Posted by Dave on Wednesday May 09, 21:22
I am sure many of you will join me in congratulating Paul Ankers on removing former Lib Dem Cllr Angela Gallagher, who defected to the Labour Party, as councillor in Chorlton. I am sure John Leech will be chuffed too. Good to see democracy working.
+ tags coming soon
( 142 Comments )
Mike
Thursday May 10, 11:48
Good news. A real boost for John Leech. Swings to the Lib Dems in his constituency as follows:
Withington - 18% swing to Lib Dems
Chorlton Park - 2.6% swing to Lib Dems giving over-1000 majority
Didsbury West - 3.3% swing to Lib Dems
Burnage - 8.8% swing to Lib Dems
Didsbury East - 2.7% swing to Lib Dems
Chorlton - 3.5% swing to Lib Dems
Old Moat - 2.9% swing to Lib Dems
...giving six Lib Dem wins on the night out of seven wards.
Lucy Powell "off to a flying stop"!
Dave
Thursday May 10, 11:49
Strange bit of editing going on in my post! I seem to recall that I wrote something more along the lines of "I am sure many of you will join me in congratulating Paul Ankers on removing an non-democratically elected Labour councillor. I am sure John Leech will be chuffed too. Good to see democracy working"
But I am sure Thomas Graham has good reason behind his editing.
Dave
Thursday May 10, 11:51
You state she defected to the Labour Party. Aka a sinking ship!
Kesa
Thursday May 10, 15:13
Good for Paul!
Dave
Thursday May 10, 16:16
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6642339.stm
Another reason why I stopped voting Labour! (See above link!) Labour trying to cover up more bad news!
Chris Paul
Thursday May 10, 19:03
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/01/cllr-john-leech-mp-not-working-for.html
All the swings quoted are DOUBLE the accurate swings. But let's face it Lib Dems can't do sums. Or make deliberate errors to flatter and deceive.
Paul Ankers' campaign was horrendously negative and his reported remarks about local people degrading to himself and his party.
The state of the parties is the same today as it was the day after the 2006 poll. Lib Dems were going to dump Angela according to well placed sources. And at least she spent the last months of her Council career in better company!
The average swing, correctly computed and compounded with the 2006 swing in the opposite direction constitutes still a roughly 4% swing to Labour since 2005.
John Leech's majority is less than 1%. On these swings he will lose by 2-3,000 votes rather than the 3-4,000 computed in 2006.
There were no Lib Dems present at the Local Action Partnership (LAP) which deals with police, crime and disorder matters - apparently a top priority for Mr Ankers along with his oft repeated fibs about our household waste collections.
Just two final points for amusement.
Lib Dems in Bournemouth who have lost control to the Tories and hold only 7 seats to the latter's 41 signed a contract committing their city to a major city centre casino ON ELECTION DAY.
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/05/blogsclusive-libdemologists-fudge.html
SCOTTISH Lib Dems are failing magnificently to exercise any gumption in their hung parliament situation. Is this really what people want for the UK?
Fib Dems for Leech
Thursday May 10, 19:23
http://transpero.net/rednotyellow/
This site belongs to its users and exists to share information and resources about the activities of the Liberal Democrats, a party that has previously thrived on the basis of saying different things to different people in different places. Now the internet offers a real chance to hold them accountable.
Mark
Saturday May 12, 03:08
Chris Paul. There were no local elections in 2005 - how are you calculating your misleading swing?
Mark
Saturday May 12, 03:10
Why would the Lib Dems have dumped Angela Gallagher? It makes no sense. Either she was an asset (so Labour gained), or she was a liability (so why did Labour sell their souls begging her to join for months?)
peter h
Saturday May 12, 20:32
one would have thought, if Labour's claims to a newly revitalised election machine locally were true, that they would have made headway in the area in these elections. They didn't. Instead, they lost a seat and lost ground. Hence the embarrassed silence from them on this website
Dave
Monday May 14, 08:39
I thought Angela left Labour? I don't think the Lib Dems got rid of her. Either way, I don't care, it just goes to show that Labour are loosing. The only way they will get me back voting them is if Micheal Meacher becomes leader (so, but sadly the coronation will take place soon, and that means Labour will not have the ex-supporters coming knocking on their doors!)
Dave
Monday May 14, 16:05
I have decided that labour will get my vote again, if
A) They stop with the idea of an ID card
B) Michael Meacher becomes top dog
C) Hillary Benn is second in command
Otherwise I will continue to vote Lib Dems as I can see an alternative other than to waste my vote, (but I would rather go for a swim in the Manchester Ship canal having first been sand blasted and dipped in a vat of vinegar!)
peter h
Monday May 14, 17:14
should be interesting to see Gordon Brown trying to squirm his way out of Tony Blair's shadow, though. Either he agreed with him on Iraq, in which case he's no better, or he didn't, in which case he's a hypocrite.
Dave
Monday May 14, 17:30
Well if Radio 4 are right, looks like MM is not standing, shame.
Advice to Paul Ankers
Monday May 14, 19:27
I'd keep my PIN close to my chest if I were you!!
Advice to Paul Ankers
Monday May 14, 19:27
I'd keep my PIN close to my chest if I were you!!
Dave
Monday May 14, 21:04
Damn, that must be some good advice if you mention it twice (and I am a poet and I didn't even know it!).
Held upside down till the money falls out...
Tuesday May 15, 09:44
It is good advice. Ask Angela Gallagher who is £23000 lighter for her brief encounter with Liar Leech
Dave
Tuesday May 15, 10:44
That was foolish of her. But Labour seems to be a ship full of fools at the moment.
Question Dave..
Tuesday May 15, 11:09
Do you deliberately misunderstand the points that people make or are you really an idiot..?
Angela Gallagher gave £23000 to help Liar Leech get elected.
He lied about Christies and about Southern Cemetery. He is a lightweight in Parliamnet and a joke on the council.
His pronouncement on his website that the General Election is as good as one is as pathetic as his assertion that Labour's Lucy Powell is a London Candidate. At least she lives in Withington Constituency which is more than Liar Leech does.
Anyway is he going to stand down from the council like he said he would or is that another lie?
correction
Tuesday May 15, 11:10
That should read "as good as won"
Dave
Tuesday May 15, 12:02
I don't "deliberately misunderstand", so I guess that would make me an idiot. But if you need to lower your arguments to petty name calling, then that doesn't make me want to return to voting Labour.
As for your question regarding Leech to stand down or not. I don't know and don't care. As for lies, well Labour activitists need to start addressing the really big ones that Labour churn out, before ex-labour supporters like myself and many others return to voting labour.
Dave
Tuesday May 15, 12:08
May I remind you of the website rules?
"Contributions to John Leech Watch
By submitting your contribution to John Leech Watch, you warrant that your contribution;
is your own original work;
is not defamatory;
does not infringe any law;
You agree to indemnify John Leech Watch against all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by John Leech Watch as a result of your breach of the above warranty.
You agree to use John Leech Watch in accordance with the following rules:
Contributions must be civil and tasteful
No disruptive, offensive or abusive behaviour: contributions must be constructive and polite, not mean-spirited or contributed with the intention of causing trouble.
No unlawful or objectionable content: unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable.
No advertising
No impersonation"
Your point is...
Tuesday May 15, 13:18
Not sure what the point of you quoting the rules at us is unless its to stop us making points.
You keep saying you are a would be Labour voter but you do nothing but slag Labour off and that you are not a Lib Dem even though you voted for John Leech.
You lose me sometimes.
Dave
Tuesday May 15, 13:33
My point being that I try and be civil. I might not always agree with your (or other forum contributers) views, but at least I don't resort to name calling. That said I have been called far worse! If you had read by contributions in the early days of this forum, you would see that I have agreed with many of Labours early policies, particularly the national minimum wage, is without a doubt one of Tony Blair's best achievements. Unlike many of the exsisting Labour supporters on this forum, I can recognise positive achievements/policies in parties that I don't support.
My final point in relation to you last posting is the point that myself and Peter H have made over and over again. We voted Leech mainly (but not exclusively) for the reason over the Iraq War. Now, tactally voting a Labour MP out of parliment (only for him to get in through the back door) consitutes me as a Lib Dem in your eyes, then I guess that is what I am. However, my vote is up for any person/party that I think can best represent my views. At the moment, I can only see myself voting Lib Dem, because until Labour sort of the criminal justice system (including the "War on Terror") and until they can sort out Iraq - I will continue to protest and vote Lib Dem's as I don't see an alternative.
Dave
Tuesday May 15, 13:40
I forgot to add, unless a decent independent stands!
John Holliker
Tuesday May 15, 19:16
I think Labour's decision to court Angela Gallagher was crass and stupendously ill thought. In the end, they did well to limit the Chorlton defeat to 40+ votes. Joe Public had voted in a Lib Dem. She switched. There was always likely to be a backlash.
The winner in all of this? John Leech. Money in his pocket and an ineffectual, comedy councillor off his books.
When push comes to shove I think Lucy Powell will get the Labour machinery into shape and will narrowly take the seat back from Leech. Her starting point should be to get rid of some of the dead wood and rogue b*llshitters that post on this, and other, Labour blogs. All ego and no kudos.
peter h
Tuesday May 15, 22:42
well said mr holliker.
this website seems to attract a coterie of labour "activists" whose basic line seems to be to shout "liar" at John Leech and then to insult anybody who disagrees with them or votes for John.
If they think that is how to win this seat back, then God help Labour.
The arrogant moron above, who does not appear to want to give his name , should be trying to debate points with Dave.
Dave makes it clear that he is a disaffected labour voter. So what does this idiot do? He screams abuse at him.
Clever. Very, very clever. How to turn a floating voter into a confirmed Lib Dem. Grow up, idiot.
TimKinsella
Tuesday May 15, 23:05
Chris - On a purely statistical level, I'm curious to know how you calculate the accurate swings? The last elections involving the incumbents were the all-outs and not all of the candidates involved in these elections stood in those ones nor did they necessarily stand for the same party (eg. Angela Gallagher). Leaving aside from the whole thing about how the all-outs are very difficult to analyse with regards to support for particular parties/candidates.
Dave
Wednesday May 16, 08:59
May be if someone can post a weblink to show the statistics on this and previous elections?
Dave
Wednesday May 16, 09:01
I personally think John H is right. I think Lucy will win with a small margin. I think many voters in south Manchester will feel like they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I wouldn't be suprised if it is a low turn out compared to the 2005 election.
peter h
Wednesday May 16, 23:38
you're assuming that people who voted for john leech because they knew him locally from his work as a lib dem councillor will turn away from him next time, and that he will not garner any new support on such grounds. I doubt that. He still puts the work in at ground level thar built his personal support in the 1st place, and in any case the votes in the local elections show Lib Dem support holding up at that level. Dave, don't be fooled by the bias on this website. Locally, John Leech has a big fund of personal popularity. It was an important factor at the last election, and still is. It's something Keith Bradley never really understood the mechanics of. Why do you think John got the biggest swing in UK? Personal popularity, that's why.
And then, more importantly, on a national level, you're assuming that Labour will claw back some of the support it lost.
Again, there is no evidence for that.
Maybe Gordon Brown will reverse the losses. But it may be too late for him to do that , or he may find himself tarred with the same brush, having been intimately connected with those policies which cost Labour votes last time.
Admittedly, he will have a honeymoon period of some sort,but he will have great difficulty ditching the unpopular policies of Blair's premiership without being wide open to charges of hypocrisy.
He'll also have to have yet another Home Secretary, a new health minister, a new chancellor, and a new deputy PM to cope with. It's how well those people do which will ultimately decide who wins Withington next time round.
Round here things like Iraq and the health service will continue to cost votes. And don't also forget that interest rates are creeping up and there's alot of young voters round here who have borrowed up to the hilt on mortgages and who are beginning to struggle. For that, Gordon Brown carries the can.
I'd put money on John holding the seat and increasing his margin if I were gambler. The only real problem he has is the lib dems' apparently comatose leader, which may cost them support nationally . May we live in interesting times, as they say in China.
Dave
Thursday May 17, 15:09
Whilst I agree that Labour are going to be pushed out of government in the next general election mainly by the Tories, I think in South Manchester, they will at least narrow the gap if not win back the seat! Many of my friends who were like me, fed up with labour, are now feeling fed up with Leech and like you also state, "Lib Dem leadership" is almost an oxymoron. I am still angry that they got rid of Charlie. He was the best leader of any party for a number of year tory/labour/lib dem.
Percy Sledge
Thursday May 17, 18:05
http://www.chorltonparklabour.blogspot.com/
Some Labour chumps are trying to deny the local elections even happened (see link and sudden absence of certain days in May)!
Sorry to break the harmony Peter. I think you're being harsh on Keith Bradley. The man was highly effective as an MP, talented and extremely affable. And he made positive things happen in this area (that's not a cue for your usual tirade about Iraq et al).
I don't think for a minute it was Leech's personal popularity wot won it. The definitive reason was all of those Lib Dem leaflets and Leech's army of helpers that enabled him to cover the constituency. Labour struggled for man/womanpower, members went missing and they sorely lacked organisation.
Methinks Lucy Powell won't let the same thing happen twice. I've met her once. She's impressive and will bypass the minority of fools in Labour's camp who talk the talk but fail to walk the walk.
Dave
Thursday May 17, 18:23
The Lib Dem leaflets were a load of rubbish. The reason Leech got in was due to Iraq. The sooner Labour candidates and supporters realise this the better! I don't know why you Labour supporters boo-hoo so much about loosing Bradley, when you got you're boss to get him into the House of Lords!!! Great democracy eh chaps?
John Hacking
Friday May 18, 10:06
Your childish reference, Percy, to the missing days in May on the Chorltonparklabour blog does you no credit.
The election results were never on the blog. It's a blog not a news service.
If you want the election results they are available all over the place. Try the council website or the Manchester Evening News!!
Labour came second by the way. The seat was the safest Lib dem seat in the city but then the Lib dems do have the benefit of three fulltime councillors who don't work. And a part time MP with all his money available.
I'm just a bloke with a day job. Given that siutation I think you will find that it's not a result that the Lib Dems have any right to be dancing in the street about. Unless they are worried about next year. And I can assure them they should be!!
The "missing days in May" by the way are accounted for by the fact that I was on holiday for a few days and haven't mastered the art of remote bloggin yet. I'll try and live up to your high journalistic standards in the future. Perhaps in the tradition of the ridiculous Fib Dems I should now claim that residents are outraged at your slur and demand an apology from you!!
It's just some Labour bloke blog for God's sake. Grow up.
Oh and just for clarity I strongly suspect that these posts are coming from Fib Dem central either here or in Westminster. If you have any info Tom perhaps you would be kind enough to let us know where these anonymous men/women in the shadows are really lurking.
They want an open honest debate. Well lets see their faces (metaphorically of course). I challenge Percy to identify himself.
Dave
Friday May 18, 11:51
Most regular posters know where I am. No one REALLY knows who I am because I haven't met anyone in person. I would happily meet up for a beer and meet up with non-voters, indecided voters, labour voters, bnp voters, tory voters, lib dems voters, independent voters etc, as well as their supporters, campaigners and of course the actual candidates for a chat. I have nothing to hide!
John Hacking
Friday May 18, 12:04
Thanks Dave. an honest reply.
Dave
Friday May 18, 14:45
Not a problem John!
Percy Sledge
Friday May 18, 16:34
John
You are such a fraud. Your blog was littered with tripe about giving the Lib Dems a beating/people of Chorlton Park deserve better etc etc.
You lost. In a big way. These posts disappeared.
Not the best of ways to save face, is it dear?
John Hacking
Friday May 18, 16:51
Firstly the people of Chorlton Park do deserve better. Secondly the only post that has been deleted is the one which said Vote Labour on May 3rd because it is clearly out of date. No other post has been deleted and to suggest as such is really a fraud. You Lib Dems ought to try and pay more attention to how you serve the people of Manchester rather than marauding through the internet bullying anyone who disagrees with you. And don't call me dear!
John Hacking
Friday May 18, 16:52
Oh...and by the way. It's MY blog and I can choose if I wish to litter it with what I like and choose to delete what I like. I don't need the permission of you juvenile control freaks. Dear!!
peter h
Friday May 18, 22:12
interesting to see a labour supporter on this site complaining about juvenile control freaks and bullying.
Normally it's some of the more infantile labourites doing that, John. Whoever does it makes prats of themselves, so maybe there are prats on all sides......
John Hacking
Saturday May 19, 18:25
You have gone very quiet Percy. You shy?
peter h
Monday May 21, 22:28
I seem to remember a lot of hot air being expended here about John Leech's expenses some months ago.
Interesting to see your labour government now trying to bring in legislation which will stop the public seeing details of MP's expenses.
How do you square that little circle, lads?
Alan
Tuesday May 22, 08:24
You don't square that circle Peter, they should be accessible to all people who have got the time, or indeed the inclination, to look through them. I'm accountable at the end of each month for my expenses, so they should be too!
Lucy Powell doesnt stand a chance
Tuesday May 22, 12:08
When will the local labour party realise that betrayed traditional labour voters like myself turned tot eh lib dems in 2005 in opposition to the iraq war. instead of selecting a hard working local candidate opposed tot eh iraq war, the local labour party opts for a stuck up london candidate with v little connection to manchester who SUPPORTS the Iraq war!!! Labour deserved the kicking they recieved on 3 may and they should be prepared to get a similar kicking at the next geeral election when Leech's result will increase, unles they pull the troops out of Iraq
illiteracy and ranting madness rules!!
Tuesday May 22, 12:14
Dear Lucy Powell doesn't stand a chance
a) You are wrong
b) You are an idiot
c) You can't spell
d) You are a Lib Dem
e) If you ever were a "traditional Labour voter" (which I don't think you were as in my experience people like you just spout off and don't actually vote for anyone they just threaten not to vote for someone -oohh we are really scared!!) then good riddance. The Fib Dems are welcome to you, you ignorant offensive bigot.
John Ellis
Tuesday May 22, 14:34
I've just posted something on the thread about Lucy Powell's selection in which I commented on the improvement in the quality of debate on this site, since I first looked at it in its early days, and despaired. That was based on reading that thread. Then I read this one ...
Can I take it all back, please?! Apart from the contributions from one or two clearly sceptical participants, some of whom are evidently disillusiioned ex-Labour members or voters, the quality of the debate is so abysmal that it's a wonder Paul Ankers didn't win Chorlton by a huge margin. I can only assume that none of the contributors that I have in mind wrote any of Labour's election leaflets in Chorlton, or he surely would have done so!
I was never much tempted towards Labour in its glory days, such as they were, but I was often struck by the integrity, vision and commitment to a better society exhibited by some Labour people, even when I disagreed with them over what that was, or how to get there. Against that, there was always the counterbalance of pettiness, arrogance, nest-feathering and sheer blatant corruption that I saw when Labour was in power in local government in industrial south Wales, where I then lived, and which for years encouraged me to distrust all political parties.
But there at least the nastiness and corruption was usually on a grand .. sometimes even a heroic! - scale. This thread, at its worst, exhibits a primary playground level of debate and discussion. If I were a Chorlton Lib Dem, in every "Focus" I'd be advising electors to find their reasons for not voting Labour in a study of all the "yah boo sucks" stuff in this thread! It'd be more effective than any arguments they could produce themselves.
My sincere sympathies to all reasonable Labour members and disillusioned ex-Labourites. Though perhaps, as one who has never been tempted by Labour, and who has in more recent years become a card-carrying Lib Dem, I shouldn't intrude on private grief!
Fed up of pompous so called "ex-labour supporters"
Tuesday May 22, 15:07
"as one who has never been tempted by Labour, and who has in more recent years become a card-carrying Lib Dem, I shouldn't intrude on private grief!"
Thats right . By jove! you've got it. You think Ankers contibution in Chorlton has raised the level of debate do you. What ? Rat's with labour rosettes on in some spurious lie about waste collection. The Lib Dems tell lies to make progress, they say anything to anyone. They will get in to bed with anyone that will give thme power. They are in bed with the Tories in Bolton and they are about to get in bed with Plaid in Wales. they are not a political party they are a franchise operation.
Get off your high horse and grow up.
Dave
Tuesday May 22, 16:19
John Ellis's posting on the other thread was a lot better. But I still think it is a valid point that he has made on this thread.
BTW good to have you back Alan! It's good to have someone who can critically debate from the Labour camp on here!
Alan
Tuesday May 22, 16:59
Thanks Dave, I've kept an eye on the threads but, whilst I enjoy debating with yourself, Peter and John Holliker (and some others not mentioned) even though alot of the time we disagree; I see little point in wasting my time responding to people, Labour or not, who rant on without even having the decency to put their own name to the drivel they write. I am an absolute supporter of Tony Blair, and believe that his contribution to this country and politics is immense. You and Peter disagree, thats fine but Labour supporters need to wake up to the fact that continually slagging off the Lib Dems without using solid and reasoned debate to back it up puts a bad light on a party which is already seriously suffering in the polls. (Admitedly I have been guilty of this in previous posts).... and yes whoever posts with no name, I dare say there are some spelling mistakes in my post... but in the scheme of things; who bloody cares!
John Hacking
Tuesday May 22, 17:12
Labour in Withington and in Manchester generally is not just "slagging off Lib Dems" as you suggest. We have a postive programme built around our aspiration for the citizens of this world class city. What we will do though is to continue to expose the Lib dems hypocrisy, lies and manipulations which serve to do nothing but alienate people, depress them and disengage them from civic life. The lib dems are a protest vote. They offer no constructive way through the city's problems. We won't waver in our duty to point that out whenever and however it needs pointing out.
Dave
Tuesday May 22, 20:00
John Hacking, but surely the best way to get people to vote for a party (regardless of which political party) is to use contructive criticism; to be sincere when listening to voters views; and to offer an alternative. A lot of what is side by either side on this forum just puts the other people off. I have said this many a time before, Labour up until 2001/2002 could do no wrong in my eye, but as far as I can tell, they (the Labour government) have become an arrogant bunch, churning out more and more laws that aren't needed
Percy Sledge
Wednesday May 23, 10:24
I think the biggest insult some labour types can pay is "you are a lib dem."
Can one of them tell me why that is such a heinous crime?
John H. You are a fraud. I only wish I'd have taken screengrabs of some of your 'pre-election promises and predictions' that have since disappeared.
Dave
Wednesday May 23, 10:55
Get it right Percy, we are Fib Dems apparently, which implies Labour never lie (which cracks me up with laughter!). But that is also because they don't know how to engage the electorate!
John Hacking
Wednesday May 23, 11:17
Percy - You seem pretty adamant that I have removed some posts from my blog and I can honestly say that I believe the only one missing is the Vote Labour on May 3rd, which I removed because it was clearly dated and wasn't really a post anyway just a line.
I have not removed any others. I will look at teh blog management files and see if any have been archived . It's possible I guess. I am new to this stuff as most people are. If you can recollect any of the posts you accuse me of removing it would help. I think the phrase "labour types" is a bit pompous and mildy annoying by the way. But we are fair game on this site to be accused of anything without any supporting evidence, as you are ably proving.
John Hacking
Wednesday May 23, 11:19
By the way Dave, people , in my experience who use phrases like "engage the elctorate" rarely engage the electorate. It's the kind of phrase used by politicians who sit in dark rooms running email campaigns. You could prove us all wrong and tell us exactly when and where you last knocked on the door of an elector.
John Hacking
Wednesday May 23, 11:22
Percy. Is Percy sledge your real name or are you hiding behind it.People who pretend to be someone else to attack people as frauds really is a lack of self awareness on a grand scale. Reveal your true identity. Or are you a fraud?
Alan
Wednesday May 23, 11:58
John H perhaps you can tell me what Labour is going to do for the great city of Manchester and indeed the country. I'm a great supporter of Tony Blair and also thought that Keith Bradley was a fantastic MP and genuinely nice guy but at present I'm pretty disillusioned and as it currently stands will not be voting Labour at the next election. One major reason for this was the ridiculous letter I got through the door from Labour telling me to renew my membership (which I have purposefully let lapse) so that I can vote on the new leader and take part in a 'momentous display of democracy'. Who else is there to vote for other than Gordon Brown!!?? It's not a democratic process it is a complete farce.
John Hacking
Wednesday May 23, 12:30
I can start by telling you what we have done: (I'll tell you what we are going to do later if you insist)
Fantastic regeneration of the city centre (opposed by the Lib dems)
Neighbourhood regeneration in Hulme, East and North manchester and work in Wythenshawe including the new Forum Centre.
The Commonwealth Games (opposed by the Lib Dems)
Dozens of new childrens centres, thosuands of new homes for new citizens moving into the city centre and the city in general.
The fastest growing economy outside of the South East.
Created more jobs than any other area except London.
Great new buildings inc. The City Art gallery, Urbis (opposed by the Lib dems)
and so on and so on.........
Now it's your turn to list the Lib Dems achievements. if you can't find any in Manchester where they aren't in control perhaps you could look at their shambolic rule in Liverpool for examples.
There is an election for Deputy leader of the party by the way.
And you are seriously telling me that you make your decision on who to vote for on the basis of letters you recieve from the Labour Party membership department!! Good god, that's scary.
John Hacking
Wednesday May 23, 12:31
I can start by telling you what we have done: (I'll tell you what we are going to do later if you insist)
Fantastic regeneration of the city centre (opposed by the Lib dems)
Neighbourhood regeneration in Hulme, East and North manchester and work in Wythenshawe including the new Forum Centre.
The Commonwealth Games (opposed by the Lib Dems)
Dozens of new childrens centres, thosuands of new homes for new citizens moving into the city centre and the city in general.
The fastest growing economy outside of the South East.
Created more jobs than any other area except London.
Great new buildings inc. The City Art gallery, Urbis (opposed by the Lib dems)
and so on and so on.........
Now it's your turn to list the Lib Dems achievements. if you can't find any in Manchester where they aren't in control perhaps you could look at their shambolic rule in Liverpool for examples.
There is an election for Deputy leader of the party by the way.
And you are seriously telling me that you make your decision on who to vote for on the basis of letters you recieve from the Labour Party membership department!! Good god, that's scary.
Alan
Wednesday May 23, 12:58
John, whilst I appreciate and agree with most of what you say I would like to clarify my point. I haven't made my decision based on letters from the party; that is just one concern. At the end of the day, so what if there is an election for Deputy Leader, lets face it, Prescott didn't really do much other that p**s people off. My concern is that the next Prime Minister of this country is going to enter office on the say so of a majority backing of MP's within his own party. Mambers don't have a say and currently neither does the country. If Brown and indeed Labour were to do the decent thing then they should call a General Election following the appointment of the new leader. My other areas of contention surround the fact I am currently taxed to the hilt, I get paid well but can't afford a mortgage therefore leaving me no other option than to rent, which as we all know, is dead money!, I drive a car to work and now the government is proposing ANOTHER tax on drivers in addition to extortionate petrol prices and car tax. (Case Study - I had a meeting in Bristol the other day, to use public transport would have meant me leaving the house at 4.15am, use 3 trains and two busses/ taxis giving me an arrival time of 10.45 - if I use the car, which I did, I got there in 2 and a half hours) We pander to the scottish and the welsh by wasting valuable money, which should be going into the NHS or education or ... with a bit of fore thought perhaps... into public transport, on meaningless assemblies. There has been no real shake up on benefits which means that people who don't qualify are still bleeding the state dry and spending my hard earned money on booze, drugs and rockports. They have banned smoking in all public places and now everytime I want a cigarette I have to stand in a bus shelter outside the office; yet if everyone in this country gave up smoking they would be pleading us to start again because of how heavily it's taxed (or maybe they could slap another tax on the motorist to compensate). Finally, whilst I disagree we should withdraw troops from Iraq and indeed agree with the initial action we took, if it was for the said reason of removing a murderous dictator then why have we not gone into Dafur or Zimbabwe??? Why did we not interveen in Rwanda.... do those people not matter?? Essentially, I have grown seriously disillusioned with whats going on and if Gordon Brown does indeed become PM and surrounds himself with the back stabbing cronies that make up the Labour Party these days then I will not be voting for them and I imagine not many other people will either! In answer to your other question I can't think of a single meaningful thing that the Lib Dems have done in Manchester, although I imagine Peter would be happy to fill you in.
John Ellis
Wednesday May 23, 14:14
Pompous? ... well, perhaps, at my worst, though I usually confess more readily to verbose .. though that's not much better, when you think about it, is it?! But ex - Labour supporter? No, never - I plead not guilty to that one!
But seriously .... I haven't seen any of the Chorlton Focuses, as I've been living out of the constituency since January. If one did depict a rat wearing a Labour rosette as indicated, and there was no more to it than that, then I happily refer "Fed up with ex .." to what I've said on the Lucy Powell thread about playground gibes in politics - they're always counter-productive and unworthy when they happen, and they do nothing to enhance debate.
Dave
Wednesday May 23, 19:50
Everytime I knock on anyones door, I am knocking on the door of the electorate. However, I am not a Lib Dem or any other political party activist. And I have never made claims that I am. It's a shame that you see "engaging the electorate" as a cynical phrase.
peter h
Wednesday May 23, 23:49
Am I missing something? I was under the impression , garnered from comments on this website, that a reinvigorated Local Labour party was going to unseat John Leech at the next election, spear-headed by a lady called Lucy Powell, who is apparently a first rate candidate.
Is that correct?
If so, why have we still heard nothing from her? I've not seen her, heard her mentioned in the local media, nothing.
I suspect that Labour locally may be a busted flush in reality, which is a pity.
Alan, I assume you will be going back to your previous home, the Conservatives? Interesting, that. You are precisely the kind of voter Lavour set out to woo under Tony Blair, and they've left you feeling disillusioned, which suggests they've let down the old labour support like myself and the liberal tories like you. That spells trouble for them at the next elections.
Glad to see you understand the basic financial points I've been trumpeting for the last 2 years. Gordon Brown, far from being a good chancellor, has sold ordinary people down the river. We are the most endebted people in Europe, we have to spend something like 20% of our income to put a roof over our heads, the gap between rich and poor has stretched to obscene proportions, and individual freedoms are being eaten away - we have more CCTV cameras in UK than the rest of Europe combined. Labour at their worst are control freaks, and that will appear more and more
Alan
Thursday May 24, 09:13
Well I certainly won't be voting Lib Dem Peter!
Dave
Thursday May 24, 09:40
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6685033.stm
To, Fed up of pompous so called "ex-labour supporters"
"They are in bed with the Tories in Bolton and they are about to get in bed with Plaid in Wales"
looks like you were wrong about the situation in Wales, see that is the problem with Labour supporters.... so out of touch!
Labour supporter
Thursday May 24, 11:14
Dave, you see thats the trouble with you Lib Dems, can't hold a consistent position for more than 24 hours.
Labour Supporter
Thursday May 24, 11:18
Dave - I didn't say that "enagaging the electorate" was "a cynicalphrase". Putting words in peoples mouth is one of your less endearing qualities. Please stop doing it and some of the things you say might be taken more seriously. I meant that using the phrase is usually an indiaction that the person using it is an armchair politician or one of those people that knows what people are thinking because they speak to half a dozen people on message boards.
Dave
Thursday May 24, 11:44
Labour supporter
I voted lib dem, but that is about as far as it goes. If that is a definintion of a lib dem, then I must also be a labour supporter as I have voted for them too far more times than I have voted for the Lib Dems.
And when it comes to chopping and changing minds. Then look no further than your own party. I like people to think things through and be able to say "hold on a minute, is what we are doing right?" I would hate to think that once anyone (Lib dem, labour etc) were to make up their minds over something, that they then couldn't reverse or adapt that plan.
Dave
Thursday May 24, 11:46
look labour supporter/john hacking, or whoever the heck you are. We all make wrong assumptions, sorry if I offended you (being Labour you might have to look up the word "Sorry"). But I genuinely didn't mean to cause offence!
peter h
Thursday May 24, 23:15
Unlike Dave, I certainly mean to cause offence......
What the hell's an armchair politician? You mean some people have less right to an opinion than you because they are less "active"? Strikes me that it's the "activists" who are often the ones to be out of touch. They're so far up their own political arses that they don't see reality. The halfwits who still bleat about some leaflet about christies 3 years ago that nobody read and nobody can produce a text of, whilst poo hooing the disasters of Iraq and the mess of the NHS are the ones which debase debate, not the likes of Dave.
Labour Supporter
Friday May 25, 09:57
Peter h - I have a copy of the leaflet. You want me to send you a copy?
It's a disgrace. It has been circulated widely amongst many sections of society of all political persuasions and the constant response is one of revulsion.
The man is a liar and a lightweight. He can send in his attack dogs like you as often as he likes but he's not getting away from it.
An armchair politician by the way was a way of describing people who always say they know what people are thinking and what we should do but they never get further than their armchairs. Do I think everyone has a right to an opinion , of course. Do I think that you know what people are thinking in South Manchester better than me, of course not.How can you? You don't meet and listen to as many as I do. Or do you? I don't know, you won't say. It's not an insult its a fact.
Alan
Friday May 25, 11:43
Labour Supporter - you are the reason that Labour will not win at the next election. If you'd bothered to read previous posts you would see that Peter and Dave are no 'Lib Dem attack dogs' but people who have previously voted Labour and become, like I am increasingly becoming, very disillusioned with the party. The election is over two years ago, the Christie's thing is dead, and yes I personally believe that John Leech is useless but if you want to win voters back, stop the sniping, put something constructive together and get out on the streets and deliver it!
John Ellis
Friday May 25, 12:23
As no one in here seems actually to know anyone else except from what they read in their posts, how can you know enough about a person to dismiss him with phrases like "armchair politician"?
There seems to be a certain sort of Labour apparatchik - and this was as true of "old" Labour as of New - who:
1. seems to feel that the party has some sort of natural right to rule, at least in areas where it has had some sort of historic pre-eminence - flavour of Charles I, but not many modern electors are entranced by the theory of the divine right of kings, even in a more contemporary garb.
2. sees dissent, or even honest perplexity, on the part of people who were, and still would like to be, Labour supporters as a sort of disloyalty, even a subversion, which needs to be punished and, if possible, ruthlessly extirpated, presumably because they see it as inimical to the greater cause of the Party, and destructive of the great mission that Labour has. Can't quite work out whether the best parallel to that is the Holy Inquisition or Joseph Stalin et al. OK, they can't implement "De Haeretico Comburendo" to burn you in the market place, or imprison you, or send you into internal exile, but I get the feeling that, if they could, they'd quite like to!
But supporting or joining a political party is a voluntary act. You can still say, I suppose, "I'm Labour, my family always has been", but, like it or not, that politics of the tribe is on the decline, and if, in consequence, people more and more think before they join, support or vote, how can that be other than a good thing?
If people are going to vote your way, and, even better, turn out to work for the party, surely you need to convince them, and not bawl at them - and, most of all, don't you need to re-enthuse the folk who used to be your own supporters? The stats. show that Labour membership and activism have severely declined in the last ten years, and my impression in Didsbury in May 2005 was that one of your problems was that you didn't have the people on the ground to get about the constituency putting the Labour argument over. We Lib Dems were out night after night, because, whether we won or not, we thought our case was worth making.
Labour needs to recover people who will do that, and, in here, there seem to be folk who actually seem to WANT to be convinced, who wish they could be back in the Labour fold, but just can't see their way to doing so. But instead of persuasion, argument, reasoned debate and, above all, an attempt to explore and resolve the things that have disillusioned them and deterred them from their previous support, the reflex response of the apparatchik is to slag 'em off!
I can see why they slag me off; I'm the enemy, after all - though, personally, I think that's a pretty counter-productive and dim sort of politicking even when directed against your opponents. But why, oh why, kick out at the people who want to be with you, just because there are aspects of party policy, or things that have been done, that they haven't been able to accept. I honestly can't see where that's going to get you.
Dave
Friday May 25, 12:33
Are you the same Alan that has been posting here for two years? Or are you someone who is pretending to be Alan?
Labour Supporter
Friday May 25, 12:43
Your ananlysis underlines why the Lib dems have the reputation of being all things to all men (women). You bizarrly seem to suggest that political parties have the time and resources to enter inot a one to one dialogue about every single issue that is important to every single person. Government doesn't work like that.
Power means making choices and setting priorities and sometimes thats unpopular. But you never do it . Except when you stumble into power and the realise that your "philosophy" doesn't allow you make decisions that choose one set of interests above another. Look at the basket case you made of Sheffield and absolute joke you are making of Liverpool,
You Fibs have the luxury of telling everyone that you meet what you are against is what they are against. It's pathetic really.
You Fibs have never understood that in the grown up world of governing sometimes you have to give people what they need not what they want.
It also displays a campaign naivety which i thought you had surmounted but obviously not. The reason that you had more people "on the ground" in 2005 is because you targetted the constituency. It was a choice you made. You treated it like a bye-election and we didn't thats why you had more people here than eleswhere. The same was true for us in reverse. if you are tryig to give the impression that Labour in this part of the City is on its uppers you are wasting your time. You are in for a very busy next 2 or 3 years. Don't do what Leech is doing and get comfy and complacent.
Alan
Friday May 25, 13:03
Yes Dave, the very same. I appreciate that my posts may seem different from previous but with Blair gone,the exceptionally un democratic coronation of Gordon Brown pending, and more taxes/ rules being brought in by pasty faced politicians who are all looking to get onto Gordons gravy train, they have lost my support. Don't get me wrong the Tories are by no means perfect but for me, at the moment, they are the preferred option. What is worrying for Labour is that someone who spent an enormous amount of time at the last election working for them, unpaid and in my own time, and who has been a member of the party for 10 years is now not going to vote for them. They need to wake up, nationally (I couldn't comment on local activity because I no longer live in Didsbury)and instill people with some confidence.
peter h
Friday May 25, 17:55
Wonderful. John Ellis, whoever he is, takes the time to write a well thought-out critique of Labour's failings.
And what response does he get?
"You Fibs have never understood that in the grown up world of governing sometimes you have to give people what they need not what they want."
From Labour Supporter. That sentence epitomizes why people like me walked away from labour. And You just don't get it, do you Labour Supporter?
I'm old enough to remember being lectured by Labour Party Student activists in 1965 - the generation now in power -how the working class were too stupid to know what was good for them.
Condescending elitist crap. Plus ca change....
As for Lib Dems having "more people on the ground", you STILL don't get it , do you? John Leech has a tremendous following amongst ordinary electors, not because he's a Lib Dem, but because he and his colleagues have been "on the ground " 52 weeks a year for years. They don't just show up at election time. They roll up there sleeves and get stuck in on local people's behalf week in and week out, being the people's representative, not sitting in some ivory tower deciding to "give people what they need, not what they want". Like Marie Louise Gardens recently. JL's been involved from day 1 helping out . Or when the Paupers' Wood thing happened a few months ago. He's there fighting our corner. That's why we believe him, not you about Christies. And that's why he got such a huge swing last time. Where's Labour, where's Lucy whatsit? Where are they?
peter h
Friday May 25, 17:59
And I suppose whilst we "wanted" peace we "needed" Iraq? We "wanted" truth about WMD, but we "needed" lies? (Many more pages of that if you wish, Labour Supporter - it's a deprtessingly easy argument to win)
John Ellis
Saturday May 26, 00:19
For Peter H, I'm a Lib Dem who lived for 10 years in Didsbury until last January, when we moved away. I thought I'd have a look at this website again, to see to see if there was now anything on it worth looking at. I saw it when it was first set up, and it was just a tirade. But now there seems to be at least some decent debate on it, even though the tone hasn't totally transformed!
For "Labour Supporter":
I seem not to have made myself clear. Where on earth did I suggest that Labour activists can or should spend hours of time with individual electors trying to explain every part of their party's policy? I don't think I said anything about that at all.
What I was saying .. and I thought I made it clear enough .. was that, on this site, Labour loyalists like you have a golden chance to communicate with disillusioned former members of your party who come on here actually wanting to feel able to support the party again. They're in here, and you're in here often enough - you and your party colleagues don't have to spend time going out looking for them. Their natural home is with you. They'd like to be back with Labour, but they're unhappy. It doesn't take much time or effort, as you're evidently a happy Labour loyalist, for you to enter into a serious and respectful debate with them, and try to answer their criticisms and misgivings about how the New Labour project is working out. You may or may not win them back. You may or may not agree with, or accept, the things that they say they don't like. But you've got an opportunity, in this arena, to convince them. But as all you do is bawl puerile abuse at them, you haven't got a prayer. Apart from the sheer childishness and discourtesy of it, I honestly don't see what you think you're achieving. Your party's membership has been in free fall in recent years. You NEED these people, in the party in general, and certainly you need them supporting the cause in Withington. They're not like me, they want to be with you. And yet you just slag them off at every opportunity.
Perhaps you wonder why I care. It probably isn't really worth me telling you, as no doubt you'll continue to think that I'm a pathetic Fib Dem who can't tell his political arse from his elbow. And I guess you'd also think that, as I'm the enemy, I'd only be interested in doing Labour down anyway. Well, if I'm honest, when I read your responses, that feeling does arise. But when I disperse the steam from my ears, I remind myself that I do believe in democracy, and that democracy requires an opposition, if politics is going to keep healthy. That's why I believe, in principle, that this site is a good idea. It's right that John Leech, like every other politician, should be watched, because politicians need to be accountable - like the website says, "they work for you"! And the value of a strong opposition is that they're the people who'll hopefully put particular effort, dedication and skill into doing seeing that they are accountable, and they'll be able to do so all the better because they come from an alternative political standpoint, and can offer the voter an alternative choice.
And, in Withington, who's going to fulfil that opposition role? Not the Tories - they're a "busted flush" in the constituency for the foreseeable future. The Greens? Maybe, but they're not strong enough on the ground yet. It's Labour that's the natural party of opposition to a Lib Dem MP in Withington. But I don't see much constructive opposition, at least in here; you're too busy slagging the people who want to be on your side Is it some sort of political death wish?
And do you really think that Lib Dems flooded Withington with outside activists in May 2005? Would that we had ... the whole campaign would have been a damn sight less exhausting if we had been able to rely on squads of outsiders like that. Yes, we had a lot of help from all over the place in Cheadle a few months later, because that was a by-election. We just don't have the people available at a general election to flood Withington, which was just one, fairly long-shot, constituency which came, I think, about 94th on our list in terms of the swing we'd need to win. We had a bit of help from some neighbouring Manchester constituencies, plus, I recall, three who came over from Altrincham because they didn't think they stood a chance of toppling the Tory. There may have been the odd other person, but those were all the activists from outside that I encountered. In the main, it was just ordinary local members plodding the streets for the six months prior to the election.
I won't even start on the "give the people what they need, not what they want" business; Peter H has said what needed to be said. Looks like New Labour's the modern equivalent of the barons of old .. or is it the Central Committee?!
If most of the remaining Labour supporters are like "Labour Supporter",
(1) Boy, I'm even more glad we won last time; and
(2) with such troops on the ground, I think Lucy Powell has something of a hill to climb.
Alan
Saturday May 26, 08:31
Peter, whilst I'm sure it's great that John gets involved with such issues. At the end of the day though there is a distinct difference between the responsiblities and workload of a cllr and an MP. Whilst I would expect the MP to give his support, I would expect the cllr to get their hands dirty on such 'local issues'. Whilst I'm not in anyway trying to suggest that the issue you mention is insignificant, surely there has to be a line drawn somewhere - and if John is taking on all this responsibility at a local level, is he representing the constituency in Westminster satisfactorily.
peter h
Saturday May 26, 16:51
Alan, I take your point. I'm simply pointing out why John Leech has a strong local following and a strong personal popularity with otherwise floating voters.
Anybody who jas been active locally in any campaign for any local issue in the last few years is likely to have found John Leech helping fight for the issue, and will be grateful that he did so.
Obviously he frequently will not have succeeded because many of those fights involve confrontation with a local Labour council. But people feel grateful that he helped, and, equally,feel antipathetic to the Labour council that they had to fight, especially when we got the feeling that we were being ignored by our local council for having dared vote Lib Dem and having had a Lib Dem councillor fight for our cause, creating the impression that the local council is only interested in its friends, not the entire electorate. That may be the wrong impression,nd it may even be exploited by Lib Dems, but it is how it feels to us on the ground. Like I said, Labour constantly shoots itself in the foot round here by not siding with the local electorate.
John Holliker
Monday May 28, 10:49
http://http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1007/1007831_mp_blasted_for_mcdonalds_support.html
Oops. John's scored a major McOwn Goal:
Alan
Monday May 28, 12:44
Peter, if this is the case then perhaps he needs to get some PR guys on board to promote this. As it stands I look at the MEN and SMR every week and there is little mention of John Leech and what he gets up to. I think that John seriously lacks 'marketability' and if he is to stand any kind of a chance at the next election then he needs to pull his finger out pretty quickly. Labour are going to storm Withington with all guns blazing, there will be no mistakes made or any complacency this time. Don't get me wrong, I don't want him to win because I genuinely dislike what he stands for and am not too keen on him as an MP anyway. Lets face it, whether you like it or not, politics is about policy, but equally its about PR and promoting the good things that you do or champion. We live in a 24/7 culture where I can watch the news on my phone at any time, receive email updates on a blackberry etc. There is no escaping this and so, politicians especially, need to adapt to this.
As for the McDonalds stuff, I'm a big fan of McDonalds and worryingly for me now live opposite one!!! There is alot of hype surrounding them making them out to be an evil empire who are making the country fat. Thats bollocks, people are fat because they eat crap all day every day; again it's down to what I always champion.. freedom of choice. You can choose to go to McDonalds or you can chhose not too. The bad image, unfortunately rubs off on the staff there too who are often perceived as being uneducated and stupid. Essnetially yes, there are some stupid people that work at McDonalds, just like there are stupid people working in every industry. What I would say about the staff at McDonalds is, at least they are working and paying tax which is alot more than can be said for some people. If people work for a living and pay their taxes then they have my respect, regardless of whether its a McJob or not!
As for Mr Leech, so what, if he got free tickets, or free transport then good for him. I go out with customers every now and then and it's all paid for by the company, meal, drinks, hotels etc.... should I feel guilty... no, I'm just doing my job and that happens to be one of the benefits of it!
John Holliker
Monday May 28, 18:13
Oh dear. Pass the Mcblinkers.
peter h
Monday May 28, 19:08
not really, Mr Holliker. It was a couple of LABOUR mps who are redfaced for appearing to get free world cup tickets, if you read the story properly. JL didn't do that. Labour own goal, or maybe a pox on both their houses....
peter h
Monday May 28, 19:16
Alan, I spend a lot of time in China. Obesity was almost unknown there until the last few years, but now it is becoming a significant problem with certain sectors of big city adolescents, and it is simply because they are getting hooked on Fast food rather than Chinese food - notably Pizza Hut, KFC and McDonalds. I accept your point about freedom of choice, but not everybody is as well-informed on the subject as you probably are. Personally, I think I've eaten in McDonalds 2 or 3 times in my life, and on the last occasion came down with Salmonella poisoning next day, and turned vegetarian.
You have to admit the processed and fast food industries in general target kids in very sophisticated and , in my opinion, immoral ways, and that can make a mockery of the concept of freedom of choice
Alan
Tuesday May 29, 10:00
Peter, I supposed there is no denying that they do target kids and by no means do I condone this but at the same time my argument would be that parents should restrict how often they go to McDonalds etc. When I was younger my mum and dad used to take me to McDonalds as a treat, not as an everyday supplement to proper food; this is half the problem. Alot of parents substitute McDonalds for a 'normal' meal either due to time constraints or just because they are plain lazy. For a single bloke, sharing a house, who works long hours and because I'm a bit of a jobs worth, most weekends, I still eat pretty healthily. Yes I do buy fast food but only on the odd occasion when I really can't be bothered to cook.I would imagine that in China fast food places are a bit of a novelty and we all know that people often over indulge in new concepts, I would imagine that fast food is no different. Your point about advertising I would probably have to agree with but ultimately fast food, just like cigs and alcohol is a choice; admitedly I indulge in all 3 vices but am aware of the risks (which might make it worse than not!)
Dave
Tuesday May 29, 11:34
I think we have to be very careful when it comes to freedom of choice. Would it be okay to allow freedom of choice on heroin, cocaine or LSD use? Is it okay to allow freedom of choice on tobacco, alcohol, McD's? What age is appropriate for that freedom of choice? Any age? Over 16, 18, 21, 30?
Does targetting specifics groups, eg children count as freedom of choice?
Dave
Tuesday May 29, 12:14
Talking of drug use, I see Labour are reaching out for another Bandaid sticky plaster, instead of tackling the problem properly. I refer of course to the stupid idea that sticking health warnings on bottles of beer/wine etc will stop problematic drinking! I guess it will be as successful as the Warning Smoking Kills on cig packets!
Alan
Tuesday May 29, 12:30
I understand what you're saying Dave but where does curbing that choice stop! Where do we become a 'nanny state'. I think people, myself included, are becoming increasingly p*ssed off by being told what we can and can't do. If I want to smoke then I'll smoke, if I want to drink then I'll drink, if I want a McD's then I'll have one, if I want to drive a car instead of using inadequate public transport then I shouldn't have to pay through the nose for it etc etc. What gets me more than anything though is the hypocrasy, as I've mentioned before, if we all stopped driving and smoking then the government would be begging us to start again because of the hit they would take on taxes. If they are so concerned about the environment then why not insist that all new cars run on LPG?etc
Alan
Tuesday May 29, 12:31
Dave in fairness the anti smoking adverts on TV do have an impact. I'm pretty thick skinned but the one where it showed you smoking a tube of fatty gunk made me feel pretty ill.... however, still smoking so I guess it's not that effective!
Dave
Tuesday May 29, 12:42
Labour can't win, if they allowed illegal drugs to become decriminalised/leagalised, then the Daily Mail readers would get upset. Try and make drug use harder (as in pubs becoming smoke free) they complain about Nanny States (Alan, I am not implying you are a Daily Mail reader btw)
I do think the government have a duty to protect it's public, but I just think this government is obessed, be it anti-terrorism laws, drug laws, enviromental policy. I agree, why not make every house have a small wind turbine on it, instead of taxing us to the hilt, why not have cars run on LPG, re-nationalise the public transport to reduce costs and make them more enviromentally friendly. And finally, build a nuclear power station on Hough End Fields to power Manchester, with clean electricity!
Alan
Tuesday May 29, 13:23
Maybe just as bad Dave I read The Times!! I'm pretty neutral on the old drugs argument, I'm not really sure which argument to lean towards. However, if they did legalise it then at least they'd have something else to slap a tax on!
Dave
Tuesday May 29, 13:45
Soon Labour will tax us to breath (the spin will be about reducing CO2 levels) and pump blood around our bodies (the spin won't matter dues to us all dying from the lack of O2 as we hold our breath!)
Thus, this will free up hospital bed space, and take cars off the road. All of which the Labour party will then take credit for
Alan
Tuesday May 29, 13:50
I suppose the difficulty for a party in government is that they have to tax whereas the other two can pretty much say what they like. I imagine that if the Tories get in at the next election, the same will happen and if the Lib Dems got in then god help us all!
Dave
Tuesday May 29, 13:54
God help us all if the Tories get in, 'cos I can't tell the difference between them and New Labour. But I agree with you on the Lib Dem's, I would hate to have Ming as PM! Bring back Charlie, if a drop of alcohol was okay for Winston Churchill, then why not anyone else!
peter h
Tuesday May 29, 18:16
Personally, Alan, I'd take kids to McDonalds as a punishment...
As regards freedom of choice, well, it's an awkward one. I see no harm in drugs for me. I don't take them any more, but I smoked copious amounts of dope for many years, dropped acid a few times, cocaine, opium, the odd pill and so on. And came to no harm because I knew what I was doing and what to avoid. My only health problems came from legal drugs such as fags and booze.
On that basis, I could argue people should be free to choose.
But then you look at what happens when people ARE free to choose - how many millions die of smoking related diseases? How much violent crime is alcohol driven? How many people are addicted to tranquilizers?
Just for once, I don't have an answer. I suppose it's a question of striking a balance, but I don't know how or where!
As for labour and nanny stated though, it is getting out of control. How come UK alone has 20% of ALL the world's CCTV cameras? Why do Labour have to be usch control freaks?
Dave Cameron
Tuesday May 29, 21:03
Just Say No Kids...
Dave
Wednesday May 30, 08:48
Having watched Newsnight last night, I so wish that Harriet Harman or John Cruddas (or whatever his surname is) were PM instead of Brown
Alan
Wednesday May 30, 09:51
Peter, I agree with the statement surrounding alcohol induced violence, personally I don't understand why people can't just go out for a drink and have a laugh. If I go out on Friday or Saturday night then it's pretty much guaranteed that I'll get trollied but with that I'll just stagger about, have a laugh and talk sh*t; not start a fight, beat my girlfriend/ wife, trash cars etc. For me this is the problem, and again it's about trying not to 'lump' people together. Why should I not be able to go out and get trollied and have a laugh just becuase other people feel like they've got to start a fight?? For me, the answer is tougher penalties on anti social behaviour - as far as I'm concerned give them a clout with the old baton, lock them up for a year and make them go 'cold turkey'.
As for CCTV I'm afraid I'm a bit of a fan provided that they are used for the right reasons; which admitedly we don't know that they are! Alot of violent attacks and anti social behaviour in the strrets can now be dealt with quickly due to CCTV, police are on the scene quickly and all attackers etc are on tape. I personally think that is progress because otherwise these crimes would go un punished (not that the punishments are harsh enough!!)At the end of the day Peter, if the Government wanted to know where you are they would just trace where you last used your credit card, they would mobile locate your phone, they can track you with sattelites from space. With this in mind I genuinely don't see peoples problem with CCTV or ID Cards. Mind you, I suppose you're always going to get a pervy CCTV operator that spends his day focussing on peoples windows... so I see your point!
Dave
Wednesday May 30, 10:00
I am deeply worried about you Alan, you have seen Peter's point a couple of times lately. (I am joking of course)
The reason I oppose ID cards is because of the point you are making Alan. The government want to waste more taxpayers money on a card they think will stop terrorism. It won't. We have CCTV, police, MI5/MI6, the armed forces, pass ports, mobile phones, credit cards, bank cards, loyality cards, drivers license, email, store cards, cheques (if you remember them), car registration plates, birth certificates etc etc etc, why do we need to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on something that is just as (in)effective as the above mentioned forms of tracking/ID? Would you not rather see it spent on local health care? Schools (be they faith/grammar/secondary modern/comprehensive) etc?
Alan
Wednesday May 30, 10:38
Dave I'm worried about myself, even more so now because your argument is pretty sound too. I never looked at it like that before! I think the problem is we are dealing with a new type of terrorism, the IRA was bad enough but at least you know where you stood with them. I just don't think that anyone has got the answer and so they are grasping at possible solutions. However, I always saw ID cards as a way to tackle illegal immigration more so than terrorism??
Dave
Wednesday May 30, 11:08
Illegal immigration! So someone sneaks (or is sneaked into) the country. In the past it was with false passports. Now it will be with false ID cards. If you want to reduce (as you will never stop illegal immigration) you need tighter border controls. So instead of funding ID cards, fund more border partol guards.
Alan
Wednesday May 30, 12:21
God I hate agreeing with you Dave!
Dave
Wednesday May 30, 12:28
I will become really worried and call for help if you start talking about voting Lib Dem!
Alan
Wednesday May 30, 14:18
LOL absolutely no chance of that!!
peter h
Wednesday May 30, 23:30
Alan, your arguments about ID cards, CCTV etc are perfectly valid. I have no objection to having an ID card or being watched by CCTVs.
And yet...it's only a short step from legitimate use to abuse.
I know that sounds paranoi. But my instincts tell me that we are under too much surveillance and that unscrupulous people in power can and will seek to use that against us at some point.
To show you what I mean,get hold of your credit records from some credit reference agency. Try EXPERIAN. It will scare the pants off you. It will show you all your credit transactions with any bank or credit card company for the last 5 years. You will be shocked at the amount of information that anonymous companies store about you and at the way they use this to make judgements about you which they will sell to any institution who wants it. What you thought was private is no such thing.
Then think what other info other outfits hold about you that you know nothing about. Government, NHS, security services, employers, etc etc etc.
Oh, and I guarantee some of the info will be wrong. I have a 6 figure income, a bloody big house without a mortgage, no debts etc. I got turned down for £100 credit account at House of Fraser because of totally wrong info on some credit agency's records. It was as funny as it was creepy
Alan
Thursday May 31, 10:13
And the irony is that someone renting a house with a wife and 50 kids earning £12k p.a. can successfully apply for a £15k loan over the internet!
peter h
Thursday May 31, 17:16
50 kids? must be renting a big house
Dave
Thursday May 31, 18:21
It'll be in West Didsbury peter
peter h
Thursday May 31, 22:53
and they'll all vote lib dem
peter h
Friday Jun 01, 09:03
john leech in parliament recently:
Mr. John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because earlier today I did not expect that I would get here, as I was taking part in a charity football match at Stamford Bridge to help raise money in aid of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. I should like to thank Chelsea football club for hosting the event, and all the former professional footballers who took part in the game and showed us members of the parliamentary football team why we never fulfilled our ambition of becoming professional footballers. I would also like to say a great thank you to Neville Southall for letting a ball go straight between his legs, which meant that I got to score a goal at Stamford Bridge this morning.
I want to raise two issues of considerable interest and concern to south Manchester, namely the proposed sell-off and redevelopment of part of the Marie Louise gardens in Didsbury in my constituency, and Trafford council’s decision to cut funding for the Mersey valley warden service. The Mersey valley borders my constituency, and in fact part of it is within my constituency boundaries. The Marie Louise gardens are an open public space in West Didsbury that was bequeathed by a Mrs. Silkenstadt to the people of Manchester back in 1903, in memory of her only child, Marie Louise, who died young. Several years ago, part of the gardens behind the lodge were used by the gardeners for greenhouses and sheds in which to grow plants, and as a maintenance depot. Over time, the council has allowed the area to fall into disrepair, and it has been unused. A covenant had been placed on the land that restricted its use to public gardens for the enjoyment of local people, but Labour-run Manchester city council, which neglected the gardens for many years, now wants to sell the section behind the lodge for development.
I am sure that the House can imagine how local people have reacted to the plan. The West Didsbury residents association has launched a campaign to save the gardens from development and, as of yesterday, nearly 2,500 people had signed a petition against their sale. Last month a protest picnic was held in the gardens. Even though it rained all afternoon, in excess of 400 people turned up. The council tried to scupper the picnic by claiming that people did not have permission to gather in the gardens, but the event went ahead anyway.
The West Didsbury residents association has also spent a considerable amount of time looking for living relatives of Mrs. Silkenstadt. It has found support in Jan Silkenstadt, who is now involved in trying to enforce the covenant on the land. The campaign has also received sterling support from West Didsbury’s three local Liberal Democrat councillors, and in Parliament, where I have tabled early-day motion 1263. I urge hon. Members to support that EDM.
Unfortunately, the protests have fallen on deaf ears so far. The council seems determined to go ahead with the sale, claiming that the area involved is not part of the original gardens but merely a maintenance depot, although photographic proof shows clearly that it is part of the gardens and therefore subject to the covenant. The council’s dodgy dossier of evidence is full of errors, but at least the new executive member for leisure has agreed to review the evidence. We hope that the council can be persuaded to change its mind.
The case has highlighted the inadequacies of covenants, which, all too often, are not worth the paper that they are written on. Perhaps we should wonder how much land would have been gifted to local authorities over the past couple of hundred years if the benefactors had realised that their bequests would end up being sold to the highest bidder.At a time of increasing pressure to build on every available piece of land, it is vital that our parkland be retained and looked after, so that it can continue to provide quality open space. Selling off part of Marie Louise gardens sets a dangerous precedent.
Another serious threat to services in the area is Tory Trafford council’s decision to cut funding to the Mersey valley warden service, which is a partnership between Manchester city council and Trafford borough council. Without even discussing their plans in the joint committee, Trafford councillors decided to slash the borough’s contribution to the budget by more than a third. There was no consultation with the public.
I wrote to the Tory leader of Trafford council, Susan Williams, asking her to reconsider her plans. Unfortunately, her response was very negative, and her only explanation for the cuts was to blame them on the council’s lack of Government funding. She offered no solution to the problem of how vital local services might be retained.
So much for the Conservatives’ commitment to the local environment. They slash budgets and cut services, but what does that mean for the Mersey valley? At present, we are cannot be sure, but at the very least the result will be cuts in jobs or services, with the visitor centre in Sale a probable target. One thing that is certain is that the council’s plans for the Mersey valley have aroused as much opposition as did their proposed sale of Marie Louise gardens. Thousands of people have signed a petition against the cuts, and many have voiced their opinions and concerns on various websites.
I shall read out a couple of quotations from residents in my constituency. Steve Connor of Chorlton wrote:
“Greenspace is in far too short supply across Greater Manchester—we need to cherish and nurture the Mersey Valley and pump investment into it, not pull out! This is a HUGELY important resource for thousands and thousands of people.”
Zoe Power wrote
“A reduction in funding to the Mersey Valley is a disappointingly short-sighted decision by Trafford Council and illustrates the current lack of priority they place on our environment.”
I pay tribute to the work that is being done by “friends” groups across the Mersey valley in opposing and trying to reverse the cuts. Let me mention particularly two of my constituents, Dave Bishop and Tracey Pook, who run the two friends groups in my constituency. Without the sterling work of the friends groups, Trafford council will never change its mind."
end of speech.
Like I said before, John fights for local issues which matter to people
So what!!
Friday Jun 01, 10:40
This isn't fighting for local issues , it's talking about them in Parliament.Even die hard fib dems must be able to spot the difference. and even if he was fightiong for local issues well duh!! that's kinda the point. he's the MP!! He gets paid loadsa money. His office costs a fortune. Are you suggesting we should somehow be grateful for his attentions to our earthly concerns? Grow up.! all MP's do this. ITS THEIR JOB!!!
Dave
Friday Jun 01, 12:43
Talking about issues can help highlight a cause. And I think Peter was just highlighting something that Leech is doing that is positive, instead of all the mouthing off that is posted on here from Labour supporters. Nice to see that you engaged in an intelligent debate "so what!!"....
so what
Friday Jun 01, 13:50
Ok then , intelligent debate. John Leech's support for McDonalds in Parliament and in the press is wrong. Discuss.
Daniel
Friday Jun 01, 14:13
I don't know really. I think John Leech is entitled to his view obviously but it does seem odd. I know he used to work for them and he has has some support from them in the past according to the papers but McDonalds do a lot of damge in terms of health and the environment. I also heard that they have a terrible record on trade unions and allowing their workers to join. All in all I think it probably is bad that the MP is acting as a spokesperson for them in Parliament.
Chris Paul
Friday Jun 01, 17:32
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/05/iain-dale-labour-and-lib-dem-mps.html
The funniest things about the McJobs arguments:
1. No-one really uses this term. They just say S*** job, crap job etc. Douglas Coupland invented it many many years ago. It is some clever below the line marketing from McDonalds to challenge the OED. Anyone with any nous knows that.
2. MPs who have accepted anything more than a free toy from a commercial organisation are idiots to have wasted our money on this EDM. Idiots! Including the Labour ones. But clearly in this case our MP McLeech is the one we need to worry about.
Though he apparently gave away his ticket he first spent days and acres of column inches justifying himself for taking his McJunket.
Incidentally this MP is an EDM addict. He scribbles his name on 100s upon 100s. Most nothing at all to do with representing Man Wit. Trainspotter!
Still, his epitaph will be his Christie hoax and his continuing glib fibs rather than one little bit of half-hearted corruption plus some EDM idiocy.
Best wishes
Chris P
Chris Paul
Friday Jun 01, 17:36
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/05/iain-dale-labour-and-lib-dem-mps.html
PS The McLeech speech referred to was in a fascinating and star studded adjournment debate which has the merit of allowing McLites to make substantial speeches in the HoP they can then spin as important or significant to the voters.
This speech was a load of hot air chuntered past some other MPLites waiting to make their own tedious speeches. Well done John. It's better than nothing but it's not like having a real MP.
peter h
Friday Jun 01, 20:47
well. If that's the level of opposition john leech is going to get next election , he's got nothing to fear. One minute you schmucks mock him for doing nothing, then you mock him for speaking in parliament, which basiclly devalues your arguments to zero. Which, coincidentally, would have been the odds on Keith Bradley raising such issues in parliament or pursuing them on behalf of his constituents, and which is also the amount of time expended by your darling Lucy Powell. Will you guys never learn?
So what
Saturday Jun 02, 10:37
Peter h- did you go to charmless school to perfect your levels of patronising arrogance or does it come naturally. Your boy Leech is a Liar an now he has excelled himself by becoming the spokesperson for McDonalds in Parliament. Surely not what his constituents expected when they voted for him. All that you can muster in his defence is that he droned on in the house of Commons in a debate that nobody was listening to so that he could fool naive people like you into thinking that he is a champion of the people. Will you guys never learn?
TimKinsella
Saturday Jun 02, 14:03
As someone who has recently worked in a "low-pay, low-prestige, low-dignity, low benefit, no-future job in the service sector", there are serious issues around both the attitude of the public towards those who do work in such jobs, and the way service sector employers operate.
A large proportion of service sector employees are transient and also have little or no knowledge of employment rights let alone unionism. This certainly isn't helped by the attitudes of employers. From my experience, this can become pretty demoralising.
My former employers sole concession to employee consultation was to advertise for a "Team Member Representative" on a very small noticeboard tucked away in the corner of the back office. Surprise, surprise, they cancelled the scheme because nobody applied.
What I find astounding is that the people who are so quick to criticise any discussion of these issues are Labour supporters. Now that there's no more romanticising of industrial employment that can be done, it seems that the 1.3m people at the blunt end of the world's biggest corporations in the UK no longer seem to deserve respect or help in bettering their working conditions. This certainly isn't a constructive attitude.
We can argue the toss all day about the rights or wrongs of McDonalds' food, environmental or marketing records and whether support for the campaign equates to support for records but I think discussion of the issues is important.
Alan
Saturday Jun 02, 14:35
I'm no fan of John Leech, as most people on this board know, but for God's sake who cares about this whole McDonalds thread. Who cares if he got some tickets, who cares if he supports them. I genuinely think that people need to grow up and focus on the serious issues of education, law and order, defence etc. That's how Labour will win at the next election; not by having an uncharismatic scot and his crony cabinet at the helm, helped along by bitter Labour supporters who still go on about Christies and McDonalds! Start debating properly and perhaps all the pepole that whould perviously have supported Labour unquestionably may come back into the fold!
Alan
Saturday Jun 02, 14:36
p.s. terrible grammar and spelling in my last post is noted before some smart ar*e points it out!
peter h
Saturday Jun 02, 23:26
tim kinsella's message should make the people who call themselves "labour" hang their heads in shame. The Labour party was founded as a party to give the working man a voice. Perhaps somebody should remind the pillocks that currently run the party of that. It is precisely the people that TK describes who should be able to look to Labour to protect them and ensure they're unionised and organized to fight for decent wages and conditions. Why aren't they?
As for you "so what" , you aren't worth wasting breath on. If Lucy Powell relies on people like you at the next election she'll be lucky to save her deposit.
Chris Paul
Sunday Jun 03, 00:25
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/06/libdemologists-cracks-are-appearing.html
I agree with Alan that this McDonalds thing is next to nothing. No one really calls these jobs McJobs!! That's why it is not worth parliamentary time. McDonalds are taking the piss.
But you will all recall - even "Peter H" will recall - that Lib Dems and Tories both VOTED AGAINST the minimum wage and said it would be a disaster.
They nixx most TU stuff. They are a bosses party. Hence the ILP and LP in the first place. They wrote the book on the liberal economics. They ARE NOT the friends of the workers.
They will no doubt have trouble with the living wage campaigns that are the next step from NMW.
But where I disagree is in Alan's idea that McLeech's Christie Hoax is not significant. It is.
Privately McLeech acknowledges that it was utterly wrong to distribute scarey (fibbing) literature to vulnerable patients. He has said I can reproduce his emails as long as I don't quote selectively, so I'll probably do that at some point.
He will surely eventually acknowledge that the whole thing was very very wrong. Fantastic electorally. But morally repugnant.
The hospital was not closing. There was a robust debate going on about how services are delivered for cancer patients - but that is all. In fact lots of other hospitals continue to deliver lots of cancer services in cooperation with TCH and in some cases this has expanded greatly. The thing the supposed Drs supposedly refuted and said would close TCH.
But even the debate was misrepresented as an existential crisis for the hospital.
Clearly also, despite the smears of "anorak" that follow, it is always worth considering the amount of money spent by McLeech and his constant breeches of rules about tax payer funded political activity.
It is not allowed. He does it as far as I can see and gets away with it because people shrug. In shrugging they are either saying that cheating is OK, or they simply don't get it.
There are spending limits. Other keep to them.
There are constituency boundaries.
There are rules about parliamentary reports. And putting pictures of all the candidates in them in some cases brandishing party political material is not within those rules.
Anyway ... the Lib Dems are plummeting in the polls. They say Ming will take a cabinet job. they also says that Cleggy will either do that or take a Tory job. And the current issue of The Liberal, seeing this, says that the Libs will split down the middle over all this.
McLeech would then be stuck. He has bigged up Clegg before. But lib sources say Clegg is supposedly going Blue. And McLeech opposed Ming and backed Huhne ... so will he be Tory with Clegg?
John Holliker
Monday Jun 04, 08:31
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1516214.stm
Well, if McDonalds have bought John Leech then he is in very good company (!)
peter h
Monday Jun 04, 17:16
Well spotted Mr Holliker. One of the great joys of this website is the number of times people manage to shoot themselves in the foot.
Labour Supporter
Tuesday Jun 05, 11:46
Oh I see. Things are all right as long as someone else has done it as well.
The intelligent debtae called for didn't last long I see.
Let's have another go.
Can anyone name one thing that John Leech MP has done that has benefited the residents of South Manchester that can be directly attributed to his actions. i.e. not something that he can claim that he has done which would have happened anyway. Just one thing. This has been called for on this site many times and the lib dem attack dogs usually jump in at this stage and start shouting about Blair and Irag. Well just this time can the lib dem payroll trolls wind their necks in and let others have a go.
Dave
Tuesday Jun 05, 11:56
Like I have stated before, I thought John Leech was okay as a councillor, I voted him in hoping to keep Labour out (fat lot of that did, when Blair just let Bradley into the House of Lords, so much for democracy eh?). He hasn't turned out to be what I hoped, but that wouldn't stop me from voting for him again! That said, I think I would vote an independent rather than Leech or Labour now.
I know some in the Labour high ranks are now acknowledging that Iraq is a mistake, but until the full cabinet apologise (and sincerely) I doubt Labour will win back Bradley's old seat.
Dave
Tuesday Jun 05, 12:00
BTW forgot to mention that I am not a member of the Lib Dems (or in most of the Labour supporters childish terms Fib Dems) nor do I fund them. I have voted for them once at a General Election and a handful of times at local elections.
And until Labour (MP's, supporters, etc) realise the anger that they caused by going to war in Iraq and acknowledge it, I doubt you will get me ticking your box in the near future (and countless others like me)
Dave
Tuesday Jun 05, 12:09
Now that I have acknowledge John Leech isn't an effective MP, and that I have told you (the Labour supporters on this site) what I CURRENTLY intend to do at the next general election.
Will you Labour supporters acknowledge my concerns about Iraq, and how you intend to win me back over?
Labour Supporter
Tuesday Jun 05, 12:13
Do you speak for everyone on the board when you seek to change the subject again. ou don't sound much of a democrat.
let me turn the question round. short of inventing a time machine, going back to 2003 and reversing the decision to go to war do you think there is anything we could say or do that would stop you voting for the liar Leech again. Honestly now!
Dave
Tuesday Jun 05, 12:18
Honestly yes! But sadly, a lot of the posters on here, struggle to debate at an intelligent and civil level. Like I have stated many times, I would first of all like to see the Labour Cabinet make a very public and sincere apology for the mistakes made in Iraq (to my knowledge only Harriet Harman has made an apology from the cabinet, during BBC's Question Time). I would then want them to work out a way of pulling out of Iraq, and committing themselves to pulling out of Iraq, with a time scale!
I would also want them to stop the proposed plan of introducing ID cards.
Then and only then would I want to reconsider voting for Labour/Lib Dems
Dave
Tuesday Jun 05, 12:21
I apologise to any forum posters who were genuinely upset for me speaking on their behalf, however, I feel I have a good understanding of the majority of the Lib dem voters, when it comes to issues surrounding a) bradley being slipped in through the back door, and b) Iraq. What democracy has to do with that I am unsure, however I am sure "Labour Supporter" will enlighten me if I am wrong.
peter h
Wednesday Jun 06, 19:55
Yes, Mr Labour Supporter, I can answrr you, as I have done many, many times. John Leech comes along and supports us when we are fighting local issues. He does so repeatedly and has done so for many years. Very, very simple.
Labour Supporter
Monday Jun 11, 13:41
Good of him to tear himself away from his bogus hoaxes such as Christies and Southern Cemetery.
None
Wednesday Jun 27, 20:43
Good morning!Good site!
http://hometown.aol.com/paqerawup/discount-loss-pill-weight-xenical.html
None
Wednesday Jun 27, 20:44
Good morning!Good site!
http://hometown.aol.com/paqerawup/discount-loss-pill-weight-xenical.html
None
Wednesday Jun 27, 20:45
Good morning!Good site!
http://bitiwopiru.ifrance.com/side-effects-37-5mg-adipex-p-phentermine.html
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.