Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 21:07:48 GMT
I can't speak too much for Arthur, but I suspect his strong connections with his local grassroots members ultimately outweighed the misgivings he has of the current national leadership. I'm sure that's why Armchair is still with us. Richard ruled out rejoining the Tories there but I'm still hopeful Pete could be persuaded to do so at some stage, even if we have to wait until after Cameron ceases to be leader.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 17, 2013 1:24:18 GMT
In Electoral Reform Society elections, I usually list all candidates in order of preference anyway. Even if I don't, I make a point of putting "666" next to Michael Meadowcroft. Surely that results in you spoiling your ballot paper? Why would it?
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 17, 2013 1:26:47 GMT
As long as there is a valid set of preferences in consecutive ascending order starting with 1 it is valid. so 1-37 then 666 would result in the first 37 being counted. In an STV election, it would be extremely unlikely for the first 37 preferences to be counted! Most wouldn't got beyond 1, and those that did might be counted as (for example) 1, 2, 5, 13, 24 (in various fractional amounts).
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 17, 2013 20:45:33 GMT
Still intrigued to know why I'm placed where I am, given that I hardly ever post on economics Your views on social matters indicate clearly a lack of understanding of any economic realities. You think he's a right-winger, then?
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 17, 2013 23:22:24 GMT
Your views on social matters indicate clearly a lack of understanding of any economic realities. You think he's a right-winger, then? Touche! Not that there's any chance of that, thankfully
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jul 18, 2013 10:54:47 GMT
I know it's not definite proof but Mike's large dislike of Berger and blairities (which is expressed far more blatantly than other labour posters on here express it, if they hold that opinion) gives the impression of someone who's rather left wing.
Mike's views tend to coincide with what I have heard from a lot of liverpool left wing members of the labour party.
|
|
tim13
Non-Aligned
Posts: 71
|
Post by tim13 on Jul 18, 2013 11:06:29 GMT
I would have thought, thirdchill, that it just demonstrates that Merseymike, as his moniker implies, is from the Liverpool area, and therefore has a lot of info / contact with Luciana Berger? Maybe other Labour posters here would say the same if they too were in or near Liverpool? Over to you, Mike.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 18, 2013 13:11:24 GMT
Merseymike was advocating compulsory nationalisation of public utilities without compensation recently, so it is hardly surprising he is viewed as left wing.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,838
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 18, 2013 13:13:37 GMT
That just shows he isn't a Blairite neoliberal, arguably. A surprising number of UKIPpers (for instance) might back that in certain cases.....
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 18, 2013 13:19:39 GMT
Yes I have found myself *surprised* (for want of another word) to discover recently that quite a lot of UKIP people I follow on social media hold these kinds of views
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 18, 2013 15:26:47 GMT
Back on topic, Adam Carew, East Hampshire DC, Whitehill Walldown & Hampshire CC, Bordon, Whitehill and Lindford, Lib Dem to Conservative.
|
|
tim13
Non-Aligned
Posts: 71
|
Post by tim13 on Jul 18, 2013 15:28:08 GMT
Adam has already been discussed - on the parallel Lib Dem defector thread - some days ago.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 19, 2013 8:06:50 GMT
I would have thought, thirdchill, that it just demonstrates that Merseymike, as his moniker implies, is from the Liverpool area, and therefore has a lot of info / contact with Luciana Berger? Maybe other Labour posters here would say the same if they too were in or near Liverpool? Over to you, Mike. I have had some contact and know a lot of people in that Constituency . There is a certain style of working which I don't like. In general I think the Blairite approach failed. It produced short term gains and made some lasting impact on equalities but the vast majority of what was done was built on Thatcher foundations and so could very easily be swept away. However trident is right in noting that there are issues where I would differ with the hard left.I am strongly opposed to markets in social provision but that's a perfectly laudable social democratic stance held by people like Roy Hattersley
|
|
nick10
Forum Regular
[k4r]
Posts: 296
|
Post by nick10 on Jul 19, 2013 15:55:32 GMT
John Butcher, who represents Cobham & Downside on Elmbridge Borough Council, has moved from Conservative to "Ungrouped Member" (to quote the Council's website). He's put two letters on his Council webpage (www.elmbridge.gov.uk/cwcouncillor/johnbutcher/priorities.htm), one of says he hasn't renewed his Party Membership.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 19, 2013 15:58:56 GMT
John Butcher, who represents Cobham & Downside on Elmbridge Borough Council, has moved from Conservative to "Ungrouped Member" (to quote the Council's website). He's put two letters on his Council webpage (www.elmbridge.gov.uk/cwcouncillor/johnbutcher/priorities.htm), one of says he hasn't renewed his Party Membership. Those with long memories may note that he was the Conservative candidate for Crosby in 1981 who lost the byelection to Shirley Williams.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,838
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 19, 2013 16:11:02 GMT
Not to be confused with the (now deceased) former Tory MP for Coventry SW, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 20, 2013 20:30:49 GMT
Ok, Mike. Do you think the Local council should give grants to parent run play groups, the Scouts, church youth clubs? Personally, if we have the money, I do. Do you think these bodies are effectively in competition with each other? Personally, I do. The moment there is a limited pot of money for them to bid for, then they have to compete for it. It might not be vey cut throat, but its there. Should all Old Peoples Homes be directly state run? Is there a place for the private sector, the third sector, the Church of Scotland? If there is, should the state be willing to fund places? If it does, does this place those bodies in competition? maybe not on cost, but on provision. Here in Scotland, the Church of Scotland used their unique market position as a Church to build up a portfolio of donated Eventide Homes, large country houses and urban mansions converted to OPHs. It was the backbone of our elderly provision for decades. Then the state understandably upped the ante by demanding single rooms, step free access and en suite toilets. An end to lone working at night, qualified staff, staff changing facilities. The homes were expensive or impossible to convert and the Church lost ground to the private sector, who built bigger custom built homes with multiple communal areas where they could benefit from economies of scale in staffing. This all came about through competition, not on price, but on provision. Competition requires a market. There were plenty of elderly Tory voices demanding that crumbling homes with frayed carpets housing a paltry dozen residents be kept open at taxpayer expense and you appear to be one of them. Unless of course, as I suspect, your objection is not to markets at all, it is to profit. I think you hate wealth and cherish failure. I think that looking at grants as a competition is a mistake - much better to look on the voluntary sector, which I have worked in and been involved with for most of my life, as something co-operative. Indeed, this has actually been the traditional method of making small grants by local councils in this sort of area. There hasn't been any sort of formal tendering process as this inevitably benefits the larger groups who may look better on paper but don't necessarily provide a better service You don't need a market to have a plurality of welfare provision. Indeed, you establish one and you can guarantee that diversity will disappear as the big, powerful, national organisations take over. The voluntary sector is not profit-making
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 21, 2013 8:45:47 GMT
...... The voluntary sector is not profit-making The voluntry sector is not voulntary. It is governed by voluntary trustees or volunteers who may or may not employ staff - but the organisation is not run by paid directors and does not make a profit. That's why it is referred to as the voluntary sector.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,838
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 21, 2013 11:22:58 GMT
Profits have their place. A statement which works both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 21, 2013 15:06:55 GMT
Profits have their place. A statement which works both ways. I don't believe their place is in the provision of public services. That's why I'm a socialist
|
|