Author Topic: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....  (Read 17551 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
 
I was expecting the following post, (at #2), to be a really difficult post to write but I was wrong. In the end it was  was remarkably easy.

It's no secret that I consider myself a Libertarian with a capital 'L' and that I usually think that less control is preferable to more, a smaller government is preferable to a large one, small state vs Big State etc, etc....

...and that my opposition to the imposition of involuntary, compulsory Identity Cards, the creation of the National Identity Register, the NHS Spine, Contact Point, (Childrens Identity/Welfare Database), is well documented, (at least it was until the NO2ID started doing from odd things and I lost faith in the leadership).

So what on Earth, then, could possibly make me even consider voting for a Parliamentary Candidate, (Anne Snelgrove MP), who has previously voted in support of all of the above, and more, things I find morally heinous in 21st Century Britain ?

Well, here goes. I hope it makes sense because I think this election is the most important one I've voted in so far and I've been working my way through a complex personal maze of morals to get where I am now, and I'd hate to realise this close to the polls that I'm way-the-hell wrong.

But, from my perspective, I am content that for me and mine I'll be making the safer bet on Thursday.  :)


« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 11:00:46 AM by Geoff Reid »



Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2010, 08:50:53 AM »



I'd like to start by mentioning the political parties I won't be voting for.  I don't mean any disrespect by giving a concise rebuttal.

In no particular order:


Green Party: Nice people, some attractive policies but overall, for me, (considering how I make my living, pay my mortgage, and what I do in my leisure time with the dogs and Rachael, foreign touring and visiting friends around the UK), lending the Green Party my vote really is like a turkey voting for Christmas.

UKIP: I was learning to like UKIP until Robert Feal-Martinez re-appeared and started queering the deal with generalised mentalness.   Lord Pearson finished me off completely when he demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he has less understanding of UKIP policies than a Swiss cheese.

Liberal Democrat:  Don't know tbh.  Quite like what I'm seeing nationally with the Boy Clegg, not completely convinced by Vince and certainly not impressed with an 11th Hour arrival-by-parachute into South Swindon.  Sorry Damon, looking and sounding good but I don't buy on the doorstep from strangers.

So I'm pretty much left with voting for the usual two parties or just not voting....but as my surname isn't Tomlinson abstaining is not an option.  I want to be a part, (even just a very small one), of the decision which will shape the next decade (or more) of life in this country.

Labour or Conservative then.  Labour, the architects and enablers of so many wrongs, versus the Conservatives, the party I would previously have voted for without thinking too hard about it.  So why have I spent more than 50 hours over the last fortnight pondering which way I'll vote?.... because I think the 2010 general election is probably the most important election I will have voted in so far and if I, and the rest of the country, make the wrong choice and entrust the wrong crowd with power, I could end up jobless very quickly and homeless not long afterwards. 

The Tory Party
   
As I've already said in the 2010 Local Elections: Who I will be Voting For And Why..... thread that I won't be voting for a Conservative candidate in this Thursdays local elections.  In summary, (although I'd naturally prefer you read the entire thread), I said:

Quote
"Local government in Swindon, working backwards from the front bench into the 'business community' behind is so incestuous that even genuine American HillBillies would refuse to eat our local government 'pie'.

I really do think that a vote for any Tory candidate who has thus far not criticised or disagreed with Bluh is a vote for Roderick Bluh by default.

I also think certain members of the 'Business Community' have an inappropriate level of influence over the leadership of our council and a vote which leads to continued support for Roderick Bluh allows businessmen like Rikki Hunt to increase their influence and continue their gravy-bathing uninterrupted.

I'm refusing to pay for the ticket without enquiring who's driving the train, and I've little intention of riding the train silently".


Our opinions might differ about the rights and wrongs of Rod Bluh's WiFi decision but David Cameron has already set alarm bells ringing for some of us who have experienced Bluh's, (and his colleagues), piss-poor attitude and behaviour toward them after questioning the Conservative administration of Swindon Borough Council.

Our man Cameron has repeatedly said that he intends, if he becomes Prime Minister, to "Run the country like a Conservative Council".   I obviously look at the closest example of a Conservative dominated and run Council, which is our own dear SBC, and ask myself whether I think it would be a good thing for Parliament, in any way whatsoever, to look at how Bluh & Co operate and think "Hey, look at these guys, visionary, vibrant and living the Tory dream!".  I really don't think that would be a good thing at all. 

The realisation that we could end up with a Conservative Government, Two Conservative MP's and a Conservative Council being run by just three or four people and heavily influenced by the Rikki Hunt type-businessmen of Swindon is a prospect that should scare the hell out of most rational people.....

...and yet we are most of the way there already.


Consider this:


Neither of Swindons two Conservative Parliamentary Candidates, (Robert Buckland and Justin Tomlinson), have raised any serious objections or concerns publicly about Rod Bluhs WiFi 'deal' with Digital City, yet both of them have admitted privately that they had, and presumably still have, very serious misgivings about the political process and commercial arrangement surrounding the WiFi 'deal'. 

Robert Buckland is a criminal barrister so a penny gets you a pound that he can tell the difference between shit and shinola....and when Bluh talks about the WiFiasco I bet it wasn't shoe polish Robert smelled on Rods breath.

Tomlinson has repeatedly done the 'Dance of Abstention' around any issue which could do him political damage so I've never had any real expectation that he would do the 'right thing' for anyone except himself.  He has yet to surprise me.

To be completely frank I'm only using the WiFiasco in this post because it is a perfect example of how political expedience and self-interest has completely eclipsed principled behaviour in two otherwise decent people. One chose to remain virtually silent through the spectacle of error after error being exposed in the WiFi deal and clammed up completely as bullshit after bullshit was told by Bluh & Co to explain them all away as 'minor cockups' and the other was party to the deliberate and organised political subversion of the workings of council committees rather than be seen to 'politically embarrass' his Tory Leader by publicly criticising what increasingly seems to be an irresponsible and politically motivated business 'deal'.

Are Tomlinson and Buckland men who can be depended upon to do and say the 'right thing' for Swindon and its voters when it really counts?, or will they waddle into Westminster,  'assume the position', and become the very same breed of party-puppets that we've accused Anne Snelgrove of being in her first couple of years?  My observations of their performance over the last few months can be summed up as: "When the going gets tough, the tough .......have vanished", probably with Ravey Dave Camerons famous phrase - 'Cast Iron Guarantee' ringing in their ears.

If Tomlinson and Buckland are elected to Parliament will they sort out the Euclid Street Idiocracy?, (Current Tory council), or will it be business as usual?.  I suggest the latter.

I also think it is reasonable to question how much influence businessmen like Rikki Hunt have over Swindons Tory politicians.  The TV pictures of all those local businessmen quaffing Cava with Justin and Robert at their 'William Pitt Club' campaign fund-raisers spring to mind and cause me a slight frisson of disquiet.   I can't help wondering how much more influence they will have over the council and the town if we return either or both of them to Westminster.  It's also not lost on me that some of those same Chamber of Commerce Businessmen are just starting to have their collars felt for 'things' they've done in the early years of the Tory ascendency in Swindon. If the TS leakline is as reliable as usual, a lot of people are desperately trying to keep multiple lids on multiple stories until the elections are over.

And then there's Anne Snelgrove.  Massively loyal voting record, supported all the really crap legislation that I really, really despise and which I'm sure other members will list for me, (so I won't bother), Yet I am going to lend her my vote anyway.....

WTF!?

Yes, WTF indeed. My thoughts exactly when I'd finished thinking about it. Tig was agog, her gast was well and truly flabbered and I'm not sure my dear old Dad will ever forgive me.  As it would probably take several hours to cover each and every point I considered, I'm going to try and summarise my thinking in just a few sentences.

I really don't want any Government, but especially not a Conservative Government in Westminster with a massive Blairite-style and Uber-powerful majority.  Not Lib Dem, Not Labour, Not Tory. 

Luckily for me, (philosophically), I think we are heading towards a hung Parliament and if the Tories and Lib Dems really mean what they say about repealing many of Blairs Laws, then the Identity Cards Act 2006 will be toast within the first few months of the next Parliament and the expensive IT paraphenalia of the fledgling Police State will go too.   If they don't do this during the inevitable horse-trading that will occur in a hung Parliament then they probably were just handing out 'Cast Iron Guarantees' with every 'Vote For Me' leaflet. 

I'm sick of the cyclical nature of tribalised politics in Britain so I want to see whether our 'Hung' Parliament is capable of reaching good, sensible and consensual agreements over the decisions it takes.   

I definitely don't want our Conservative dominated Swindon Borough Council to have its arrogant leader bolstered by having two house-trained Conservative MP's at his beck and call.   Let's be honest about this: based on their recent records of non-involvement Buckland and Tomlinsons have behaved like Tory Poodles.  If they're elected I fear the loudest voices from Swindon in Parliament will be those of Roderick Bluh and Rikki Hunt.    Based on recent events in Swindon, the rest of the electorate will be ignored, with the possible exception of a few carefully vetted conservative voting, 'On Message' Digital City subscribers.

Anne Snelgrove, on the other hand, put aside my past 'orribleness to her and listened to my concerns about Bluh's WiFi 'deal' when not one single Tory Politician or activist was willing to risk Bluh's wrath by supporting a proper investigation.  My Labour MP listened and acted when my own Tory Councillors filed dutifully into line behind their leader and became the very image of the Three Wise Monkeys.

More important than that though, by listening to her constituents concerns and then airing them in Parliament Anne Snelgrove did what was right for the town.  She could have very easily followed the examples set by Buckland and Tomlinson and stayed silent, in fact silence and non-involvement would have been a safer political option for her, but she didn't.  Exactly when every Tory in Swindon was hunkered in the bunker pulling tin hats down on their heads, Anne Snelgrove stepped up to the line with a megaphone and publicly placed the concerns of the many above the politically and financially incestuous wants of the Tory few.

It also occurs to me, (semi-confirmed by a quick rummage through old adver articles), that past 'frictions' between Roddy Bluh, Anne Snelgrove and Michael Wills might well be the evidence of our two Labour MP's being the only real moderating influence on Bluh's leadership of the council.  With two tame Tory MP's available to him I wonder if Bluh's legacy politics and vanity projects will quickly plumb new depths of debt and losses as his visions of vibrancy return to him.   

Anyway, the fact is we're about to elect two people who we want to represent us in Parliament. Nothing we do in North or South Swindon is likely to much affect who leads any of the major political parties - we will not be seeing Brown, Clegg or Cameron on our voting slips this Thursday and I suspect this might confuse many Tory voters who have seen them on the televised debates.  We are electing our representatives, not the leader of their parties.  Our vote cannot influence the leaders election/non election in any way whatsoever and it is even possible, (although very unlikely), that Cameron, Brown and Clegg may not even be elected to Parliament themselves.  I'm not getting hung up on who I want, or don't want as leader because I can't influence that choice.

Ultimately, I think we all must prioritise our expectations according to our personal needs. Employment, roof over head and food in belly feature prominently on my list of priorities and I think Labour and the Lib Dems, (so a majority of our mp's), agree on the best way forwards to secure the recovery of the economy.  The Conservatives disagree and want to make deep, deep cuts very quickly.  I think I'll go with the majority opinion because I do think that way forwards gives my priorites the best chance of survival.  I look at the mess currently being created by Rod Bluhs chancellor of the Piggy Bank, Cllr Mark Edwards, and his Slash and Burn budget and I see the potential for the same, almost gleeful spitefulness, in George Osbourne, himself a multi-millionaire who will be well insulated from the effects of his own actions if he becomes Chancellor.

I am still a principled objectior to many, many things done in the Blair Years, but I am not Brian Haw.  Put simply, I would rather keep a roof over my head and carry an Identity Card than live freely in a cardboard box with no card.

It's not an ideal choice for me, but it is one I can live with fairly comfortably:

Essentially I'm voting for what I think is, politically speaking, the lesser of two evils balanced against the expectation that a hung parliament will destroy much of the legislative shit that I am opposed to.

I am voting for a representative that has previously supported  much that I am opposed to, but I am balancing her record of representation against other candidates records on non-representation, bearing in mind that Buckland and Tomlinson were perfectly placed to represent residents concerns about WiFi, but chose not to do so.


There is much more I'd like to say, but I'll shut up now so others can give some input.  I'm sure this will be an interesting thread  :)

Last sentence then, just so there's no mistake, there are no perfect candidates available to me on Thursday, but on balance, I think the best one available to South Swindon, and the certainly the only one I can vote for is Anne Snelgrove.


Let the flaming begin......  :)



* may be tweaking this for the next 30 minutes or so - grammar and typos etc - just wanted to get it published by 11 a.m
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 11:00:00 AM by Geoff Reid »

Offline Alligator

  • Twitter - @Alliflowchart
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2010, 09:21:14 PM »
I have to admit that I am well and truly stuck on the fence when it comes to who to vote for in the parliamentary elections.    I really thought this was going to be straight forward for me.  I definately know who I won't be voting for, I just don't know who I will vote for  :-\

Over the last few years I've had a few spats with Anne Snelgrove, some of the very publically and I won't forgive her for the way she mindlessly voted for the party line.

In addition, I'm also very aware that a vote for Anne could result in a Gordon getting back in to number 10, whether that's with a majority in the commons, in a coalition with him as the the leader of the party with the largest share of the vote or as the leader of a minority government, no matter what the outcome locally, I really don't want to see him back in Downing St on Friday.

His steady goosestep towards a police state where he has repeatedly eroded our freedoms has resulted in a number of of sinister laws and cultural shifts where the individual is asumed to be subservient to the state.

Detention without trial
extending detention without charge
The National Identity Registers in all their forms
The demise of habeous corpus
The demise of trial by jury

IMHO, All the of above are clear signs of a drift towards a police state, where finding new ways to restrict personal freedom is a way of life for those in 'authority'.  Something evidenced by a culture in the police force where officers think that taking photos in public is illegal - personally I don't think any police officer that either believes that this is a good use of their time or something that should form a part of their job belongs in the police force.

On all of these, Anne has a lot to answer for and even typing this makes me wonder why she's not already on my list of people not to vote for.

However, having had a number of other discussions with Anne I have always found her to be a decent person. I have found her to be knowledgeable, open minded and willing to listen. On WIFI she has publically shown how effective she can be at raising issues that are of concern to the public and in other correspondence I have had with her, she has been helpful.  Even if I ignore the 'Anne Factor' Labour has traditionally been the party I would support.

So, looking at the others..........the question time event at the Wyvern confirmed what I already knew about the BNP and why I wouldn't vote for them, the UKIP candidate was hopeless and clearly incapable of arguing his way out of a paper bag, never mind anything of importance. 

That leaves the Greens, whose candidate seemed to start every pledge with the word 'probably' which doesn't inspire confidence, the Blues, who I think will say whatever it takes to get a vote and, aside from the Identity Cards Act, are being rather cagey about how they would unravel many of Tony's/Gordon's more insidious laws.  Then there's Damon Hooton for the yellows who, when questioned at the Wyvern, came across as being a free thinker and stated where he doesn't follow his party line (keeping the £ being an example).  He was definately someone I think came across as the more genuine of the candidates on the panel.  However the yellows have repeatedly failed to win over the electorate in the last 30 years and, as someone who possibly follows politics in more detail than many, I knew who Nick Clegg was before the TV debates and I don't see why I would be taken in by the hype generated by a Simon Cowell style TV show.

I'm also highly suspicious that the way in which candidates sell their souls to their paerties in order to get elected will mean that, if anyone other than Anne gets elected, we will face 5 more years of sheep like tribal support for their party, all at our expense.  Therefore, of all the candidates, I think Anne's possibly got the best chance of speaking freely and speaking for Swindon, I just don't know if I can trust her to do that.

In 2006 when Labour introduced the ID card scheme, and when Talkswindon first started, I genuinely thought the decision on who to vote for would be so much more straight forward.....how wrong was I?  The splinters in my bum are really beginning to hurt as I've been on the fence for a lot longer than I thought I would be.

Offline Simon

  • Jnr. Jedi
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
    • Swindon Climate Action Network
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2010, 10:44:52 PM »
His steady goosestep towards a police state where he has repeatedly eroded our freedoms has resulted in a number of of sinister laws and cultural shifts where the individual is asumed to be subservient to the state.

Detention without trial
extending detention without charge
The National Identity Registers in all their forms
The demise of habeous corpus
The demise of trial by jury

IMHO, All the of above are clear signs of a drift towards a police state, where finding new ways to restrict personal freedom is a way of life for those in 'authority'.  Something evidenced by a culture in the police force where officers think that taking photos in public is illegal - personally I don't think any police officer that either believes that this is a good use of their time or something that should form a part of their job belongs in the police force.

 :agreed:

Which is why I won't vote Labour, regardless of any merits of the candidate standing for them in my constituency.

However, having had a number of other discussions with Anne I have always found her to be a decent person.

Yes, I've always found that too. She's quite charming in person, but when it comes to influencing policy, she seems to be rather firm on the point that policy is something that happens to her constituents, rather than being something that her constituents get a say about  :tickedoff:.
We are all in this together, but some of us are more in it than others (with apologies to George Orwell)

Offline ZPW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1318
  • Bob Wright better do a stellar job
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2010, 03:17:13 PM »
Things is Aligator, being a decent person isn't enough really is it?
For your decent experiences there probably as many indecent experiences that TS members could offer.
I've had decent and indecent experiences of Anne Snelgrove MP.
( stretching it a bit there )
I've been impressed and unimpressed by Robert Buckland...  Hey ho..

Things is surely.. we need to vote tactically?
Labour have.. wrap it up any way you want... sold our liberties down the river.
Anne may have performed on the WiFi stage ...  but truth, that was a bit of a gift for her wasn't it?
Let's look at another local thing... FarePack.. remember that? pretty local... she spoke in the house, she wrote to the adver...what happened? Actually Nothing. Nothing. A bunch of people doing the right thing got stuffed. What did they get? Words in the house and letters to the Adver.. which is equal to NOTHING.
I digress....
She pushed through the ID Card Act ( only voluntary mind..),. She chose to do that Ali. She CHOSE to do that.





Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2010, 04:42:43 PM »
What's your recommendation for a tactical vote in South Swindon zippy?

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2010, 06:17:52 PM »
Tactical vote has to be Lib Dem, surely?
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Steve Wakefield

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2010, 06:28:18 PM »
Tactical vote has to be Lib Dem, surely?

Sorry Tobes but what is the logic behind that? Lib Dems had around 7,000 votes last time that would require an awful lot of people that voted Tory last time around to vote Libdem. Unless you think that Labour voters are more likely to switch. ** The Tories were saying  that the Cameron Conservatives are the new home for Libdem voters. I think Libdems will be as resitant to change as all the others.

** That may have changed very recently  :-\
All posts on this forum are my own opinion and do not represent the views of any council or any political party.  :banana:

Offline ZPW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1318
  • Bob Wright better do a stellar job
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2010, 06:50:14 PM »
What's your recommendation for a tactical vote in South Swindon zippy?

Not a nice question Geoff-bin-in

If I lived in Swindon South, I'd move.
If I'd forgotten to move in time.

I'd vote for Anne Snelgrove MP having spent every waking moment rabble rousing for Mike Evemey, across the border, in order to straighten out my soul.

No point in voting LD in Swindon South, a LD vote is effectively a Cameron/Osbourne vote


Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2010, 07:59:10 PM »
That's right Zippy, the tactical vote in South Swindon is to vote for Anne Snelgrove.

A Lib Dem vote in South Swindon  is effectively a Tory vote.

Offline komadori

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
    • komadori's green corner
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2010, 11:44:06 PM »
In choosing to whom to give my vote, my consideration of how the candidates has reacted to the wifi affair includes the thought "What would they have done if SBC was run by the other party?" I am sure that we would not have had the level of support from Ms Snelgrove on the issue if it had been a Labour run council: I suspect she'd have been even more quiet on the issue than Mr Buckland has been.

With that issue effectively neutralised, it's then down to national issues and which party will fix the public finances quickest and not do a vampire job of sucking the economy dry through excessive taxation. I remain a believer in the Thatcherite principle of "rolling back the frontiers of the state" even though that may well roll my own job out of existence.

That none of the parties have been honest about the level of efficiency savings cuts needed hasn't made the choice any easier.
If something's worth doing it's worth doing in green. komadori's green c

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2010, 12:38:16 AM »
Sorry Geof - I cannot agree. It may be valid to vote for Anne based on her work in Swindon if she was consistently good at being a constituency MP. Unfortunately, up until the last nine months, she has, sadly often been a pretty poor representative or advocate for this town - something which we've all commented on on innumerable ocassions! ( And has anyone forgotten the arrogant and dismissive way she failed to even engage on the issue of the ID Register? It wasn't her view which lost her the biggest dollop of my respect, it was the way she expressed it that did it for me ... )

To switch track to support her now because of her (potentially very opportune) support of your criticisms of the current SBC administration doesn't change any of that. As Simon says, to place your vote with one of the chief apologists for the worst encroachement of illiberal and near facist legislation that this country has witnessed - ESPECIALLY when we on this very site have been so aware of the potential impact -  looks perverse to me. If Anne was to stand as an independent, you know what, I might have considered voting for her based on her recent constituency record - but as it is, she's just another member of a morally bankrupt party which pursues that which is expedient, rather than that which ethical or right.

Quote
I am sure that we would not have had the level of support from Ms Snelgrove on the issue if it had been a Labour run council

Smack on :-(

I will vote Lib Dem tactically for a number of reasons: 1st, specifically because they are not tarnished to the same extent as the other two parties - and 2nd because I've finally come round to accepting that PR is the only practical way of stopping the charade of of blind alliegance to central dictat (the very thing which you say concerns you about a potential Tory majority). I want to see politics become the practice of open debate, engagement, participation and persuasion, not that of endless legislation forced through parlaiment based on three-line whips. 'First past the post' is obsolete and at the heart of the corrupting influences which we've all been inveighing against for the last four years. Hung parliament or Lib Dem majority. Either might be the best chance of that happening.

3rd, if we state that a vote for the party which most closely matches your aspirations is 'wasted' when the other two encumbants policies don't match your views, then what further enditement do we need either of the failure fo the current system - or of the need for change? As is happens, even IF my vote for the Lib Dems results in a Tory victory, I would still sleep happier knowing that at the very least, ID cards were going to be scrapped.

As for Robert - I think he'd make a more intelligent and informed MP than Anne and one which I suspect (and hope) would be far more likely to stick up for a principal or for the interests of his constituency ahead of party instruction.

Quote
Sorry Tobes but what is the logic behind that? Lib Dems had around 7,000 votes last time that would require an awful lot of people that voted Tory last time around to vote Libdem.

... and a lot of previously Labour voters may well have changed their minds too.. Yes - it would take a lot of people to have the balls to reject old partisan alliances and actually think about what's happened in the last 30 years of political history. The logic is to vote for the party you think best represents your interests - or failing that, the one which is most likely to create a political system in which you and your communities voice is actually heard or respected. Do you know what? This time round and post expenses scandal, I think there really is a chance that people will.

I really quite like Mr Buckland - and I think if he'd raised his head above the parapet locally, he would have had my vote. Whilst I'm disapointed enough about his lack of engagement on WiFi not to vote for him, I'm certainly not voting 'against' him. Again, that leads me to consider putting my tick against the Lib Dem box this time
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2010, 02:58:26 AM »
In choosing to whom to give my vote, my consideration of how the candidates has reacted to the wifi affair includes the thought "What would they have done if SBC was run by the other party?" I am sure that we would not have had the level of support from Ms Snelgrove on the issue if it had been a Labour run council: I suspect she'd have been even more quiet on the issue than Mr Buckland has been.

With that issue effectively neutralised, it's then down to national issues .....

Neutralised?  I think not.  As possible as Anne Snelgroves hypothetical actions in Komadoris 'situations-reversed' scenario may have been, what actually happened is a matter of fact and public record.  Court cases would become immediately laughable if we start accepting the notion that imaginary events  'neutralise' real ones.

Tobes says:

Quote from: Tobes
"I really quite like Mr Buckland - and I think if he'd raised his head above the parapet locally, he would have had my vote. Whilst I'm disapointed enough about his lack of engagement on WiFi not to vote for him, I'm certainly not voting 'against' him. Again, that leads me to consider putting my tick against the Lib Dem box this time"

As do I and I am also disappointed that I'm not now voting for him, something I mentioned to Robert when we shared a cup of tea at the Freshbrook community cafe recently.  Apart from that we had an interesting and frank exchange of views on several local topics.

I am intrigued as to how intending to vote for someone other than Robert can be described as 'not voting against him'

Quote
As for Robert - I think he'd make a more intelligent and informed MP than Anne and one which I suspect (and hope) would be far more likely to stick up for a principal or for the interests of his constituency ahead of party instruction.

I'm sorry Tobes, recent history would suggest that you would be disappointed again. On both points.

Offline komadori

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
    • komadori's green corner
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2010, 08:40:17 AM »
Neutralised?  I think not.  As possible as Anne Snelgroves hypothetical actions in Komadoris 'situations-reversed' scenario may have been, what actually happened is a matter of fact and public record.  Court cases would become immediately laughable if we start accepting the notion that imaginary events  'neutralise' real ones.

But this isn't a court case, it's an election, and unlike a court case the matter of issue is what we believe the candidates will do in the future, rather than what they did in the past. What they did in the past is only of relevance in as much as it informs what we believe they would do over the coming 5 years if elected. And in considering what they might do over the next years (yes, hypothetical, but rather important) I prefer to look at their record over the last 5 years, not just over the last 5 months, and on all the issues, not just one.


Just because Ms Snelgrove supported what for Geoff was a matter of principal and the interests of his constituency, doesn't mean that that was why she acted as she did. Tribal party political motivation would have had the same effect in this case. And although Mr Buckland hasn't said a great deal on the wifi issue, it seems to me that Geoff is disregarding what little he has said.
If something's worth doing it's worth doing in green. komadori's green c

Offline PAV

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 386
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2010, 08:53:34 AM »
I really quite like Mr Buckland - and I think if he'd raised his head above the parapet locally, he would have had my vote. Whilst I'm disapointed enough about his lack of engagement on WiFi not to vote for him, I'm certainly not voting 'against' him. Again, that leads me to consider putting my tick against the Lib Dem box this time
This is what confuses me. Should our MPs be getting involved in such trivial local matters? I received a leaflet from Snelgrove and before it went in the (recycle) bin I noticed one of her "successes" was helping out a kids group who were suffering from lorries parking in the wrong place.

Now, I may be wrong, but I thought this country was £900bn in debt? Is sorting out local parking issues the most valuable use of our MPs time and resources? Shouldn't she be running the country?

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2010, 09:29:31 AM »
PAV - I agree with you in part... Yes, MPs should be thinking about the bigger issues - but thats half their remit. They are also elected to represent the issues and concerns of their electorate, ie. US, you, me, the people of Swindon. A £450k lump of local council budget may be small beer in the scale of things, but what makes the issue of so much interest and relevence is the process which has (or hasn't) taken place to allow the issue to have occurred in the first place. Don't forget as well that our possible new MP, Mr Buckland was proposing a Lordship for Mr Bluh, the leader of the Tory group, and the man at the eye of the storm. That DOES make this whole affair of some real national significance. As Geoff said, given Camerons words, a potentially worrying precedent.

Quote
As do I and I am also disappointed that I'm not now voting for him, something I mentioned to Robert when we shared a cup of tea at the Freshbrook community cafe recently.  Apart from that we had an interesting and frank exchange of views on several local topics.

I am intrigued as to how intending to vote for someone other than Robert can be described as 'not voting against him'

... Because if my first priority was to ensure that Robert wasn't elected, I'd vote for Anne. 

Voting for the Lib Dems seems like a comfortable moral (and tactical) compromise to me. I won't vote for Rob (this time round at least) because of his lack of campaigning impact, lack of involvement over WiFi and his proposal of Rod as a potential Lord. I CAN'T vote for Anne on the basis of nine months of frenzied local activity when she previously appeared to have put Swindon in second place to her political career ambitions. Her words on ID cards (please, lets not forget them!) mean that I would find that morally impossible. On that basis that I'm equally intregued that you are seriously proposing to vote Anne/Labour at a national level...

Add to that the possibility of some electoral reform, and I'm convinced my course is the right one for what I want for me, Swindon and the UK
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2705
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2010, 10:45:29 AM »
Somebody said that they couldnt vote tory incase they fell in with the tory council, what about a few years ago, when the Labour council was in freefall, selling off or giving planning permission for sports fields all over the town, flogging off the Brunel Centre, the Education dept was that bad, the Labour Government took control of it from the Labour Council and let some people from Kent run it, do you remember any letters of protest or even articles re the same in the adver from out two sitting Labour MPs, not on your life.......
Mind you Annie did get out on the protest for the I think Faringdon Road PO.......... :knuppel2:

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2010, 10:49:49 AM »
Interesting... According to http://www.whodoivotefor.co.uk my political views are:- Tory: 27% / Lib Dem: 27% / Labour: 24% / Green: 22%

... pretty even spread. Hence my dillema!
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2010, 10:58:30 AM »
I have been out of town for the last five days and the lack of political plackards is extremely significant in the twelfth election of which I have been aware.  The fields are full of the Conservative vote for change, but in the towns there are the odd Conservative ones but otherwise the predominance is that of Labour followed closely by the LD's.  A friend in St Albans who would be described as a life long Tory and who previousl voted for Anne Main, the Tory encumbent of expenses fame, has already postal voted for the longtime Labour Candidate.  They made their decision on the basis of knowing the candidate and what she had done for them in the past and the lack of confidence in what the Cameron Osbourne team would do to their job in Child Protection.  So you are not alone in your thinking Geoff.

I will finish this post with a quote from my old man who died twenty years ago.

'In a politician you do not choose an ideal but you must make your choice on what you perceive as the lesser of the evils'.

He was a lifelong Conservative but with a very strong sense of Social Responsibility for those less fortunate than himself.
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female
Re: 2010 General Election: Who I will Be Voting For And Why.....
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2010, 12:09:27 PM »
Tobes I can see your dilema
Quote

The 10-year-old SMASH project trains volunteers to mentor vulnerable teenagers.

The charity works with teenagers on a variety of issues from bereavement to issues at school to withdrawal or lack of confidence.

Children are referred from a variety of organisations including social services, schools, Swindon council and the Youth Offending Team.

The charity was first funded by government, then the european social fund.

It faced narrowly escaped closure in 2007, when it was saved by a £492,000 grant from the National Lottery.

Despite a £25,000 grant from Alcatel-Lucent in December last year, Mr Robson said the current situation was already more critical than it was three years ago.


10 years ago funded by a Labour Government 2007 not helped by a conservative council that uses your services, then all you can do I suppose is consider an alternative :'(
To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print