"Oh good, my copy of Local Government First has arrived !"
For those who have never been a councillor, you might be totally unaware of this publication, but Local Government First is a weekly magazine that you get sent from the Local Government Associated which, to be honest, is ignored by the vast majority of councillors I know, in many cases they are thrown in to the nearest bin, totally unread, and if we are talking about cutting out waste, they could easily be emailed to councillors rather than be printed and posted every week.
Mine arrived this morning. 30 seconds later the plastic it was in was in one bin, the magazine (staples removed) was in my recycling. What a waste of time and money.
5/23/2010
Nazis in Norfolk
The ever excellent Malcolm Redfellow has another gem of a story on his blog about the author Henry Williamson, his Fascist leanings, his love of the Nazis and the fact that his North Norfolk house is for sale.
I cannot really add much more than that which has been written by Malcolm, but I wanted to add my own local knowledge on the subject of Henry Williamson.
From 2003 to 2005 I "adopted" Stiffkey, the wartime home of Henry Williamson. By adopted I mean I took responsibility for getting out Lib Dem leaflets to Stiffkey four or five times a year. In doing this, I got to know where all the letter boxes were, and started to bump in to the same people over and again and started to be able to chat with people about the local history of Stiffkey.
One man who had lived in Stiffkey all his life, told me that he and his parents knew Henry Williamson, and like many, they didn't care for him very much.
Aside from his arrest which Malcolm Redfollow writes about, according to the chap I knew, Wells police would regularly call on Mr Williamson, checking his house out regularly for radio equipment, and reminding him of the blackout precautions. Now it appears this was Williamson's biggest problem as he would light his house up well and leave the windows open for the light to shine out. So the story goes, he was asked by a group of locals who spoke to him about this, if he would close his curtains so that Stiffkey wouldn't be bombed, and Williamson's response was "Oh don't worry. I can assure you we won't be bombed".
Local's took this to be that Williamson was allowing the light from his house to be used as a marker as to where the North Norfolk coast was in order to aid German bombers.
Whatever the excuse, it appears that Williamson was a gullible fool if he believed the Nazi message. It is though pleasant to know that despite people liking to maintain Norfolk is a place full of easily fooled simple country folk, local people were never taken in by him.
I cannot really add much more than that which has been written by Malcolm, but I wanted to add my own local knowledge on the subject of Henry Williamson.
From 2003 to 2005 I "adopted" Stiffkey, the wartime home of Henry Williamson. By adopted I mean I took responsibility for getting out Lib Dem leaflets to Stiffkey four or five times a year. In doing this, I got to know where all the letter boxes were, and started to bump in to the same people over and again and started to be able to chat with people about the local history of Stiffkey.
One man who had lived in Stiffkey all his life, told me that he and his parents knew Henry Williamson, and like many, they didn't care for him very much.
Aside from his arrest which Malcolm Redfollow writes about, according to the chap I knew, Wells police would regularly call on Mr Williamson, checking his house out regularly for radio equipment, and reminding him of the blackout precautions. Now it appears this was Williamson's biggest problem as he would light his house up well and leave the windows open for the light to shine out. So the story goes, he was asked by a group of locals who spoke to him about this, if he would close his curtains so that Stiffkey wouldn't be bombed, and Williamson's response was "Oh don't worry. I can assure you we won't be bombed".
Local's took this to be that Williamson was allowing the light from his house to be used as a marker as to where the North Norfolk coast was in order to aid German bombers.
Whatever the excuse, it appears that Williamson was a gullible fool if he believed the Nazi message. It is though pleasant to know that despite people liking to maintain Norfolk is a place full of easily fooled simple country folk, local people were never taken in by him.
5/22/2010
Vote labour - Vote for hypocrites - Vote for toadying candidates who are wise after the event
I know I ought to be astonished to see that Ed balls and Ed Miliband are now criticising the war in Iraq, and Labour's record of being one of the two main instigators of the war. The problem is, nothing about the duplicity of the Labour Party comes as a surprise anymore.
The two "Ed's" excuse for being able to come out as anti war is that they were not MP's in 2003. The problem is, there excuse falls apart when you realise what they were doing in 2003.
Now if Ed Balls was that upset about the war in Iraq and the illegal invasion in 2003, wouldn't you imagine he would, as a matter of principles, resigned his job as advisor to the Chancellor ?
If he was that digusted he might ahve done a Robin Cook and resigned any positions of authority that gave credibility to the War ?
Of course not. Just months after the invasion, as a good loyal Brown man, as a toady of the new labour regime, he was selected for the then safe seat of Normanton.
Getting a safe seat or stanging up against the war in Iraq ? I know which side of the argument Mr Balls came down on.
So what of Ed Miliband ? It appears that in the period leading up[ to the war, Mr Miliband too was a government advisor.
He did go to harvard in thr 2003/2004 year, but as terms run from Autumn to Summer, he must presumably still have been with the government up to the start of the war in Spring 2003 ?
Of course, a year at Harvard would have been the ideal opportunity for him to express his oppostion to the war in Iraq in articles, essays and speeches. I wonder if Mr Miliband is willing to publish all the articles from 2003/2004 ? I would guess that given that he was selected for a safe labour seat in 2005, no such speeches, essay or articles exist.
So vote for political expediency. For for Ed.
The two "Ed's" excuse for being able to come out as anti war is that they were not MP's in 2003. The problem is, there excuse falls apart when you realise what they were doing in 2003.
Now if Ed Balls was that upset about the war in Iraq and the illegal invasion in 2003, wouldn't you imagine he would, as a matter of principles, resigned his job as advisor to the Chancellor ?
If he was that digusted he might ahve done a Robin Cook and resigned any positions of authority that gave credibility to the War ?
Of course not. Just months after the invasion, as a good loyal Brown man, as a toady of the new labour regime, he was selected for the then safe seat of Normanton.
Getting a safe seat or stanging up against the war in Iraq ? I know which side of the argument Mr Balls came down on.
So what of Ed Miliband ? It appears that in the period leading up[ to the war, Mr Miliband too was a government advisor.
He did go to harvard in thr 2003/2004 year, but as terms run from Autumn to Summer, he must presumably still have been with the government up to the start of the war in Spring 2003 ?
Of course, a year at Harvard would have been the ideal opportunity for him to express his oppostion to the war in Iraq in articles, essays and speeches. I wonder if Mr Miliband is willing to publish all the articles from 2003/2004 ? I would guess that given that he was selected for a safe labour seat in 2005, no such speeches, essay or articles exist.
So vote for political expediency. For for Ed.
5/20/2010
Blogging hiatus
After what has been the best fortnight on this blog ever for comments and unique visitors, I know I ought to follow this up with daily postings and lots more news. The problem, is, I don't really know where to take this blog at the moment.
So whilst I don't intend to totally stop blogging, until I have something really important to say or at least have some issues I can get my teeth in to, expect blogging to be patchy, at best.
5/16/2010
I'm staying put, for now.
I am convinced by the coalition and our reason for entering it ?
No.
Am I convinced that some of our MPs didn't get stars in their eyes ?
No.
Do I think electors have been lied to ?
Yes
As a councillor elected as a Lib Dem, do I think it would further damage people's trust in my area if I resigned as a Lib Dem having been elected as one ?
Yes.
People are sick at the moment of voting for people who say one thing, then do another. "Vote Lib Dem to get ..." they were told. In my area, I intend to keep my promises even if nationally the party have failed to do that.
So until my term is up as a councillor, I will remain a Lib Dem and I will continue to oppose those things I was told we should be opposing in election literature delivered just days ago. However, I cannot promise I will remain a Lib Dem after May 2011.
No.
Am I convinced that some of our MPs didn't get stars in their eyes ?
No.
Do I think electors have been lied to ?
Yes
As a councillor elected as a Lib Dem, do I think it would further damage people's trust in my area if I resigned as a Lib Dem having been elected as one ?
Yes.
People are sick at the moment of voting for people who say one thing, then do another. "Vote Lib Dem to get ..." they were told. In my area, I intend to keep my promises even if nationally the party have failed to do that.
So until my term is up as a councillor, I will remain a Lib Dem and I will continue to oppose those things I was told we should be opposing in election literature delivered just days ago. However, I cannot promise I will remain a Lib Dem after May 2011.
Losing the argument ?
We had a meeting yesterday of Lib Dem members, councillors and activists, about the coalition the party has gone in to with the Conservative Party. It was interesting, but brought up some issues that really do make me wonder why some people ever joined the Liberal Democrats.
There were obviously a number of people, including me, whose views were very polarised on this issue. I was far from being the only one feeling a sense of disgust at the way our parliamentary party has acted. But I was appalled at the way some in our party will resort to personal attacks, blatant lies and selective use of quotes in order to justify their side of the argument, and all those people were on the "We love the coalition" side of the debate.
The first example was when I raised the point that we launched a "Tory VAT bombshell" poster in the General Election campaign, but now we might be the ones to be supporting the VAT rise. When I said VAT was the most regressive form of Taxation, hitting the poor most, a former Lib Dem council leader, and an accountant to boot, stood up and told me I was wrong. That VAT was not at all regressive and was very fair because it exempted children's clothes and food.
Now I might expect a political novice not to know much about VAT, but a former council leader, an accountant ?
When I retorted back that "it was Vince Cable who said it was the most regressive", he had no response other than to repeat it ?
For the sake of Clarity, just Google "Vince Cable Regressive VAT" and you get dozens of quotes.
Another point made by those who supported the deal was that a Green Councillor in Norwich had written to the Eastern Daily Press saying the coalition was a good idea and so had Iain Dale !
When I responded pointing out that the Green's in Norwich were putting out on twitter that this was a great opportunity to recruit Lib Dems, so no wonder they were keen on it, and Iain Dale might be a supporter of the deal, but he was also predicting this would have have a detrimental affect on Lib Dem election results, the pro camp's response was "We don't care what they've got to say anyway !"
So when it supported the pro Tory coalitionists to use their quotes, it was great. When those same people being quoted said things that did not support their arguments, suddenly their views were to be ignored. Confused ?
Finally, and most insulting, was a comment from one North Norfolk member. Now I have known this person since 1997. I drove her home from the General Election Count in 1997 at 5am in the morning. She has known that I have been an active campaigner, given up a lot of things in life and spent an awful amount of money on supporting the Lib Dems in North Norfolk and beyond.
So for this lady to turn around after I had spoken and say "We're tired of these people on the internet and twitter who do nothing for this party and never get out from behind their computers to do real work", was a real insult.
I can accept reasoned argument and genuine criticism. But personal attacks from someone like that in a public forum were far from liberal or fair.
The view I got from the meeting yesterday was that those people who for years I have had to argue with in order to stand paper candidates, in order to do target letters, in order to deliver Focus leaflets outside of election time, were the very same people who were arguing for the coalition.
I have almost made a decision on my future politically. But comments and the attitude of some people yesterday would not encourage me to join the Lib Dems if I was not already a member.
There were obviously a number of people, including me, whose views were very polarised on this issue. I was far from being the only one feeling a sense of disgust at the way our parliamentary party has acted. But I was appalled at the way some in our party will resort to personal attacks, blatant lies and selective use of quotes in order to justify their side of the argument, and all those people were on the "We love the coalition" side of the debate.
The first example was when I raised the point that we launched a "Tory VAT bombshell" poster in the General Election campaign, but now we might be the ones to be supporting the VAT rise. When I said VAT was the most regressive form of Taxation, hitting the poor most, a former Lib Dem council leader, and an accountant to boot, stood up and told me I was wrong. That VAT was not at all regressive and was very fair because it exempted children's clothes and food.
Now I might expect a political novice not to know much about VAT, but a former council leader, an accountant ?
When I retorted back that "it was Vince Cable who said it was the most regressive", he had no response other than to repeat it ?
For the sake of Clarity, just Google "Vince Cable Regressive VAT" and you get dozens of quotes.
Another point made by those who supported the deal was that a Green Councillor in Norwich had written to the Eastern Daily Press saying the coalition was a good idea and so had Iain Dale !
When I responded pointing out that the Green's in Norwich were putting out on twitter that this was a great opportunity to recruit Lib Dems, so no wonder they were keen on it, and Iain Dale might be a supporter of the deal, but he was also predicting this would have have a detrimental affect on Lib Dem election results, the pro camp's response was "We don't care what they've got to say anyway !"
So when it supported the pro Tory coalitionists to use their quotes, it was great. When those same people being quoted said things that did not support their arguments, suddenly their views were to be ignored. Confused ?
Finally, and most insulting, was a comment from one North Norfolk member. Now I have known this person since 1997. I drove her home from the General Election Count in 1997 at 5am in the morning. She has known that I have been an active campaigner, given up a lot of things in life and spent an awful amount of money on supporting the Lib Dems in North Norfolk and beyond.
So for this lady to turn around after I had spoken and say "We're tired of these people on the internet and twitter who do nothing for this party and never get out from behind their computers to do real work", was a real insult.
I can accept reasoned argument and genuine criticism. But personal attacks from someone like that in a public forum were far from liberal or fair.
The view I got from the meeting yesterday was that those people who for years I have had to argue with in order to stand paper candidates, in order to do target letters, in order to deliver Focus leaflets outside of election time, were the very same people who were arguing for the coalition.
I have almost made a decision on my future politically. But comments and the attitude of some people yesterday would not encourage me to join the Lib Dems if I was not already a member.
5/15/2010
The real commitment to inclusive Government laid bare
In the last parliament, there was one person in the Lib Dems above anyone else who was really promoting the case of cross party co-operation on key areas of policy.
Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb championed the idea of parties working together to come up with a proper response to the issues of personal care for the elderly in a way which would remove party political point scoring and instead focus on solving problems.
So what has Norman Lamb's reward been for championing working with other parties ? Nothing. No ministerial post, not at any level of government.
So when it comes to proving that people can work with other parties, Norman Lamb is given zilch by Nick Clegg in what appears to be Norman bring pushed aside by David Cameron, who seems now to be able to decide who in the Lib Dems will and won't be given positions.
What an appalling position for the Lib Dems to be in.
Update : I should add that Norman was not at the meeting of Norfolk Lib Dem members this morning. Simon Wright MP was in the hotseat and to be fair, did a good job of trying to justify the party's decisions. Although I disagree with almost everything he said and his interpretation of the situation, he remains a friend and even if I find myself leaving the party, Simon will remain a friend.
Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb championed the idea of parties working together to come up with a proper response to the issues of personal care for the elderly in a way which would remove party political point scoring and instead focus on solving problems.
So what has Norman Lamb's reward been for championing working with other parties ? Nothing. No ministerial post, not at any level of government.
So when it comes to proving that people can work with other parties, Norman Lamb is given zilch by Nick Clegg in what appears to be Norman bring pushed aside by David Cameron, who seems now to be able to decide who in the Lib Dems will and won't be given positions.
What an appalling position for the Lib Dems to be in.
Update : I should add that Norman was not at the meeting of Norfolk Lib Dem members this morning. Simon Wright MP was in the hotseat and to be fair, did a good job of trying to justify the party's decisions. Although I disagree with almost everything he said and his interpretation of the situation, he remains a friend and even if I find myself leaving the party, Simon will remain a friend.
5/12/2010
Cabinet positions with little policy
I can tell you the reaction in the staffroom at work today was one of total shock that the Lib Dems had folded and given up the position of schools minister to Tory Michael Gove.
Crazy ideas from the Tories about intoducing a compulsory two hours of maths a day at primary level and allowing any group to set up their own schools which allows money and resources to be taken from existing schools now seem to be given the go ahead by the Lib Dems.
More total capitulation whilst Lib Dems take position in cabinet which have very little in the way of policy as part of the brief.
Our leaflets in the election warned about letting the Tories get hold of the NHS, and who is in charge of the NHS now ? Andrew Lansley, the chum of the private healthcare business. And more than that, the man we condemned for walking away from an all party agreement on healthcare and how to care for the elderly.
Now we have given them education too !
Out new party logo will be a white bird on a white background painted on to a flag !
Crazy ideas from the Tories about intoducing a compulsory two hours of maths a day at primary level and allowing any group to set up their own schools which allows money and resources to be taken from existing schools now seem to be given the go ahead by the Lib Dems.
More total capitulation whilst Lib Dems take position in cabinet which have very little in the way of policy as part of the brief.
Our leaflets in the election warned about letting the Tories get hold of the NHS, and who is in charge of the NHS now ? Andrew Lansley, the chum of the private healthcare business. And more than that, the man we condemned for walking away from an all party agreement on healthcare and how to care for the elderly.
Now we have given them education too !
Out new party logo will be a white bird on a white background painted on to a flag !
5/11/2010
How many reasons do we need not to sit with the Tories ?
How many good reason do we need to know the Tories are not the people we want to sit with ?
1) Homophobia - The Tories have consistently had problems with homophobia amongst their ranks. Chris Grayling started it all off again recently by claiming that B&B owners ought to be able to refuse to have gay peoiple staying in their establishments. Then we had the Tory PPC who set up a prayer group to use the power of religion to stop people geing gay. Need I go on and list all the others ?
2) Nadine Dorries - The twitter account deletion does not hide the fact that she calls people who are pro choice "Dr Death" and has numerous other issues that are totally incompatible with anyone who sees "fairness" as a core principles of their beliefs.
3) Voting reform - AV is not PR. Can I repeat that, AV IS NOT PR !
4) Murdoch - I always see it as a good rule of thumb that if Murdoch supports it, we ought to be against it.
5) Iraq - Let's not forget, the Tories were more supportive of the idea of invading Iraq than Labour were.
6) The NHS - In leaflets distributed by the Lib Dems in the general election, we were apparently to be very afraid of the Tories gettinh their hands on the NHS as they would wreck it. Not my words, but those of the Lib Dems.
7) Non Doms - MPs who are Non-Doms, multi millionaire backers who are Non-Doms. Should I go on ?
8) Flippers - Remember how many Tory MPs and Tory front benchers flipped their mortgages in order to gain the maximum amount from their expenses ? No Lib Dems did it. We were proud of that, but we'll sit with those who do.
9) Cleaning up parliament - How many of Cameron's front bench supported plans to reform parliamentary expenses before the expenses scandal broke ? Would it surprise people that a majhority didn't support reform ?
10) Trident - Apparently we need a cold war weapons system ?
This is a short list thought up by a very tired, fed up, dejected and utterly depressed activist.
I wonder who can add to this list who is feeling more inspired than me ?
1) Homophobia - The Tories have consistently had problems with homophobia amongst their ranks. Chris Grayling started it all off again recently by claiming that B&B owners ought to be able to refuse to have gay peoiple staying in their establishments. Then we had the Tory PPC who set up a prayer group to use the power of religion to stop people geing gay. Need I go on and list all the others ?
2) Nadine Dorries - The twitter account deletion does not hide the fact that she calls people who are pro choice "Dr Death" and has numerous other issues that are totally incompatible with anyone who sees "fairness" as a core principles of their beliefs.
3) Voting reform - AV is not PR. Can I repeat that, AV IS NOT PR !
4) Murdoch - I always see it as a good rule of thumb that if Murdoch supports it, we ought to be against it.
5) Iraq - Let's not forget, the Tories were more supportive of the idea of invading Iraq than Labour were.
6) The NHS - In leaflets distributed by the Lib Dems in the general election, we were apparently to be very afraid of the Tories gettinh their hands on the NHS as they would wreck it. Not my words, but those of the Lib Dems.
7) Non Doms - MPs who are Non-Doms, multi millionaire backers who are Non-Doms. Should I go on ?
8) Flippers - Remember how many Tory MPs and Tory front benchers flipped their mortgages in order to gain the maximum amount from their expenses ? No Lib Dems did it. We were proud of that, but we'll sit with those who do.
9) Cleaning up parliament - How many of Cameron's front bench supported plans to reform parliamentary expenses before the expenses scandal broke ? Would it surprise people that a majhority didn't support reform ?
10) Trident - Apparently we need a cold war weapons system ?
This is a short list thought up by a very tired, fed up, dejected and utterly depressed activist.
I wonder who can add to this list who is feeling more inspired than me ?
5/10/2010
Do I want to remain in a party that goes in to a full coalition with the Tories ?
The rumours this afternoon suggest that Lib Dem MPs are now swinging towards the idea of a full coalition with the Tories. If this is the case, I am absolutely appalled.
I can understand the arguments for allowing the Tories to run a minority government. I can understand the arguments for allowing the Tories to have support on key issues like the Queen's speech, major issues in their manifesto, and areas where Lib Dems and Tories agree. However, I cannot see the need for a full coalition other than to tickle the bellys of certain Lib Dem MPs wishing for a ministerial car and the title "Right Honourable".
If we get in return immediate support for the AV voting system and AV+, then I could stomach it. But if it is to got to a committee, then to a referendum, and finally be allowed to be crushed by the Rupert Murdoch media empire who will use every sinew of their energy to oppose it, ensuring we have torn the Lib Dems apart in order to allow the Tories to rule with no change to our voting system, then our MPs will allow themselves to become the Ramsay McDonalds of the Liberal movement.
Do I want to remain in such a party ? Do I hell !
Tuesday Night Update - So much of me wants to just give up on the party, but in many ways, that is what our parliamentary party has done, and I think there should be some of us left after they do their Ramsay McDonald act and either lose their seats or join the Tory Party. Someone has to carry the torch for the Lib Dems, so I will, in all probably stay on.
I can understand the arguments for allowing the Tories to run a minority government. I can understand the arguments for allowing the Tories to have support on key issues like the Queen's speech, major issues in their manifesto, and areas where Lib Dems and Tories agree. However, I cannot see the need for a full coalition other than to tickle the bellys of certain Lib Dem MPs wishing for a ministerial car and the title "Right Honourable".
If we get in return immediate support for the AV voting system and AV+, then I could stomach it. But if it is to got to a committee, then to a referendum, and finally be allowed to be crushed by the Rupert Murdoch media empire who will use every sinew of their energy to oppose it, ensuring we have torn the Lib Dems apart in order to allow the Tories to rule with no change to our voting system, then our MPs will allow themselves to become the Ramsay McDonalds of the Liberal movement.
Do I want to remain in such a party ? Do I hell !
Tuesday Night Update - So much of me wants to just give up on the party, but in many ways, that is what our parliamentary party has done, and I think there should be some of us left after they do their Ramsay McDonald act and either lose their seats or join the Tory Party. Someone has to carry the torch for the Lib Dems, so I will, in all probably stay on.
5/07/2010
The sanctimonious duplicity and double speak of the Green Party in Norwich South
Update : Before I start, and for the sake of clarity (since some Greens reading this article keep going on about Lib Dem bar charts in the comments), can I make clear this article is not about the Greens use of bar charts. It does, however, highlight that the Greens claims that Lib Dem bar charts are wrong, and only theirs are right, is a hollow lie. Please read and address the points I have made about the Green's use of statistics from two separate elections using different voting systems and the Green Party's own stated objection to the Lib Dems doing this. Also note that the Greens are still complaining about Lib Dem claims that the Greens were in 4th place in Norwich when the result last Thursday showed that the Greens were in 4th place ? Confused ? Read on.
Main article starts
The Green Party have been the darlings of the local media in Norwich for some time. Their success in local elections has allowed local news media outlets to have easy copy on politics issues that seems different and quirky, whilst those same media outlets never expose the Greens to cross examination of their policy, the conduct, their behaviour and their sheer duplicity which those of us who have analysed them for sometimes can see plain as day.
The media had something of a wake up call during the Norwich by-election when the Greens ramped themselves up, and the media fell for it hook, line and sinker.
BBC East gave the Green candidate Rupert "I was once a Lib Dem" Read a seat on the special by-election debate, at the expense of the UKIP candidate, whilst Radio 5, ITV and Sky News frothed with excitement as the Greens told the story of how they were going to cause a major upset.
The Green campaign also got plenty of press attention for a meaningless campaign pledge that the Lib Dems refused to sign for the simple fact that it was meaningless. The media made great play of the Lib Dems refusal to sign the pledge, but printed not one word when the Greens leaflets actually started to make personal attacks on the Lib Dems, despite the fact that the Green "campaign pledge" had supposedly promised not to make such attacks.
At the Norwich North Count, the extent to which the media had been suckered in by the Greens was evident when two reporters from Sky News asked me what was happening and the order of the finishers. When I said the Greens were in 5th place, they simply couldn't believe it and said "Poor Rupert". They had bought the lie, as had the BBC in their special debate. The UKIP candidate who was not on the debate panel came a very well placed 4th and beat the Greens by some distance.
The media had started to see the Greens as not always a trusted source of information. The Greens knew this and according to the EDP (in the print edition, not online) they brought up a high level delegation to speak to the local press and media to persuade them that the Greens could win Norwich South with the EDP going as saying that Adrian Ramsay was made deputy leader for the purpose of giving him a higher media profile). It appears the press learnt from this.
The Norwich North by-election should have been the springboard for the Greens Norwich South campaign, instead it had the opposite effect. The Greens had made fools of the media and would take their comments with a large dose of salt.
The Greens like to talk up the prominence of their councillors and how many they have in Norwich, but in all their literature, offer no solutions to the issues facing Norwich. They run petitions to save this, preserve that, stop the other, but never get round to looking for an answer or coming up with a realistic alternative. it's opposition for oppositions sake, only it isn't when it comes to council votes.
All too often the Greens fail to vote against Labour, leaving it to Lib Dems and Tories to vote against, knowing that Labour have more seats than the Lib Dems and Tories combined, whilst the Greens sit on their hands an abstain when Labour really could be beaten.
So on to this campaign, and the rank hypocrisy, insults and double speak of the Green Party that is endemic in the campaign.
For many months now the Green's have been complaining about the Lib Dems use of the 2005 general election statistics to show the Greens were not best placed to beat Labour. The Greens instead insist on using the most recent local election results or Euro election results.
I should stress, I am not moaning about the barchart. I am however making the point that the Greens moan about Lib Dem bar charts, but are no less willing to use bar charts to make whatever point they want to make. The difference is that the Greens only see it as wrong for the Lib Dems to do this, not for them !
This leaflet shows the statistics the Greens like to use.
You will note that it claims the Greens are in 34% and the Lib Dems on 25%. Theses figures are from the Euro elections. Is this a fair or accurate figure to quote when referring to a parliamentary election ?
Well according to the Green Party's own Norwich North candidate, Rupert Read, it almost certainly isn't.
He bemoaned the use the Lib Dems made of a bar charts showing general election votes when campaigning in the Euro elections in an article he wrote for Liberal Conspiracy.
Rupert Read said using bar charts from differing electoral systems was was
Of course, the result from the General Election has proved very clearly that the Lib Dems assertion that the Green Party were in fourth place was completely correct, and the Green Party were wrong.
You'd think they might just accept that they made a mistake, but this has been compounded by the comments made by their defeated candidate today. Speaking on the local news today, Adrian Ramsay claimed the Green vote had doubled, and the Lib Dem and Labour vote was falling. Now this is only true if Mr Ramsay now accepts the Lib Dems use of the last general election results were correct, something that the Greens totally reject on their leaflets.
So not only do the Greens peddle leaflets with statistics that they would themselves condemn in articles if they had been delivered by another party, they then decry other parties using the correct figures and then use those correct figures when it suits them to "spin" their way out of a bad result.
And the Greens have form here.
Just a few days ago the Greens were complaining about an opinion poll that put them on 19% in Norwich South. Interestingly, the Lib Dems chose not to complain and just got on with campaigning. Interestingly, the 19% the Lib Dems were given in the poll underscored the Lib Dems final voe by 10%, but the 19% the Greens got overrated them by 2%. It's the only time in political history that a political party had complained that they were being made to look good, but it highlights the Green Party's delusions that they somehow have a divine right in Norwich South.
So it is this driven from the top or is it endemic in the Greens ?
Well if you search the blogs and twitter, you will similarly see what the Greens are like if you scratch the surface.
One comment that caught they eye was this from a Green activist who was in Norwich yesterday before the final result was announced.
Who was that again ?
So let's finish with Rupert Read's own words in the earlier article for Liberal Conspiracy when he wrote
Main article starts
The Green Party have been the darlings of the local media in Norwich for some time. Their success in local elections has allowed local news media outlets to have easy copy on politics issues that seems different and quirky, whilst those same media outlets never expose the Greens to cross examination of their policy, the conduct, their behaviour and their sheer duplicity which those of us who have analysed them for sometimes can see plain as day.
The media had something of a wake up call during the Norwich by-election when the Greens ramped themselves up, and the media fell for it hook, line and sinker.
BBC East gave the Green candidate Rupert "I was once a Lib Dem" Read a seat on the special by-election debate, at the expense of the UKIP candidate, whilst Radio 5, ITV and Sky News frothed with excitement as the Greens told the story of how they were going to cause a major upset.
The Green campaign also got plenty of press attention for a meaningless campaign pledge that the Lib Dems refused to sign for the simple fact that it was meaningless. The media made great play of the Lib Dems refusal to sign the pledge, but printed not one word when the Greens leaflets actually started to make personal attacks on the Lib Dems, despite the fact that the Green "campaign pledge" had supposedly promised not to make such attacks.
At the Norwich North Count, the extent to which the media had been suckered in by the Greens was evident when two reporters from Sky News asked me what was happening and the order of the finishers. When I said the Greens were in 5th place, they simply couldn't believe it and said "Poor Rupert". They had bought the lie, as had the BBC in their special debate. The UKIP candidate who was not on the debate panel came a very well placed 4th and beat the Greens by some distance.
The media had started to see the Greens as not always a trusted source of information. The Greens knew this and according to the EDP (in the print edition, not online) they brought up a high level delegation to speak to the local press and media to persuade them that the Greens could win Norwich South with the EDP going as saying that Adrian Ramsay was made deputy leader for the purpose of giving him a higher media profile). It appears the press learnt from this.
The Norwich North by-election should have been the springboard for the Greens Norwich South campaign, instead it had the opposite effect. The Greens had made fools of the media and would take their comments with a large dose of salt.
The Greens like to talk up the prominence of their councillors and how many they have in Norwich, but in all their literature, offer no solutions to the issues facing Norwich. They run petitions to save this, preserve that, stop the other, but never get round to looking for an answer or coming up with a realistic alternative. it's opposition for oppositions sake, only it isn't when it comes to council votes.
All too often the Greens fail to vote against Labour, leaving it to Lib Dems and Tories to vote against, knowing that Labour have more seats than the Lib Dems and Tories combined, whilst the Greens sit on their hands an abstain when Labour really could be beaten.
So on to this campaign, and the rank hypocrisy, insults and double speak of the Green Party that is endemic in the campaign.
For many months now the Green's have been complaining about the Lib Dems use of the 2005 general election statistics to show the Greens were not best placed to beat Labour. The Greens instead insist on using the most recent local election results or Euro election results.
I should stress, I am not moaning about the barchart. I am however making the point that the Greens moan about Lib Dem bar charts, but are no less willing to use bar charts to make whatever point they want to make. The difference is that the Greens only see it as wrong for the Lib Dems to do this, not for them !
This leaflet shows the statistics the Greens like to use.
You will note that it claims the Greens are in 34% and the Lib Dems on 25%. Theses figures are from the Euro elections. Is this a fair or accurate figure to quote when referring to a parliamentary election ?
Well according to the Green Party's own Norwich North candidate, Rupert Read, it almost certainly isn't.
He bemoaned the use the Lib Dems made of a bar charts showing general election votes when campaigning in the Euro elections in an article he wrote for Liberal Conspiracy.
Rupert Read said using bar charts from differing electoral systems was was
"a pre-determined, deliberate attempt to undermine the Green campaign using indefensible statistics"So we are clear, using statistics like this is considered to be wrong by the Greens. So why have they then claimed, on the basis of the Euro election results (under a form of PR) that they are therefore
"the main challenger to Charles Clarke"Surely doing this is, in the words of Rupert Read, was a cynical attempt to
" misrepresent the voting system and our prospects."Of course, as Rupert added at the end, in deliberately doing these things, people will rightly say
"we will never let you – nor the public – forget the wrong that you perpetrate, each time you draw a misleading graph, cite an irrelevant statistic, deliberately mislead readers about another Party’s chances…"Indeed Rupert, these are lessons the Green Party needs to take heed of. You like to portray yourselves as cleaner than clean and above politics. Your party campaigns in Norwich almost as a "None of the Above" party, who can always be trusted. But every time you seek to criticise the opposition for being poltiical parties and fighting political campaigns, you expose your party as hypocrites.
Of course, the result from the General Election has proved very clearly that the Lib Dems assertion that the Green Party were in fourth place was completely correct, and the Green Party were wrong.
You'd think they might just accept that they made a mistake, but this has been compounded by the comments made by their defeated candidate today. Speaking on the local news today, Adrian Ramsay claimed the Green vote had doubled, and the Lib Dem and Labour vote was falling. Now this is only true if Mr Ramsay now accepts the Lib Dems use of the last general election results were correct, something that the Greens totally reject on their leaflets.
So not only do the Greens peddle leaflets with statistics that they would themselves condemn in articles if they had been delivered by another party, they then decry other parties using the correct figures and then use those correct figures when it suits them to "spin" their way out of a bad result.
And the Greens have form here.
Just a few days ago the Greens were complaining about an opinion poll that put them on 19% in Norwich South. Interestingly, the Lib Dems chose not to complain and just got on with campaigning. Interestingly, the 19% the Lib Dems were given in the poll underscored the Lib Dems final voe by 10%, but the 19% the Greens got overrated them by 2%. It's the only time in political history that a political party had complained that they were being made to look good, but it highlights the Green Party's delusions that they somehow have a divine right in Norwich South.
So it is this driven from the top or is it endemic in the Greens ?
Well if you search the blogs and twitter, you will similarly see what the Greens are like if you scratch the surface.
One comment that caught they eye was this from a Green activist who was in Norwich yesterday before the final result was announced.
When I challenged her via twitter to justify herself and explain why Simon Wright, a former teacher who has had a real job in the real world, was a, in her words "careerist git !" where as Adrian Ramsay, a full time politician who has been on the city council since leaving university isn't a careerist
Her reply was that it was different for Adrian (presumably because he is a Green)
So ignoring the fact that Simon's family live in Norwich, he lives in Norwich, his wife is a City Councillor, he is a "careerist git".
Still worse was the Green activist's comments on Simon's unsuitability compared to Adrian Ramsay based on their life experience and professions. It seems that the Green Party don't think teachers should be MPs becaus she then wrote
To be fair, some hours later (possibly realising that twitter leaves a paper trail) she did offer her congratulations to Simon. nut it speaks volumes about the Greens' self righteous attitude that anyone else wanting to stand for the area they grew up in is a "careerist", but when a green does worse and has never had a real job and instead has devoated his whole life to one aim, that is being a politician, so long as he is a Green, that is okay.
Perhaps I should return to Rupert Read, who writes today that
"We knocked on every door – which is more than all the other Parties put together did"
Now does he know this to be true ? Can he prove it or is it a political statement based on an assertion of his ? After all if he was being 100% honest he would surely need some proof ?
And in a stunning example of ignoring the facts, he goes on to state
" a typically-untruthful LibDem campaign going on and on about the seat being allegedly a ‘two-horse race’ between them and Labour"Er ... Rupert. Check out the result. It was a two horse race. Lib Dems were first, Labour second, Tories third and you came fourth. The problem is, only one party was fibbing when it claimed that it was "the main challenger to Charles Clarke"
Who was that again ?
So let's finish with Rupert Read's own words in the earlier article for Liberal Conspiracy when he wrote
"Such a betrayal of trust will not easily be forgiven; at least, not without an expression of contrition and a sincere promise not to re-offend."
Of course, the difference was that Hereward Cooke, the former leader of the Lib Dem group on Norwich City Council offered an apology for anything that was misleading in Lib Dem leaflets in local elections a few years ago.
Even today, the Greens are telling lies about the Lib Dems conduct in the campaign yet totally ignoring their own double speak and lies.
Forget claiming you are better than everyone else. Politics is what it is and the Greens play as dirty as anyone else.
The Clegg Bounce - An early opinion
People are already summising that the Clegg bounce did not help the party make a breakthrough, it failed to see the party progress, and it disappeared all too quickly. To justify this they point to the number of seats the Lib Dems lost. But is that true. I don't think so.
For myself, I have found people on the door to have been impressed by the Lib Dems, they have taken us seriously and they know more about us. But more important than anything else, consider where the Lib Dems would have been without the bounce.
How many more seats might the Lib Dems have lost if the Tory/Labour fight had been more intense with the Lib Dems totally squeezed out ? I could see, in these circumstances the Lib Dems not only losing a handful of seats, but the party have been reduced to 35 MP's and two elections of hardwork would have been undone overnight.
So don't blame the Clegg bounce for the Lib Dems doing less well than we hoped. Instead we should be grateful that the Clegg bounce stopped as doing as badly as we might have done.
For myself, I have found people on the door to have been impressed by the Lib Dems, they have taken us seriously and they know more about us. But more important than anything else, consider where the Lib Dems would have been without the bounce.
How many more seats might the Lib Dems have lost if the Tory/Labour fight had been more intense with the Lib Dems totally squeezed out ? I could see, in these circumstances the Lib Dems not only losing a handful of seats, but the party have been reduced to 35 MP's and two elections of hardwork would have been undone overnight.
So don't blame the Clegg bounce for the Lib Dems doing less well than we hoped. Instead we should be grateful that the Clegg bounce stopped as doing as badly as we might have done.
Lib Dems gain Norwich South
I just want to congratulate Simon Wright on his wonderful victory in Norwich South last night (well, five O'Clock this morning).
I had been helping in Norwich South for most of the last week, and spent polling day running the operation in Bowthorpe, Wensum and New Costessey, so am very pleased to have played my part.
I knew, from twitter, that Simon must have been close to winning because the amount of personal offensive abuse being published on twitter by The Green party aimed at Simon Wright was utterly disgraceful. I hope those Greens think long and hard and will consider apologising for their comments which degrade democracy, denigrate the electorate and speaks volumes about the Green Party.
And for all those who say "It's on loan", the Tories said that about North Norfolk to Norman Lamb in 2001. Norman has a majority of 11,000 votes now ! Well done too to Norman.
I had been helping in Norwich South for most of the last week, and spent polling day running the operation in Bowthorpe, Wensum and New Costessey, so am very pleased to have played my part.
I knew, from twitter, that Simon must have been close to winning because the amount of personal offensive abuse being published on twitter by The Green party aimed at Simon Wright was utterly disgraceful. I hope those Greens think long and hard and will consider apologising for their comments which degrade democracy, denigrate the electorate and speaks volumes about the Green Party.
And for all those who say "It's on loan", the Tories said that about North Norfolk to Norman Lamb in 2001. Norman has a majority of 11,000 votes now ! Well done too to Norman.
5/06/2010
And another prediction ...
I predict the Tories will JUST have an overall majority AND the exit poll from BBC/ITV/SKY is badly wrong about the Lib Dem number of seats.
My predictions
I might make myself look a fool here (why change the habit of a lifetime I hear you say), but these are my Norfolk election predictions.
1) Norman Lamb to win in North Norfolk with a greater share of the vote than he had in 2005.
Verdict ? Correct. Norman Lamb's share of the vote was up.
2) Keith Simpson (Con) to hold Broadland by 3000 votes
Verdict ? Correct winning candidate, but understated the majority.
3) Chloe Smith to hold Norwich North by 2500 votes
Verdict ? She held on by about 4000 votes.
4) Lib Dems to overtake Labour in North West Norfolk, but a safe Tory hold.
Verdict ? Correct.
5) Lib Dem vote stays static in South Norfolk
Verdict - Lib Dem vote very slightly down by 1%. Correct
6) Great Yarmouth - Recount
Verdict - Almost correct. Tory gain though.
7) Norwich South Lib Dem gain by 500 votes. Labour second, Tories third, Greens fourth.
Verdict - Correct
8) Other seats all Tory holds
Verdict - Correct
Good night all !
1) Norman Lamb to win in North Norfolk with a greater share of the vote than he had in 2005.
Verdict ? Correct. Norman Lamb's share of the vote was up.
2) Keith Simpson (Con) to hold Broadland by 3000 votes
Verdict ? Correct winning candidate, but understated the majority.
3) Chloe Smith to hold Norwich North by 2500 votes
Verdict ? She held on by about 4000 votes.
4) Lib Dems to overtake Labour in North West Norfolk, but a safe Tory hold.
Verdict ? Correct.
5) Lib Dem vote stays static in South Norfolk
Verdict - Lib Dem vote very slightly down by 1%. Correct
6) Great Yarmouth - Recount
Verdict - Almost correct. Tory gain though.
7) Norwich South Lib Dem gain by 500 votes. Labour second, Tories third, Greens fourth.
Verdict - Correct
8) Other seats all Tory holds
Verdict - Correct
Good night all !
Vote Lib Dem for REAL change
David Cameron, would be a change from the present government like a blue table cloth is different from having a red table cloth, but he does not represent a real change from what goes before.
Cameron claimed to be the heir to Blair, whilst Brown was the heir to Blair. They both seek to be the new Tony Blair, and as most of the country knows, we actually don't want another Tony Blair.
If you want real change, where fairness is at the very bedrock of every policy. If you want a party that does not duck the issues and a party that has can really make a difference, then vote Lib Dem today.
Update: And can I wish particular good luck to all Lib Dems, but most of all to Norman Lamb in North Norfolk, Simon Wright in Norwich South and Dan Roper in Broadland.
Cameron claimed to be the heir to Blair, whilst Brown was the heir to Blair. They both seek to be the new Tony Blair, and as most of the country knows, we actually don't want another Tony Blair.
If you want real change, where fairness is at the very bedrock of every policy. If you want a party that does not duck the issues and a party that has can really make a difference, then vote Lib Dem today.
Update: And can I wish particular good luck to all Lib Dems, but most of all to Norman Lamb in North Norfolk, Simon Wright in Norwich South and Dan Roper in Broadland.
5/05/2010
Make a real difference in Norwich South - A genuine two horse race between the Lib Dems and Labour
Some really intelligent people here speaking about politics in Norfolk and Norwich.
Being serious for one moment, it is clear that Norwich South has, despite the claims of the Tories and Greens, become a tight contest between Simon Wright and Gordon Brown's Labour Party.
The only way to get real change in Norwich South is to vote Lib Dem and support Simon Wright.
P.S. In the video I am not looking around in in a deliberately deranged way, instead I am lookig at the two people I was talking two when the video person asked me to speak. You can see this in the final shot, but yes, it does look a little shify. Not media trained !
Being serious for one moment, it is clear that Norwich South has, despite the claims of the Tories and Greens, become a tight contest between Simon Wright and Gordon Brown's Labour Party.
The only way to get real change in Norwich South is to vote Lib Dem and support Simon Wright.
P.S. In the video I am not looking around in in a deliberately deranged way, instead I am lookig at the two people I was talking two when the video person asked me to speak. You can see this in the final shot, but yes, it does look a little shify. Not media trained !
What is it with Norfolk political candidates ?
After Manish Sood, the Labour candidate described his own party leader (Gordon Brown) as the "worst Prime Minister in history", and another Norfolk based candidate who was standing in Cambridgeshire South East was stripped of his official candidacy because of lewd details being published about his private life, you'd imagine that we might have had our fill of candidates putting their foot in in in Norfolk. But it appears not.
This morning local news media are reporting that the UKIP candidate for Norwich North, Glenn Tingle, has issued an apology for writing that we should blow up Iran and for denigrating people in Afghanistan.
This morning local news media are reporting that the UKIP candidate for Norwich North, Glenn Tingle, has issued an apology for writing that we should blow up Iran and for denigrating people in Afghanistan.
5/03/2010
Have you seen a Land Rover with Lib Dem and Tory Poster Boards in it ?
Both Lib Dem and Tory poster boards are going missing in the Broadland constituency and they seem to be linked to a Land Rover which has been seen in the vicinity of the poster boards on a number of occasions from various sources, particularly in the East of the Broadland constituency.
We know from the Tories that they are having similar problems, and it appears that somone is trying to cause a turf war between the Tories and Lib Dems, I have to say, with no success. The Tories know it is not us and we know it is not them.
We have a very good idea who it is who is responsible, but if you see anyone removing our poster boards make a note of their registration number and let us know.
We know from the Tories that they are having similar problems, and it appears that somone is trying to cause a turf war between the Tories and Lib Dems, I have to say, with no success. The Tories know it is not us and we know it is not them.
We have a very good idea who it is who is responsible, but if you see anyone removing our poster boards make a note of their registration number and let us know.
Tory Party Election Broadcast - Schoolboy error and a costly mistake
Whoever decided to make the last two Tory PEBs identical in style, 75% similar in content, have the same music and the same look in every way has, in my view, made a silly mistake.
As soon as the PEB started, my first thought was "I've seen this before". My wife lost interest (and she's not political in any way) and said she'd seen it too. I wonder how many other people felt that too ?
The problem is, as soon as someone thinks they've seen it before, they switch off, put the kettle on, lose interest in the finer details, and in some cases will think the Tories stupid for showing an identical PEB twice.
Now the more it went on I noticed a few subtle differences. There was some reference to a contract (they did something in Norwich North last year and I don't think it did anything to persuade people or change minds), and one new but at the end. But in essence, it seemed like the same PEB as before.
I was told on a Lib Dem campaign training day once to make sure every leaflet looks different from the previous one or else people will think they are the same leaflet they have already seen. The rule should also apply to election broadcasts.
In my opinion it was a schoolboy error, a silly mistake and a wasted opportunity by the Tories.
As soon as the PEB started, my first thought was "I've seen this before". My wife lost interest (and she's not political in any way) and said she'd seen it too. I wonder how many other people felt that too ?
The problem is, as soon as someone thinks they've seen it before, they switch off, put the kettle on, lose interest in the finer details, and in some cases will think the Tories stupid for showing an identical PEB twice.
Now the more it went on I noticed a few subtle differences. There was some reference to a contract (they did something in Norwich North last year and I don't think it did anything to persuade people or change minds), and one new but at the end. But in essence, it seemed like the same PEB as before.
I was told on a Lib Dem campaign training day once to make sure every leaflet looks different from the previous one or else people will think they are the same leaflet they have already seen. The rule should also apply to election broadcasts.
In my opinion it was a schoolboy error, a silly mistake and a wasted opportunity by the Tories.
Scare Leaflets in Broadland
News reaches me this morning of a group called the "Young Briton's Foundation", a supposedly non partisan organisation, who are delivering leaflets in Broadland with no imprint on them, with the clear aim of the content aimed at scaring people off from voting Lib Dem.
This is starting to make me think the Lib Dems are doing a lot better in Broadland than the Tories expected !
Update: It is claimed by one commenter to this blog that the Young Britons Foundation has as its president Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, who is well known for going on US TV to denounce the NHS. The YBF also appears dislike the NHS, supports torture or prisoners and other nasty things too. You know you're on the right side of the argument when groups like the YBF are against you.
This is starting to make me think the Lib Dems are doing a lot better in Broadland than the Tories expected !
Update: It is claimed by one commenter to this blog that the Young Britons Foundation has as its president Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, who is well known for going on US TV to denounce the NHS. The YBF also appears dislike the NHS, supports torture or prisoners and other nasty things too. You know you're on the right side of the argument when groups like the YBF are against you.
Fifth hand delivered Lib Dem leaflet in Broadland
Yes, I know I appear to have skipped a leaflet, but I failed to count the tabloid that went out at the start of the campaign in my previous count up of leaflets.
So this is the latest leaflet going out in Broadland. My guess, with three days left, is that this is the final leaflet aside from "Good Mornings" and "Knock Up" leaflets in key areas.
So this is the latest leaflet going out in Broadland. My guess, with three days left, is that this is the final leaflet aside from "Good Mornings" and "Knock Up" leaflets in key areas.
5/02/2010
Why are the BBC & ITV ignoring this story ?
Where are the BBC and ITV when it comes the THIS story ?
I don't expect Sky News to report it. The Murdoch press are firmly in the Tory camp already.
I don't expect Sky News to report it. The Murdoch press are firmly in the Tory camp already.
Third hand delivered Lib Dem leaflet in Broadland
This is the leaflet we have finished delivering in my ward in the last few days.
Lib Dem hand delivered leaflet in Broadland
This was the second leaflet we delivered by hand last week in Broadland constituency
Three weeks later, the leaflet the Tories are still delivering in Broadland
I was staggered today to receive through my door a leaflet that the Tories were delivering when the election was first called more than three weeks ago.
This is the one and only non freepost leaflet that they have got out.
Compare this to the four leaflets we (Lib Dems) have delivered by hand in my ward and across the majority of Broadland with another leaflet having gone out in my ward over the weekend before the election was called.
I'll put the Lib Dem leaflets on my blog later.
This is the one and only non freepost leaflet that they have got out.
Compare this to the four leaflets we (Lib Dems) have delivered by hand in my ward and across the majority of Broadland with another leaflet having gone out in my ward over the weekend before the election was called.
I'll put the Lib Dem leaflets on my blog later.
5/01/2010
Kings Lynn is near Ribble Valley, or so think the Tories
News reaches me from a Facebook contact that the Tories in Kings Lynn have been hand delivering a leaflet that should have been distributed in Ribble Valley.
The Tories are blaming a "young inexperienced campaigner".
How young do you have to be not to realise that the leaflet featured a different Tory MP from Henry Bellingham (the Tory who represents Kings Lynn) and the large words "Ribble Valley" instead of "North West Norfolk".
The Tories are blaming a "young inexperienced campaigner".
How young do you have to be not to realise that the leaflet featured a different Tory MP from Henry Bellingham (the Tory who represents Kings Lynn) and the large words "Ribble Valley" instead of "North West Norfolk".
How NOT to leave a good impression at a hustings meeting
News reaches me of an incident that did not leave a good impression as a hustings meeting was finishing last night.
At the very end, when the candidates were "meeting the public", when one member of the public commented about the age of the photos used on one candidate's leaflets, he was called by the candidate "a pathetic little man".
Oh dear. Certainly not good practise for a candidate who under any circumstance should not allow himself to be rattled in public, and it perhaps speaks volumes about how this Tory candidate, who assumed he was set for any easy win, is finding the response on the door far less favourable than expected.
I won't name the poor individual. He's suffered enough misery for one day. And I'm off now for a day of delivering leaflets to make sure his fears of defeat become a reality.
At the very end, when the candidates were "meeting the public", when one member of the public commented about the age of the photos used on one candidate's leaflets, he was called by the candidate "a pathetic little man".
Oh dear. Certainly not good practise for a candidate who under any circumstance should not allow himself to be rattled in public, and it perhaps speaks volumes about how this Tory candidate, who assumed he was set for any easy win, is finding the response on the door far less favourable than expected.
I won't name the poor individual. He's suffered enough misery for one day. And I'm off now for a day of delivering leaflets to make sure his fears of defeat become a reality.
Lib Dem Freepost Leaflet in Broadland
I can't photograph the fold out centre as my camera is not to hand. I might have time to do it tomorrow.
Conservative Second Freepost - Broadland Constituency
Here is the Tories second Freepost leaflet going out in Broadland.
It does seem to use all the same photos as their first Freepost.
It does seem to use all the same photos as their first Freepost.
Labour Freepost in Broadland
Due to being very busy with work and delivering leaflets, I have been unable to keep up to date with posting copies of all the leaflets on my blog, however, in an attempt to catch up I will post a number of them here in the next 24 hours.
Here is the Labour Freepost leaflet, which arrived last Saturday and another copy of the same leaflet arrived on Tuesday. Quite why the post office are delivering two copies of the same leaflet, is beyond me.
The other issue that is beyond me is why the Labour candidate, who is seeking to represent a landlocked constituency like Broadland, chose to have her photo taken on the coast ! Bizarre and showing a real lack of thought in my opinion.
The other issue that is beyond me is why the Labour candidate, who is seeking to represent a landlocked constituency like Broadland, chose to have her photo taken on the coast ! Bizarre and showing a real lack of thought in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)