Posted by Thomas Graham on Tuesday Jul 18, 20:14
In a massive blow to Lib Dem MP John Leech the ex-Liberal Democrat Councillor Angela Gallagher has defected to the Labour Party saying, "I have made this decision in order to put the residents of Chorlton and Manchester first. I do not feel that the Lib Dems in Manchester put the City first."
Gallagher, a councillor in Chorlton, was one of Leech's top donors at the General Election.
Councillor Patrick Karney said, "We are delighted that Angela has joined us. She is a talented individual who has spent her life in public service. She will receive a warm welcome in our Labour group."
+ tags coming soon
( 150 Comments )
Steve
Tuesday Jul 18, 20:39
I bet she is regretting the £5,141 she donated to John Leech now! I wonder how he will fund his election campaign now?
peter h
Tuesday Jul 18, 22:50
maybe he'll learn a few funding lessons from Lord Levy.
Leech is just too smarmy
Wednesday Jul 19, 00:25
That is absolute news. Interesting who the labour party will select as their 2007 candidate now.
I do agree that labour have put the city first whereas the lib dems have put petty politics 1st.
Am I reading this right or is this the effect of too much red wine.
Dave
Wednesday Jul 19, 08:54
It makes me laugh that Angela Gallagher sat on the Physical Enviroment committee and that she lives on the Merseybank estate, has she never seen the shops? That said, good luck to her. I "defected" from Labour and I am happy with my choice, I just hope she feels happy supporting war criminals! (by the way you spelt/type her surname wrong Thomas!)
John
Wednesday Jul 19, 09:15
I'm suprised that Peter H doesn't have something more to say - after all, if even the Lib Dems recognise that they aren't delivering for the people of Manchester it can't be good news for John Leech.
peter h
Wednesday Jul 19, 21:35
I don't know if it's good or bad news for john leech or for labour. I don't know the lady or what she represents or why she moved. Or if it matters.
These things happen. One moves from Lib Dem to Labour. 10 000 moved in the opposite direction at the last election. Seems like a representative ratio.
If people didn't change sides in politics their would be no democracy, so good luck to the lady
Whichever way you look at it, Labour is shaping up for a massive hiding at the next election. All through its own failing, not some brilliant lib dem or tory strategy.
It's time for a change, theyve been in power too long and are getting sleazy like all parties do when theyre in power too long. Lib dems would too if they ever got the chance. human nature
Personally I just hope we get a hung parliament and the 2 majors are forced to accept PR and proper democracy, rather than the myth of "strong" government caused by elected dictactorships which land us all with the devastation of thatcher, or thw warmongering arrogant lies of Tony Blair. And yes, Dave's description of them as war criminals is apt.
I trust you all saw the comments made by blair and bush about israel when they thought the mikes were switched off this week. Tony Blair was basically asking Bush's permission to go to the middle east and offering to act as assistant to condi rice. So much for "partnership". Master and dog, more like.
John, how on earth did a labour party get in a mess like that? These guys are from the generation that stood outside the US embassy in the 60s protesting against Vietnam, and now here they are acting as US doormats? Tell me, you are an articulate defender of Labour, can you live with that?
John
Wednesday Jul 19, 22:39
There is a big difference between a VOTER and a COUNCILLOR. Those that REPRESENT Lib Dem "policy" are defecting, not those who vote for it.
Alan
Wednesday Jul 19, 23:36
Peter, it wasn't that the mic's were still o. It was a reporter with a listening device. Now if the government had done that to you or me we'd be crying breach of human rights and civil libery by now!!
On another point relating to how stupid the general public can be, and how they get caught up in media hype... I enquired about renewing my passport as it has run out, £51 it will cost me just to renew, £93 if I need it sam day yet because of the media people are crying out about the fact that they will have to pay roughly the same price for an ID card... which will replace a passport. We shouldn't listen to much to the media.. they feed us what THEY WANT us to hear.
Dave
Thursday Jul 20, 11:54
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Gallagher
She's even on Wikipedia. It seems everything and everyone is on there nowadays. She'll be able to go on Celebratey Big Brother next!
John also has a lovely write up on wikipedia too.
Dave
Thursday Jul 20, 11:55
John, you are right, there is a big difference between a voter and a councillor. Voters are the ones that put give councillors power (according to democracy, but I have no idea what that is, we certainly don't have it in this country!)
Dave
Thursday Jul 20, 11:59
http://www.answers.com/topic/angela-gallagher
Google answers needs updating. I am sure Thomas will oblige?
Talking of democracy, where is the democracy for those who voted for a Lib Dem candidate, only for her to become Labour? She should of waited until the next election surely?
Thomas
Thursday Jul 20, 13:41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Councillors_in_Manchester
What about those who voted for Angela Gallagher, not the Lib Dems? Or those, for that matter, who thought that their councillor wouldn't be spending most of his time in Westminster.
www.answers.com isn't run/owned by Google AFAIK, but simply mirrors Wikipedia. Therefore it is bound to be out of date, but will eventually update them.
peter h
Thursday Jul 20, 17:24
john - its the voters that matter. It's called democracy. Any way, good luck to angela gallagher. Hope she finds what she is looking for.
peter h
Thursday Jul 20, 20:40
thomas, basically if you vote for somebody at an election, you vote for what they claim to be. If they then change something as fundamental as their political party, then morally they should stand down because they no longer represent what they claimed to be in order to get elected.
They never do stand down, of course, but they should. in fairness, lib dems have benefitted more than most from that.
Rachel
Friday Jul 21, 11:32
I've never agreed with people defecting to a different party if they are elected to represent people under a party banner as they no longer represent that party. Local politics is a bit different to national politics in that people are far more likely to vote for a person instead of a party, and the local elections round here are so frequent that people have more than enough opportuntity to change the local status quo. In all, I very much doubt that that this defection will change things much in the council. I'd like to know why she defected after being such a strong supporter of Leech and the lib dems not so long ago. Seems a bit fishy to me.
Dave
Friday Jul 21, 14:44
I wonder if she has made a public statement as to why, other than the one liner that I have seen. Does she know something more about Mr Leech than we do? I know if I invest £5000 into something, I would want to see my investment be well used/spent.
peter h
Friday Jul 21, 17:39
there was some comment about her being disappointed at not being selected for something or other?
As Dave said, it was obviously a major decision for the lady, yet nobody is saying why it happened.
John Holliker
Tuesday Jul 25, 12:00
Rachel's right - the intrigue lies in the fact that but 12-15 months ago she was giving thousands of pounds to John Leech and his campaign. So what's changed?
Labourite
Tuesday Jul 25, 21:45
Well it could be to do with the fact that the lib dems did spectacularly badly in the locals
peter h
Tuesday Jul 25, 22:19
If it's just because lib dems did badly, that would be rats deserting the ship.
doesnt sound right.
probably something personal.
whatever it is, she ought to consider her position. you guys quite reasonably argue that john should not hold his council seat once he's become an mp. equally, she shouldnt hold it once she no longer represents the party she stood for in getting elected in the first place. she should seek reelection. if she got the seat on her personal merit then she'll win again.
Anonymous
Tuesday Jul 25, 22:44
The main reason is that John Leech was bullying her into giving large donations.
Alan
Wednesday Jul 26, 04:46
I despair of people who post anonymously.. furthermore what do you base your groundbreaking statement on. Where is your proof???
John Holliker
Wednesday Jul 26, 09:17
God damn it..I'm agreeing with Peter.
Yep, good call Alan...that's a poor anonymous posting that ought to be pulled in the absence of proof.
Dave
Wednesday Jul 26, 10:11
Crikey are the regular posters all agreeing? That must be a first.
I too think she should seek re-election, and if she wins as a Labour candidate, then so be it. Anonymous posting is pretty poor, especially when you come out with statements like that.
peter h
Wednesday Jul 26, 18:31
Don't pull it. Whoever posted it made a prat of him/herself for all to see. Censor it and you give them kudos they don't deserve. And it's libellous, and therefore an offence, and maybe thomas can trace it
Dave
Thursday Jul 27, 12:02
Well folks. I am moving to Kendal next week, and it is looking like I am going to have to give up the computer (internet) as I will be mortgaged to the hilt. It's been great debating (particularly with Thomas, Peter and Alan) Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to do so Thomas.
On a passing note, I hope that Labour gets back to being Labour and they kick out much of the cabinet and the PM and start with some fresh faces, failing that, I hope the Lib Dems get in (with or withour JL), failing that I hope we get beamed up by Aliens and taken to another planet! Cheero folks!
So long and thanks for all the fish!
peter h
Thursday Jul 27, 17:21
best learn japanese in kendal, dave. good luck
Dave
Thursday Jul 27, 20:07
Eh? I don't understand peter
peter h
Thursday Jul 27, 21:53
summertime in kendal = japanese tourists
Dave
Friday Jul 28, 08:44
Aha! No most of the tourists hit Bowness (I know I lived there for a while!)
peter h
Friday Jul 28, 20:44
ok, so YOU try parking in kendal this weekend.
Alan
Saturday Jul 29, 01:33
Dave, all the best and hope everything goes well. Haven't always agreed with you, infact most the time I have disagreed with you. But thats what it's all about!! I'll just have to carry on the crusade with only Peter to annoy.
Dave
Saturday Jul 29, 16:16
Peter, I am from the area originally, only livd in the Manchester area for the past 10 years, and I visit friends and family in Kendal regulary, and compared to Bowness, Kendal is very quiet. But thanks for the concern! ;-)
peter h
Saturday Jul 29, 23:52
nobody on this website can annoy me alan, sorry.
peter h
Sunday Jul 30, 22:35
any of your new labourites still think blair isnt george bush's poodle?
peter h
Monday Jul 31, 23:50
well, that answers that
peter h
Monday Jul 31, 23:50
well, that answers that
Alan
Tuesday Aug 01, 18:07
Peter, you don't see what goes on behind the scenes. I think TB has been very influential, again it's a media portrayal, it sells papers and you're giving it a voice!
peter h
Tuesday Aug 01, 23:15
influential in what? 650 dead lebanese civilians?
i prefer to see my politicians standing uo for principles, not mass murderers.
Alan
Wednesday Aug 02, 12:17
It's simple!!!!! Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers and launched rockets into Israel, they knew what was going to happen and as long as the Lebanese Government supports terrorist factions then it will continue!
annon
Wednesday Aug 02, 17:06
having worked for this so-called Labour council now for the past eighteen months, I have found them to be the biggest bunch of racist dumb nuts on this planet.
What do you expect though, with a PM who stages illegal invasions, lies about weapons, is never in the country and who crawls on his stomach to the USA.
The party of the people, Labour??
You wish folks.
Alan
Wednesday Aug 02, 21:17
How sad that poeple post anonymously, at least when I say something I have the conviction to put my name against it regardless of what people think!! Where is the proof of your accusations? What do you base your comments on? If your going to post then have the decency to put your name to it otherwise you just sound like the **** that you most probably are!!
peter h
Wednesday Aug 02, 22:03
alan
Hizbollah "kidnap" 2 (two) Israeli soldiers.
Israel holds in prison 10 000 (ten thousand) arab prisoners.
And Israel routinely uses "targetted assassinations" (ie murder).
Israel invaded lebanon in the 80s , and still holds lebanese land - shebaa farms area - not to mention Syria's Golan Heights, and vast tracts of palestinian land.
Israel is the agressive predator in all this. The "terrorists" are fighting to get their land back from Israel using the onlt means at their disposal, like guerilla armies everywhere.
Your approach is tantamount to saying UK should have flattened Dublin to dissuade Ireland from harbouring IRA elements. Totally immoral - and, as you as a military man should know, counter-productive since it merely increases sympathy for your enemy.
You can go round in circles for ever arguing middle east politics. In the end, though, there will only ever be genuine peace when Israel and its neighbours start to actually try to live together and recognize each others' sovereignty and right to exist, and, right now, the thing which blocks that is NOT Hizbulla, Hamas etc, it is Israel's agressive land grabs and its aim to hang on to Palestinian land it seized in the 67 war.
Until the Palestinians get justice, there will be no peace.
Israel can only do that because of US backing.
So don't preach about arab terrorists. To most of the world, and to ALL of the arab world, they are freedom fighters, fighting for justice for palestine.
you can agree with that or reject it, but the fact remains that peace will only come when Israel and Palestine agree a just peace between themselves, and it is Israel which blocks that and has done for years, because it does not want to give up its illegally held land.
As for USA, it is directly in USA's interest to have a weak, divided Muslim world, on the old divide and rule thesis. I am will to bet that USA does not want peace in the middle east. It is terrified of a united Arab entity.
Alan
Thursday Aug 03, 15:36
http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/news/s/216/216026_lib_dem_quit_over_mps_christie_closure_claim.html
And so it rears it's ugly head again, tales of dishonesty, scaremongering and false claims all to win an election. Not from the mouths of 'bitter' Labour supporters, but from one of John Leeches biggest supporters!! When are people going to realise what a fraud and waste of space this guy is. The only time he's appeared in the paper is because he's cycled to work, passed an advanced driving course or if he's blagging freebie tickets to the World Cup from McDonalds!!!!!!
Mike
Thursday Aug 03, 16:45
Angela obviously thought she could buy influence with her money. She's probably in the right party now!
peter h
Thursday Aug 03, 23:22
alan, He's not a fraud, he's not a waste of space. He's finding his feet and he's shaping up OK.
And, regrettably, the labour party can't claim any high ground about misleading voters. Their government is pretty well discredited now on almost all fronts. Which is a pity for all those loyal labourites out there who deserved better.
Kes
Friday Aug 04, 13:12
Anonymous Tuesday Jul 25, 22:44
The main reason is that John Leech was bullying her into giving large donations.
That is something that was on a letters page in The Reporter. Angela responded to it by stating that it was her choice to donate to the party and that she wasn't bullied into it!
peter h
Friday Aug 04, 20:30
and it is a bit rich for labour to try and defend themselves on the NHS when it is so blatantly in crisis in all sorts of ways.
the only reason people - including the doctors at christies, and john leech - were willing to believe that Labour would do something as brutal as attacking christies is because of all the chaos elsewhere in the NHS, the creeping privatisation, the complete ballsup over withington hospital's closure to raise money and sell to a not-very-nice property developer , all overseen by a labour appointee who turned out, if my memory serves me correctly, to have fraudulent qualifications. I think those doctors, john, and the people of south manchester had every right to believe labour capable of doing it.
labour says there was never any intentions of attacking christies. Joh n leech says his campaign forced them to back down. Neither stance is provable, and we all have to decide whom to believe.
Given labour's track record over the last couple of years, regrettably I have to believe john leech.
I don't want to believe labour would be capable of doing that, but the way in which they are turning the NHS on its head and the way in which they are prepared to lie to the electorate on crucial matters leaves me with no option.
This angela lady sounds like a fool. One minute she's labour, then she's lib dem and giving them thousands of pounds, then she's deciding she was mistaken and going back to labour.
no doubt she's a lovely principled lady, but her politcial trajectory sounds plain daft. Apologies to her if I have misread things.
John Holliker
Monday Aug 07, 11:52
Yes, I agree. Where there is no proof and plenty of exaggeration, let's all believe John Leech.
peter h
Tuesday Aug 08, 22:36
eh?
John Holliker
Wednesday Aug 09, 09:59
Forgot to mention, free blinkers with every posting..
peter h
Wednesday Aug 09, 23:01
like all the carthorses in the government are wearing, you mean?
peter h
Thursday Aug 10, 21:54
nice to know in this time of crisis that john prescott is at the helm
Steve
Friday Aug 11, 01:15
There you go again with your right wing, anti-Labour views. What, exactly, is wrong with John Prescott being in charge? Tony Blair is in constant contact and John Reid seems to be managing things OK. While I appreciate that you are anti-Blair, consider some of the real policies that Labour have implemented - garuanteed 4 weeks of holiday, paternaty leave, minimum wage, bank holiday not taken as A/L (coming in soon) and a horde of other workers rights. Hospital waiting lists down from 18 months to 18 weeks. More doctors, more nurses. Class sizes down to below 30 in primary schools, double the funding in secondary schools. Hard, sensible decisions taken on pensions. Real support for pensioners (winter fuel allowance) and family tax credits. The system is working well and the country is prospering as a result of this Labour government.
Sound Labour to you? It does to me. They (and TB's ego) have made mistakes, but surely you must accept that they are doing better than Thatcher (I'll be at her state funeral with a giant "Coal not dole" banner if she gets one - it's a disgrace it has even been mentioned, let alone considered).
Alan
Saturday Aug 12, 20:29
I'm 100% Labour but I wouldn't leave Prescott in charge of a sausage factory let alone the country!!
peter h
Saturday Aug 12, 21:20
if you are going to reduce it to right and left wing, steve, people like me are anti-labour in part because labour has gone too right wing.
the point about prescott is about his competence, not his politics.
and the government obviously agrees, otherwise why has he been completely silence during a time of grave crisis? What the hell else is leadership about?
Martin Jefferson
Friday Aug 18, 17:49
There is more to the bullying of Angela Gallagher than meets the eye. Johns PA Charles Glover made her life impossible
peter h
Friday Aug 18, 22:57
That is a very strong accusation to make. Perhaps you should explain that in some detail?
peter h
Saturday Aug 19, 19:39
martin jefferson has made a comment that Angela Gallagher was bullied, and that Charles Glover made her life impossible.
Those are not opinions. They are stated as facts.
if those copmments are true, they are serious matters. If not, they are libellous.
so perhaps mr jefferson would like to explain his comments and back them up?
Alan
Sunday Aug 20, 17:16
Well, at least he put his name to them which is more than most do on this site. Would be very interesting to hear what facts, if any, surround his comments!
Bob N
Tuesday Aug 22, 15:58
peter h,
They are only libellous if they are not in the public interest. I don't know if they are true or not but I suspect that if they are it would be quite easy to argue that since one is an elected person and the other aspires to be one then the issue is in the public interest.
peter h
Tuesday Aug 22, 19:03
they are libellous if they are printed, untrue, and defame the subject. It's got nothing to do with public interest. That defence is onlt valid for true comments impinging on a public figure's private life.
they certainly defame john and his colleague. point is, are they true or are they false?
theyre very serious allegations about this constituency's MP. Quite apart from anything else, the voters have a right to know if they are true or not, or at least what evidence the alledger has to offer.
Roger Barton
Thursday Aug 24, 11:16
The "allegations" are too vague to be libellous. They are strong opinions admittedly but they are not specific enough to be libellous. How can one attack or defend a statment as vague as "making life impossible". What are the parameters of possible/impossible and who sets them. They are opinions and it seems to me that peterh on behalf of his polictical masters doesn't much like opinions he doesn't agree with. If there are specific allegations then they should be made but be aware if you repeat them directly or indirectly (i.e by commenting on their truth or otherwise) then you are party to the libel.
Roger Barton
Thursday Aug 24, 11:16
The "allegations" are too vague to be libellous. They are strong opinions admittedly but they are not specific enough to be libellous. How can one attack or defend a statment as vague as "making life impossible". What are the parameters of possible/impossible and who sets them. They are opinions and it seems to me that peterh on behalf of his polictical masters doesn't much like opinions he doesn't agree with. If there are specific allegations then they should be made but be aware if you repeat them directly or indirectly (i.e by commenting on their truth or otherwise) then you are party to the libel.
peter h
Thursday Aug 24, 18:07
I don't have any "political masters" , matey.
I'm just a voter in Withington consituency.
There is nothing vague about claiming that Angela Gallagher was bullied. It wasn't stated as an opinion. It clearly implied that it had happened.
Given the fact that she has just left Lib Dems and rejoined Labour, there seems to me to be a clear implication by the writer that bullying played a part in that, which is a serious allegation to make about our MP and his colleagues.
So, what is it all about? What evidence is there?
Alan
Thursday Aug 24, 18:59
Is it not time to move on from this, the person who posted it was clearly talking out of his a**e because he hasn't posted anything else.
peter h
Thursday Aug 24, 22:20
Maybe Alan. On the other hand maybe he was making a valid point. Personally, I was genuinely interested to know. It's odd that the guy should be so specific, even put his name to it, and then vanish as if he got cold feet or something.
More importantly, I see Labour is around 9 points below Tories in opinion polls now?
There's a lot of labour MPs who'll be out of a job in a couple of years if they don't do something drastic soon.
John Holliker
Friday Aug 25, 09:48
Peter - as ever you're up on the opinion polls but if this sort of swing happened to the Tories in Withington, wouldn't this squeeze the right wing support Leech picked up last year to claim the seat?
Alan
Friday Aug 25, 20:00
Cameron is just having a honeymoon period, all the old Tory grannies fancy him but he'll soon falter. I agree that Labour have got alot of work to do, especially if they put Gordon "Charisma" Brown in the hot seat!
peter h
Saturday Aug 26, 00:21
john, Can you really see tories making headway round here? they have no base. It'll be lib dem or labour.
I don't want to see tories in power nationally any more than you do, but labour seems to be losing the plot. There must be a huge slice of the party deeply unhappy about the situation they find themselves in thanks to tony blair's insistence on being USA's european representative.
I don't personally see how gordon brown or anybody else can turn that round. Blair isn't going to give them time to establish an alternative identity. I suppose the arrogant sod doesnt want them to.
John Holliker
Tuesday Aug 29, 09:34
Peter - perhaps the Tories will pick a candidate called Kath Bradley next time out. I dunno. They certainly can't do anything less in the constituency than they did last time. You and I also know that the Lib Dem vote last time was a coalition of forces, amongst them Tory voters.
There's a young local Tory now campaigning in Old Moat. He might emerge into something. Then you ask yourself whether the affluent 20/30 something Didsbury set may go on board. Either way, an extra 3,000 Tory votes might do for Leech next time out.
Roger Barton
Tuesday Aug 29, 15:08
Dear Alan,
I didn't realise that regular posting gave you immunity from talking out of your a**e. Doesn't seemed to have worked for you.
I posted because I stumbled accross the site and thought the discussion interesting. To be accused of talking out of my a**e because I don't spend all my time in this chat box is the sort of thing people who talk out of their a**e are prone to say.
Alan
Tuesday Aug 29, 18:12
Roger, please, you have posted unsubstantiated comments on the site. You offer no proof as to their validity, so why post them? Yes it is very interesting but without proof it's just words that don't mean very much!!
peter h
Tuesday Aug 29, 20:17
It wasnt roger barton who posted unsubstantiated comments. It was somebody called Jefferson. Roger Barton simply disagreed that they could be libellous. And seemed to assume I had political masters.
He may well have been talking out of his arse. But we all do that sometimes. At least he talked.
Alan
Tuesday Aug 29, 22:33
If that's the case then I wasn't talking about you Roger I was talking about the person who posted it originally, so apologies if you thought my comments were aimed at you, they weren't. You certainly give a harsh backlash but in fairness on some occasions I have talked out of my arse... perhaps I'd make a good politician one day!!!1
peter h
Tuesday Aug 29, 23:30
Sounds to me, John, that you would almost prefer a Tory MP to John Leech? Is that what you are implying?
Alan
Wednesday Aug 30, 00:07
If that is what he is implying then shoot me for saying it but I agree. At least you know where you are with a Tory. For all their sins you know that they are only interested in looking after the sow called 'aristocracy' and don't give a sh*t about the ordinary working man. You don't know where you are with the Lib Dems because they do and say anything to get into power, as we witnessed with Leech!!
John Holliker
Wednesday Aug 30, 08:55
John Leech reminds me of the nodding dog in the Churchill commercials.
Steve
Wednesday Aug 30, 12:33
I agree with Alan, though I wouldn't have put it quite like that. With the Tories you know that they have morals. Morals and beliefs that I completely disagree with, but they still exist. With the Lib Dems you just get policy that has nothing to do with principles, but with popularity, and while that may appeal the most popular policies aren't always the best.
Alan
Wednesday Aug 30, 14:29
Apologies, I did put it rather crudely but it was late and I was tired!
peter h
Thursday Aug 31, 00:54
well!
you prefer tories to lib dems! How bizarre....
tell me then, if, as is quite possible,at the next election labour loses its overall majority, but can form a government in coalition with Lib Dems?
What will you do lads?
Roger Barton
Thursday Aug 31, 09:45
In response to peter h I would suggest that the only sensible thing to do would be to form a government with the Lib Dems. As they don't actually have any policies it wouldn't matter as long as their MP's could be discplined enough for long enough to vote for a cohesive programme. This I doubt as they are a rag bag who have almost as many "positions" as they have members. It is impossible to support the Lib Dems as they have nothing to support. They are oppositionists. Steve is right , the Lib Dems always give people what they want not what they need. That is empty populism which is why every time they form an administration it eventually ends in chaos, witness Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol, Oldham.........
Roger Barton
Thursday Aug 31, 09:46
In response to peter h I would suggest that the only sensible thing to do would be to form a government with the Lib Dems. As they don't actually have any policies it wouldn't matter as long as their MP's could be discplined enough for long enough to vote for a cohesive programme. This I doubt as they are a rag bag who have almost as many "positions" as they have members. It is impossible to support the Lib Dems as they have nothing to support. They are oppositionists. Steve is right , the Lib Dems always give people what they want not what they need. That is empty populism which is why every time they form an administration it eventually ends in chaos, witness Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol, Oldham.........
Alan
Thursday Aug 31, 12:45
Peter, I'd sooner the Tories win than have any Lib Dems in Government!!
peter h
Thursday Aug 31, 22:42
well that's an interesting cross section.
with respect, if lib dems were such a rag bag, they would not keep winning more and more seats and certainly would not continually get re-
elected in seats they win. Voters aren't that stupid. They might be fooled once as with Ukip, but not in a sustained way.
I think you have to face the fact that some time in the next 10 years or so, coalition wll come about and finally we may have PR and government which actually reflects the elecorate more accurately.
John Holliker
Friday Sep 01, 09:05
I'd leave the Labour Party if we ever went into coalition with the Lib Dems.
Alan
Friday Sep 01, 16:30
As would I. In answer to your question Peter, yes the voters are stupid. 21million of th epopulation read the Sun and believe whats in it. They support who ever the Sun tell them to support (thankfully last time it was Labour so they got something right!
Martin Jefferson
Friday Sep 01, 16:59
With regards to the bullying from Glover towards Cllr Gallagher.
There is enough evidence to support this fact. Anyone who knows the man will support the fact that he "hated" Cllr Gallagher.
Leech's Gloden Boy' Glover abandoned his councillorship in Oldham to pursue his political career im Manchester, both as a paid member of staff for the party and stood in the Chorlton ward 2004.
Gallagher won and Glover did not. He stood again in 2006 and again lost. Gallagher is the only Lib Dem to win in Chorlton. this serves Glover, to be both openly and covertly nasty and bullying towards Gallagher. Let him try to deny it.
Glover has always set out to undermine Gallagher. She is popular and won where he has failed twice. Truth has no Libel
Alan
Saturday Sep 02, 09:18
There are people that I hate but I don't bully them??? Strange logic and still no evidence!!
peter h
Sunday Sep 03, 23:02
As Alan says, what evidence is there? You state that Angela Gallagher was bullied by this man Glover.
You state there is "enough evidence to support this fact", and that "anyone ewho knows the man" etc.
Well I don't know the man, or the lady, or John Leech.
So perhaps you would like to give us this evidence to support your argument?
It really is a serious charge.
And it does not seem to have been confirmed by the lady herself?
John Holliker
Monday Sep 04, 12:01
Angela Gallagher...not exactly Shaun Woodward/Roy Jenkins is it? Let's get a perspective here.
peter h
Monday Sep 04, 23:42
true.
so how about 28 dead british soldiers in afghanistan, after defence minister john reid said he hoped the "mission" could be completed without firing a shot?
Now that IS of some consequence.
Alan
Tuesday Sep 05, 06:55
Peter, we have had this discussion many a time. A soldier is fully aware of what he's signing up to - he is signing up to fight and kill, that is their job and they are trained very well to do that!
Of course the Secretary of State for Defence is going to say that he hoped the mission could be completed without firing a shot - I'm sure that we all hoped that. The fact is though that 28 British soldiers have died and that is tragic but is is also the consequence of war!
peter h
Wednesday Sep 06, 22:53
Oh, so that's all right then is it Alan? No need to worry if they got shot. After all, theyre only soldiers.
No need to worry that John Reid misled parliament about the nature of the job they were about to do.
No need to worry that Theyve gone to a place thats been a graveyard for foreign troops for hundreds of years.
No need to worry that it is impossible to win such a campaign - remember russia failed with 120 000 troops.
Personally, I'd sooner see my taxes being spent on schools and hospitals here than some daft overseas campaign.
Alan
Thursday Sep 07, 13:35
No there isn't. All volunteer, all get paid and all are highly trained. Speak to a soldier Peter and pay less attention to the arm chair do gooders in this country.
peter h
Thursday Sep 07, 20:20
My main concern isnt the health and welfare of the soldiers. It is the use to which they have been put in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which is one of the main reasons that Labour is now up the creek and in danger of losing the next election.
I suspect most senior officers must have cringed with horror at what their political masters have sked them t od, knowing full well that it would never work.
Alan
Friday Sep 08, 08:52
Well who would have thought we would beat the Nazi's but we did. Although it is important to take heed of the past there are significant differences between British forces and the Americans in Vietnam/ the Russians in Afghanistan. Namely, we are the best. The Americans have the technology but no brains and the Russians are ill trained and compensate for that with ruthlesness matched in modern day history by the Nazis.
The British are there with the support of the Afghan government to rid the country of a growing disease!
peter h
Friday Sep 08, 23:04
alan, you sound like a beano character sometimes.
and the afghan "government" can only survive by linking up with the same old warlords and - eventually - taliban as it always did. So we will have achieved nothing and spent shed loads of money and lost god knows how many lives in the process.
Alan
Saturday Sep 09, 09:11
LOL 'beano character' there's a first!!
Alan
Tuesday Sep 12, 21:10
God I hate the Unions; how pathetic, walkouts, stupid t-shirts. Grown men and women acting like they've just had their lollypops taken off them! Not willing to debate or discuss just walk out. Pleased to see that the PM took no nonsense, stood his ground and made them look 2 inches tall!! It's a very rare occasion that I would agree with any of Thatchers ideologies but as far as her thoughts on the unions she was spot on!!
Alan
Wednesday Sep 13, 22:38
They don't care about the workers Peter, they are as corrupt as you claim Labour to be. They have their own personal agenda which was pretty self evident by their pathetic behaviour this week!
John Holliker
Thursday Sep 14, 09:19
"God I hate the Unions"....oh lordy...
Alan
Thursday Sep 14, 12:38
John, why should everyone who supports Labour have to like the Unions. It's like saying that everyone who supports the Tories has to like upper class, pompous twits?
John Holliker
Friday Sep 15, 08:51
A healthy Labour Party without Union backing/input is like Wimbledon without grass courts.
Alan
Friday Sep 15, 16:38
Don't you mean union pressure and interference!!
peter h
Saturday Sep 16, 17:07
there wouldnt BE a labour party but for the unions. They founded the damned thing to make sure the working man had a voice in parliament . And they are the major donor to the party - once you remove the self-serving venal little bastards trying to buy honours or influence for their companies.
That's why people like me are at our wits end with labour. Theyre supposed to be the party of the people - then blair turned up and decided it was the party of his aggrandisement.
Alan
Sunday Sep 17, 07:09
Then Blair turned up and realised that in their current format they were unelectable so he reformed the party, modernised it and made it electable.They have been in power for nearly 10 years which was unthinkable with Kinnock at the helm. To me the unions are too much of a political force, they influenced the policy of the Labour Party and led it down certain paths. Blair moved away from that and that is why the unions are now upset and behaving like a bunch of school children. In what is a democracy no unelected organisation should have such a voice.
Alan
Sunday Sep 17, 11:28
That was a bit dictatorial, what I meant to say was 'influence' not 'voice'
peter h
Sunday Sep 17, 23:08
I was listening to an interesting speech from a statistician - a professor of it no less with no political axe to grind - who said that statistically Labour will almost certainly not have a working majority at the next election.
This is because of upcoming boundary changes will mean that if all major parties got exactly the same vote as last time, the labour majority would shrink to 40 seats.
This means that they only have to lose 20 seats because of actual loss of votes in order to lose their overall majority.
Which in reality means that the best labour can expect, barring a mircalce, will be coalition with lib dems to stay in power.
Whoops!
And, Alan, the unions are not behaving like school children. Theyre fighting for their members' rights.
peter h
Wednesday Sep 20, 17:50
I think you need to see a shrink alan. You're a labour party member who hates trades unions. Some kind of paranoid schizophrenia here - or Blairs Syndrome by Proxy.
See if you kind find a medic who isnt a member of a union. They might help.
Any way. No need to worry. Labour won't be in power much longer, and then all those nasty unions won't be able to give you nightmares.
Thomas
Thursday Sep 21, 00:47
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk
I think you should take a look at www.electoralcalculus.co.uk - this says that "All predictions on the site are now based on new constituency boundaries which were finalised in July 2006. These boundary changes take approximately 5 seats away from Labour and give 12 to the Conservatives. The House of Commons will have 650 seats, so 326 seats are required for a majority."
Its quite an interesting site, although you obviously need to remember to take opinion polls with a pinch of salt.
peter h
Thursday Sep 21, 23:32
whichever way you look at it, the odds are that's there's going to be a hung parliament next time round, and Labour will not recover the ground it has lost recently. Gordon Brown will fail as a prime minister any way. You can't really see him inspiring voters in the way blair did at his peak, or thatcher. Irrespective of their politics they knew how to inspire. Brown doesnt.
So youre stuffed, lads. you'll have to sup with the lib dem devil to stay in power. Get your long spoons out and learn to love john leech.
Dave
Wednesday Sep 27, 11:28
Hello from sunny Kendal! i thought I would pop by and see how everyone is getting on in sunny Chorlton/Didsbury/Withington et al.
Alan, I think Labour and the Tories still think a class system is in place, so who will you be voting?
peter h
Wednesday Sep 27, 15:28
sorry dave. this website has gone flat. I think the labour lads are so deflated by what's been happening within labour and with iraq and NHS that theyre embarrassed to say anything. theyre all very sincere but theyve been stabbed in the back by their own party leaders really, and there's no stomach for a good philosophical punchup, apart from alan, who's a tory at heart any way.
sad really.
VAL
Wednesday Sep 27, 15:39
Lib dems? such nice people - check the issue elsewhere:
http://www.cares.ukhome.net/pugh.htm
Alan
Wednesday Sep 27, 15:51
What do you expect from a Fib Dem!
Dave
Wednesday Sep 27, 16:42
Peter I think you are right. i think this site was great for debate over the last twelve months, but sorry Thomas, I think it has seen it's day. It's the same handful of people over and over again. All the parties are as bad as each other, we need more Martin Bell's in the world. More independent MP's - but sadly the political system in this country is not set up for independents, only parties that get their pockets lined from dodgey buissnessmen!
Alan
Wednesday Sep 27, 22:39
Hows the Lake District treating you Dave, I was up there at the weekend as part of the Three Peaks Challenge.
John Holliker
Friday Sep 29, 11:49
Peter - philosophical punch up involving your good self? Two days on and I'm still laughing.
peter h
Saturday Sep 30, 00:12
i take your point john. echoes of being savaged by dead sheep, but no doubt we won't agree which is which.
but you must admit labour's grown flabby with being in power too long, so it's no more than one can expect.
a few years fuming at having lost power so stupidly to a lightweight like cameron should recharge your party's batteries.
You might even rediscover what socialism's all about.
Dave
Wednesday Oct 04, 12:32
Alan, life in the Lake District is very similar to being back in Chorlton. We have a youngish Lib Dem MP, who is trying to say parts of the local hospital from closing down. That said, this week in the news, the local NHS trust (also my employer) has decided to close parts down!
Alan
Wednesday Oct 04, 13:37
Well there is a first, a Lib Dem MP campaigning against something that may actually happen, as opposed to something that never was going to happen!!!!
peter h
Wednesday Oct 04, 20:03
or alternatively, you could say a lib dem MP who campaigned again something which may have happened but did not happen because it was so successful a campaign that it scared the crap out of the labour powers that be at a critical time.
Alan
Thursday Oct 05, 08:22
You could say that but you'd be wrong!
Dave
Thursday Oct 05, 10:31
http://www.itvregions.com/Border/News/Protestors+Oppose+Closure+of+122+Beds+At+Westmorland+General+Hospital.htm
here is an article about it up here
John Holliker
Thursday Oct 05, 12:38
Farron was another the Lib Dem MPs who knifed Kennedy and was in the Simon Hughes camp. Unlike John Leech, he didn't back every leadership contender before arriving at Minger.
Dave
Friday Oct 06, 14:16
I have to say the way Kennedy was ousted was pretty poorly done, but that was a long time ago now (in the world of politics).
Good to see that Jack Straw is doing lots for community relations in his hood!
peter h
Saturday Oct 07, 23:50
jack straw made a fair point. how on earth can you talk to somebody who insists on hiding behind a mask? this is 21st century europe, not 16th century arabia
Dave
Monday Oct 09, 09:13
I liked one of the letters in the Guardian on Saturday, saying they would be offended if Jack Straw DIDN'T cover his face when they went to see him!
John Holiker
Tuesday Oct 17, 15:09
If I was a Lib Dem and a follower of said faith, would I have to cover both of my faces?
peter h
Wednesday Oct 18, 08:55
Now that the leader of British armed forces has clearly implied that Iraq is a disaster, now that it is clear that the next Leader of the labour party only supported the Iraq invasion under threat of losing his job if he didnt, now that senior law lords are saying that the original invasion was illegal, now that more refugees are fleeing Iraq than they did under Sadaam, now that ordinary Iraqis say they feel less free and less secure than they did under Sadam,and now that labour is more or less guaranteed to lose the next election because of Iraq, I wonder if former storm trooper alan and his new labour allies still support tony blair's position on Iraq?
John Holliker
Wednesday Oct 18, 15:30
"labour is more or less guaranteed to lose the next election because of Iraq"...Peter, are you a betting man?
peter h
Wednesday Oct 18, 16:08
that's not what I asked john. And no, I don't gamble. But do the maths on how many seats you need to lose after taking boundary changes' likely effects into account. The odds are against you
peter h
Wednesday Oct 18, 16:08
that's not what I asked john. And no, I don't gamble. But do the maths on how many seats you need to lose after taking boundary changes' likely effects into account. The odds are against you
John Holliker
Thursday Oct 19, 09:29
Peter - Not what you asked? Hold on, let me scroll up and look at the evidence...
peter h
Thursday Oct 19, 22:02
scroll on john...welcome to the wonderful world of hung parliaments
peter h
Saturday Oct 21, 00:12
and I see labour were bad losers again in a local election, behaving like pillocks. why do you guys make such idiots of yourselves? Fear?
Alan
Saturday Oct 21, 22:10
I don't know Peter, why don't you let us know... you do it all the time!!
peter h
Saturday Oct 21, 23:14
ducking the issue again alan. there doesnt seem any point in asking questions of you guys. you don't answer. I assume you can't.
Alan
Sunday Oct 22, 14:05
It's because it's the same old thing every time Peter. As soon as you se a little snippet in the media relating to Labour and what they are doing, you're on this site like a shot to slag it off, based only on the very little you've been able to gleen off idiots like Nick Robinson!! I've got better things to do!
John Holliker
Tuesday Oct 24, 12:37
Too right Alan...it's not as if he justifies/answers his own screwed point of view.
KES
Tuesday Oct 24, 15:53
It's because it's the same old thing every time Peter. As soon as you se a little snippet in the media relating to Labour and what they are doing, you're on this site like a shot to slag it off, based only on the very little you've been able to gleen off idiots like Nick Robinson!! I've got better things to do!
does that not go for everyone??
Alan
Wednesday Oct 25, 09:44
No it's not, I hate Nick Robinson!!!
John Holliker
Wednesday Oct 25, 12:49
I prefer Anne Robinson
Alan
Wednesday Oct 25, 13:03
Or even Tony Robinson..he's on the NEC
Dave
Wednesday Oct 25, 15:24
Does it matter if it is Labour or John Leech/Lib Dems that are being slagged off, this site I thought was to help with the debate of local politics, national affects local politics, so it is only fair. I am sure we have also debated Tory policy, UKIP and BNP before now on here as well.
peter h
Friday Oct 27, 12:52
Greetings from Shanghai.
" As soon as you see a little snippet in the media relating to Labour and what they are doing, you're on this site like a shot to slag it off, based only on the very little you've been able to gleen off idiots like Nick Robinson!! I've got better things to do!"
Really? You call a former government minister stating that gordon brown did not support the war till he was threatened with the sack a "little snippet" do you?
or the head and former head of the armed forces questioning the wisdom of its invasion?
Or another MP who resigned first from the cabinet and then from the labour party in order to camapign against the labour government? Is that a trivial matter too?
Or the Labour party poll ratings standing at their lowest since 1987?
I made points , which you may or may not agree with.
You sought to avoid answering them by resorting to cheap invective. That answered them loud and clear, Alan and John.
I would actually have liked to hear you defend them coherently, but you obviously can't, so I assume you are as embarrassed and angry about the mess that Tony Blair has dragged the Labour Party into over Iraq as myself and the majority of the rest of the country.
I would remind you that this is why you lost the Withington seat. No doubt the "elevation" of K Bradley to the Lords was a tacit admission that he wouldnt win it back again in the current climate.
And Jason is the only Robinson that matters to me.
Chris
Tuesday Oct 31, 13:39
I can assure you that Cllr Gallagher does back Martin Jefferson. His comments are accurate.
Chris
Tuesday Oct 31, 13:41
I can assure you that Cllr Gallagher does back Martin Jefferson. His comments are accurate.
Chris
Friday Nov 10, 16:50
What is with these links above?
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.
