Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: Howard on April 24, 2017, 04:46:19 PM
-
From general chat it seems Andy Burham is a shoe-in for the Mayoral election.
However, the General Election for Hazel Grove may be more interesting. With William Wragg being named as one of the candidates being investigated by the Crown Prosecution Service (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/16/tory-mps-election-spending-karl-mccartney-william-wragg) plus any "Bregret" following the referendum, will he have less support? It also seems that Michael Taylor, who increased the vote for Labour significantly will not be standing (http://www.themarpleleaf.co.uk/2017/04/statement-on-hazel-grove-and-my-plans.html) so I'm wondering if we'll see a surge in support for Lisa Smart?
Discuss...
-
I don’t think any of the MPs being investigated over the election expenses with the head office provided bus load of people did anything wrong. The MPs were told by the party head offices that the expenses where national not local, and can’t be expected to be legal experts.
Not to say I like William Wragg as he has never responded to emails or letters I have send him, but I am not willing to vote for a party that wish to undo the vote of the British people. It will just be like Ireland when they repeat the votes until the people vote the "correct" way.....
-
I think Lib Dem will do very well. Wragg doesn't seem popular and, as mentioned above, many people report not hearing back from him. His voting record is appalling including voting for cuts to disability benefits and to the working poor. Also people won't take him seriously living with his parents etc. Not really living in the real world.
-
Well I won't be voting in the mayoral election. I'll be out of the country, but if I were not, I'd still either not vote, or spoil the ballot paper, probably by writing "no mayor wanted here", or "this is not Greater Manchester". I think it's an absolute disgrace to have a mayor for the fictional (except in a purely legalistic sense) Greater Manchester and the sooner the mayor and for that matter the Greater Manchester Combined Authority are abolished the better.
As for the General Election, let's see who the candidates are. If the awful Lisa Smart stands for the Lib Dems, I might have to vote for Mr Wragg, just to help keep her out. I heard her at the hustings last time and I think I'd vote for almost anyone else to keep her out based on that (which is all I have to go on as far as her specifically is concerned). Ideally, I'd like to see an independent candidate win, as I don't believe the present party system is acceptable. Any system where an MP votes according to what his or her party wants, regardless of personal beliefs is far from democratic.
-
Well I won't be voting in the mayoral election. I'll be out of the country, but if I were not, I'd still either not vote, or spoil the ballot paper, probably by writing "no mayor wanted here", or "this is not Greater Manchester". I think it's an absolute disgrace to have a mayor for the fictional (except in a purely legalistic sense) Greater Manchester and the sooner the mayor and for that matter the Greater Manchester Combined Authority are abolished the better.
Am i right in my theory that you'd like us to be ruled from Chester instead? Like in the old days? I went there once. It was a nice place but I am not sure what connection it really has with Marple. Besides, there's no such thing as Cheshire County Council anymore. That was abolished in 2009 or something.
Like it or not, we along with other towns in the area, are tightly linked to a major city called Manchester. And that city and it's surrounding areas have been sorely lacking a strong leader. Someone who has accountability to the people to make the city and it's suburbs. Someone who can plan public transport, health services, have housing plans. Someone to provide the joined up thinking the area has lacked. Cos let's face it, Westminster isn't going to stand up for us all.
Thatcher made an error when she abolished the Greater Manchester Council ( along with similar councils in London, West Midlands and more). It left our major cities voiceless. London got its Mayor in 2000. It has made a difference there. With the right mayor, it will here.
I will be voting with pride.
-
Well I won't be voting in the mayoral election. I'll be out of the country, but if I were not, I'd still either not vote, or spoil the ballot paper, probably by writing "no mayor wanted here", or "this is not Greater Manchester". I think it's an absolute disgrace to have a mayor for the fictional (except in a purely legalistic sense) Greater Manchester and the sooner the mayor and for that matter the Greater Manchester Combined Authority are abolished the better.
As for the General Election, let's see who the candidates are. If the awful Lisa Smart stands for the Lib Dems, I might have to vote for Mr Wragg, just to help keep her out. I heard her at the hustings last time and I think I'd vote for almost anyone else to keep her out based on that (which is all I have to go on as far as her specifically is concerned). Ideally, I'd like to see an independent candidate win, as I don't believe the present party system is acceptable. Any system where an MP votes according to what his or her party wants, regardless of personal beliefs is far from democratic.
Lisa Smart has confirmed she is standing in the election. Wragg is but not heard who the Labour or Green or other candidates are yet.
2015 UKIP candidate Darran Palmer is backing and campaigning with Wragg and Tory as per his party stance on 'vote for your local Brexit candidate'
-
I am not willing to vote for a party that wish to undo the vote of the British people.
The British people voted to leave the EU. The Libdems are not proposing to undo that.
Libdem policy is that the the British people (either in a referendum or via their elected representatives in parliament) should have a say in what kind of relationship the UK should have with the EU in future. The Tories want to deny us that - if they have their way, every one of the 27 countries left in the EU will have their own vote on the new relationship between the UK and the EU - except the UK! It's beyond bizarre and it's deeply undemocratic.
As for the mayoral election, the experience in London has demonstrated beyond serious doubt that in a big conurbation an elected mayor can really get things done in a co-ordinated and effective way. It makes no sense for the ten metro boroughs in Greater Manchester to be doing everything separately. As Andrew says: Thatcher made an error when she abolished the Greater Manchester Council ( along with similar councils in London, West Midlands and more). It left our major cities voiceless. London got its Mayor in 2000. It has made a difference there. With the right mayor, it will here.
Meanwhile, Condate writes:this is not Greater Manchester
The screens, nurse, the screens........... ;D
-
Am i right in my theory that you'd like us to be ruled from Chester instead? Like in the old days? I went there once. It was a nice place but I am not sure what connection it really has with Marple. Besides, there's no such thing as Cheshire County Council anymore. That was abolished in 2009 or something.
Like it or not, we along with other towns in the area, are tightly linked to a major city called Manchester.
Well, I'd like Marple and all the lost territories of former Cheshire restored to a re-formed Cheshire yes. I know that Stockport and several other places were County Boroughs before 1974, but I never thought that was a good arrangement. Personally, I go to Chester far more often that Manchester, as there's no real reason to visit Manchester; there's just no relevance to the place as far as I'm concerned. If I want something I can't get locally, I'll go to Chester (which I think of as the County Town), or Macclesfield, or Crewe, or Nantwich, or even Buxton before considering Manchester. It might as well not exist for most purposes. I don't think Marple, or many other places on the periphery of what's called 'Greater Manchester' are linked tightly (or indeed loosely) to Manchester and a great many people see themselves as from Cheshire, or Lancashire etc.
Obviously, other people see things very differently.
I was pleased to see a Cheshire flag flying in Mellor at the weekend. I don't know why, or by whom, but it was a very welcome sight.
-
Obviously, other people see things very differently.
Yes Condate, we do! Surely the vast majority of us see ourselves as part of Greater Manchester, because we work in Manchester, we shop there, we go to sports events, concerts, theatres, cinemas there. I can't imagine why anyone would want to trek over to Chester, a tourist destination which is at least an hour's drive and inaccessible by public transport, and has nothing like the same range of facilities and attractions, when everything we need is 30 minutes away by train.
-
Well, I'd like Marple and all the lost territories of former Cheshire restored to a re-formed Cheshire yes. I know that Stockport and several other places were County Boroughs before 1974, but I never thought that was a good arrangement. Personally, I go to Chester far more often that Manchester, as there's no real reason to visit Manchester; there's just no relevance to the place as far as I'm concerned.
Our major transport links are to Manchester; our council co-operates with the surrounding MBCs, not Chester; people shop in Stockport, Manchester and other areas of the city; and I would wager that a far higher proportion of Marple residents work in Manchester (or Greater Manchester) than Cheshire.
You might be stuck in 1974 but the rest of us live in 2017 and Chester has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to Greater Manchester.
-
Chester, a tourist destination which is at least an hour's drive and inaccessible by public transport, and has nothing like the same range of facilities and attractions, when everything we need is 30 minutes away by train.
There is a direct train every hour between Stockport and Chester, and more which are the same journey time if you connect at Crewe.
-
You might be stuck in 1974 but the rest of us live in 2017 and Chester has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to Greater Manchester.
How rude!
Good job there are no moderators about. Oh! Wait....
-
Well, I'd like Marple and all the lost territories of former Cheshire restored to a re-formed Cheshire yes. I know that Stockport and several other places were County Boroughs before 1974, but I never thought that was a good arrangement. Personally, I go to Chester far more often that Manchester, as there's no real reason to visit Manchester; there's just no relevance to the place as far as I'm concerned. If I want something I can't get locally, I'll go to Chester (which I think of as the County Town), or Macclesfield, or Crewe, or Nantwich, or even Buxton before considering Manchester. It might as well not exist for most purposes. I don't think Marple, or many other places on the periphery of what's called 'Greater Manchester' are linked tightly (or indeed loosely) to Manchester and a great many people see themselves as from Cheshire, or Lancashire etc.
Obviously, other people see things very differently.
I was pleased to see a Cheshire flag flying in Mellor at the weekend. I don't know why, or by whom, but it was a very welcome sight.
I hate to break it to you, but historical Cheshire was nothing more than an arbitrary construct. Like most counties of its day, and of modern day, it was simply a division of land created for organisational and administrative reasons and for the purpose of taxation. There is nothing particularly special about it other than its age. It just made sense a thousand years ago.
Now we could continue to organise our administrative system based on what Edward the Elder thought was a good idea in 920. Or we could base it on what makes sense now. Things have moved on a lot since then. Stockport itself is a large place - the population of Stockport is greater than that of Chester. And it's growth, and that of other towns locally, is linked to Manchester.
-
How rude!
Good job there are no moderators about. Oh! Wait....
@Harry Flag it and another moderator will look at it. I have actually had a couple of my 700+ posts bumped ;)
-
I was pleased to see a Cheshire flag flying in Mellor at the weekend. I don't know why, or by whom, but it was a very welcome sight.
If it's the blue flag with the gold 3 wheatsheaves & the sword it's one of my neighbours who seems to buy a job lot of random flags & fly them. Never knew this was the Cheshire flag.
-
If it's the blue flag with the gold 3 wheatsheaves & the sword it's one of my neighbours who seems to buy a job lot of random flags & fly them. Never knew this was the Cheshire flag.
That's the one
http://abcounties.com/flags/2012/01/01/cheshire/ (http://abcounties.com/flags/2012/01/01/cheshire/)
-
I hope Wragg has a humiliating defeat.
Small minded little englander that 'earns' £74k, still lives with his Mum and voted to cut disability benefits.
He has voted to cut school funding which leaves all schools in the local are much worse off - www.schoolcuts.org.uk (http://www.schoolcuts.org.uk)
He hasn't responded to a great many enquiries or requests for support from friends and neighbours.
For those who share this view search Facebook for GetWillyOut or WomenAgainstWilly
-
...it's one of my neighbours who seems to buy a job lot of random flags & fly them.
@corium Is that the house at the top of Lower Fold? I always like to see what the "Flag of the Day" is!
-
Not the house I'm thinking of. The one I'm referring to is up Longhurst Lane, roughly opposite the memorial park.
-
@corium Is that the house at the top of Lower Fold? I always like to see what the "Flag of the Day" is!
Tom has a flag for every ocasion hes a great person as well .
-
Not the house I'm thinking of. The one I'm referring to is up Longhurst Lane, roughly opposite the memorial park.
The one I saw was the one you are talking about in Longhurst Lane. I do see the various flags at the other one quite often too.
-
I hope Wragg has a humiliating defeat.
Small minded little englander that 'earns' £74k, still lives with his Mum and voted to cut disability benefits.
He has voted to cut school funding which leaves all schools in the local are much worse off - www.schoolcuts.org.uk (http://www.schoolcuts.org.uk)
He hasn't responded to a great many enquiries or requests for support from friends and neighbours.
For those who share this view search Facebook for GetWillyOut or WomenAgainstWilly
Agreed.
-
There is a direct train every hour between Stockport and Chester, and more which are the same journey time if you connect at Crewe.
This is Marple, not Stockport. A train journey from Marple to Chester (if you were enough of a masochist to try it) would take over two hours, changing at Piccadilly and Stockport, and using the UK's worst train, the noisy, cramped, uncomfortable Class 142 'Pacer'. No thanks!
-
This is Marple, not Stockport. A train journey from Marple to Chester (if you were enough of a masochist to try it) would take over two hours, changing at Piccadilly and Stockport, and using the UK's worst train, the noisy, cramped, uncomfortable Class 142 'Pacer'. No thanks!
Yes, aren't the Stockport- Chester trains also Pacers?
Yet another reminder that Marple is crying out for 'any' kind of rail service to Stockport.
I'd be very interested to find out what the prospective Mayoral candidates would do about the rail/tram network, assuming it's in their remit (I believe transport policy is?)
-
20 March 2017: BBC News
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/probe-2015-election-expenses-involves-12754696
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000738
Great Manchester Police -GMP names three constituencies in expenses probe
A file relating to alleged electoral fraud in three Greater Manchester constituencies has been passed to prosecutors, police have confirmed. Conservative Party electoral expenses during the 2015 General Election are being investigated in Bury North, Cheadle and Hazel Grove, said Greater Manchester Police.
Thirteen police forces in the UK have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to consider charges.
The party was fined a record £70,000 last week for breaking election expense rules.
PS Majority in our constituency voted Remain last year but YOU betrayed our trust and voted Brexit. Why should I trust you again.
-
I hope Wragg has a humiliating defeat.
Small minded little englander that 'earns' £74k, still lives with his Mum and voted to cut disability benefits.
He has voted to cut school funding which leaves all schools in the local are much worse off - www.schoolcuts.org.uk (http://www.schoolcuts.org.uk)
He hasn't responded to a great many enquiries or requests for support from friends and neighbours.
For those who share this view search Facebook for GetWillyOut or WomenAgainstWilly
I don't vote for his lot but I think it's a bit unfair to complain because he lives with his Mum!
-
If it's the blue flag with the gold 3 wheatsheaves & the sword it's one of my neighbours who seems to buy a job lot of random flags & fly them. Never knew this was the Cheshire flag.
It looked a bit odd when I was driving past. Wasn't it upside down?
-
PS Majority in our constituency voted Remain last year but YOU betrayed our trust and voted Brexit. Why should I trust you again.
Err, not according to the generally published results which have Hazel Grove voting 52.2% leave. That figure came from the Stockport Council website originally, but the page appears to no longer exist. Wikipedia (not the most reliable of sources I know) still shows that figure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#North_West_England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#North_West_England)
-
20 March 2017: BBC News
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/probe-2015-election-expenses-involves-12754696
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000738
Great Manchester Police -GMP names three constituencies in expenses probe
A file relating to alleged electoral fraud in three Greater Manchester constituencies has been passed to prosecutors, police have confirmed. Conservative Party electoral expenses during the 2015 General Election are being investigated in Bury North, Cheadle and Hazel Grove, said Greater Manchester Police.
Thirteen police forces in the UK have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to consider charges.
The party was fined a record £70,000 last week for breaking election expense rules.
PS Majority in our constituency voted Remain last year but YOU betrayed our trust and voted Brexit. Why should I trust you again.
I'm struggling to find the point you are making. Could you clarify please?
-
Err, not according to the generally published results which have Hazel Grove voting 52.2% leave. That figure came from the Stockport Council website originally, but the page appears to no longer exist. Wikipedia (not the most reliable of sources I know) still shows that figure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#North_West_England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#North_West_England)
I think Stockport and Manchester were remain and that's what many refer to. As you say, Wikipedia not always reliable.
Even if HG had voted remain, Wragg would still have voted to leave. Brexit has always been his priority.
-
I'm struggling to find the point you are making. Could you clarify please?
@sanya made two points, which seem pretty obvious to me:
1. That our MP is under investigation by the police for committing election fraud, a serious crime which can lead to penalties up to and including imprisonment. This is relevant to the forthcoming election, obviously, as he is standing for re-election.
2. That whilst Wragg is a supporter of Brexit, Hazel Grove voted remain in the EU referendum, but as others have pointed out, that is incorrect.
That said, the majority for Brexit in this constituency was a very narrow one (52%/48%), the same as in the UK as a whole. So we voted for Brexit, but only just. So rather than being hell-bent on a 'hard Brexiit', the Government should obviously be reflecting that by aiming for as 'soft' a Brexit as possible - for example, by remaining in the European Economic Area, like our neighbours Norway and Iceland. That kind of compromise would be a true representation of the narrowness of the vote, and could have united the country in the way that Theresa May says she wants to. But our weak Prime Minister is a puppet, and the puppet-masters are the Daily Mail and the right wing of her party.
-
Just a thought....
If Ed Balls stood in Hazel Grove we could have a 'Balls in Willy out' campaing.
It'd certainly liven things up.
-
According to @CllrGeoffAbell last year, this is how Marple voted:
In case this wasn't reported elsewhere, Marple N voted to remain whilst Marple S voted out.
Stockport and Manchester as a whole voted to remain too.
-
I think it is a fair point.
What concerns do you have that you hope the elected representative shares or at least has an understanding of.
Energy prices? Other utilities? Food prices and sustainability? Council Tax? making sure you can pay the bills and keep a roof above your and your families head - what happens if it doesn't go to plan?
The cost of home ownership, insurance etc etc.
Cooking for yourself and doing your own washing?!
On an income of 74K and is on record saying he can't save enough for a deposit - and they want us to believe that the Tories are economically literate! - everyone else I meet seem to have managed to save up on much less!
I don't vote for his lot but I think it's a bit unfair to complain because he lives with his Mum!
-
I think it is a fair point.
What concerns do you have that you hope the elected representative shares or at least has an understanding of.
Energy prices? Other utilities? Food prices and sustainability? Council Tax? making sure you can pay the bills and keep a roof above your and your families head - what happens if it doesn't go to plan?
The cost of home ownership, insurance etc etc.
Cooking for yourself and doing your own washing?!
On an income of 74K and is on record saying he can't save enough for a deposit - and they want us to believe that the Tories are economically literate! - everyone else I meet seem to have managed to save up on much less!
Personally I'm more concerned about the fact that his career history outside is woeful. He's 29 and his one and only job outside politics (according to Wikipedia) was as a primary school teacher. Nothing wrong with being a teacher. I know several and they're hard working and dedicated. But he didn't actually manage to spend a year in the profession before he quit it, to go and work for an MP. His life outside politics is minimal. Doesn't give me any confidence at all that he's got any idea what life is like outside the Westminster bubble.
-
It's worth looking at how Wragg voted - basically with the government on almost anything.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25360/william_wragg/hazel_grove (https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25360/william_wragg/hazel_grove)
I may be a little bias, of course...
I wonder who Labour will put up.
And interesting Facebook group names.
Theoretically you shouldn't put up election posters more than 6 weeks before the election. Not massively important, but if he's bending the rules on that, what else?
I agree with @andrewbowden in that the mayoral election should generate a good, strong voice for the whole of Manchester.
-
Just a thought....
If Ed Balls stood in Hazel Grove we could have a 'Balls in Willy out' campaing.
It'd certainly liven things up.
I love that idea!
-
I think it is relevant to that he lives with his parents which is a large financial advantage that many others pushing 30 don't have. It is also highly unusual for an MP so will draw attention. As another poster said, he doesn't have the worry of paying the bills every month. How can he then empathise with others? He doesn't seem to empathise with people on disability benefits or hard working low paid parents loosing money.
-
Like many in all parties, Wragg is a Conservative party sheep. Whatever the Conservative leadership decides, he will fall in line with.
Prior to being our MP, he spent four years on the council from 2011-2015. He hardly raised an issue. Rarely did he speak in the council chamber. He is our silent representative and he will vote for whatever the party whips tell him to vote for.
I know lots of young people who are buying their own houses and none of them are earning 74k per year. Perhaps Willy should take some lessons on financial prudence.
I'm sure that he is a nice guy personally, but if he is what we want to represent us at Westminster, then we deserve him.
There is of course the conundrum of the parliamentary constituency. Which is that it will either return Conservative or Lib Dem. No other party has a chance. The Lib Dems have proven their mettle in the past with coalition and student fees. Now their 'leader' is running around the country behaving like a demented schoolboy.
What to do on election day?
Who is the L/D candidate anyway? I've heard that it is Lisa Smart again, but I haven't seen anything official.
-
Yes, I believe Lisa Smart has been formally adopted as the Libdem candidate for Hazel Grove.
Looking at Wragg's 2015 majority, however, it seems she has a mountain to climb if she is to overturn that.
General Election 2015
- Conservative William Wragg 17,882
Liberal Democrat Lisa Smart 11,330
Labour Michael Taylor 7,584
UKIP Darran Palmer 5,283
Green Graham Reid 1,140
General Election 2010
- Liberal Democrat Andrew Stunell 20,485
Conservative Annesley Abercorn 14,114
Labour Richard Scorer 5,234
UKIP John Whittaker 2,148
Comparing 2015 with 2010, we saw a dramatic collapse in the Libdem vote, from 20,485 in 2010 to 11,330 in 2015. Obviously there were at least two factors at work there: the national collapse in the Libdem vote after the five years of coalition, compounded by the retirement of Andrew Stunnell, who had a 'personal vote' as a well-regarded local MP.
Labour also did relatively well here last time, compared with 2010. But even if all the 2015 Labour voters felt so strongly about Brexit that they were to switch to Libdem this time (and they won't!), that would only just be enough to win the seat from Wragg. And I suspect Wragg's vote will increase, partly because many of the 5,000 UKIP voters in 2015 will return to the Tory fold now that the Tories are the Brexit party.
Prediction: across the country as a whole, the Libdems will win some seats back from the Tories in 'Remain' areas. But this is not a 'Remain' area.......
-
There is little (if anything) to disagree with, in your hypothesis.
However, virtually any permutation of anything is better that the national, predicted, Tory Landslide.
There is an outside chance that the L/D's could by some miracle fluke it in Hazel Grove and whilst I would never vote for them locally, I'll support their snowball in hell's chance in the G.E
In addition to this I've had dealings with both Lisa & William and in my opinion Lisa would make the better MP.
-
There is an outside chance that the L/D's could by some miracle fluke it in Hazel Grove
Agreed - it is not a write-off by any means. If the Leave voters stay at home because they are expecting a Tory landslide so why bother voting, whilst the Remainers go out and vote for the only major party that is anti-Brexit, then it could just happen.
A lot depends on whether Brexit is in the forefront of peoples' minds at the time of the election. At the moment, early in the campaign, both the Tories and Labour seem to be trying to change the subject, as if they want us all to forget about Brexit completely!
-
Labour could have a chance nationally, but it would have to take a radical stance and watching Keir Starmer's recent performance on Brexit, I doubt it will adopt such a stance. But who knows? Jeremy Corbyn may be writing this into the promised, forthcoming manifesto as we speak.
It's this: Labour should announce that there will be NO Brexit and all negotiations to achieve it, in any shape form or texture, weather it be hard, soft, cliff-edge or anything else, will be aborted, in less than an hour after it takes governmental office.
-
Has there been any word on a labour candidate for Hazel Grove yet. Seems like the perfect place for Labour to make the gesture of a local Progressive Alliance and unite the anti-Tory vote. Very happy to see Marple Matters taking to the streets and showing local people that William Wragg record can be held to account and that he shouldn't just expect to be re elected unchallenged.
-
Labour should announce that there will be NO Brexit and all negotiations to achieve it, in any shape form or texture, weather it be hard, soft, cliff-edge or anything else, will be aborted, in less than an hour after it takes governmental office.
Wishful thinking, I fear. (Hoffnung, you are well named ;))
-
Dave is right Hoffnung, you are well named.
Having said though, its a wonderful idea of yours. It would certainly certainly clarify the battle lines as far as Labour and the Tories are concerned. It would also answer the right-wing press furore that would undoubtedly follow.
What better way to answer their ... 'what about democracy fury,' than to remind them we are having a General Election in pursuit of it.
-
Has there been any word on a labour candidate for Hazel Grove yet. Seems like the perfect place for Labour to make the gesture of a local Progressive Alliance and unite the anti-Tory vote. Very happy to see Marple Matters taking to the streets and showing local people that William Wragg record can be held to account and that he shouldn't just expect to be re elected unchallenged.
Brighton and Ealing are the first seats to declare a progressive alliance so that the most likely progressive candidate could win. We'll see how this takes off.
-
Labour could have a chance nationally, but it would have to take a radical stance and watching Keir Starmer's recent performance on Brexit, I doubt it will adopt such a stance. But who knows? Jeremy Corbyn may be writing this into the promised, forthcoming manifesto as we speak.
It's this: Labour should announce that there will be NO Brexit and all negotiations to achieve it, in any shape form or texture, weather it be hard, soft, cliff-edge or anything else, will be aborted, in less than an hour after it takes governmental office.
I think this would result in about half of the current labor MPs loosing their seats, with the work class parts of the UK turning blue! If Corbyn does what his supporters wants, then most labor voters will hate him even more.
-
I think this would result in about half of the current labor MPs loosing their seats, with the work class parts of the UK turning blue!
There's a lot of confusion about how Labour voters voted in the referendum. Because many Labour-held seats voted leave, it's assumed that most Labour voters voted Leave, but they didn't. On the contrary, we know that about two-thirds of those who voted Labour in 2015 went on to vote Remain in the referendum.
The referendum 'polarised' the vote, because unlike a general election, where there are at least four candidates to vote for, in the referendum there were only two choices, Leave or Remain. So the Leave majority in some Labour-held seats included lots of Tory and UKIP voters, as well as some Labour voters.
But some people haven't yet worked that out - including, sadly, the parliamentary Labour Party!
-
I think this would result in about half of the current labor MPs loosing their seats, with the work class parts of the UK turning blue! If Corbyn does what his supporters wants, then most labor voters will hate him even more.
It might do, but on the other hand it might not, we can all make predictions. I don't think labour voters do hate Corbyn. Obviously the right wing press do and many of the parliamentary Labour Party do as well. Between them, they join forces to focus a campaign against him. That then becomes the issue, as it has done, Corbyn versus May. This suits the Tories, because when it becomes personal all the other issues are ignored. As well as this when you have 90% of the media on your side, then there is only one winner. Jeremy Corbyn was unheard of when Labour were annihilated in 2015, yet they were still slaughtered.
If the Labour party were to do what Hoffnung suggests, then it would polarise the campaign to just that, remain or leave. That would drastically alter the political landscape - and then who knows?
What seems absolutely certain (if the polls are right) is that, if it doesn't do something radical, Labour is going to be annihilated anyway. The main reason for this (imho) is the disgraceful behaviour of the parliamentary Labour Party in presenting a party in total disarray and division.
-
I think it is relevant to that he lives with his parents which is a large financial advantage that many others pushing 30 don't have. It is also highly unusual for an MP so will draw attention. As another poster said, he doesn't have the worry of paying the bills every month. How can he then empathise with others? He doesn't seem to empathise with people on disability benefits or hard working low paid parents loosing money.
That of course is nonsense.
-
It might do, but on the other hand it might not, we can all make predictions. I don't think labour voters do hate Corbyn. Obviously the right wing press do and many of the parliamentary Labour Party do as well. Between them, they join forces to focus a campaign against him. That then becomes the issue, as it has done, Corbyn versus May. This suits the Tories, because when it becomes personal all the other issues are ignored. As well as this when you have 90% of the media on your side, then there is only one winner. Jeremy Corbyn was unheard of when Labour were annihilated in 2015, yet they were still slaughtered.
If the Labour party were to do what Hoffnung suggests, then it would polarise the campaign to just that, remain or leave. That would drastically alter the political landscape - and then who knows?
What seems absolutely certain (if the polls are right) is that, if it doesn't do something radical, Labour is going to be annihilated anyway. The main reason for this (imho) is the disgraceful behaviour of the parliamentary Labour Party in presenting a party in total disarray and division.
The problem with that is Corbyn has been in favour of leaving the EU for pretty much forever and halfheartedly involved in the campaign at referendum time.
If remaining in the EU is important, vote for the party that wants to stay. Lib dems are at least consistent. Why vote for a party with rubbish policies, a rubbish leader who you disagree with simply because it wears a red rosette?
-
That of course is nonsense.
Not really a well reasoned argument...
He can't empathise if he votes to cut disability benefits.
-
Brighton and Ealing are the first seats to declare a progressive alliance so that the most likely progressive candidate could win. We'll see how this takes off.
An alliance of the two worst parties like that can only be bad for Britain. Unfortunately, there are few if any good parties to oppose such a so called "progressive" (that certainly isn't the word that comes to mind, but I can't think of one I can use in polite society) alliance. Sadly, the Conservative party is pretty much as bad. Not a good choice facing the electorate.
I am unlikely to make much if any contribution to this discussion for a while as I am some 1500 miles away and trying to get this tablet to let me type something resembling English.
-
Not really a well reasoned argument...
No, it wasn't
-
Not much been said about the Mayoral elections and we have to vote today. Not seen much about the candidates apart from the little booklet that came around with the voting cards. Is there an outstanding candidate? I haven't decided how to vote yet!
-
@admin may not surprise you know I suggest this very keen and thoughtful chap. Lots more detail on his views here http://www.seananstee.com/manifesto than in the little booklet. Might be biased but have been very impressed with him.
Think his election video very good as well https://youtu.be/H8uyI97JrT0
-
It seems that the Conservatives are picking children to run in all these elections!
-
Yes was youngest Concil leader in country when he took over at Trafford Council. May be young, but knows what he is doing. Helped write the DevoManc deal so understands mayoral role better than most.
-
Anstee may be an excellent candidate, for all I know, but that's irrelevant because his chance of becoming mayor is zero. It's a one-horse race.
As for the General Election, Simone writes: I don't think labour voters do hate Corbyn.
I think that's right. But even among those who may share his political views, there is widespread pity for a man who has found himself doing a job to which he is manifestly unsuited. He is Leader of the Labour Party, and Leader of the Opposition is parliament. Leaders are called upon to, well, er, lead! To inspire, to articulate policy eloquently and coherently, to motivate, to build and unite a team, to reconcile different views, etc etc. Corbyn patently cannot do those things. Mind you, neither can Theresa May, who can only speak in soundbites, or Tim Farron, a nice guy who is wholly without leadership qualities.
The only half-way competent political leader in the UK at the moment, whether you agree with her or not, is Nicola Sturgeon. What a mess.....
-
or Tim Farron, a nice guy who is wholly without leadership qualities.
Dave, I agree with you there. Except for Europe, he's hardly laid out what Lib dems are about. He got himself in a terrible mess about being a Christian, supporting same sex marriage and being somehow against the consummation of that marriage. Liberals are supposed to be Liberals, personal choice and all that so the leader of the Liberal party should not be against what comes naturally to folk.
-
I've seen very little information about the candidates except for that booklet (where - infuriatingly - the two independents and Ukip didn't bother to stump up the cash to put their comments in. Seriously, why stand if you're not going to put the effort in?), and leaflets from Andy Burnham and the Lib Dem candidate whose name I forget right now.
Conservatives? Nothing. Mind you, they posted a calender through my door in February. Which seemed a little late.
-
I'd forgotten all about this election due to being deluged with French and our general election guff. I only remembered when I walked past the new polling station on Hibbert Lane just now.
-
That came as a complete surprise John.
You being impressed by and supporting the Conservative candidate.
-
As expected: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39822225?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter
-
And a 28.9% turnout. That was much higher than I expected.
-
And a 28.9% turnout. That was much higher than I expected.
Shocking turnout, voting should be compulsory. That would stir things up.
-
Shocking turnout, voting should be compulsory. That would stir things up.
HOW do you sort that out then .
-
Shocking turnout, voting should be compulsory. That would stir things up.
Actually I disagree. There are many reason for not voting, but the most common one is apathy. If you make voting compulsory then the most apathetic will have to vote and the level of discourse will come down even further and devolve into an even simpler and more populist message. The political discussion is bad enough in this country already without taking it down to an even lower level.
-
HOW do you sort that out then .
Easy. they already record who has voted so very easy to determine who hasn't.
-
Actually I disagree. There are many reason for not voting, but the most common one is apathy. If you make voting compulsory then the most apathetic will have to vote and the level of discourse will come down even further and devolve into an even simpler and more populist message. The political discussion is bad enough in this country already without taking it down to an even lower level.
Better make them less apathetic then.
-
Actually I disagree. There are many reason for not voting, but the most common one is apathy. If you make voting compulsory then the most apathetic will have to vote and the level of discourse will come down even further and devolve into an even simpler and more populist message. The political discussion is bad enough in this country already without taking it down to an even lower level.
Another reason for not voting is disapproval of there being the particular election. I didn't vote because I do not want there to be a mayor of Greater Manchester (and I am out of the country but I would not have voted anyway). It is of course impossible to know why each person didn't vote. The other major reason for not voting is disapproval of all the candidates. This is becoming more common. Many people don't vote not because they do not care about politics, but because they care very much and have nobody they can vote for.
-
Another reason for not voting is disapproval of there being the particular election. I didn't vote because I do not want there to be a mayor of Greater Manchester (and I am out of the country but I would not have voted anyway). It is of course impossible to know why each person didn't vote. The other major reason for not voting is disapproval of all the candidates. This is becoming more common. Many people don't vote not because they do not care about politics, but because they care very much and have nobody they can vote for.
If we ever did go down the road of compulsory voting (I'm torn on it, I like the idea, but Howard is right about the potential pitfalls) then we would need to do something like they did in students union elections when I were a lad - have a none of the above option, and if none of the above wins, you hold a fresh election with new candidates (rinse repeat until you have a human winner).
-
Re: Marple Matters
After recieving a leaflet when I was out in Marple last weekend I decided to be one of the participants this week. If you didn't get one Marple Matters are a new community group of residents that arn't party affiliated but are not happy with William Wragg's voting record and representation and want him out.
If my interaction yesterday was representative if the general mood I'd say about 70% of the people I spoke to agreed and were not planning to vote Tory or we're planning to tactically vote (many after voting with their heart last time and feeling like they let the Tory's in). Obviously many who didn't stop could have been Wragg and Tory supporters!
I was just encouraged that there was a group emerging that didn't want to just let Wragg be reelected uncontested and were willing to stand up and engage with others. They are on Facebook and twitter if you want to find out more. Just search Marple Matters.
-
If we ever did go down the road of compulsory voting (I'm torn on it, I like the idea, but Howard is right about the potential pitfalls) then we would need to do something like they did in students union elections when I were a lad - have a none of the above option, and if none of the above wins, you hold a fresh election with new candidates (rinse repeat until you have a human winner).
I agree with the principle, but if we want to make it 100% fair I'd stick None of the Below as the first option at the top of the ballot paper.
-
There's a lot of confusion about how Labour voters voted in the referendum. Because many Labour-held seats voted leave, it's assumed that most Labour voters voted Leave, but they didn't. On the contrary, we know that about two-thirds of those who voted Labour in 2015 went on to vote Remain in the referendum.
The referendum 'polarised' the vote, because unlike a general election, where there are at least four candidates to vote for, in the referendum there were only two choices, Leave or Remain. So the Leave majority in some Labour-held seats included lots of Tory and UKIP voters, as well as some Labour voters.
But some people haven't yet worked that out - including, sadly, the parliamentary Labour Party!
There's a lot of confusion, because of the huge difference between how people vote in a general election under first past the post, and how they vote in a straightforward yes or no vote. The two simply can't be compared objectively.
-
Does anyone know the results of the recent local elections ?, can't seem to find the results anywhere.
-
If you mean the Greater Manchester Mayor election, results are here https://www.gmelects.org.uk/info/2/i_am_a_voter/3/gmca_mayoral_election_results
-
This is an interesting development, and quite a brave one, I think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39897999
-
This is an interesting development, and quite a brave one, I think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39897999
It's an extremely sensible idea. The world's oldest medicine banned because ...
Well I don't really know why it's banned other than nonsense about it being a "gateway drug" or other such bollocks. States in the US that have legalised it have seen large growths (ha) in tax revenue from the business set up to grow and supply and a significant increase in business-to-business activity.
-
This is an interesting development, and quite a brave one, I think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39897999 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39897999)
If Portugal decriminalised drugs in 2001 surely there's a lot to learn from their experience? Good or bad.
You would not believe how prevalent the use of cannabis is in Memorial Park unless you'd spent nearly 2 years picking up drug packets and logging the results.
-
It's an extremely sensible idea. The world's oldest medicine banned because ...
The US Department of Prohibition needed something to do when Prohibition was lifted in the 1930s.
No really!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-influence/real-reasons-marijuana-is-banned_b_9210248.html
-
To be fair the Lib Dems can promise what they like, they won't be in government alone if at all.
Look what happened to their promises last time - tuition fees anyone?
Tactical voting is taking place so Lisa Smart stands a good chance. As does Ruth in High Peak. It'll also oust two terrible MPs - win win!
Check it out.
hghpvoteswap.weebly.com (http://hghpvoteswap.weebly.com)
-
You would not believe how prevalent the use of cannabis is in Memorial Park unless you'd spent nearly 2 years picking up drug packets and logging the results.
Have you being doing this? Why?
-
Have you being doing this? Why?
As part of FoMMP's campaign to have a CCTV camera installed to combat ASB around the bowling green buildings, library and toilets, and also to have the teen shelter removed, we began logging all known ASB in the park from September 2013 until November 2015. Over this period we had the cooperation of the full time park attendant and during daily litter picking he and our volunteers picked up and counted all the drug packets left in the park. The results were logged and details of numbers and locations were reported to the council's Community Safety Team, Police and local councillors on a daily / weekly basis. This was begun because initially we were fobbed off and told there was not a problem, so we set out to prove that there was. We and councillors were flabbergasted at the results. The Safety Team and Police were forced to acknowledge that there were problems and we began working group meetings with them to address the issues. We got great support from councillors once the problems were highlighted to them and eventually we got the camera installed, the bowling pavilion canopy gated off and the teen shelter removed early (before the skatepark was built). In the case of the teen shelter this remained a battle until a report was commissioned from a youth group charity, who visited the park for 6 weeks during the summer of 2015. They produced a report that showed the teen shelter to be a the heart of the drug dealing within the park and it was removed in December 2015.
If you are interested in more detail then read the FoMMP minutes from around October 2013 onwards and you will see how these events were reported at the time: http://www.marplememorialpark.org.uk/monthly-meetings.html (http://www.marplememorialpark.org.uk/monthly-meetings.html)
-
Tactical voting is taking place so Lisa Smart stands a good chance.
That's right. The Libdems are targeting this seat (also Cheadle) - they are two of four target seats in the North West which the party sees a realistic chance of winning. So supporters from other constituencies are being bussed in to help with leafleting and canvassing here.
William Wragg has a decent majority (c. 6,500), but issues such as the NHS, schools and Brexit, not to mention his poor voting record, make him look potentially vulnerable. And I have a feeling that Theresa May's 'it's all about me' campaign may eventually prove to be a mistake. She will win, no doubt, but I suspect not with the landslide that the Tories are hoping for.
-
It's an extremely sensible idea. The world's oldest medicine banned because ...
Well I don't really know why it's banned other than nonsense about it being a "gateway drug" or other such bollocks. States in the US that have legalised it have seen large growths (ha) in tax revenue from the business set up to grow and supply and a significant increase in business-to-business activity.
Your source for these claims?
-
Your source for these claims?
Here are a few reasonably well-reputed sources from the US which is the most widely observed market:
Market Watch, Colorado Topped $1 Billion in Legal Marijuana Sales in 2016
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/marijuana-tax-revenue-hit-200-million-in-colorado-as-sales-pass-1-billion-2017-02-10 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/marijuana-tax-revenue-hit-200-million-in-colorado-as-sales-pass-1-billion-2017-02-10)
Fotune, Marijuana tax revenue hit $200 million in Colorado as sales pass $1 billion
http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/colorado-billion-legal-marijuana-sales/ (http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/colorado-billion-legal-marijuana-sales/)
Oregon's Recreational Cannabis Tax Revenue For 2016 Exceeded One Original Estimate More than Six-Fold to $60m
http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/01/21/recreational-marijuana-tax-revenue-for-2016-exceeded-one-original-estimate-more-than-six-fold/ (http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/01/21/recreational-marijuana-tax-revenue-for-2016-exceeded-one-original-estimate-more-than-six-fold/)
Tax Foundation on total US receipts of £28bn (yes...billion) if the all US states legalise it
https://taxfoundation.org/marijuana-tax-legalization-federal-revenue/ (https://taxfoundation.org/marijuana-tax-legalization-federal-revenue/)
And here's a Wikipedia article on the status around the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country)
I have no axe to grind here. I've never been a user but I've been in bands for 30 years so have been around it for a long time. However, if I am ever unfortunate enough to feel a need for its well-recognised pain-relief properties (for example, Multiple Sclerosis, arthritis, rheumatism), whether it's legal or not, you can be sure that I'll find some way to get hold of it. If it were regulated and licensed a user would understand its provenance. Current buyers have no way of knowing how it was farmed and what fertilizers and weed killers were used in its growth. Of course, if you grow small quantities for yourself, which is part of what the LibDems have proposed, you would know exactly where it came from.
-
To be fair the Lib Dems can promise what they like, they won't be in government alone if at all.
Look what happened to their promises last time - tuition fees anyone?
See the thing about coalitions is that you have to compromise. The Tories had to compromise and the Lib Dems had to compromise.
In other countries (with far more sensible voting systems than our ridiculous one) this is generally known and understood (although smaller partners in coalitions can still end up suffering more in elections). We don't have much of a history of coalitions (due to our aforementioned electoral system which is winner takes all even if the winner only has a minority of the population supporting it) so it's not understood.
Maybe the Lib Dems should have made tuition fees a red line. And maybe if they had, the coalition would have collapsed. Who knows.
-
See the thing about coalitions is that you have to compromise. The Tories had to compromise and the Lib Dems had to compromise.
This of course is why coalitions are fundamentally undemocratic and an abomination in any civilised system. What it means in effect is that an MP needs to vote in a way he or she believes is wrong and damaging to the country, in order to have another MP vote the way he or she wants on another issue (although that other MP believes it to be wrong). This is simply unacceptable. Any candidate who would even consider entering a coalition, is ipso facto unsuitable to be an MP.
-
Here are a few reasonably well-reputed sources from the US which is the most widely observed market:
Market Watch, Colorado Topped $1 Billion in Legal Marijuana Sales in 2016
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/marijuana-tax-revenue-hit-200-million-in-colorado-as-sales-pass-1-billion-2017-02-10 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/marijuana-tax-revenue-hit-200-million-in-colorado-as-sales-pass-1-billion-2017-02-10)
Fotune, Marijuana tax revenue hit $200 million in Colorado as sales pass $1 billion
http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/colorado-billion-legal-marijuana-sales/ (http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/colorado-billion-legal-marijuana-sales/)
Oregon's Recreational Cannabis Tax Revenue For 2016 Exceeded One Original Estimate More than Six-Fold to $60m
http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/01/21/recreational-marijuana-tax-revenue-for-2016-exceeded-one-original-estimate-more-than-six-fold/ (http://www.wweek.com/news/2017/01/21/recreational-marijuana-tax-revenue-for-2016-exceeded-one-original-estimate-more-than-six-fold/)
Tax Foundation on total US receipts of £28bn (yes...billion) if the all US states legalise it
https://taxfoundation.org/marijuana-tax-legalization-federal-revenue/ (https://taxfoundation.org/marijuana-tax-legalization-federal-revenue/)
And here's a Wikipedia article on the status around the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country)
I have no axe to grind here. I've never been a user but I've been in bands for 30 years so have been around it for a long time. However, if I am ever unfortunate enough to feel a need for its well-recognised pain-relief properties (for example, Multiple Sclerosis, arthritis, rheumatism), whether it's legal or not, you can be sure that I'll find some way to get hold of it. If it were regulated and licensed a user would understand its provenance. Current buyers have no way of knowing how it was farmed and what fertilizers and weed killers were used in its growth. Of course, if you grow small quantities for yourself, which is part of what the LibDems have proposed, you would know exactly where it came from.
See http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/1915 - an American study (there is no equivalent British one, I often wonder why) which shows that tax revenue pales into insignificance against the wider social and health costs of legalisation. Tobacco and alcohol are used to compare.
No sources for denying that cannabis is a gateway drug.
A 25-year study (fairly comprehensive) revealed that in 86% of cases of those who had taken two or more illegal drugs, cannabis had been the substance they had used first.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Annette_Beautrais/publication/8978949_Cannabis_a nd_educational_attainment/links/0fcfd509ab156282be000000.pdf - link to authors though sadly not that particular conclusion.
Logically if it's legalised it will be cheaper, and more people will use it for both reasons. That's happened in every case of legalisation worldwide.
What is beyond dispute is that cannabis is a harmful substance - there are established links to severe mental illness (including a personal friend of mine) - so the arguments for legalising it just do not make sense.
-
No sources for denying that cannabis is a gateway drug.
It is a gateway drug, but.... there is nothing inherent in cannabis that leads users to try other drugs, it's a gateway because it's illegal, and because once you're in that world, and know those people, it's easy to take the next step. Making it legal would actually mean that over time (probably quite a short space of time) it would cease to be a gateway drug. However, something else would take it's place.
.
What is beyond dispute is that cannabis is a harmful substance - there are established links to severe mental illness (including a personal friend of mine) - so the arguments for legalising it just do not make sense.
Yes, but certainly no more so than tobacco and alcohol.
The arguements do make sense, and in context it's ridiculous that alcohol and tobacco are legal, and cannabis not. But it is not so clear cut that making it fully legal like alcohol and tobacco are would be as beneficial as some think.
-
This of course is why coalitions are fundamentally undemocratic and an abomination in any civilised system. What it means in effect is that an MP needs to vote in a way he or she believes is wrong and damaging to the country, in order to have another MP vote the way he or she wants on another issue (although that other MP believes it to be wrong). This is simply unacceptable. Any candidate who would even consider entering a coalition, is ipso facto unsuitable to be an MP.
MPs vote against their beliefs all the time, within their same party. They don't need to be in a coalition to do it. because they follow a party whip system. A perfect example is that a majority of MPs were not in favour of leaving the EU, yet the vast majority went against their beliefs and voted for it.
Let's take our MP for 2015-2017. The data's all public and easy to read.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/41020&showall=yes#divisions
Out of 419 votes he took part in, he rebelled from the party line 3 times. That's 0.7% of the time. It seems highly unlikely the other 99.3% of the votes, he believed exactly the party line was spot on. Even in one party there are many beliefs and viewpoints. No. He toed the party line for at least some of those times.
As an aside, an anti-coalition attitude of many in this nation got us to a position where 63.1% of the population didn't vote for the party that formed the government in 2015. It's why the SNP got 4.7% of the vote but got 7.69% of the seats, yet Ukip got 12.6% and got 0.15% of the seats (aka 1). It's why all the power is in a handful of marginal seats, whilst those in safe seats really can do nothing. (And until I moved to Marple, I'd lived all my life in safe seats.)
Our voting system is not a fair one by any means.
-
MPs vote against their beliefs all the time, within their same party. They don't need to be in a coalition to do it. because they follow a party whip system.
Well, I'd say any candidate who would accept any party whip, is ipso facto unsuitable to be an MP. That of course means that hardly any of the MPs who will be elected will be suitable. Each candidate makes their own personal statement of their beliefs to their electorate and if they say they will support or oppose a particular idea, they should not alter this just because their party changes policy, or agrees a deal with another party. Of course, people do change their mind on issues; that after all is the point of Commons debates, but it should be the MP's own decision on how to vote on any issue, not a question of party allegiance. We elect them as representatives of the constituency, not as a party automaton.
Our voting system is not a fair one by any means.
Actually, it's very fair. Each local area elects a person to represent the area in parliament. What could be fairer than that? Of course if the electorate fail to do their job and just vote for whoever has the right party label, that's the fault of the electorate, not the system. The system could be improved certainly. Getting rid of party names and symbols on the ballot paper would be a good start.
-
Actually, it's very fair. Each local area elects a person to represent the area in parliament. What could be fairer than that?
A system when I put the candidates in order, so I don't have to 2nd guess how other people will vote, or risk wasting my vote.
-
A system when I put the candidates in order, so I don't have to 2nd guess how other people will vote, or risk wasting my vote.
Absolutely.
Any system that sees people having to think about tactical voting, vote swaps and more, is a poor system. There are better ways for the people to vote for their representative in Parliament.
-
Also remember that in every other democracy the electorate can elect a second house and head of state.
We are stuck with a pensioner whose there becuase their daddy was, grandma was, etc etc. and 800 others who are appointed and like the idea of £300 a day. It may have been the best way of doing things x hundred years ago but it is far from democratic in a civilised western nation.
We need wholseale electoral reform, an elected head of state, two elected chambers and devolved government for the home nations. it could be that if each nation had a parliament then the commons become the elected second chamber and do away with the lords.
It needs serious thought - at the moment no one seems to be discussing it except the Greens and UKIP.
-
Well said Andy. I agree with nearly all of that. It's a bizarre anomaly that England is the only country in the UK without its own parliament or assembly.
The only thing I would disagree with is the idea of electing our Head of State. After all, the Americans have recently done that, and look what they ended up with!
I'm looking forward to the reign of Charles III and (if I live long enough) William V!
-
Here are the current bookies' odds for Hazel Grove. https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/hazel-grove/winning-party
I'm not a betting man, but I think I might be tempted to put a tenner on the LibDems at 13/2.
-
I thought the other day that I was receiving a lot of bumf from Lisa Smart and the Liberal Democrats, i.e. leaflets, newspapers, personally addressed letters, etc.
It had occurred to me that this must be costing them a small fortune.
Today all became clear. The national press, in the form of the Daily Express, The Guardian, and possibly others, have published a list of 16 candidates being sponsored by Gina Miller in her bid to halt brexit.
It would appear that Lisa Smart is being bankrolled by Gina Miller and her backers (which possibly includes George Soros).
-
^^^^
Well I won't be voting for her.
-
Well said Andy. I agree with nearly all of that. It's a bizarre anomaly that England is the only country in the UK without its own parliament or assembly.
The only thing I would disagree with is the idea of electing our Head of State. After all, the Americans have recently done that, and look what they ended up with!
I'm looking forward to the reign of Charles III and (if I live long enough) William V!
Liz will be thrilled that you are looking forward to her death
-
Also remember that in every other democracy the electorate can elect a second house and head of state.
We are stuck with a pensioner whose there becuase their daddy was, grandma was, etc etc. and 800 others who are appointed and like the idea of £300 a day. It may have been the best way of doing things x hundred years ago but it is far from democratic in a civilised western nation.
We need wholseale electoral reform, an elected head of state, two elected chambers and devolved government for the home nations. it could be that if each nation had a parliament then the commons become the elected second chamber and do away with the lords.
It needs serious thought - at the moment no one seems to be discussing it except the Greens and UKIP.
The think about the Lords is that it works rather well, daft in theory but works in practice. I do dislike the guaranteed career for old MPs but it does seem to work. IF it were an elected chamber, would you not just see another wave of gravy train hoppers?
-
A system when I put the candidates in order, so I don't have to 2nd guess how other people will vote, or risk wasting my vote.
I find it hard to vote for one, never mind two. PR is the way forward but I do like the representation we have when we elect an MP.
-
Well, I'd say any candidate who would accept any party whip, is ipso facto unsuitable to be an MP. That of course means that hardly any of the MPs who will be elected will be suitable. Each candidate makes their own personal statement of their beliefs to their electorate and if they say they will support or oppose a particular idea, they should not alter this just because their party changes policy, or agrees a deal with another party. Of course, people do change their mind on issues; that after all is the point of Commons debates, but it should be the MP's own decision on how to vote on any issue, not a question of party allegiance. We elect them as representatives of the constituency, not as a party automaton.
Actually, it's very fair. Each local area elects a person to represent the area in parliament. What could be fairer than that? Of course if the electorate fail to do their job and just vote for whoever has the right party label, that's the fault of the electorate, not the system. The system could be improved certainly. Getting rid of party names and symbols on the ballot paper would be a good start.
Not sure I agree with this. In a GE, you usually vote for your favoured govt and thus, you vote for the best manifesto which is the party line. The MP should toe the party line as that is why they were voted in.
-
The national press, in the form of the Daily Express, The Guardian, and possibly others, have published a list of 16 candidates being sponsored by Gina Miller in her bid to halt brexit.
Yes I read that too. Gina Miller's pressure group is called Best for Britain. However, it's nothing to do with 'halting Brexit'. The group is simply backing candidates who want a proper parliamentary vote on the outcome of the government's Brexit negotiations.
See https://bestforbritain.org/
-
Not sure I agree with this. In a GE, you usually vote for your favoured govt and thus, you vote for the best manifesto which is the party line. The MP should toe the party line as that is why they were voted in.
Agree. You can't *not* have coalitions if you don't want party politics!
-
I find it hard to vote for one, never mind two. PR is the way forward but I do like the representation we have when we elect an MP.
Always the option not to vote for a second choice (or third choice or whatever.) Sometimes the decisions are easier than others.
In my student days we ranked every candidate (if we wanted to). The most interesting option was at the bottom.
R.O.N.
Re-open nominations.
-
Liz will be thrilled that you are looking forward to her death
My position on the monarchy has mellowed with age. It's moved from beheading and revolution towards pension and redistribution of assets and wealth.
It is a common belief that people move to the right as they grow older - I never thought it'd happen to me but there you go.
-
Yes,
I'd much prefer to see Lisa as our MP than Willy.
-
Yes,
I'd much prefer to see Lisa as our MP than Willy.
Personally and based on hearing her at the hustings last time, I'd prefer almost anyone to Lisa Smart.
-
Not sure I agree with this. In a GE, you usually vote for your favoured govt and thus, you vote for the best manifesto which is the party line. The MP should toe the party line as that is why they were voted in.
Maybe you do and I know a lot of people do, but it defeats the whole point of the election. What I and a lot of people do is look at the constituency quite independently of what is happening in any other constituency. After all, we are not voting for a government, we are voting purely and simply for who we want as MP for Hazel Grove. If we vote as you suggest, we might as well get rid of the house of commons all together. If an MP is simply a voting machine for his or her party, why have them at all? Why not just have one MP for each party with a certain number of votes, depending on the party's success or otherwise?
-
Yes I read that too. Gina Miller's pressure group is called Best for Britain. However, it's nothing to do with 'halting Brexit'. The group is simply backing candidates who want a proper parliamentary vote on the outcome of the government's Brexit negotiations.
If that's what you want to believe Dave, you carry on believing that.
-
If an MP is simply a voting machine for his or her party, why have them at all?
Do you mean like Willy?
-
Do you mean like Willy?
Actually if you look back at their last parliamentary sessions, it would be more like Andrew Stunell.
William Wragg has rebelled against the whip more than Mr Stunell did.
-
I think that out of 420 votes, Willy has rebelled 3 times.
Anyway, Andrew Stunell isn't standing for election.
-
Such things are all on public record.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/41020&showall=yes#divisions
3 times going against the party line out of 419 votes. Wow. Rebel.
-
Personally and based on hearing her at the hustings last time, I'd prefer almost anyone to Lisa Smart.
I voted Willie as I didn't think too much of Lisa. I liked Michael but not his party.
-
Maybe you do and I know a lot of people do, but it defeats the whole point of the election. What I and a lot of people do is look at the constituency quite independently of what is happening in any other constituency. After all, we are not voting for a government, we are voting purely and simply for who we want as MP for Hazel Grove. If we vote as you suggest, we might as well get rid of the house of commons all together. If an MP is simply a voting machine for his or her party, why have them at all? Why not just have one MP for each party with a certain number of votes, depending on the party's success or otherwise?
Yes, you are voting for the MP but they are representing a political party and you can't ignore those policies.
-
Yes, you are voting for the MP but they are representing a political party and you can't ignore those policies.
They are a member of a political party, but they do not represent the party in Parliament, they represent the constituency. They presumably believe in the general principles of their party, or they would not be a member, but as for views on specific measures and issues, MPs of all parties differ. It may be you could vote for one candidate of a party, but not another. It all depends on the views of the individual.
-
Actually, it's very fair. Each local area elects a person to represent the area in parliament. What could be fairer than that? Of course if the electorate fail to do their job and just vote for whoever has the right party label, that's the fault of the electorate, not the system. The system could be improved certainly. Getting rid of party names and symbols on the ballot paper would be a good start.
The problem @Condate is that for many of those that bother to vote, their vote simply doesn't count in a first-past-the-post system. (This is why the Greens have v little representation and we have and a government formed in the past who haven't come top of the popular vote.) We have a "representative democracy" and yet no-one represents my views in parliament. Worse still do any casework for me if it goes against (his) ideology, which it probably would, based on his voting record. @andrewbowden I think nailed it.
If you remove party names (as they once did), parties need to bang out their candidate's names all the time. A waste of time.
A whole host of people vote for the party, particularly at a General. And on the basis of what they THINK a party represents rather than reading the manifesto (more typically read after an election to see what the winners have failed to deliver on). For instance "Tories are good on the economy and immigration" but policies of austerity and net non-EU immigration have failed quite badly. (I could give other parties' examples, including our own, but they are currently in government.)
I do yearn for a more responsive and representative democracy. And fairer voting would be part of that. Ditching some of the more absurd traditions of parliament, getting an elected 2nd chamber of statesmen-and-women rather than political hacks and PR will help. After all most people are the in middle of the political system by definition, but the current system gives you a right-wing government about 2/3rds of the time ("let's stick with what we know") and a left-wing one the rest of the time.
Life means making some compromises and forming friendships with people of slightly different opinions - why shouldn't politics be the same?
I am sorry, dear readers, that was a long one. I've been away too long! (Friends will know I've been doing a lot of caring recently.) 2 things to end up on, re comments below.
1) Former MP Andrew Stunell WAS the chief whip for a while!
2) Election expenses rules mean you declare everything, including large donors. Most Lib Dem money is raised locally. Would that we had the massive resources of the Tories!
(All comments above are my own although any resemblance to Lib Dem policies, alive or dead, is probably not co-incidental as I am a Lib Dem!)
-
The problem @Condate is that for many of those that bother to vote, their vote simply doesn't count in a first-past-the-post system. (This is why the Greens have v little representation and we have and a government formed in the past who haven't come top of the popular vote.) We have a "representative democracy" and yet no-one represents my views in parliament. Worse still do any casework for me if it goes against (his) ideology, which it probably would, based on his voting record. @andrewbowden I think nailed it.
If you remove party names (as they once did), parties need to bang out their candidate's names all the time. A waste of time.
A whole host of people vote for the party, particularly at a General. And on the basis of what they THINK a party represents rather than reading the manifesto (more typically read after an election to see what the winners have failed to deliver on). For instance "Tories are good on the economy and immigration" but policies of austerity and net non-EU immigration have failed quite badly. (I could give other parties' examples, including our own, but they are currently in government.)
I do yearn for a more responsive and representative democracy. And fairer voting would be part of that. Ditching some of the more absurd traditions of parliament, getting an elected 2nd chamber of statesmen-and-women rather than political hacks and PR will help. After all most people are the in middle of the political system by definition, but the current system gives you a right-wing government about 2/3rds of the time ("let's stick with what we know") and a left-wing one the rest of the time.
Life means making some compromises and forming friendships with people of slightly different opinions - why shouldn't politics be the same?
I am sorry, dear readers, that was a long one. I've been away too long! (Friends will know I've been doing a lot of caring recently.) 2 things to end up on, re comments below.
1) Former MP Andrew Stunell WAS the chief whip for a while!
2) Election expenses rules mean you declare everything, including large donors. Most Lib Dem money is raised locally. Would that we had the massive resources of the Tories!
(All comments above are my own although any resemblance to Lib Dem policies, alive or dead, is probably not co-incidental as I am a Lib Dem!)
There is some truth in that, I find it weird to support a political party in the way I, for instance, support a football team. The blind devotion people have seems strange when the party is just a set of ideas / ideals / ideology which are able to change very quickly. Now, I cheered like mad when Kevin Keegan scored and equally when George Riley netted because they wore black and white. I find it hard to see how people can cheer for Tiny Blair and Jeremy Corbyn on the basis of the same rosette.
-
There is some truth in that, I find it weird to support a political party in the way I, for instance, support a football team.
I think people still do that to some extent, but less than they used to in past years. There was a time when politics was more tribal - people voted for the party that looked after 'people like us'. So if you were working class and lived in a council house you voted Labour, and if you were middle class and owned your own house you voted Conservative. There were variations on that (for example, if you were a member of the Methodist church and a teetotaller you voted Liberal), but that was more or less how it was when I were a lad.
The social changes which we have seen in the past fifty years (multiculturalism, the collapse of mining and heavy industry, the expansion of higher education etc etc) have changed all that. There is still a huge gap between the wealthy and the poor, but it's less 'tribal' now, so people don't automatically vote for the same party all the time. I would like to think it's now about what Tony Benn used to call 'ishoos', but I fear it isn't, it's more about the personal qualities of political leaders. So although opinion polls show that a lot of people agree with many of the policies in the Labour Manifesto, Corbyn's prospects of being prime minister are vanishingly small. Whereas the Tories are staking everything on Theresa 'strong and stable' May. They are portraying her as Thatcher.2. She patently isn't, but it will work. But something tells me she won't get the landslide that they are hoping for.
-
The issue with supposed landslides is that if they seem destined to happen, people stay at home rather than vote. This is one reason why May occasionally mutters "not taking anything for granted". She doesn't want people to stay at home. But when the polls give you runaway leads, that's a tough message.
It's also why, if you oppose the Tories, getting out and voting is essential.
-
Indeed it is. But I think Wragg will be hard to beat, especially as there is no UKIP candidate, so many of the 5,000 UKIP voters in 2015 will probably vote for him.
-
The issue with supposed landslides is that if they seem destined to happen, people stay at home rather than vote. This is one reason why May occasionally mutters "not taking anything for granted". She doesn't want people to stay at home. But when the polls give you runaway leads, that's a tough message.
It's also why, if you oppose the Tories, getting out and voting is essential.
What if you quite like the Tories and oppose the politics of the lazy?
-
What if you quite like the Tories and oppose the politics of the lazy?
Then you're a bit stuck in this constituency.
-
The issue with supposed landslides is that if they seem destined to happen, people stay at home rather than vote. This is one reason why May occasionally mutters "not taking anything for granted". She doesn't want people to stay at home. But when the polls give you runaway leads, that's a tough message.
It's also why, if you oppose the Tories, getting out and voting is essential.
Seems like an oxymoron to me. Do you think people would give up voting for the cause they believe in if they see the party they don't want to govern with a big lead in the polls (which are hardly infallible themselves)?
How many "supposed landslides" have been predicted before the actual vote was taken? How was voting behaviour measured in these supposed landslides?
-
I'm old enough to remember the February 1974 general election, which was called by prime minister Heath after months of strikes and other industrial disputes. It was billed as the 'who governs Britain' election (i.e. is it the government or the trade unions?). The Tories were expected to win, although I'm not sure a landslide was expected.
In the event, Labour won (narrowly), and then called another general election later that year at which they won a bigger majority.
Right now, I think the Tories are right to fear that some of their supporters will stay at home on 8 June because they believe the election is a foregone conclusion. And there's also a lot of people who are just fed up with elections, referendums etc. Remember Brenda from Bristol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6-IQAdFU3w
-
I still don't see the logic. I'd be interested in objective evidence that shows people stayed away from previous elections because they thought it was a foregone conclusion.
What cannot be argued is the general trend in decreasing turnouts. You touched upon some of the likely causes earlier, Dave.
For me, the steady decline in "tribal" politics correlates with the lack of diversity between the two main parties since 1997. People are fed up with the lack of choice, and under first past the post no other party was ever going to get a look-in. Tie this in to the almost presidential attitude of Blair and his influence on Cameron (arguably Blair II), and you get far more style over substance.
As Corbyn has a markedly different and more left-reaching manifesto than Miliband did, it will be interesting to see how this changes things.
-
I still don't see the logic. I'd be interested in objective evidence that shows people stayed away from previous elections because they thought it was a foregone conclusion.
I can't offer evidence. Just perceived wisdom. And I would presume there's some truth in perceived wisdom because the Tories keep banging on about not taking anything for granted.
Perhaps it's not wanting to sound arrogant. 1992 and Neil Kinnock prematurely celebrating and all that,
What cannot be argued is the general trend in decreasing turnouts. You touched upon some of the likely causes earlier, Dave.
For me, the steady decline in "tribal" politics correlates with the lack of diversity between the two main parties since 1997. People are fed up with the lack of choice, and under first past the post no other party was ever going to get a look-in. Tie this in to the almost presidential attitude of Blair and his influence on Cameron (arguably Blair II), and you get far more style over substance.
I can't help but think there's a link with the career politician. The politician who has no real world experience. Has never done anything except politics. They've helped out with some MP's case word. They've been a councillor. They've done a degree with Politics in the title. They all have one thing in common: next to no experience outside of politics.
Just like, funnily enough, the person who was MP for Marple from 2015 to 2017, and who is standing again now.
Back in the 1990s Channel 4 dramatised a book called 'A Very British Coup' that was published in 1982. I never read the book, but the TV series was excellent. But it's dated dreadfully. In it, a former miner/Trade Union official who lived in a Sheffield council house, became Prime Minster.
Can you image that happening today? I certainly can't.
-
I still don't see the logic. I'd be interested in objective evidence that shows people stayed away from previous elections because they thought it was a foregone conclusion.
How about 2001, whose 59% turnout was, I believe, the lowest in any UK general election ever! And it is generally thought that this was because everyone knew the Labour government, elected four years previously with a famous landslide, would be re-elected - and it was.
The turnout two years ago was 66%. I bet it will be lower than that this time.
-
The critical factor is probably not the identification of the the difference between Labour & Tory. It is where are the dissatisfied ex- Labour voters, who in 2015 voted UKIP, going to go?
This is where the election will be decided.
In football parlance, it is a bit of a six pointer or even a nine pointer. 3 points for not voting UKIP, 3 points for deserting Labour AND 3 points for voting Tory.
-
I think that's right. UKIP got 12% of the national vote in the last general election (coincidentally they also got 12% in Hazel Grove). UKIP are not even standing here, of course, so those who voted for them last time will either vote for another party or stay at home and watch the telly.
The other day I wrote Wragg will be hard to beat, especially as there is no UKIP candidate, so many of the 5,000 UKIP voters in 2015 will probably vote for him.
Thinking about it again, I wonder whether it will be that simple. I suspect there were some former diehard Labour voters who were happy to switch to UKIP in 2015, but would stop short of ever voting Tory. And as Labour also supports Brexit, I wonder whether some will simply return to Labour.
One thing's certain, they won't vote LibDem. So here in Hazel Grove, Willie Wragg will benefit whether they vote Tory or Labour.
-
Some people have voted Ukip as a protest vote as well. Makes it difficult to really work out where their votes will go if - as everyone assumes - they are now pretty much dead
-
How about 2001, whose 59% turnout was, I believe, the lowest in any UK general election ever! And it is generally thought that this was because everyone knew the Labour government, elected four years previously with a famous landslide, would be re-elected - and it was.
The turnout two years ago was 66%. I bet it will be lower than that this time.
I can't be completely convinced about 2001 as there are no hard stats to back it up. Interestingly the BBC did poll people who didn't vote (though the number polled is not clear so hard to judge). 77% said there was no point in voting because it would not change a thing, while 65% said they did not trust politicians. Just over half said it was obvious that Labour would win anyway. So the highest figure 77% signified the shift in the perceived value of one's vote - which would tally with the decline in polarisation between the parties.
Compare this with 1987 (identical scenario, 4 years after a landslide victory), where the turnout actually increased from 1983 - in my view because polarisation still meant a more identifiable choice. There's a slight chance we may be surprised this year given the more radical Labour manifesto.
That said I feel there is absolutely no chance that Labour will get in. 1) They are finished in Scotland 2) They are losing ground in Wales too 3) They have no appeal whatsoever in the South East - and no amount of gains in poorer areas will make up that overall shortfall.
UKIP appear to be finished as a political party. Exit from the EU has been achieved which was their overriding aim, and the Tories have benefitted from EU exit in the long run. Not putting up candidates is a sure fire way of decreasing their share of the vote. Always a chance they'd increase their MP share though - the vagaries of the electoral system.
-
That all makes good sense to me too, Melancholy. The only thing I would add is that I have a feeling the results will be patchy, and there will be a few surprises in some constituencies, perhaps caused by the Brexit factor. So here in Hazel Grove, if the 48% of Remainers (many of whom in the past would have voted Tory or Labour) turn out in force for the LibDem, there may just be an upset. But don't bank on it.......
-
I can't offer evidence. Just perceived wisdom. And I would presume there's some truth in perceived wisdom because the Tories keep banging on about not taking anything for granted.
Perhaps it's not wanting to sound arrogant. 1992 and Neil Kinnock prematurely celebrating and all that,
Now, that was funny
I can't help but think there's a link with the career politician. The politician who has no real world experience. Has never done anything except politics. They've helped out with some MP's case word. They've been a councillor. They've done a degree with Politics in the title. They all have one thing in common: next to no experience outside of politics.
Just like, funnily enough, the person who was MP for Marple from 2015 to 2017, and who is standing again now.
Wragg was a teacher wasn't he? Ok, teacher's are a little sheltered but I thought that was One of his advantages over Lisa Smart
Back in the 1990s Channel 4 dramatised a book called 'A Very British Coup' that was published in 1982. I never read the book, but the TV series was excellent. But it's dated dreadfully. In it, a former miner/Trade Union official who lived in a Sheffield council house, became Prime Minster.
Can you image that happening today? I certainly can't.
-
Wragg was a teacher wasn't he? Ok, teacher's are a little sheltered but I thought that was One of his advantages over Lisa Smart
I know several teachers and I won't hear a word said against the profession. Good teachers are hardworking, extremely dedicated people. Plus they put up with all those children!
However, by his own CV, William Wragg's teaching experience appears to be limited.
http://cv.democracyclub.org.uk/show_cv/4197
He did a two year programme to train to be a teacher. You start as an unqualified teacher, and end as a qualified one with your PGCE. http://graduates.teachfirst.org.uk/leadership-development-programme/training
And as soon as he (presumably) finished the programme, he quit to become a caseworker in Westminster. And that was it.