From what I can see, Lisa's CV is actually quite impressive. There is still one question unanswered, though. Why does she want to be the MP for Hazel Grove?
-
A fascinating post - thank you mellorite. You are quite a sleuth!
In answer to mellorite's very good question:
Why does she want to be the MP for Hazel Grove?
... I offer the following link: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%20carpetbagger
For what it's worth, I don't have any problem with the fact that Ms Smart isn't local. My problem is that she wants us to believe that she is!
-
I agree with Nick I mean Dave..). I couldn't care less where she comes from but I certainly am unimpressed with the way the Lib Dems have tried to create the "impression" that she is local. A bit like the way they will try and deny, during the GE campaign, any involvement in many of the policies that they have voted for during the past 5 years. I doubt if we will hear much of their unsurpassed Europhilia, a subject which is never mentioned in any Lib Dem election material.
-
Not being funny but Mellorite should not have had to do any digging. They should have let you know this the first time of asking. Well done though - very interesting.
-
I don't normally read the political leaflets. Well I haven't had any from Labour, Ukip or anybody else but I've been bombarded by the LibDems. In fact their leaflets have become like a nuisance phone call now and go straight from doormat to dustbin.
However, I received a rare Conservative one yesterday so I thought that I'd read it.
As you would expect it consists of several photos of their candidate, nice looking chap. The usual stuff about; fighting for jobs, hospitals, education and so on.
Then there are two pages of bullet points about how good the Tories are and how bad and wicked everybody else is. Upon closer scrutiny these bullet points are all quotes from daily newspapers. To add insult to injury they are mostly (not exclusively) Tory newspapers.
Maybe it's my age but I do find it an insult to my intelligence that somebody that is standing for parliament, claiming to represent my viewpoint, seemingly expects me to be persuaded in any way by this drivel, presented in such a way. Which if anything will dissuade me from voting for him.
-
Just imagine that, for the past 10 years, William Wragg had been working as an investment banker in the City, rather then as a primary school teacher. Now imagine what would have been on all those Lib Dem leaflets that are currently being thrown in the bin.......
-
Yes, it's depressing how the election is degenerating into a slanging match, in which the participants just rubbish everyone else and hurl meaningless statistics at one another. :(
Meanwhile the latest news from the bookies is that Ms Smart is still firm favourite to win here.
Nationally, however, the bookies' positions are shifting a bit. A Labour minority government is still favourite at 5/2. That's at both Paddypower and William Hill. However, those odds have shortened from 10/3 over the past three weeks or so.
You can see how that could happen. Say each of the two big parties ends up with about 270 seats, which is what the opinion polls seem to be suggesting at the moment. So Labour or the Tories would need, in order to form a minority government, to make some sort of arrangement, formal or informal, with another party or parties commanding around 60 seats, in order to reach the magic 326 for an overall majority.
If the LibDems get 30 seats (optimistic), that's obviously not enough. Who else would the Tories work with? Only the DUP, I reckon, and they will only have about eight seats.
Labour, on the other hand, have ruled out a coalition with the SNP, but they have not ruled out a more informal arrangement. The SNP and the LibDems between them have a reasonable chance of securing 60 seats. And there you go - Miliband for PM!
-
Miliband for PM!
The very though makes me do a little sick.
-
Meanwhile the latest news from the bookies is that Ms Smart is still firm favourite to win here.
No surprise there.
The LibDems could put forward a dead donkey and the people of Hazel Grove would vote for it. Which, in my opinion, is why, after failing to get into the London Assembly, Ms Smart was advised to move to this area.
Somebody, who knew that Andrew Stunnel was going to retire, wanted to help Ms Smart with her political aspirations.
-
Most of the England seats that the LibDems lose will be Tory gains simply because that's the way they are facing. The Libdems will possibly lose all their seats in Scotland to the SNP, but that's only 11 seats. Most of the seats that the SNP win in Scotland should be off Labour so surely that is a plus and minus situation. For me it all hinges on how many Tory seats Labour win.
I can easily see a situation whereupon we have a Conservative government propped up again by a rump consisting of LibDems (depleted certainly but still big enough) and an Irish contingent if needed.
So if you are a Labour voter don't let PaddyPower lull you into a false sense of security.
-
I can easily see a situation whereupon we have a Conservative government propped up again by a rump consisting of LibDems (depleted certainly but still big enough) and an Irish contingent if needed.
Yes, that's another possibility, although it almost certainly wouldn't be a formal coalition. But for the Tories to form a minority government with informal support from the heavily depleted LibDems and the DUP, I think they would have to win between 290 and 300 seats, and that's not looking very likely at the moment. A lot depends on the UKIP vote, obviously.
-
No surprise there.
The LibDems could put forward a dead donkey and the people of Hazel Grove would vote for it. Which, in my opinion, is why, after failing to get into the London Assembly, Ms Smart was advised to move to this area.
Somebody, who knew that Andrew Stunnel was going to retire, wanted to help Ms Smart with her political aspirations.
You obviously don't think much of the LibDems Harry, nor the people of Hazel Grove either.
-
And another thing.......
Following on from the comments above, I thought I would examine Lisa Smart's campaign claim to be a local resident.
The electoral roll lists Ms. Smart's address as:-
FIRST FLOOR FLAT
68 COMPSTALL ROAD
ROMILEY
STOCKPORT
SK6 4DE
CHESHIRE
The record I accessed using www.freeelectoralroll.co.uk also lists one Margaret Bewes at the same address. No idea who she is.
A quick Google reveals that the same address also appears linked to Andrew Stunnell as
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT HEADQUARTERS
68A COMPSTALL ROAD
ROMILEY
STOCKPORT
SK6 4DE
CHESHIRE
According to the land registry online data, the property has not been sold in the last 15 years. One might infer that it is an address of convenience for the duration of the election campaign.
If like me you are wondering where your prospective MP used to live, just Google Lisa Smart SW15 2QT and you will find that 9a Schubert road is listed as the headquarters of Putney's local candidate for the London Assembly Elections and Wandsworth Borough Council by-election.
If you are feeling really mischievous, you may want to look at archived versions of your candidate's website here:-
http://web.archive.org/web/20110929165109/http://lisasmart.org.uk/
Check very carefully that you are looking at the right page, because if you delete Putney and insert Hazel Grove, the content is pretty much the same.
And if you're really nosey.....
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property-history/9a-schubert-road/london/sw15-2qt/30707400
I'm still no clearer to understanding why Ms. Smart wants to be the MP for Hazel Grove. My rather cynical father has suggested that upon election, her interest in potholes and local issues may wane rapidly in favour of matters of international development and London-based banking/charity activities (see my post above).
I think it would be great to have a wider debate on this. What do other users think?
In the interest of balance, I'll start digging on Mr. Wragg next.
-
I don't care where any of them live does it matter.
I think on balance I prefer they have moved about and made a considered decision to represent an area rather than just wanting to represent because they live there. Modern communication means they can live anywhere in the EEC as far as I am concerned.
-
I don't care where any of them live does it matter.
No, it doesn't matter. What matters is candidates being open and honest with us, and it does appear that Ms Smart is trying very hard to pretend she's local when she isn't.
-
I'm still sitting on the fence, but.....
For my part, I would like the electorate to return a hard-working MP who will represent his or her constituents and not just their own personal interests. The ideal candidate would be honest, have some real-world workplace experience outside of politics and the public sector, and have a genuine interest in improving the country in general and Hazel Grove constituency in particular. A good dollop of altruism, tempered by practical experience.
Where they come from doesn't matter to me, as long as they can convince me that they will do a good job.
Traits that I would rather not see in a candidate:-
1) Disingenuous election literature
2) Trying to get ahead by slagging off the other candidates rather than promoting their own virtues
Am I expecting too much?
-
I would have thought most people who want to know where Stunell lives and its not on Compstall. In the same way the Leader of the Council is advised to give her address as Town Hall Stockport honestly she does not live there. Do we really need to know where people live. Are they in some way misleading for taking this advice.
-
Sorry, Wheels, if I mislead you.
I didn't mean to say that Sir Andrew Stunnell lives or has lived at the address of his former party headquarters.
I was inviting others to make the same inference from the information that I do, namely that Lisa Smart does not appear to have permanently taken up residence in the constituency, but has merely registered a flat used by her party as her address for the purposes of the electoral roll. In the event of her losing this election, how long could we expect her to remain a as a "local resident"?
-
Lisa Smart will almost certainly be our next MP. In the unlikely event that she loses, we will never hear from her again.
-
William Wragg is rather easier to pin down, as being a councillor means that he has to declare any and all interests. You can find them all here:-
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=513
Those with time on their hands may care to trawl through the webcasts from Stockport's council meetings in search of pronouncements from Mr.Wragg. Alternatively, you could take my word for it that he has not had very much to say.
He is undoubtably a local chap through and through, and is even a governor of his old primary school. He is not currently employed as a teacher, his expenses being met by the local Conservative party (this is declared in the register of member's interests).
As the previous poster has pointed out, he's not very likely to win, but he does at least look like he's not hiding anything.
Unless another candidate's lack of candour were to catch up with them of course.....
-
As far as Nationals are concerned this year, I like to think that I started off with a completely open mind.
All the candidates were new (only one has experience of front line politics and that's at local level) so in a sense the contest lent itself to fairness. It also has the potential to be one of the most equal contests that there has been in HG for many a year, with parties that previously wouldn't have gained a look- in, now having an unprecedented opportunity and also all candidates having as close to a blank sheet as any of them they ever will.
There is still time yet but so far I've neither seen nor heard very much (if anything at all) from Darren or Michael or anybody belonging to them. I've had no leaflets, no phone calls and I've not seen either of them in the flesh. In fact if it wasn't for this website, I wouldn't know what either of them looked like.Though I have to say I haven't been to any political meetings. So have Ukip and Labour given up already?
Nor have I seen one single poster from Darren or Michael. I've seen one from William and several from Lisa although I suspect the recent/current weather may have something to do with that.
Posters aside If I contrast the rest of it, with Lisa and William the opposite is true. I have been bombarded with LibDem leaflets (far too many) and have had a steady delivery of Conservative literature. I've personally seen William Wragg all over the place, in fact I'm beginning to think that he's following me. If you are reading this William that's good. I've also seen Lisa around, in fact she was In Maple Centre on Saturday with Councillors Kev and Sue, and that's good as well.
I have some reservations about Lisa's background and the LibDems portrayal of it. I also have some reservations about William's record on the Council but neither of these are conclusive in any way and in both cases are is little more than speculation and hearsay on the part of others, who reading between the lines, have obvious partisan interests.
We'll see what a couple of weeks brings forth.
-
Traits that I would rather not see in a candidate:-
Trying to get ahead by slagging off the other candidates rather than promoting their own virtues
Am I expecting too much?
I'm afraid so. But we have a prime minister who thinks it's OK to publicly label the leader of the opposition 'despicable and weak', so why should local candidates behave any better?
-
I don't actually see any of our our local candidate slaggin off other candidates. Labour and UKIP because they are totally silent about anything and the Tory and Lib Dem because they just haven't so its totally misleading to imply they have
-
I think that Wheels makes a fair point and I agree, I haven't heard any either.
Which as Dave points out is more than can be said for the leadership. It seems to me that Cameron never stops threatening/criticising Miliband.
-
Indeed. And the strategy of vilifying Miliband is revealing, isn't it. It tells us that the Tories are rattled. They think they should be ahead in the opinion polls by now, but they aren't.
A smarter strategy, IMHO, might have been to ignore Miliband, and to just be statesmanlike and visionary, implying that Labour are insignificant and irrelevant. Instead, the Tories are showing that they are scared.
-
I know your keen on quoting bookies odds Dave. I see now the bookies are saying that the Lib Dems will be part of the next government. Interesting development from the suggested whip out.
-
Sorry wheels, but only Coral are suggesting that. See http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/next-government
The vast majority of the bookies, as that link shows, are expecting a Labour minority government.
-
Sorry wheels, but only Coral are suggesting that. See http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/next-government
The vast majority of the bookies, as that link shows, are expecting a Labour minority government.
We all know that the odds are set, so that the bookies see a profit whatever the outcome is. Therefore the odds are a reflection of the view of people that bet.
So how much does this tell us about the money management ability of labor supporter?
-
I've been scratching my head over that post for several days, but I'm still none the wiser! :-\
Ringi seems to be suggesting that people who bet at elections are betting on the party they happen to support. But supporting a party is one thing, whilst expecting it to win is quite another!
Mind you, many years ago, when I was (briefly) a member of a political party, I did some door-to-door canvassing at an election. It was very interesting, in all sorts of ways. I came across people who genuinely didn't understand the difference between voting for an MP and a councillor. And then there were those who believed that voting was like betting - that you voted for the candidate who you thought was most likely to win!
Meanwhile, having watched last night's seven-sided political debate on the telly, I'm wondering whether it's too late for us to have an SNP candidate in Hazel Grove. ;)
-
Mind you, many years ago, when I was (briefly) a member of a political party, I did some door-to-door canvassing at an election. It was very interesting, in all sorts of ways. I came across people who genuinely didn't understand the difference between voting for an MP and a councillor. And then there were those who believed that voting was like betting - that you voted for the candidate who you thought was most likely to win!
There are two Churchill quotes that spring to mind:
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Which leads to:
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
-
Breaking news (well, four days ago but this is Marple!)... The Green Party have managed to cobble together the £500 and ten supporters needed for a nomination. Graham Reid is their man. I expect the intrepid newshounds on this board will be running background checks on his local credentials as we speak. I'm assuming he has some, unless it's a different Graham Reid to the Marple South 2014 local election candidate. Nominations close on Thursday at 4 p.m. if anyone else fancies their chances.
-
We all know that the odds are set, so that the bookies see a profit whatever the outcome is. Therefore the odds are a reflection of the view of people that bet.
So how much does this tell us about the money management ability of labor supporter?
It tells us a great deal more about the money management ability of the bookies.
There are only three certainties in life: death, taxes and that the bookie always wins.
Death and illness amongst the poorer in society will come earlier if the Tories win due to moving Conservative goalposts which will shift responsibility for healthcare and care of the elderly from the state to the individual as a way of rewarding a lifetime of paying taxes and National Insurance Contributions. If you become ill, illness will become a way that private health companies which are propping up the Conservative Party will bleed you and what remains of the NHS dry. If you become ill, the Conservatives have no conscience about replacing professional nurses with carers on zero-hour contracts . NHS waiting times will be so long you will be driven to the point of absolute despair into the hands of American style private hospitals if you need an artificial hip or if you are waiting treatment for a painful but non-life threatening condition. If the Conservatives remain in power Cameron will achieve his ultimate objective of balancing the books by ensuring that the only way into Stepping Hill will be via a trolley from an ambulance into intensive care but it is then that you will then receive the generally fantastic level of care that the NHS staff (if not the Government) are willing to offer. The only problem about this is that prevention is better than cure. We need easier access to our GPs (abominable in Marple) and shorter waiting lists for subsequent care which prevents conditions becoming critical.
Labour should admit that tax increases are inevitable if the NHS is to survive and provide a satisfactory service. Labour should state that any NHS services which are privatised will be immediately nationalised and taken back into the NHS fold with no compensation to those companies which annex parts of the NHS but which ultimately see the sick as a source of profits.
As desirable as it is to keep out the Tories, no-one should now believe the LibDems offer a future. The solemn pledge made by the LibDems at the last election and which is now being made yet again is that you must vote LibDem to keep out the Tories. This was the solemn pledge made by Andrew Stunnell prior to the last election and his first action as an MP was to integrate into the LibDems into the Conservative Party to facilitate destruction of public services for five years. He has now received his knighthood for his betrayal of the people of Marple . The yellow diamonds are popping up but I am incredulous that anyone should ever be willing to trust the LibDems again.
Perhaps Ladbrookes should be putting up a candidate. You can be sure that they will not only balance the books, they will still have people stupid enough to be propping up their business in five years time in the same way as people in Marple seem to stupid enough to continue to support the LibDems. There has been absolutely nothing to inspire from the established political parties. Could Ladbrookes do any worse?
-
Well I never! Just had my rant about tne political parties and the NHS and look what has appeared in my emails from 38degrees:
We’ve just caught a glimpse of the worst case scenario for our NHS. One of Britain’s leading doctors has just said that patients could have to pay for basic medical care after the election. He’s warning that politicians could “destroy the ultimate ethos of the NHS” by introducing fees and charges for NHS services like GP appointments. [1]
Our NHS was founded on the belief that everyone - rich or poor - should get the care they need. That principle is now in danger.
A huge petition now could force all political parties to promise they’ll never introduce charges in the NHS. If 38 Degrees members kick up a huge fuss now, parties will know they can’t sneak this through. But we haven’t got long to get them to rule this out - in the next few days, parties will be deciding on their final election promises. This could be one of them. Will you add your name?
SIGN THE PETITION
We rely on the NHS at the best and worst moments of our life. It has to be free at the point of use so it’s there for us all when we need it. Imagine waiting until payday to make a GP appointment for your child, or taking out a bank loan to have cancer treatment. That’s not the NHS as we know it.
Every single signature on the petition means more pressure on politicians to rule out charging us for healthcare. They know the public won't stand for broken election promises. If we can force party leaders to promise to rule out NHS charges now, we can hold them to it later.
Please sign the petition now to keep our NHS free when we need it:
SIGN THE PETITION
Thanks for being involved,
Amy, Bex, India, Laura and the 38 Degrees team
-
So you trust unaccountable politicans who work for 38 degrees but not those electable and accountable. Strange
-
A fair point.
..... but can all of the doctors be wrong?
Senior doctors assess government’s record on NHS – letter to Guardian in full
More than 100 senior health professionals write in a personal capacity outlining their view of how the NHS in England has fared under the coalition
Letters
Tuesday 7 April 2015 19.29 BST Last modified on Wednesday 8 April 2015 00.06 BST
After five years of a government which pledged to protect the NHS, this election campaign makes it timely to assess its stewardship, since 2010, of England’s most precious institution. Our verdict, as doctors working in and for the NHS, is that history will judge that this administration’s record is characterised by broken promises, reductions in necessary funding, and destructive legislation, which leaves health services weaker, more fragmented, and less able to perform their vital role than at any time in the NHS’s history.
In short, the coalition has failed to keep its NHS pledges.
The 2012 Health and Social Care Act is already leading to the rapid and unwanted expansion of the role of commercial companies in the NHS. Lansley’s Act is denationalising healthcare because the abolition of the duty to provide an NHS throughout England abdicates government responsibility for universal services to ad hoc bodies (such as clinical commissioning groups) and competitive markets controlled by private-sector-dominated quangos.
In particular, the squeeze on services is hitting patients. People may be unaware that under the coalition, dozens of Accident & Emergency departments and maternity units have been closed or earmarked for closure or downgrading. In addition, 51 NHS walk-in centres have been closed or downgraded in this time, and more than 60 ambulance stations have shut and more than 100 general practices are at risk of closure.
The core infrastructure of the NHS is also being eroded with the closure of hospitals and thousands of NHS beds since 2010.
Mental health and primary care are faring no better – with both in disarray due to funding cuts and multiple reorganisations driven by ideology, not what works. Public health has been wrenched out of the NHS, where it held the ring for coordinated and equitable services for so long.
In September 2014, the Royal College of General Practitioners said that the wait to see a GP is a “national crisis”.
In England the waiting list to see a specialist stands at 3 million people, and in December 2014 NHS England estimated that nearly 250,000 more patients were waiting for treatment across England who are not on the official waiting list.
Throughout England, patients have been left queueing in ambulances and NHS trusts have resorted to erecting tents in hospital car parks to deal with unmet need.
A&E target waiting times have not been met for a year, and are at the worst levels for more than a decade; and elderly, vulnerable patients are marooned in hospital because our colleagues in social care have no money or staff to provide much-needed services at home.
Funding reductions for local authorities (in some places reductions as high as 40%) have undermined the viability of many local authority social care services across England. This has resulted in more patients arriving at A&E and more patients trapped in hospital as the necessary social care support needed to ensure their safe discharge is no longer there.
The NHS is withering away, and if things carry on as they are then in future people will be denied care they once had under the NHS and have to pay more for health services. Privatisation not only threatens coordinated services but also jeopardises training of our future healthcare providers and medical research, particularly that of public health.
Given the obvious pressures on the NHS over the last five years, and growing public concern that health services now facing a very uncertain future, we are left with little doubt that the current government’s policies have undermined and weakened the NHS.
The way forward is clear: abolish all the damaging sections of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that fragment care and push the NHS towards a market-driven, “out-for-tender” mentality where care is provided by the lowest bidder. Reversing this costly and inefficient market bureaucracy alone will save significant sums. Above all, the secretary of state’s duty to provide an NHS throughout England must be reinstated, as in Scotland and Wales.
As medical and public health professionals our primary concern is for all patients.
We invite voters to consider carefully how the NHS has fared over the last five years, and to use their vote to ensure that the NHS in England is reinstated.
Dr Sheila Abdullah general practitioner (retired)
Dr Sheila Adam former deputy chief medical officer for England
Dr Gwen Adshead consultant psychiatrist
Prof George Alberti emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Newcastle
Dr James Anderson consultant psychiatrist
Prof Sabarantnam Arulkumaran former president Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Prof John Ashton retired director of public health
Dr Ashok Atrey GP
Dr Helen Bailey physician in Sexual Health and HIV
Dr Arun Bakshi emeritus consultant physician, Isle of Man
Dr JS Bamrah consultant psychiatrist
Mr Dipak Banerjee retired consultant opthalmologist
Dr Roger Banks psychiatrist in intellectual disability, former vice-president Royal College of Psychiatrists
Dr Helen Bantock senior lecturer and consultant paediatrician
Dr David Bareford retired consultant haemotologist
Dr Vijay Bathla GP
Dr Naomi Beer GP partner
Prof Richard Bentall professor of clinical psychology, University of Liverpool
Dr Morris Bernadt retired consultant psychiatrist
Dr Naureen Bhatti GP and associate dean, London Professional Support Unit
Prof Dinesh Bhugra consultant psychiatrist and former president Royal College of Psychiatrists
Dr Christopher Birt University of Liverpool and Christie hospital, Manchester
Dr Kambiz Boomla GP and former chair City and East London Local Medical Committee
Dr Carol Brayne
Dr Raymond Brown consultant paediatrician
Dr Laurence Buckman GP and former chair UK General Practitioners Committee
Dr Chris Burns-Cox emeritus consultant physician, Bristol
Dr Marta Buszewicz GP and senior lecturer in general practice
Prof Simon Capewell professor of public health, University of Liverpool
Dr Lucy Carter GP
Dr Lyn Challands retired GP
Professor Sir Iain Chalmers coordinator, James Lind Initiative
Dr Kailash Chand GP and former NHS trust chair
Dr Connie Chen GP clinical lead for prescribing and child health, Central Manchester CCG
Prof Carolyn Chew-Graham
Dr Jonathan Coates GP
Dr Tom Coffee GP
Prof Michel Coleman professor of epidemiology
Prof Peter Crome emeritus professor
Dr Richard Cunningham consultant microbiologist
Dr Jack Czauderna retired GP
Dr Jonathan Dare retired consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist, Maudsley hospital
Dr Susan Davies consultant histopathologist
Dr Paquita de Zulueta honorary senior clinical lecturer, Imperial College London
Dr Nicholas Dennis retired, clinical genetics
Dr Harpal Dhingra GP, Albrighton
Professor Paola Domizio pathology education
Dr Edgar Dorman consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, London
Dr Ross Dyer-Smith clinical lead, Lambeth CCG director
Dr David Elliman consultant, community child health
Dr Katrina Erskine consultant gynaecology and obstetrics, Homerton University hospital, London
Dr George Farrelly GP
Dr Katherine Fielder GP
Dr Miriam Fine accident and emergency
Dr Peter Fisher retired consultant physician
Dr Paul Fleming consultant anaesthetist
Dr Lindsay Forbes senior lecturer in cancer and public health
Prof Robbie Foy professor of primary care, University of Leeds
Dr Andrea Franks consultant dermatologist, Chester
Dr Robert Galloway accident and emergency
Prof Linda Gask emirita professor of primary care psychiatry, University Of Manchester
Dr Clare Gerada GP and former chair, Royal College of General Practitioners
Dr Colin Godber consultant old age psychiatry
Dr Michael Gopfert
Dr Marilyn Graham general practitioner
Prof Trisha Greenhalgh professor of primary care, University of Oxford
Dr Rex Haigh consultant psychiatrist in medical psychotherapy
Dr Phil Hammond associate specialist paediatric chronic fatigue service, Bath
Dr MG Harrington consultant geriatrician
Dr David Hawkins consultant physician
Dr Iona Heath GP and former president, Royal College Of General Practitioners
Dr Robert Hugo consultant psychiatrist
Dr Christopher Jenkins GP
Prof Roger Jones editor, British Journal of General Practice, emeritus professor of general practice, King’s College, London
Dr Coral Jones GP
Dr Fred Kavalier GP
Dr Mohammed Salah Khalifa GP
Dr Surendra Kumar GP
Dr Dianne Levevre consultant psychiatrist
Dr Jasvinder Singh Lidder consultant psychiatrist
Prof Karina Lovell professor of mental health
Dr Simon Lowes specialist registrar clinical radiology
Dr Sahira Mahmood locum GP
Dr Nick Mann GP and NHS osteopath
Dr Chris Manning convener Action for NHS Wellbeing
Prof Martin McKee professor of European public health
Dr Helene McKeon GP
Dr John Middleton independent public health physician
Dr Sally Mitchison retired consultant psychiatrist
Dr Roger Neighbour GP and former president, Royal College of General Practitioners
Dr Julia Nelki child psychiatrist Cheshire & Wirral Partnership Trust
Dr David Nicholl consultant neurologist
Dr Maureen O’Leary retired consultant psychiatrist
Dr Tony O’Sullivan consultant paediatrician, Kaleidoscope – Lewisham Centre for Children & Young People
Dr Sophia Osbourne GP
Dr David Owen
Dr Tim Paine former president, National Association for Patient Participation
Prof Allyson Pollock professor of public health
Prof Hilary Powers professor of nutritional biochemistry and head of oncology, University of Sheffield
Dr Umesh Prabhu consultant paediatrician
Dr Braham Prashara GP
Dr Shibley Rahman academic in dementia, Primrose Hill
Dr Dan Rainbow GP and locality commissioner
Anne Read consultant psychiatrist
Dr Paul Revell consultant haematologist
Dr Brian Rossiter retired consultant physician
Dr Yvette Saldanha GP trainer
Dr Alex Samuel senior lecturer in public health, University of Liverpool
Professor Wendy Savage retired senior lecturer in obstetrics and gynaecology
Dr Gabriele Scally public health consultant
Dr Parveen Sharma consultant psychiatrist
Mr Virender Sharma consultant ENT Surgeon
Dr Caroline Shulman GP for homeless and inclusion health, Kings Health Partners
Dr Kamal Sidhu GP
Dr Martin Siebert GP
Dr Brian Silk
Dr Ian Sinclair general practitioner (retired)
Dr Surinder Singh GP
Dr Francis Skiffington retired consultant community paediatrican
Dr Alison Smailes GP
Dr Donatella Soldi community paediatrician
Mr Virender Soni ophthalmologist
Dr Miranda Splitt consultant geriatrician
Dr John Sweeney consultant physician
Dr RL Symonds consultant psychiatrist
Prof Raymond Tallis emeritus professor of geriatric medicine, University of Manchester
Dr Jonathon Tomlinson GP
Dr Charlie Tomson consultant nephrologist
Dr David Tomson GP
Dr Norman Traub former consultant haematologist, Southend hospital
Dr Asha Umrawsingh emergency care doctor, Lewisham University hospital
Dr Devaraja Vedakkalur GP
Dr Ian Walton GP
Dr Fiona Watson GP
Dr Eric Watts retired consultant haemotologist and clinical director
Prof Jonathon Weber professor of infectious diseases, Imperial College London
Dr Tara Weeramanthri GP
Dr Sian Williams consultant in occupational medicine
Dr David Wrigley GP
Dr Luke Zander retired GP
Dr Patrick Zentler-Munro retired consultant physician
-
Yes they can be wrong and are in fact the major beneficiary's of the health service, regularly holding it to ramson.
Trust no one particularly ex local giovernment officers
-
What a cynical response from Wheels. To be sure, the Tories and doctors opposed Labour's setting up of the NHS after the war, but to put one's head in the sand regarding this warning by 100 health professionals is bizarre. The Tories are now desperately trying to up their offer to the electorate, but cannot be trusted. There will be challenges galore ahead, but the Conservative's only desire is to cherry-pick services for sale to their financial mates and backers. The LibDems have colluded with them and have shown their hand. The NHS is Labour's brainchild and Labour remains our best hope of saving it.
-
Well my understanding is that the NHS was a Liberal brainchild merely introduced by Labour.
But you miss my point totally doctors Consultants and GP s have for many years milked the NHS indeed we might argue that we don't have an National HS but rather a set of fragmented services which come together under one banner but which are certainly not one service. GPs are essential private business charging what might be considered well over the odds for their services. Indeed the last Labour Govt rewarded them excessively at the expense of the patients.
So no I don't trust the view of those who have been shown to be the major beneficiaries of the service.
-
Breaking news (well, four days ago but this is Marple!)... The Green Party have managed to cobble together the £500 and ten supporters needed for a nomination. Graham Reid is their man. I expect the intrepid newshounds on this board will be running background checks on his local credentials as we speak. I'm assuming he has some, unless it's a different Graham Reid to the Marple South 2014 local election candidate. Nominations close on Thursday at 4 p.m. if anyone else fancies their chances.
I used to work with Graham at Marple sorting office where he was the Cwu representative.
He won`t be getting my vote but good on him for standing.
-
100 Labour-supporting doctors write letter accusing Tories of wanting to "destroy" the NHS. What a surprise. Usual suspects on the list including Dr Chand from Tameside who seems to crop up everywhere. I wonder if any of them are from Mid Staffs?
-
As noted above and in the interests of balance, I asked William Wragg to supply some CV details and explain why he wanted to be our local MP. I did this via the contacts link on his website. The reply came in just over a week. In my opinion, there is quite a contrast to Lisa Smart's evasive response. Mr. Wragg seems to have given straight answers to straight questions. Hardly like a politician at all, you might say. I've copied the response below, so you can make your own minds up.
Thank you for taking time to contact me. Please see below for my responses to your questions
What is your education background?
I have attended local state schools.
A levels: English Language, History, Physics and Maths
Degree: History (1st Class Hons) University of Manchester
PGCE- Primary This was as part of the Teach First Programme I attended.
Why I went into Teaching
I have always had a passion and motivation to learn from being very young. This has included lots of reading from a very young age. Attending school was always very enjoyable and worthwhile.
My first job in education was as a learning mentor with children needing extra support. It was at this point I made the decision to go into teaching. I also worked part time as a home tutor supporting students to GCSE and A level standard.
As well as working in education I have been a school Governor at Hazel Grove Primary School for 7 years. I feel very privileged to have served as a governor at this particular school as it was one of the schools I attended.
Why do you Want to be Our MP?
I passionately want to become an MP so that I can represent residents and can honestly say I do not want to be a MP anywhere else. I have lived in the Hazel Grove constituency all my life so, I understand the area well and I want to make our area a better place to live. If I am elected, you will be represented by a fellow local resident, who shares the concerns of local people.
I was elected as a Conservative Councillor in the Hazel Grove Ward in 2011 . I have worked hard as a community campaigner, having organised successful petitions and led campaigns to protect local bus routes, instigated park refurbishment and retained school crossing patrols. I was the first Conservative councillor to be elected for Hazel Grove ward since 1992, with an 8.6% swing from the Liberal Democrats.
My experience as a councillor has included being a member of the Children's and Young People Scrutiny Committee as well as the Greater Manchester Transport Committee. I have achieved a lot in local politics and have worked really hard to do this. I want to be a strong voice in parliament and would consider it an absolute honour to represent all locals residents.
Please do let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Best Wishes
William.
-
Yes they can be wrong and are in fact the major beneficiary's of the health service, regularly holding it to ransom.
I wonder if you would be quite so critical of the NHS doctors if you were to be knocked off your bike tomorrow or suffered sudden serious illness? Is the good news is that you would hold your head high with the pride due to the fact that you would be taken away by a private ambulance to receive private care at a private hospital in protest at the NHS Consultants' 'regularly holding it (the NHS) to ransom/quote 'milking the system' or would you be saying an unseen prayer of thanks that you were being sped post hast down Offerton Road in an ambulance to Stepping Hill to be treated by the doctors who you say hold the NHS to ransom?
-
Well I haven't actually ridden a great deal since my cancer diagnosis last year but that aside the point I was making which I will try again to get over again is that our doctors particularly GPs should be employees of the NHS as are nurses, radiographers, porters etc. They should not be essentially small business people who via their contracts hold the NHS to ransom. Many GPs work from unsuitable building from which they refuse to move as they prefer to sit on it as their pension.
Given the clear self interrest of Consultants and GPs I don't think I want to be lectured at by them.
-
Sorry to disappoint Disgusted of Marple (post above), but I won't be wasting time investigating the Green Party, UKIP or Monster Raving Loony Party candidates. I am however very glad and proud that we have an electoral system where people can and do stand up to be counted for what they believe in. Even if it is bonkers.
My view is that there are only two who stand any chance of winning here. Indeed, the Conservatives must fancy their chances as my retired father, who amuses himself by dropping into the campaign headquarters of each camp in turn to ask awkward questions, has been informed by the Blue team that they have identified us as a winnable seat and are shortly to inundate us with electoral propaganda. The Orange team must have got wind of this, as only this afternoon I got a begging email from Ms. Smart with a personal request to bolster her campaign funds. Clicking through to the campaign website, I am informed that £500 will secure a special invitation to a post-election dinner with Lisa herself. Quite apart from what my wife would think, I am given to speculate whether in the event of her losing, she would fulfil her end of the deal; posters above have raised suspicions that she might disappear from view if she isn't victorious.
Joking aside, Ms. Smart would have stood a better chance of a campaign contribution from me if she had answered the questions I asked instead of harvesting my email address for the distribution of spam.
I still haven't decided who to vote for and hope to attend a hustings. Any suggestions for questions?
-
Still trying to follow it and not yet made my mind up. In terms of posters, leaflets and candidates. So far, nothing from Ukip or Greens, very little from Labour, lots from Conservatives and LibDems.
-
Mellorite,
I have no idea what Lisa Smart might do if she were not to win Hazel Grove, but I do think we have to be realistic, she gave up her job to move here to fight the seat, so she would have to find employment and who knows where that takes any of us.
I am sure you didn't mean to be unfair in your comments.
-
I used to work with Graham at Marple sorting office where he was the Cwu representative.
He won`t be getting my vote but good on him for standing.
Appreciate that, thanks. Just because he's another who "can't win here" (usually accompanied by geometrically inaccurate bar chart), doesn't mean we should all disregard him altogether.
-
Still trying to follow it and not yet made my mind up. In terms of posters, leaflets and candidates. So far, nothing from Ukip or Greens, very little from Labour, lots from Conservatives and LibDems
Two more possible hustings opportunities to see the candidates in action are:
Dialstone Lane Methodist Church: Sat 18th April: 10.00am Dialstone Lane Methodist Church, 161 Dialstone Lane, Offerton, Stockport SK2 7LQ
Churches Together in Marple: Thurs 23rd April: 7.30pm Marple Methodist Church, Church Lane, Stockport SK6 7AY
I've emailed the Marple Church to see if the general public are welcome to attend and will let you know the response.
-
I asked William Wragg to supply some CV details and explain why he wanted to be our local MP.... The reply came in just over a week. In my opinion, there is quite a contrast to Lisa Smart's evasive response. Mr. Wragg seems to have given straight answers to straight questions.
I think Mellorite's probing questions to these two candidates have flushed out some interesting and contrasting responses, and we should be grateful to her/him for that.
That said, I think we should think carefully before basing our vote simply on candidates' readiness to give honest answers regarding their personal background, and then to reel off a model reply, as instructed by party headquarters, which advises candidates to concentrate on 'pavement politics' - i.e. trivial local issues - and no doubt all the parties provide similar advice. So Mr Wragg trots out this bit:
I have worked hard as a community campaigner, having organised successful petitions and led campaigns to protect local bus routes, instigated park refurbishment and retained school crossing patrols.
Jolly good, but where does he stand on the big issues, which are what counts when you are an MP. On the economy, on the NHS, on education, on defence, on the EU and immigration, on law and order, on reforming the House of Lords? These are the things that matter, and on which we should be basing our votes, IMHO.
As Tony Benn used to say 'it's the issuesh, not the pershonalities.'
-
I'd like to answer the concerns some of you have about not receiving leaflets from UKIP (I'm fairly sure it will be the same for the greens)
Most of the area should now have had a leaflet and before the election at least one more (hopefully 2) will be coming out.
The reason I can't match the the Libdems and torys on leaflets is the cost. They have both spent tens of thousands on the campaign. As a new party we don't have that level of money, and leaflets are being paid for by the local candidates and myself, again we are hand delivering them with volunteers as it costs a fair bit to get them delivered.
Just to give an idea of costs an A4 letter that will be going out to the whole constituency cost £930.
We are also canvassing, however with 37500 houses in the constituency this takes some time but we are out and working hard. If anyone wants to get in touch please feel free to contact me.
Hopefully this has helped explain the situation.
-
... I am informed that £500 will secure a special invitation to a post-election dinner with Lisa herself...
I wonder how much one would have to donate to get an MBE, KBE etc
-
It doesn't take much to put up a few posters, you have to have the sites to put them up though and I haven't seen one single UKIP poster.
Conversely I notice that there are a couple of farmer's fields festooned with Conservative posters. The Conservative posters look like the posters for the local estate agent and they don't stand out at all.
As far as issues and personalities are concerned, it is a bit of both. I certainly don't wish to have dinner with Lisa for free let alone for £500.00. I think that such a gimmick is derisory and devalues the campaign and her judgement in making such an offer.
I was speaking to somebody who went to the Council Meeting last week. Of our local Councillors SA,MC & KD ALL spoke, William Wragg didn't. According to my friend (she attends a lot of Council meetings, I know but it's her life) he rarely does, in fact she has never heard him once and she says that she has been to about 20 council meetings in the last four years. I find that a concern for me in relation to somebody who wants to be our MP.
Of course he may have spoken at the one's that she didn't attend. He's been a Councillor since May 2011, does anybody out there actually know how many times he has spoken and what his activity rate has been on the Council ?
There doesn't seem much point in having an MP that doesn't speak.
-
SOMSeomne I know who attends every Councilm eeting tells me she also can't recall him making any contribution to the Council. He is not restanding for Council this year I assume because he has discovered its not for him
-
There is another Hustings at St Chad's Romiley on Sunday 19th April.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It doesn't take much to put up a few posters, you have to have the sites to put them up though and I haven't seen one single UKIP poster
We did start to put the garden banners up on Thursday in Marple but had to stop as a number were stolen/destroyed. (Same day/night) and the police have had to get involved, this has caused a number of supporters to be worried they will be targeted if they put one up in their garden.
We will be putting more up this coming week however.
-
An alternative poll. I counted the private houses with posters outside I could spot between Stepping Hill & home on the 375 bus route this morning, probably a fair cross section of the constituency:
Lib Dem 16
Labour 4
Conservative 3
UKOP 1
-
Funnily enough, I've just conducted the same poll along Strines Road, from Marple to Haigh Bar.
Lib Dems 11
Labour Nil
Conservative Nil
UKIP Nil
Greens Nil
Come on boys!
-
Straw polls of posters outside houses are all very well. Rose Hill was a sea of orange prior to the LibDem coalition helped the Tories to destroy our NHS, our roads and public transport subsidies for the trains, and most of all the belief five years ago until two days after the election that the LibDems offered a plausible alternative to the Conservatives and Labour. What is most noticeable is the massive reduction in orange diamonds of betrayed LibDem supporters. The 'Labour cannot win here' mantra is nonsense because a large part of the 2010 Libdem vote were voters who had only one wish and that that wish was to keep out the Conservatives. They will not vote LibDem again. Conservatives knew what was written on the label and will vote Conservative again and some will defect to UKIP. If people in Marple disenchanted by the LibDem government oppose the Tories by voting Labour, the LibDems could be the candidate for the third place.
-
Everybody knows all this Rambler. It has all been said a thousand times and more, you make no revelations whatsoever and it is all complete conjecture on your part.
What you say may come to pass who knows?
The LibDems have lost support since the coalition, the whole country knows that. The question is, have they lost enough to lose the seat in HG?
I merely point out that they seem to be winning the poster battle. So if they are heading for defeat they don't seem to know it.
-
What is most noticeable is the massive reduction in orange diamonds of betrayed LibDem supporters.
That's not my impression - there seems to be as much orange around here as there ever was.
the LibDems could be the candidate for the third place.
Whistling in the dark, I think. ;)
-
Sorry if it's on another thread already, but has it now been confirmed that the Greens are standing in HG?
-
Sorry if it's on another thread already, but has it now been confirmed that the Greens are standing in HG?
I've added Graham to the list at the start of this thread and will add him to the poll. he is welcome to make a statement as the other candidates have but at the moment I haven't found an email address or twitter account to contact him about it. If anyone can help with more details, please do. Here's what I've found so far:
http://stockport.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/04/02/hazel-grove-candidate-unveiled/
-
As this forum's resident bookie-watcher, I though this might be of interest: http://bettingzone.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/hazel-grove/winning-party
It's not the odds themselves that are particularly interesting - those show no change, with the Lib Dems clear favourite. But if you scroll down to the pie chart, it shows that a remarkable 57% of all bets in Hazel Grove have been placed on UKIP! So do some people know something the the rest of us don't........ :o
-
Straw polls of posters outside houses are all very well. Rose Hill was a sea of orange prior to the LibDem coalition helped the Tories to destroy our NHS, our roads and public transport subsidies for the trains, and most of all the belief five years ago until two days after the election that the LibDems offered a plausible alternative to the Conservatives and Labour. What is most noticeable is the massive reduction in orange diamonds of betrayed LibDem supporters. The 'Labour cannot win here' mantra is nonsense because a large part of the 2010 Libdem vote were voters who had only one wish and that that wish was to keep out the Conservatives. They will not vote LibDem again. Conservatives knew what was written on the label and will vote Conservative again and some will defect to UKIP. If people in Marple disenchanted by the LibDem government oppose the Tories by voting Labour, the LibDems could be the candidate for the third place.
I voted Lib Dem Marplerambler, I was thrilled with their coalition partnership with the Conservatives. Never assume everyone votes in the same way as you.
It's essential as an employer that Labour never destroy the economy again so if I were to vote Smart, I'd be hoping she sticks with the coalition.
-
I am with you Duke, I will vote Lib Dem. No surprise there I expect. I actually think they have done an outstanding job in coalition. In fact I think the coalition as a hole has done exceedingly well other than cuts to local goverment. Marplerambler I think Duke is correct in that you cannot assume that because your "right" everyone agrees with you. We in Marple in the main don't.
-
The increased number of labour posters is really noticeable this time. In elections gone by you'd do well to spot any at all. Mr Wragg will be pleased.
The coalition government has done an outstanding job on the economy, compared to which everything else is a bit of a sideshow. There are pledges and politicking, and there is the real world, and in the real world they have been an excellent government.
-
The increased number of labour posters is really noticeable this time. In elections gone by you'd do well to spot any at all. Mr Wragg will be pleased.
The coalition government has done an outstanding job on the economy, compared to which everything else is a bit of a sideshow. There are pledges and politicking, and there is the real world, and in the real world they have been an excellent government.
Henry an increase poster display is a normal tactic for a week third or fourth party. The vast majority of Labour posters will be previously identified Labour members and supporters. A tactic of a party too weak to do very much and who will not win is to get posters out to give the impression of support in the hope of building for the future. It says nothing about the election whatsoever.
-
Just spotted a chap on Market Street wearing a bright red T shirt with the slogan "Lisa Smart - Putney Reject".....
-
I think the coalition as a hole
I think of it as that as well, and the sooner it is buried in that hole the better.
-
Just spotted a chap on Market Street wearing a bright red T shirt with the slogan "Lisa Smart - Putney Reject".....
Saw that too. Hoping he is some kind of renegade rather than part of an organised effort. Really wide of the mark, that.
-
It must be the same person that was in the pub the other night, he was wearing that tee shirt and he had a Del boy mask on.
I think as Disgusted said, he is some sort of renegade. I can't see it being any of the opposition parties, it's a tied on vote loser if it came out.
Three weeks to go and I've still not made my mind up. Nothing to go off yet. As I drive about, not seen a Ukip poster, a few labour ones around, Conservatives appear to be winning poster war in North but Lib Dems winning easily in south, although not really sure where the border is.
Interesting fact that I may have published before, if I have, apologies for repetition.
650 MP'S in Westminster, how many women? 148, ratio 3+ to 1, bit like our candidates. That in itself might be a good enough reason to vote for Lisa.
-
The coalition government has done an outstanding job on the economy
The present government has spectacularly failed to achieve its own stated objective of eliminating the budget deficit within the lifetime of this parliament. How can anyone, even a passionate Tory supporter, call that 'an outstanding job'!
As for this: everything else is a bit of a sideshow.
Let's just take one issue: the safeguarding of the United Kingdom. Last September David Cameron came close to having to tell the Queen that her realm was falling apart. He got away with it then, but he remains a weak leader who regularly has sand kicked in his face by the bully boys on his right wing. As a result, he has been forced to commit to a referendum on EU membership in 2017. If that occurs, and if (as is quite possible) England votes to leave the EU but Scotland votes to stay, there will be another Scottish referendum and this time the result will be different. And David Cameron, leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, will go down in history as the man who presided over the end of the United Kingdom. That's not a sideshow!
The more I see of Cameron, the more I admire Margaret Thatcher.
-
But, Simone, how would the Identity Politics test run if William Wragg was disabled? Does being disabled trump being a woman? What if the UKIP a bloke was from an ethnic minority? Would that trump being disabled etc etc etc etc...........
-
It's a good point that you make BG.
We've established that Lisa is a woman, but what if she was black, disabled and lesbian?
The struggle for me is to separate one part from another. So I'm doing it by candidate and that's proving just as difficult.
-
I think of it as that as well, and the sooner it is buried in that hole the better.
You beat me to it Ian B!
-
The struggle for me is to separate one part from another. So I'm doing it by candidate and that's proving just as difficult.
Basically they're all good people who will do their best for their constituents. However they will all be told by they party whip how vote on important matters. So the only realistic way to vote is on party politics. At the end of the day you are voting for a political party, and how you vote will affect the whole population, not just Hazel Grove.
-
Exactly Harry, and therein lies a big part of the dilemma.
That is the reason for this topic's existence in the first place.
-
Basically they're all good people who will do their best for their constituents. However they will all be told by they party whip how vote on important matters. So the only realistic way to vote is on party politics. At the end of the day you are voting for a political party, and how you vote will affect the whole population, not just Hazel Grove.
Spot on, I think. As individuals I'm sure all our local candidates are well-intentioned and would represent us conscientiously. And it would surely be quite wrong to vote on the grounds of someone's gender. So it comes down to the respective policies of the parties, and - just as important - their competence. After all, there's no point in voting for someone because they stand for something you believe in, if they then fail to implement it effectively once they are elected.
That's the problem with the Tories. One may agree with some of their policies - who could disagree with deficit reduction, for example - but they have let themselves down through weak leadership and poor political judgement.
-
Dave,
You can't tell people that they are ''wrong' to vote in a particular way for a particular reason. It is their vote (not yours) and they can vote for whosoever they wish and for the most obscure reason that they choose, if they do choose.
-
As a Mellor Resident living at the very edge of the constituency, I realised I was unlikely to be called by any prospective candidate. I decided to go and meet each candidate and put to them the same questions. Some of the readers of this thread may find the candidates responses interesting. Read more here: https://mellorview.wordpress.com/ (https://mellorview.wordpress.com/)
-
Had a quick look at your website Moorendman.
Enjoyed the bit from 'The Masque of Anarchy' not seen nor heard that for 50 years, tremendous.
Question, why is Michael Taylor first? His party is not incumbent, it's not alphabetical, It's not Lady's first, is he the oldest, the youngest, so why?
Call me cynical but do I sense some kind of vested interest or some kind of attempt at manipulation here?
-
Basically they're all good people who will do their best for their constituents. However they will all be told by they party whip how vote on important matters. So the only realistic way to vote is on party politics. At the end of the day you are voting for a political party, and how you vote will affect the whole population, not just Hazel Grove.
This is why we get stuck with the politicians we do. I wish people would remember that while all the candidates belong to political parties, that does not mean they represent those parties in the commons. They don't. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a Conservative MP, or a Labour MP, or a Lib Dem MP. They are all (or will be when they are elected) simply members of parliament. Yes, there is a serious problem with the disgraceful system of party whips (which people have been complaining about for centuries), but fundamentally, we are voting for a person, not a party and for me and for many people there are candidates of a political party I would vote for and others from the same party I wouldn't vote for if in a million years. That's why it's so important to hear what the individual candidates say. If people vote for a candidate simply because he or she belongs to a particular party, even though the candidate holds views far removed from ones own, it is no wonder we get the sorts of parliaments we do.
I do wish we could get rid of party names on the ballot paper. It would at least be a visible reminder to voters that they are not voting for a party. I also wish we had a few independent candidates too. If people voted only for candidates who held views they support, we would have a very different house of commons.
We should also remember that what happens elsewhere is not relevant to the election here. We are only concerned with who represents the constituency of Hazel Grove and nothing else.
-
Question, why is Michael Taylor first? His party is not incumbent, it's not alphabetical, It's not Lady's first, is he the oldest, the youngest, so why?
Call me cynical but do I sense some kind of vested interest or some kind of attempt at manipulation here?
No I wont call you cynical, but I might think you have conspiracy theorist tendencies ;) You can think all you want about vested interest but I would doubt they would all agreed to have met me if they thought so. I could decline to explain but that might add to your insecurities. The posts will be made in the order I interviewed each candidate. ( and he is the oldest too , but thats a coincidence. )
-
I have just been to the hustings at St Chad's in Romiley and each candidate spoke respectfully and honestly (I believe). As has been said already in this thread each would serve their constituents well but the party politics question will inform my eventual decision on who to give my vote. There is no point in voting for the best person if this might bring in a government I don't want.
-
Moorendman,
No, not 'conspiracy theorist tendencies,' just suspicions about Tory Bloggers.
-
Dave,
You can't tell people that they are ''wrong' to vote in a particular way for a particular reason. It is their vote (not yours) and they can vote for whosoever they wish and for the most obscure reason that they choose, if they do choose.
OK Simone, fair comment. So let's say it's just pointless (rather than 'wrong') to vote for someone on the grounds of their gender - just as it would be pointless to vote for them because of the colour of their hair or whether they wear glasses. A man is no more or less likely to be a good MP than a woman, obviously.
As for this:
This is why we get stuck with the politicians we do. I wish people would remember that while all the candidates belong to political parties, that does not mean they represent those parties in the commons. They don't. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a Conservative MP, or a Labour MP, or a Lib Dem MP. They are all (or will be when they are elected) simply members of parliament. Yes, there is a serious problem with the disgraceful system of party whips (which people have been complaining about for centuries), but fundamentally, we are voting for a person, not a party and for me and for many people there are candidates of a political party I would vote for and others from the same party I wouldn't vote for if in a million years. That's why it's so important to hear what the individual candidates say. If people vote for a candidate simply because he or she belongs to a particular party, even though the candidate holds views far removed from ones own, it is no wonder we get the sorts of parliaments we do.
I do wish we could get rid of party names on the ballot paper. It would at least be a visible reminder to voters that they are not voting for a party. I also wish we had a few independent candidates too. If people voted only for candidates who held views they support, we would have a very different house of commons.
We should also remember that what happens elsewhere is not relevant to the election here. We are only concerned with who represents the constituency of Hazel Grove and nothing else.
I heard Brian May of Queen making a similar point on the radio yesterday, and my first thought was that he should stick to playing the guitar! I understand the point, and there's a lot wrong with the whipping system in parliament, but the alternative would be chaos. And Condate is surely wrong to suggest that people vote for candidates who 'hold views far removed from their own'. Sure, we might not agree with a candidate on absolutely everything, but broadly speaking, people will either:
a) vote for a candidate whose views are closest to theirs, or
b) vote for a candidate who is most likely to keep out another candidate whose views are indeed 'far removed from their own' (i.e. a tactical vote).
As Wnston Churchill famously said, 'democracy is the worst from of government, except for all the others'. ;)
-
I don't really wish to make this a feminist issue, for one thing I don't really consider myself to be a feminist.
However, you would say what you've just said wouldn't you Dave. Your gender has got 450 representatives in Westminster whereas mine has got 148.
In fact, it is not that long ago we had none and yours had all the seats, every single one of them.
-
And Condate is surely wrong to suggest that people vote for candidates who 'hold views far removed from their own'.
What I mean by this is that I have come across many people (not in the Hazel Grove constituency; I've only lived here for just under five years) who complain bitterly about the views of the Conservative candidate which they strongly oppose, but they plan to vote for them anyway and similarly, many people who complain bitterly about the views of the Labour candidate which they strongly oppose, but they plan to vote for them anyway. Or course, it could be argued that such people should join the appropriate party and have a say in who the candidate is, but that's not how candidates are chosen these days. Each of the main parties (and I can't talk about the Lib Dems, as I can count the number of Lib Dem supporters I ever come across on the fingers of half a hand), relies heavily on support from people who hate the current policies of the party. If people stopped voting for candidates from their favoured party if they don't support their views, we might get to a situation where MPs actually represented the views of their constituents.
-
Tory Bloggers? Do you know any Simone? Read the interviews and left MeV know if you detect. Any bias.
-
I don't really consider myself to be a feminist.
Feminism: 'the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities'.
I sign up to that, and I'm amazed that you don't, Simone! But then by this definition, anyone who votes for a candidate on the basis of their gender can't be a feminist, as s/he is denying equality of opportunity to a candidate of the other gender.
-
It all depends Dave, where you seek your definition from but thanks for the research and the homespun sophistry.
Like most people voting in this election, I will make my own mind up and if it means that I vote for the; fairest, tallest, shortest simply because they are one of those, then there it is.
-
It is rather surprising Condate, that you have lived in Hazel Grove Constituency for five years and you can only count the Lib Dem supporters you've come across on one hand. I've lived here much longer than that and the place has always been crawling with them for as long as I can remember.
-
It is rather surprising Condate, that you have lived in Hazel Grove Constituency for five years and you can only count the Lib Dem supporters you've come across on one hand. I've lived here much longer than that and the place has always been crawling with them for as long as I can remember.
They obviously don't talk about politics in this part of the world as much as they do in my old home town (my username is a giveaway as to where that is). Also, I moved here when I got married and have perhaps had less time to discuss politics that I used to. What also suggests this is I've not come across many Conservative, or Labour supporters here either, which it why I talked about my old constituency. Futhermore, I lived in my old home town for over fifty years and got to know a lot more people than I do here and they were not many Lib Dems there. On an unrelated note, before moving here, I lived in three different constituencies, despite not moving home!
-
Condate, I for one am now better informed about Roman place names! Has to go and look it up after your last post.
-
Bit of humour or truth....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
For me it is very hard to separate the candidates, I've seen each of them twice and they all have different individual qualities.
I heave therefore gone back to parties.
The Conservative party is carrying on with its austerity programme which I don't support and I just do not trust them with the NHS.
I've lived through successive Labour governments and every time they leave office, they leave behind a financial mess, which the ,Tories then take out on the poor. I might be prepared to give Labour one more chance but they have not got a glimmer of getting in, in HG so what would be the point of voting for them ?
It is probably coming down to who would make the best coalition partner. A right wing coalition that seeks to be adversarial with Europe at every opportunity fills me with dread but a left wing coalition does the same. If I thought that the LibDems would get enough seats to be a coalition partner, then I
-
To continue.....probably vote for them, but they may not get them.
I need to look at the numbers again and the likely permutations though time is running out.
-
From perusing these forums and listening to the various political debates and orations over the last few months I can see where the electorate have difficulty in knowing who to trust. Even the local candidates come out with many weasel words and economic truths.
Nationally we can be sure that there are only two parties who are vying to become the next government, but who will they sleep with to gain control.
Vote Labour and be sure of another country SNP having the last say.
Vote Liberal Democrat who will jump in bed with anyone to gain some power but currently favour the Conservatives.
Vote Conservative who will invite a rag tag of political opponents to join them, if required, to form a majority.
Vote UKIP who are likely (subject to gaining some MP's) to align with the Conservatives.
Vote Green who are not sure what they would do (except politically destroy a town like Brighton).
In our own constituency the options are a little clearer.
Vote Labour who would be pushed to win here, take votes away from the Liberal Democrats and hand it to Conservative.
Vote Liberal Democrat who will then be likely to prop up a Conservative goverment.
Vote Ukip, again who would be pushed to win here, taking votes away from all the other parties.
Vote Conservative and get Conservative.
I will admit that at the election in 2010 I voted Lib Dems for the sitting MP who had done some good work in the constituency but I am still fuming at him being instrumental in selling us down the river by being one of the senior negotiaters in propping up the Conservatives in a hung parliament along with the LD's reneging on their manifesto to gain power.
Having said all that my decision will probably not be complete until the pencil is poised above the ballot paper.
-
I will admit that at the election in 2010 I voted Lib Dems for the sitting MP who had done some good work in the constituency but I am still fuming at him being instrumental in selling us down the river by being one of the senior negotiaters in propping up the Conservatives in a hung parliament along with the LD's reneging on their manifesto to gain power.
Well you'd better get ready to fume all over again, Prestbury, because in any coalition negotiation (and everyone expects we will have them again) there is a bargaining process, and both parties end up sacrificing bits of their manifesto. It's naive to expect otherwise, I'm afraid.
-
Well you'd better get ready to fume all over again, Prestbury, because in any coalition negotiation (and everyone expects we will have them again) there is a bargaining process, and both parties end up sacrificing bits of their manifesto. It's naive to expect otherwise, I'm afraid.
That's why coalitions are fundamentally undemocratic. Every MP should vote on each issue as they believe to be right and anything which takes away their ability to do that makes a mockery of the election process.
-
It should be an easy decision. Darran Palmer comes across as the best candidate, but William Wragg has the best chance of beating the awful Lisa Smart. I suppose in the end, tactical voting is not really sensible, but the thought of another Liberal Democrat as our MP is horrible.
-
I could not disagree more what your advocating is fundamentally anti democratic. I don't want an MP who makes their own mind up about each issue that seems to me to be receipt for confusion and for those with the loudest voice and most money being able to influence members. I want a member who follows a party line, is bound by the whips of the party I voted for, so I know exactly what I am getting when I vote..
-
Here is my own personal forecast of the result in Hazel Grove. It mirrors the poll results above:
https://mellorview.wordpress.com
I would also like to express my admiration for all the candidates for the commitment and determination they have shown in this campaign.
-
I could not disagree more what your advocating is fundamentally anti democratic. I don't want an MP who makes their own mind up about each issue that seems to me to be receipt for confusion and for those with the loudest voice and most money being able to influence members. I want a member who follows a party line, is bound by the whips of the party I voted for, so I know exactly what I am getting when I vote..
I suppose that shows how different people have different views of what democracy is. To me, the whole point of an election is to choose the man or woman who has views closest to that of the voter. That person may be a member of a political party, but it is the individual's views that matter. I don't want someone who will be able to say "I always voted at my party's call and never thought of thinking for myself at all". If the candidate says "I thing this is right" and then changes to saying "actually I thing it is wrong" simply because the party leadership changes policies, that is not democracy as I understand it.
-
Here is my own personal forecast of the result in Hazel Grove. It mirrors the poll results above:
https://mellorview.wordpress.com
I would also like to express my admiration for all the candidates for the commitment and determination they have shown in this campaign.
For those of you who have not followed the link by @moorendman his prediction is as follows:
Conservative 16,100
Labour 11,425
Lib Dems 10,000
UKIP 3,250
Green 1,000
I think your analysis is skewed. Whilst Michael Taylor has run a very very good campaign, I really don't see him picking up an additional 3000 votes. In the parlance of Game of Thrones "it is known" that Labour can't win in Hazel Grove [currently] so to avoid a Conservative win, people will, albeit reluctantly in some cases, stick with the LibDems. I can't see any way at all the Labour will get more votes in Hazel Grove than the Libdems, although there will definitely be some movement. I do think that UKIP will pick up a small number of votes, most probably from William Wragg and I'm not sure you're figured that in. The Greens may pick up a protest vote and that will probably also come from LibDem voters.
My prediction is that it's too close to call but there is no way the LibDems will lose by 6000 voyes to the Conservatives. That would be a swing of EPIC proportions, probably about 35% if my mental maths is correct. If I really REALLY had to, then I'd predict a very narrow win for the LibDems. I wouldn't be surprised if it do go to the Conservatives under an equally narrow victory though.
-
I suppose that shows how different people have different views of what democracy is. To me, the whole point of an election is to choose the man or woman who has views closest to that of the voter. That person may be a member of a political party, but it is the individuals views that matter. I don't want someone who will be able to say "I always voted at my party's call and never thought of thinking for myself at all". If the candidate says "I thing this is right" and then changes to saying "actually I thing it is wrong" simply because the party leadership changes policies, that is not democracy as I understand it.
We clearly disagree in fact I think what you are suggesting is very very anti democratic. Voting for things you don't support seems to me to be the very nature of democracy. You will have had the debate within your party group and the group will have reached a collective decision. Democracy then requires that you support the the group line whatever your own views. The groups view will have been arrived at taking into account the philosophy of the wider party's platform that you were elected on.
What I don't think is at all democratic is a bunch of individuals who claim to make their own mind up but in fact can be blown about like the wind and are subject to bulling by individuals or groups or residents with the loudest voice or the most money.
-
For those of you who have not followed the link by @moorendman his prediction is as follows:
Conservative 16,100
Labour 11,425
Lib Dems 10,000
UKIP 3,250
Green 1,000
I think your analysis is skewed a little. Whilst Michael Taylor has run a very very good campaign, I really don't see him picking up an additional 3000 votes. In the parlance of Game of Thrones "it is known" that Labour can't win in Hazel Grove [currently] so to avoid a Conservative win, people will, albeit reluctantly in some cases, stick with the LibDems. I really don't see them losing 3000 votes to Labour or the Conservatives, although there will definitely be some movement. I do think that UKIP will pick up a small number of votes, most probably from William Wragg and I'm not sure you're figured that in. The Greens may pick up a protest vote and that will probably also come from LibDem voters.
My prediction is that it's too close to call but if I really REALLY had to, then I'd predict a very narrow win for the LibDems. I wouldn't be surprised if it do go to the Conservatives under an equally narrow victory though.
Agree. If William Wragg is to win he'll just sneak it. The visibility of labour posters / signs has increased massively compared to all previous elections in living memory.
-
Agree. If William Wragg is to win he'll just sneak it. The visibility of labour posters / signs has increased massively compared to all previous elections in living memory.
That doesn't mean anything my neibour has labour posters up but he's voting lib dem .
-
For those of you who have not followed the link by @moorendman his prediction is as follows:
Conservative 16,100
Labour 11,425
Lib Dems 10,000
UKIP 3,250
Green 1,000
I think your analysis is skewed..... I'd predict a very narrow win for the LibDems. I wouldn't be surprised if it do go to the Conservatives under an equally narrow victory though.
I'm with Howard there. Moorendman has been very brave in his prediction, but the idea that the Lib Dem vote might be halved compared with 2010, and the Labour vote doubled, thereby pushing the Lib Dems into third place, stretches credibility to breaking point! (Wishful thinking there, moorendman? ;))
So as moorendman has put his neck on the block, so will I. Here goes:
Lib Dem 17,000
Conservative 15,500
Labour 6,500
UKIP 3,000
Green 1,000
-
Particularly as there has been little or no Labour campaign and a Labour candidate who seemed more interested in pushing his own religious beliefs rather than anything else.
-
I don't actually think that there has been much to choose between the candidates. They've all been able and some have been better/worse at some things than others.
I'll be surprised (no actually amazed) if moorendman's predictions are accurate, don't give up the day job moorend. However as you're sticking you head above the proverbial, here is my humble attempt at forecast.
Libdem 17,000
Conservatives 16,000
Labour 6,000
UKIP 3,500
Green 1,000
The narrowest of victories by Conservatives wouldn't surprise me.
-
Pleased I manage to stimulate some debate, I still believe that there could be a shock here. It is predicated on the growth of the. Labour vote and that is entirely due to the candidate and his campaign. I find it difficult to accept that all his efforts, particularly in engaging younger voters with social media will only result in an increase of 700 votes as some of my rival forecasters are suggesting. 8)
-
I will stick with the forecast/prediction/ guess I made some time ago......
Lib Dems 40%
Conservatives 37%
UKIP 15%
Labour 8%
-
I think you're close there simonesaffron. That's pretty much how I reckon things will pan out.
On the other hand, we could be completely wrong!
-
Well, if the BBC exit poll is, indeed, correct, perhaps William Wragg will be a happy chappy tomorrow morning?
-
Combined BBC, ITN and Sky exit poll:
Con: 316
Lab: 239
LD: 10
SNP: 58
UKIP: 2
YouGov exit poll:
CON 284
LAB 263
LD 31
SNP 48
UKIP 2
PLAID 3
GREEN 1
-
On exit poll and the massive collapse of lib dem votes in the two Sunderland seats , perhaps my forecast is not as skewed as some thought.
-
Actually @moorendman you might be right. BBC are now predicting a significant Conservative gain for Hazel Grove.
-
According to the Manchester Evening News the results are:
William Wragg(Conservative) 41.38% (17,882)
Lisa Smart(Liberal Democrat) 26.22% (11,330)
Michael Taylor(Labour) 17.55% (7,584)
Darran Palmer(UK Independence Party) 12.22% (5,283)
Graham Reid (Green Party) 2.63% (1,140)
Congratulations to William Wragg, our new MP for Hazel Grove.
(https://hazelgrovelabourparty.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/cedqnuqweaan9jx-1.png)
-
Here are yesterday's Hazel Grove figures in votes rather than %s, and with the 2010 results in brackets.
Conservative 17,882 (14,114)
Liberal Democrat 11,330 (20,485)
Labour 7,584 (5,234)
UKIP 5,283 (2,148)
Green Party 1,140 -
perhaps my forecast is not as skewed as some thought.
Indeed - well done moorendman. His Labour surge never happened, so the Lib Dems comfortably held on to second place, but he did foresee the dramatic nature of the Lib Dem collapse. 9,000 people who voted Lib Dem five years ago switched their allegiance - that's pretty remarkable. Looking at the figures, one guess would be that most of then went to the Tories, but that the net increase in the overall Tory vote was not that great because of Tory voters switching to UKIP.
-
Congratulations @moorendman, there's a job waiting for you at YouGov
-
Congratulations to William Wragg.
Let us hope that, that result doesn't transfer locally.
Well done moorendman, you got more right than wrong.
Maybe you can give up the day job after all.
-
Thank you all for your gracious responses. I admittedly underestimated the UKIP vote, on reflection. The possibly unpalatable fact is that potential labour voters in traditional areas voted UKIP. Labour failed to address the concerns of white van man preferring to major on their own perceived issues., such as zero hours and nhs "crisis". I thought the UKIP vote would soften at the end.
-
The day gets even better. I see that Ed Balls' political career is 'flatlining"......
-
The day gets even better. I see that Ed Balls' political career is 'flatlining"......
Yes, Balls will surely be remembered as the Michael Portillo of this election :D
For me, his unforgivable sin was as Secretary of State for Education. After the horrible 'baby P' case, he instructed the relevant local authority to summarily dismiss its Head of Children's Services without following any kind of disciplinary process. That was a mistake, but we all make mistakes sometimes. But it was unforgivable when, after the woman who was sacked successfully sued for unfair dismissal, and was awarded about £500,000 of taxpayers' money in compensation, Balls refused to apologise and simply said 'no regrets - I would do it all again'.
A politician who believes he is above the law is not fit to hold public office, and it's good that he's gone.
-
Well said, Dave - my thoughts entirely. A bully, and an incompetent one at that.
-
And a fond farewell, also, to the execrable George Galloway, the supreme purveyor of identity politics in London, Bradford.....hammered by Labour. Surely the most repulsive politician of the past 30 years?
-
Completely second that Bowden. Next stop for that traitor is the Tower, unfortunately Hamlets.
-
Completely second that Bowden. Next stop for that traitor is the Tower, unfortunately Hamlets.
What now for the local area .will MR WRAGG DISAPEAR TO LONDON NEVER TO BE SEEN LOCAL AGAIN .Your opnions on this /The lib dems did a lot of local work .
-
What now for the local area .will MR WRAGG DISAPEAR TO LONDON NEVER TO BE SEEN LOCAL AGAIN .Your opnions on this /The lib dems did a lot of local work .
What has this got to do with my comment on George Galloway??
As far as the local work done by LibDems, we still have a lot of LibDem councillors. More than enough to get a few potholes filled, supervise the installation of the odd bit of playground equipment and prevaricate for decades over bypasses.
The person most likely to disappear to London never to be seen again locally, in my opinion, is an ex resident of Putney.
-
The person most likely to disappear to London never to be seen again locally, in my opinion, is an ex resident of Putney.
Well it will be a test of whether she is committed to this constituency (although I suppose the local party may have other views). I lived in Yeovil some years ago & one of the things that swung it for Paddy Ashdown in the end was that he fought and lost two elections ( I think) before succeeding. Didn't affect his natural supporters but did influence those who weren't. Mind you as here he benefitted from a long standing MP standing down.
-
Well it will be a test of whether she is committed to this constituency (although I suppose the local party may have other views). I lived in Yeovil some years ago & one of the things that swung it for Paddy Ashdown in the end was that he fought and lost two elections ( I think) before succeeding. Didn't affect his natural supporters but did influence those who weren't. Mind you as here he benefitted from a long standing MP standing down.
Good point. And that's also what happened here 20 years ago. Stunnell stood unsuccessfully for this seat in 1992, and then came back and won it in 1997 when long-standing Tory incumbent Tom Arnold retired.
-
This is not really about Lisa or William. MP's have no power locally and they certainly don't have any control over money. What they do have is influence over their like minded Councillors. I don't see Willy Wragg getting anything other than a rough ride from the existing Marple Councillors.The Area Committee, which has been a force for localism will now degenerate into a party politicking squabble.
IMHO Marple has cut it's own throat. For many years it has resisted the onslaught of newness. It has stood out as a bastion of resistance to all kinds of overtures, this has been due in the main to the cohesion of its elderly Liberal, local Councillors.
What now? Aldi on Chadwick Street? Marple Bridge turning into Dodge City at the week-end ? Windlehurst Road being made into a clearway to accommodate airport traffic? High Lane, completely forgotten altogether as the new road tears its heart out.
Any local group trying to achieve anything now, whatever it is will be given the same answer to any question - there is no money.
Yesterday the 'local' disappeared from Marple, never to return.
-
Talk about "over the top".......yes, an Aldi in Marple would be great, thank you very much.
-
I'm not surprised that you'd welcome an Aldi in Chadwick Street, BG.
Anyway, I don't think it is over the top. I've observed it before with local politicians, when their political colours change and mix, they spend their time trying to undermine each other and it is the local community that suffers.
As well as this the nation has actually voted for more austerity and that's exactly what they'll get. That will be absolutely reflected in the first instance by even deeper cuts in the public services but that's something that I'm sure you'll applaud.
Anyway, I'm off to Canada for a month (family out there) so I'll see the state of the nation when I get back.
-
This is not really about Lisa or William. MP's have no power locally and they certainly don't have any control over money. What they do have is influence over their like minded Councillors. I don't see Willy Wragg getting anything other than a rough ride from the existing Marple Councillors.The Area Committee, which has been a force for localism will now degenerate into a party politicking squabble.
IMHO Marple has cut it's own throat. For many years it has resisted the onslaught of newness. It has stood out as a bastion of resistance to all kinds of overtures, this has been due in the main to the cohesion of its elderly Liberal, local Councillors.
What now? Aldi on Chadwick Street? Marple Bridge turning into Dodge City at the week-end ? Windlehurst Road being made into a clearway to accommodate airport traffic? High Lane, completely forgotten altogether as the new road tears its heart out.
Any local group trying to achieve anything now, whatever it is will be given the same answer to any question - there is no money.
Yesterday the 'local' disappeared from Marple, never to return.
completely agree with you there we've lost some good councilars .
-
Simone, why are you "not surprised" by the fact that I would welcome an Aldi in Marple? Please explain - I am genuinely confused. Do you think people who shop at at Aldi or Lidl are beneath you somehow?
-
the nation has actually voted for more austerity
On the contrary, the Tory share of the vote was just 36.9% So the nation (63.1% of us) actually voted for less austerity.
But it's a stunning victory for the Tories, and all credit to them for pulling it off. But when you look in detail at what happened, you have to conclude that our electoral system really is broken, and it's time we sorted it out.
Much has been written about the inequitable outcome for the smaller parties - for example:
Lib Dem share of the vote: 7.9% No of seats: 8
SNP share of the vote: 4.7%. No of seats: 56.
But less has been said about this:
Tory share of the vote up 0.8% from 2010, resulting in a net increase of 24 seats.
Labour share of the vote up 1.5% from 2010, resulting in a net loss of 26 seats.
Eh? ???
-
Simone, why are you "not surprised" by the fact that I would welcome an Aldi in Marple? Please explain - I am genuinely confused. Do you think people who shop at at Aldi or Lidl are beneath you somehow?
Much as I would love to, I can't enter into a debate about this as I said in my previous post, I am off abroad and I have one foot on the plane already.
However BG as you graciously ask, I will offer a brief explanation. I do not confer any status whatsoever, low or high, on shoppers. The people that shop in Waitrose are just as good as those that shop in Lidl or anywhere else for that matter. I welcome the exchange in Marple of Asda in place of the co-op, BUT ONLY BECAUSE that particular co-op did not serve Marple well. I personally, have probably made purchases from every supermarket that there is/was at one time or another.
The reason I mention Aldi is because I happen to know that they are straining at the leash to get into Marple and the only reason that they are not already on Chadwick Street is because of local political opposition that has more concern for traffic/parking than it does for council revenue and supermarket variety. Now though, that resistance has been weakened.
-
Dave, surprised that you didn't mention, in your voting analysis, UKIP's 3.8 million votes (12.6% of the total votes vast) which led to the election of a single, solitary MP.
-
As I said, the Lib Dem and SNP figures were just examples but as BG rightly points out, the results for UKIP are equally absurd. And while we're at it, ditto the Greens.
Until now I've had reservations about changing the voting system, but we can't go on like this. It makes a complete mockery of democracy.
-
As I said, the Lib Dem and SNP figures were just examples but as BG rightly points out, the results for UKIP are equally absurd. And while we're at it, ditto the Greens.
Until now I've had reservations about changing the voting system, but we can't go on like this. It makes a complete mockery of democracy.
I agree that it does need to change, but you can't take the popular vote figures at face value. FPTP encourages tactical voting and protest voting, rather than voting for who you actually want, if you happen to live in an area which is a two horse race, and your choice isn't one of the two horses.
I think that if we ever changed to some form of Proportional voting a lot of the parties would actually get a shock and would find out that they aren't as popular as they think they are.
-
I agree that it does need to change, but you can't take the popular vote figures at face value. FPTP encourages tactical voting and protest voting, rather than voting for who you actually want, if you happen to live in an area which is a two horse race, and your choice isn't one of the two horses.
I think that if we ever changed to some form of Proportional voting a lot of the parties would actually get a shock and would find out that they aren't as popular as they think they are.
Correct, but I feel this would happen in the opposite sense. Labour and the Tories would lose their traditional tactical core voters, and the parties which perennially suffer under FPTP would benefit tremendously - UKIP and the Greens especially.
How many people actually voted according to their principles in this election? To me, Hazel Grove was a microcosm of the traditional marginal seat. Virtually the only points that either Tories or Lib Dems wanted to tell me about was either that voting Lib Dem would mean the destruction of Britain under Labour and SNP (David Cameron told me that twice, personally), or that it was pointless voting Labour because 'they can't win here' and therefore all Labour voters should vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out. Hardly any of the literature said why they should be elected.
Dave - agree 100% FPTP is now a mockery. It needs changing.