|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 17, 2021 22:24:49 GMT
I wondered if someone would spot that! As gwynthegriff the says, I am permanently disappointed by the Lib Dems 🤣 What about RefUK.. We need to know! |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Oct 17, 2021 23:28:21 GMT
I assumed neilm was in a continuous condition of disappointment when it came to the Liberal Democrats.  It was before I was born, but wasn't your decision to stand controversial even then? I think it's right it remains uncontested fwiw. We don't want to set the precedent that a way to change the incumbent party in a given seat is to assassinate its sitting member. Our system is adversarial and partisan by its, and human, nature, if a message is sent that, despite those deep and fractious differences, the entire spectrum is united in disgust then I think that's exceptionally powerful. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 18, 2021 0:11:35 GMT
I assumed neilm was in a continuous condition of disappointment when it came to the Liberal Democrats. It was before I was born, but wasn't your decision to stand controversial even then? I think it's right it remains uncontested fwiw. We don't want to set the precedent that a way to change the incumbent party in a given seat is to assassinate its sitting member. Our system is adversarial and partisan by its, and human, nature, if a message is sent that, despite those deep and fractious differences, the entire spectrum is united in disgust then I think that's exceptionally powerful. Assassinating the sitting member will only change the incumbent Party if the voters decide to do that (which they could still do in Southend even if all the mainstream Parties stand down). I am OK with matching the actions taken in Batley and Spen in similar circumstances as a message though. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 18, 2021 8:42:26 GMT
I assumed neilm was in a continuous condition of disappointment when it came to the Liberal Democrats. It was before I was born, but wasn't your decision to stand controversial even then? I think it's right it remains uncontested fwiw. We don't want to set the precedent that a way to change the incumbent party in a given seat is to assassinate its sitting member. Our system is adversarial and partisan by its, and human, nature, if a message is sent that, despite those deep and fractious differences, the entire spectrum is united in disgust then I think that's exceptionally powerful. If you're referring to Eastbourne here, I don't recall any controversy about the fact that the by-election was normally contested or any suggestions that it should not be. Indeed the general view was that the democratic process should continue as normal, that being the best way to stand up to terrorism. As has been mentioned, the Conservatives did make much in the campaign of how it would be wrong to allow a terrorist atrocity to alter the make-up of Parliament but that was an appeal to voters once the campaign was underway and I don't remember them suggesting the seat should be uncontested prior to that. I thought it a fair point but would have been better made if not done so explicitly. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Oct 18, 2021 10:15:24 GMT
I assumed neilm was in a continuous condition of disappointment when it came to the Liberal Democrats. It was before I was born, but wasn't your decision to stand controversial even then? I think it's right it remains uncontested fwiw. We don't want to set the precedent that a way to change the incumbent party in a given seat is to assassinate its sitting member. Our system is adversarial and partisan by its, and human, nature, if a message is sent that, despite those deep and fractious differences, the entire spectrum is united in disgust then I think that's exceptionally powerful. It won’t be uncontested (or contested just just one party) it will be a lighting rod for every far left and far right whack job to stand. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,532
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 18, 2021 10:34:02 GMT
It was before I was born, but wasn't your decision to stand controversial even then? I think it's right it remains uncontested fwiw. We don't want to set the precedent that a way to change the incumbent party in a given seat is to assassinate its sitting member. Our system is adversarial and partisan by its, and human, nature, if a message is sent that, despite those deep and fractious differences, the entire spectrum is united in disgust then I think that's exceptionally powerful. If you're referring to Eastbourne here, I don't recall any controversy about the fact that the by-election was normally contested or any suggestions that it should not be. Indeed the general view was that the democratic process should continue as normal, that being the best way to stand up to terrorism. As has been mentioned, the Conservatives did make much in the campaign of how it would be wrong to allow a terrorist atrocity to alter the make-up of Parliament but that was an appeal to voters once the campaign was underway and I don't remember them suggesting the seat should be uncontested prior to that. I thought it a fair point but would have been better made if not done so explicitly. Quite so. The attitude of some people in the Conservative campaign was that democracy should go ahead as normal, but that the voters had a duty to vote Conservative because a vote for anybody else would be, er, not what the Conservatives wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 18, 2021 10:41:03 GMT
I assumed neilm was in a continuous condition of disappointment when it came to the Liberal Democrats. It was before I was born, but wasn't your decision to stand controversial even then? I think it's right it remains uncontested fwiw. We don't want to set the precedent that a way to change the incumbent party in a given seat is to assassinate its sitting member. Our system is adversarial and partisan by its, and human, nature, if a message is sent that, despite those deep and fractious differences, the entire spectrum is united in disgust then I think that's exceptionally powerful. If the assassination was carried out by somebody who believes voting is haram, which seems quite possible at present, then I'm not sure this holds water. I don't have a problem with not standing as a mark of respect, but in general those who think it is legitimate to murder elected representatives aren't great fans of democracy in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 18, 2021 14:43:56 GMT
This by-election will take place in a city.
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,762
|
Post by right on Oct 18, 2021 15:48:14 GMT
I wondered if someone would spot that! As gwynthegriff the says, I am permanently disappointed by the Lib Dems 🤣 What about RefUK.. We need to know! Saw a tweet saying they weren't standing but can't find it now |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,615 
Member is Online
|
Post by ricmk on Oct 18, 2021 15:51:12 GMT
This by-election will take place in a city. Good news. Purely because Milton Keynes are also bidding in the Platinum Jubilee City Contest, and until the news this afternoon, I had thought Southend the sure-fire winner..... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 18, 2021 15:59:27 GMT
What about RefUK.. We need to know! Saw a tweet saying they weren't standing but can't find it now It was more the disappointment I was enquiring about.. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 18, 2021 16:01:44 GMT
This by-election will take place in a city. Good news. Purely because Milton Keynes are also bidding in the Platinum Jubilee City Contest, and until the news this afternoon, I had thought Southend the sure-fire winner..... I felt MK had the better claim. |
|
|
|
Post by where2travel on Oct 18, 2021 16:08:45 GMT
Good news. Purely because Milton Keynes are also bidding in the Platinum Jubilee City Contest, and until the news this afternoon, I had thought Southend the sure-fire winner..... I felt MK had the better claim. If I'd had to guess, I'd have wrongly thought MK was already a city. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 18, 2021 16:14:23 GMT
I felt MK had the better claim. If I'd had to guess, I'd have wrongly thought MK was already a city. With the way people there talk, you'd be forgiven for that! |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Oct 18, 2021 18:26:33 GMT
This by-election will take place in a city.
I hope not.
I'd like to see them take the opportunity to streamline the UA boundaries in South Essex. Something like:
- Abolish Rochford and incorporate all/most of into the new City of Southend Unitary Authority. - Abolish Castle Point, with the Hadleigh wards going into the expanded Southend, and the Canvey bit into an expanded Basildon.
I'd be tempted to fit (South) Woodham Ferrers into the new Southend too, as it feels more Southendy than Chelmsfordy.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 18, 2021 19:00:25 GMT
Somehow I doubt there will be a massive local government reorganisation this side of the by-election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 18, 2021 19:33:29 GMT
This by-election will take place in a city. I hope not. I'd like to see them take the opportunity to streamline the UA boundaries in South Essex. Something like: - Abolish Rochford and incorporate all/most of into the new City of Southend Unitary Authority. - Abolish Castle Point, with the Hadleigh wards going into the expanded Southend, and the Canvey bit into an expanded Basildon. I'd be tempted to fit (South) Woodham Ferrers into the new Southend too, as it feels more Southendy than Chelmsfordy.
My own plans for local government reorganisation envisage larger UAs in Essex (and elsewhere) so Southend would be included in a large South Essex along with Rochford, Castle Point, Basildon and Thurrock. West Essex would cover Chelmsford, Brentwood, Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford and East Essex would cover Maldon, Braintree, Colchester and Tendring. Southend would be the administrative centre of South Essex (Chelmsford and Colchester fulfilling that role for the other two authorities). Of course South Woodham Ferrers is situated at the meeting point of all three of these proposed areas and is likely to feel out of place whichever one it is in, but I always feel it important to disrespect existing borough boundaries in these situations and there would be a strong case (if supported locally) to include this in the South Essex UA (possibly along with Rettendon and Runwell as otherwise there would be no direct road links) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 19, 2021 9:47:55 GMT
Runwell is to all intents and purposes north Wickford anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 19, 2021 10:50:53 GMT
I hope not. I'd like to see them take the opportunity to streamline the UA boundaries in South Essex. Something like: - Abolish Rochford and incorporate all/most of into the new City of Southend Unitary Authority. - Abolish Castle Point, with the Hadleigh wards going into the expanded Southend, and the Canvey bit into an expanded Basildon. I'd be tempted to fit (South) Woodham Ferrers into the new Southend too, as it feels more Southendy than Chelmsfordy.
My own plans for local government reorganisation envisage larger UAs in Essex (and elsewhere) so Southend would be included in a large South Essex along with Rochford, Castle Point, Basildon and Thurrock. West Essex would cover Chelmsford, Brentwood, Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford and East Essex would cover Maldon, Braintree, Colchester and Tendring. Southend would be the administrative centre of South Essex (Chelmsford and Colchester fulfilling that role for the other two authorities). Of course South Woodham Ferrers is situated at the meeting point of all three of these proposed areas and is likely to feel out of place whichever one it is in, but I always feel it important to disrespect existing borough boundaries in these situations and there would be a strong case (if supported locally) to include this in the South Essex UA (possibly along with Rettendon and Runwell as otherwise there would be no direct road links) I like smaller unitaries than Pete, but would incorporate Castle Point and Rochford into a new City of Southend authority. I agree South Woodham doesn't really fit anywhere, but if you incorporate Maldon with Chelmsford, that's where it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 19, 2021 11:34:25 GMT
Although again, if you put Maldon in with Chelmsford, Tiptree then sits awkwardly. You can't find a set of boundaries that doesn't place a small town or large village in an awkward situation.
|
|
