Posted by JLW on Wednesday Feb 08, 14:54
It has emerged that John Leech is backing Chris Huhne as the next Liberal Democrat leader. Read more at: www.chris2win.org/pages/supporterslist.html
+ tags coming soon
( 38 Comments )
Alan
Thursday Feb 09, 03:39
Probably the best bet considering!!
Ian
Thursday Feb 09, 18:41
Why has it taken John so long to make up his mind?
Why did he sign Oaten's nomination papers prior to the tabloid scandal?
Why were/are the Manchester Lib Dems supporting Simon Hughes immediately after Kennedy's demise?
Why does John see fit to back a man described as "lacking campaigning experience" and having "no evidence of relating well to the British public".
Sheer farce.
jj
Thursday Feb 09, 18:44
What do you mean how long it's taken him to make up his mind? He's been on the Chris Huhne website as a supporter for nearly 3 weeks.
Try to keep up.
democrat
Friday Feb 10, 00:57
who cares? John leech has no principles and the lib dems are goin no where near power - why don't they just merge with labour and the tories for all the good they do?
Alan
Friday Feb 10, 01:35
The day the Lib Dems merge with Labour will be the day I vote Tory. i.e a very sad day
Chris
Friday Feb 10, 04:06
Well, he's supporting the best one, it seems to me. Good ideas, good real-world experience, good appeal to Worcester Woman...
peter h
Saturday Feb 11, 05:32
I dont suppose it occurs to any one that he might be keeping an open mind and assessing each candidate as their campaigns unfold, and therefore quite legitimately hesitating and changing his mind several times as the picture changes? Nothing wrong with that. It's the intelligent way to do things.
peter h
Sunday Feb 12, 04:16
i wonder if the lib dem that just won dunfermline with a 16% swing away from labour will be subjected to the same spiteful tripe as john leech has suffered from the local labour activists?
Alan
Monday Feb 13, 05:11
Here's hoping he does Peter!!
A Lib Dem Supporter
Tuesday Feb 14, 02:06
Why does this website give such bias. If it is aimed to keep John accountable then surely it should be apolitical. FOr a start it is run by a Labour member who has experienced the Bradley 'sour grapes' syndrome and secondly it is raely updated so much of the content is rubbish. For example the website claims John hasnt opened an office, which is totaly wrong. It was publisised in the SMR and MEN for the benefit of those people who rely on this website to contact John the address is 8 Gawsworth Ave, E. Didsbury and you can ring the office on 0161 434 3334. ALso putting false information about JL being late to a photo call with Charles Kennedy is irrelevant esp on a biography and makes no difference to his role as our MP. The labour webmaster for this site needs to accept defeat and offer a unpartisan forum to debate John's work as MP. Utherwise I commend the webmaster as i yhthink this is a brilliant way pof keeping the electorate of WIthington up to date on their MP. In the future please dont give a political bias.
!!!
Alan
Tuesday Feb 14, 02:30
Typical Lib Dem, most of what you have said is incorrect and you can't spell!! Perhaps you don't understand the purpose of a blog site. Firstly, it is a forum for everyone to express their views. I express mine you disagree with me and vice versa; with that in mind it is irrelevant who runs the site. Secondly, with it being a blog site with ongoing threads you will find past information still published as reference. It took John Leech months to organise his office, probably having a rest after all that false campaigning!!!! Thirdly, anyone that wishes to contact John may well use your contact details but they would be bloody lucky to recieve a response. Try it and see how long it takes him to reply!! There is no longer sour grapes because the way John is acting he will see himself off at the next election. He has been in office for nearly a year and achieved what?? Perhaps less time starring in amateur panto's and more time representing his constituents!!
From a Labour Supporter who is 'Keeping It Real'
Johnny
Tuesday Feb 14, 07:38
At least John voted against ID cards, a Labour proposal.
AHR
Tuesday Feb 14, 16:02
You lot just don't get it on ID cards do you. You may be against them but every labour MP stood and got elected on a labour manifesto. With that comes rights but also responsibilities. Every labour MP that voted against ID cards should be ashamed of themselves. They are representing the party that their constituents elected not there own vested interests. Take note Tony Lloyd.
Alan
Tuesday Feb 14, 23:04
What is the issue with ID cards for god's sake. All these do gooders going on about civil liberties etc. The majority of people are opposed to them purely because it is a Labour proposal. An ID card would affect individual civil liberty no more than a credit card, pass port, driving licence or even a speed camera. Each of those things can pin point a persons whereabouts; the police and security services use them regularly, anyone that believes otherwise is pretty naive!! Please can all do gooders start to return to this planet and see some sense!!
With regard to Tony Lloyd, he is just another politician with a personal agenda who puts his own views ahead of those of his constituents and the safety of this country as a whole.
peter h
Wednesday Feb 15, 05:23
Why does nobody ever point out the simple advantages to most people in their daily lives of ID cards? Instant proof of who you are and how old you are, what medical problems you may have if youre in an accident, for starters?
They'll make daily life easier for people in all sorts of ways.
Forget arguments about terrorism. They wouldnt have stopped the london bombimgs or the IRA.
And criminals will find some ways to abuse them. No system is perfect.
And forget the claims about Civil Liberties - nobody seems capable of showing any serious threat to civil liberties to ordinary honest people. Those arguments are so absurdly hypothetical as to be risible.
For all sorts of ordinary mundane day to day practical reasons, theyre a good idea, and dozens of much freer countries than UK use them routinely and can't see what the fuss here is about.
I have NEVER yet heard one single concrete argument against them
peter h
Wednesday Feb 15, 05:26
by the way, lib dem supoporter, there is no such thing as unbiased or apolitical opinion. you show it yourself with the title you adopt.
Thomas
Wednesday Feb 15, 05:40
The main concerns that I can see with ID cards are:
- Does it make it too easy to steal an identity (I think biometrics solve this problem)
- Can the Government actually procure an IT system that we can be confident in, and is secure enough to keep our identity safe? (I think that the system should be Open Source to allow anyone to look at the code)
- How do we ensure that we aren't tracked everywhere we go.
The final issue should be solved by legislation, and after all it is still pretty easy to track people. If you have a mobile phone it is possible to track them anywhere you are, and as people increasingly use credit/debit cards to make purchases they are traceable. Also every single phone call/message/email you send is logged and can be tracked. If you are worried about being tracked you just should live in a cave.
AHR
Wednesday Feb 15, 15:59
Well, they've gone through now. Labour MPs have realised that they've got to stop fostering disunity. If you've got nothing to hide then there shouldn't be a problem. The country essentially voted for them when they voted labour in so all these people saying its a matter of conscience are talking utter crap.
Chris Ledgerwood
Wednesday Feb 15, 18:51
http://manchester-libdems.org.uk/news/192.html?PHPSESSID=a96d3ebb2475054281486d29ec96272a
Forget ID cards..here's the real issue of the day...
John's been caught talking sh*te..and legitimately for once (see link)
AHR
Wednesday Feb 15, 22:28
Well, I'm glad to see John is concerning himself with such important issues when the smoking ban and glorication of terror were also being voted on!
Alan
Thursday Feb 16, 00:33
Good old John, concerning himself with the real issues of the day. Perhaps soon he'll realise that he is actually an MP no not a Councillor!! We don't pay him £60,000 + p.a. to deal with pigeon s**t!!!
peter h
Thursday Feb 16, 04:43
he's dealing with an issue raised by his constituents. It's what MPs are supposed to do. No doubt he was also voting on national issues in parliament.
Again, if labour learned that trick, they'd realise why so many people vote for john. It'/s called representing the people, rather than ignoring them, as Labour seems to do these days.
Alan
Thursday Feb 16, 05:02
It's not Peter; it's called talking about pigeon sh*t as opposed to the real issues. Why is he not talking about the real issues; is it because he doesn't understand them or is it because he doesn't care. I expect my MP to talk about what affects me and pigeon crap isn't on my main list of priorities... is it yours?
AHR
Thursday Feb 16, 16:42
Ok talking about pigeons e.t.c is the job of a councillor, not that of an MP. The job of an MP is to sort out problems concerning the constituents within the House of Commons. For example, John should perhaps be working a bit harding of raising the issue of the metrolink through South Manchester. It is a disgraceful waste of public money that he is still a councillor and if he had any integrity at all he would resign. But then again he's a lib dem. They don't really do something unless its for straightforward political gain.
Chris Ledgerwood
Thursday Feb 16, 19:05
It all comes down to perception if you ask me.
John+co like to be perceived as hard-working, better still influential, but the evidence rarely backs that up.
Their formula is to spin and scaremonger. Hide the fact they are bereft of decent health, education and economic policies. Hide the fact they are split (cast your mind back a few weeks on the Kennedy-leadership issues) and don't know whether to lurch right or to lurch left.
Let's look at the pigeon-related question John asked in Parliament the other day - I'm sure the population of Burnage will be told shortly that they are doomed.
Just as people in Didsbury were told chaos awaits due to 24 hour licensing. Just as the Christie Hospital was under the threat of closure etc etc (need I go on?)
My point is that Burnage has had three Lib Dem Cllrs in place for the last two years and they've done little to improve/enhance the area.
The hard evidence rarely backs up any tale told by the Lib Dems.
And no Peter, this isn't Labour sour grapes. It's about holding elected representatives to account. Exposing the hypocrisy (see John's history of backing the leadership challengers for starters) and pressing them for the hard-evidence to substantiate their claims - evidence that rarely exists.
If they choose to fudge and evade straight answers then it's up to Labour supporters to expose that.
And that's the big big task facing Labour around here - to improve on their communication and to demonstrate that substance, policy and hard-facts win out over perception, scaremongering and ineffectual representation.
It's a tall order when you marry what's happening locally and nationally and I wouldn't expect stubborn minds like Peter's to be receptive but hey-ho.
Thak you and Goodnight.
Chris Ledgerwood
Thursday Feb 16, 19:35
It all comes down to perception if you ask me.
John+co like to be perceived as hard-working, better still influential, but the evidence rarely backs that up.
Their formula is to spin and scaremonger. Hide the fact they are bereft of decent health, education and economic policies. Hide the fact they are split (cast your mind back a few weeks on the Kennedy-leadership issues) and don't know whether to lurch right or to lurch left.
Let's look at the pigeon-related question John asked in Parliament the other day - I'm sure the population of Burnage will be told shortly that they are doomed.
Just as people in Didsbury were told chaos awaits due to 24 hour licensing. Just as the Christie Hospital was under the threat of closure etc etc (need I go on?)
My point is that Burnage has had three Lib Dem Cllrs in place for the last two years and they've done little to improve/enhance the area.
The hard evidence rarely backs up any tale told by the Lib Dems.
And no Peter, this isn't Labour sour grapes. It's about holding elected representatives to account. Exposing the hypocrisy (see John's history of backing the leadership challengers for starters) and pressing them for the hard-evidence to substantiate their claims - evidence that rarely exists.
If they choose to fudge and evade straight answers then it's up to Labour supporters to expose that.
And that's the big big task facing Labour around here - to improve on their communication and to demonstrate that substance, policy and hard-facts win out over perception, scaremongering and ineffectual representation.
It's a tall order when you marry what's happening locally and nationally and I wouldn't expect stubborn minds like Peter's to be receptive but hey-ho.
Thak you and Goodnight.
AHR
Thursday Feb 16, 19:47
It is a shame then that the lib dems will hold Burnage. In the main part labour led by Richard Leese have given us a city to be proud of. What has John Leech given us?
peter h
Friday Feb 17, 02:21
I don't know who chris ledgerwood is to decide that my stubborn mind is not receptive, but, mate, I'm not a lib dem, I've been a labour supporter all my life (59 years) and only gave up on them on a local level when faced on a personal level with their utter failure to deliver on education for my kids and allowing our local hospital to be closed, and on a national level over the Iraq war.
As far as I am concerned, the labour party at a local level in manchester and at a national level in westminster has been in power too long and no longer realises that it is the servant of the people not its master.
Power corrupts. Fact of life. It's corrupted labour like it corrupted tories before it and, if by some miracle lib dems got into sustained power , it would corrupt them too.
i agree that labour has done a lot of good things for manchester. But equally on matters crucial to my family and my friends and neighbours families it completely disregarded us whereas lib dems worked their butts off for us. Their achievements were limited because in the end they are not in power in manchester , but at least they represent our views, they turn up for local meetings and, witness Alan's comments, they do not think it beneath their dignity to protest on their constituents' behalf about pigeon shit. Sorry alan,but such things matter to people , and that is why those people will vote lib dem and not labour. Learn the lesson, if you want the seat back.
Chirs Ledgerwood
Friday Feb 17, 17:33
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Chris Ledgerwood
Friday Feb 17, 17:33
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Chris Ledgerwood
Friday Feb 17, 17:35
Hold on...John's now demanding increases in the Winter Fuel Allowance....that the Lib Dems originally objected to!
Incredulous.
AHR
Friday Feb 17, 19:24
I'm sorry but I just don't agree that power has corrupted labour. So there have been mistakes and we haven't gone far enough. I accept that but it has been hard to reconcile the needs of everyone which the tories never got near doing. Things like the minimum wage, civil partnerships and compensation for miners. I don't see that as corrupt. In terms of the council, you are always going to get some incompetence; but things such as the Commonwealth games and regeneration have given us a city to be proud of. The mssive student population is leading to a knowlegable population and a thriving economy. I mean if you look at the council, the leader is an absolute cut above and good enough to be an MP, hardly corrupt and the deputy leader is incredibly principled. I'm sure they do as much as they can within certain constarints and when it comes to cracking down on anti social behaviour they absolutely lead the way. What would you rather, that the city was left to fester. That we never has events that made us proud to live in Manchester. That our MPs did the work of councillors. I mean John Leech is just trying to justify his allowance. Be careful what you wish for because I mostly feel proud to live in Manchester. Of course there is problems but read a council report, find out what the lib dems have voted against and you would be shocked.
peter h
Friday Feb 17, 23:53
AHR . thank you for an intelligent reply. pity ledgerwood is so smug. Silly little man.
maybe "corrupt" isnt the best word. I'm not suggesting anything crooked. All politicians go into public life to make things better for the community, and never stop wanting to do that.
But when they are in power for prolonged periods and, as in the case of labour in manchester, they have no immediate threat to their power, they inevitably begin to regard themselves as the bosses of the electorate rather than its servants.
I know theyve achieved a lot in manchester. But I also know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of policies which DON'T work. That is where you see the high handedness which is what I mean by corruption, although I accept you'll find that word out of place.
On a national level, it is more obvious though. Gordon Brown said yesterday that the first priority of any government is national security. And on that basis Labour has patently misled the country into a war in Iraq. I won't bore you by rehashing the arguments, but you must surely know that tony blair has acted like a king, not the country's servant, in his high handed and deceitful handling of that, with the resulting death of 100 british troops , 56 innocent civilains in london, and countless iraqis.
Alan
Sunday Feb 19, 16:17
Peter,you associate the leadership style of Tony Blair with that of George Bush. You suggest that the PM has reverted back to the old colonial days of Empire. Lets get real, I know many people who have done operational tours in Iraq with the Armed Forces and contrary to what you see in the media, the majority of Iraqis are pleased about the allied intervention, the deposing of Saddam and the democratic process that is now being put in place ( hence phenomenal numbers of Iraqi people turning out to vote at elections). There are two sides to every story and although you may believe that the PM deceived the country on Iraq, I believe that he acted on the information he had at the time. Ok no WMD have been found but that's the price of making decisions at the ultimate level. What would our media and the population of the UK in general be saying if we had done nothing and there WERE WMD; I think that you know!!
To suggest that the 56 who died in the 7/7 attacks was down to Tony Blair I believe is also inaccurate. Those bombers and the lunatics who trained them don't care about Iraq, they are following their OWN perception of their religion; the Koran, like the Bible, can be widely mis interpreted and the terrorists play on this!
As for the 100 British troops that have lost their lives in this conflict, yes it is tragic, but let's not forget, an I've said this before, they signed on the dotted line - they volunteered and I think the fact that only 100 servicemen have died as a result of on ongoing 3 year conflict is a testiment to the professionalism of our armed forces!
AHR
Monday Feb 20, 23:11
In response to Peter, no politics will ever truely work. That is unfortunate. I'm not afraid to oppose the Government because they lied to us over Iraq, that war was based on a lie. They were also wrong on top up fees. However if you look at the overall picture and what the council have achieved, nothing could make me more proud. The first council to implement equal opportunities legislation. If you want an example of what a lib dem run manchester city council would be like, then you only had to look at leeds. When the leader on the rainbow coalition on Leeds city council was asked why he had raised council tax and closed the womens refuge and raised council tax, the reply was that it wasn't possible.
I'm proud of what labour have done and not afraid to oppose the over Iraq was because it was horrendous mistake; but it is now important that we stand in solidarity with normal Iraqis and help them to rebuild their country. It is all to easy to oppose, oppose, oppose when you are in opposition.
AHR
Monday Feb 20, 23:13
Just to clarify the last comment about Leeds city council the womens refuge was closed because it wasn't profitable.
Dave
Tuesday Feb 21, 20:09
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4735330.stm
Labour have a poorer response rate than the Tories and Lib Dems in replying to emails apparently.
Alan
Tuesday Feb 21, 21:49
If you are looking at that as a percentage Dave then that's hardly fair; due to the fact that more people realise that a Labour Government offers them more opportunity, there are more Labour MP's. Don't always trust statistics Dave!!
These comments are owned by the person that posted them. They are not necessarily indicative of public opinion and their content has not been checked for accuracy. If you find a comment you think violates our Terms of Use please report it.
Sorry, posting on this entry is disabled to prevent comment spam.
