Archive for the ‘politics’ tag
Who is shocked or even in the least bit surprised that Page 3 of today’s edition of The Sun has a woman with her boobs out on it? Anyone…? If you have your arm raised then I’m looking at you very quizzically.
You see the newspaper never said that it had dropped the topless photo from its daily editions. They actually went out of their way to say very little on the issue. If they were dropping it then you know what, they would’ve said it very openly and very loudly for the positive publicity that they would get from the media and from those who do not buy the newspaper.
Wait a minute…what were those last few words again?
those who do not buy the newspaper
And that my friends (and those who are indifferent and heck enemies if any of them read) is the issue. I wrote this a couple of years back and it still stands true today as much as it did then:
Page 3 to The Sun is nothing to do with their thoughts of sexual objectification. It is all about money (like most businesses) and financially it obviously is worth it to them otherwise they wouldn’t do it. The people who don’t like it don’t buy it anyway so why would they care what these people think? Isn’t that a very bizarre way to run a business? Would you run a business where the people who make you money like what you do but those who don’t make you money are complaining and you listen to the latter and not the former?
So this is what in most likelihood happened over the past few weeks. The Sun decided that they were going to experiment with dropping the tits and seeing how it effected circulation. No-one said anything after Friday’s edition had no boobs but when none appeared on Monday, the news ran with it and ran with it hard. This meant that Tuesday was the first day the newspaper had no tits on show where most people knew about it and what happened? By Thursday the boobs were back.
Either they were trolling the world or they lost a whole load of sales because maybe, just maybe, some people buy the newspaper not for the news but for a picture of a naked woman’s top half. Another newspaper still has topless photos of women on its page 3 and I bet the Daily Star’s sales went up dramatically on Tuesday and Wednesday.
The Sun is not a bastion of morality. It is about making money. If they get more sales by having a picture of a woman baring her chest then they’ll continue to do it. That is just business logic. Those who don’t like Page 3 in its current guise don’t buy the newspaper anyway and they won’t return to the paper just because the picture stopped appearing, whereas they would lose sales from those who like it and don’t have it any more, those people will find an alternative tabloid and look what else is out there, is that the Daily Star I see…?
Quoting myself again:
Sometimes we see the world from our own point of view and not from the point of view of others. Page 3 sells newspapers. I don’t like it. You probably don’t like it but it is a fact and until it doesn’t then why would they stop? The Sun as we all know isn’t the bastion of moral fortitude and it doesn’t pretend to be. It is a newspaper that serves as the news of the lowest common denominator. I don’t think that is an unfair statement and the people that buy it are not those who care about tits on Page 3.
I know people will say I back Page 3 because I’ll say I’m not shocked that they continue to publish it. It is either that or I can be the business logic behind it. I don’t understand why people would ever think that a newspaper would change its content to suit those who didn’t buy the newspaper in the first place. If The Sun drops Page 3 then it loses money and also it loses influence and that shouldn’t be overlooked. Having the biggest circulation gives (or at least gives the perception) of more influence over more people. One thing we know about Rupert Murdoch, he likes having influence!
Page 3 will continue to exist as long as more people buy The Sun (and the Daily Star) than would if those newspapers didn’t have a topless woman photo. It is just business plain and simple. Sexual objectification of women and changing attitudes towards that won’t be achieved by cutting off the access to boobs in a newspaper. This is a deeper problem in society and this one symbolic gesture was never going to work as long as they went after one newspaper only and the left the other newspaper who did exactly the same alone.
I’ve said it repeatedly over the years and people say I don’t know what I’m talking about, that is because they are only seeing things from their own PoV and not from a business point of view. Nearly 2.75million people buy either The Sun or the Daily Star daily at a near 5:1 ratio. If just 10% of The Sun’s readership switches to the Daily Star that is a dramatic change and puts The Sun in the clutches of the Daily Mail for biggest daily newspaper and in turn moves the Daily Star above both the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph.
The Sun wants to have the largest circulation in the UK. Tits help them do that. I just wish people would take a step back and understand that this has nothing to do with how The Sun perceive women. This is all about how much money they make, how big a circulation they have and how much influence the newspaper (and its owner) has over the British electorate. It is no less and no more. It is that simple. Whether we like it or not that is why the boobs are back. I’m not a fan. I don’t buy the newspaper. I won’t buy the newspaper with tits or with no tits but I’m not their clientèle and that is the issue. Those that buy The Sun knows it has tits and either doesn’t care or actively like them.
Having written about this several times and along the same lines, I know that people think I’m a moron because I can compartmentalise both my personal opinion and the business decision behind the tits. To get boobs out of newspapers it needs a ban and not out of the goodness of the hearts of the editors of the two dailies who put boobs there. Turkey’s wouldn’t vote for Christmas so why would newspaper editors vote for something that would lose them money? They wouldn’t. The Sun has now seen that they sell more newspapers with boobs than they do without so the boobs will stay until their is legislation that says they can’t. The fight to get tits out of the newspaper has to go to through government, it always has been, now maybe those who are leading the fight will understand this.
I hope you enjoyed this blog post. Please leave any comments or contact me directly via the E-Mail Me link on the Right Hand Nav. You can stay in touch with the blog following me on Twitter or by liking the blog on Facebook. Please share this content via the Social Media links below if you think anyone else would enjoy reading.
Southend’s newest sensation of the political blogging scene has finally turned his attention to the Liberal Democrats after his recent attacks on the Greens, the Tories and UKIP. In a piece entitled, ‘Where have all the Liberal Democrats gone?’ he opines about the parties fortunes in the borough.
Now I’m not going to fill in all the blanks for him as I don’t want to spoil his fun by bringing knowledge to the situation, that isn’t seemingly what his blog is for. Julian Ware-Lane has always led the field in local political blogging but now he forms a two-headed tag-team and whilst I would love to sit here and be aggressive about it, it is actually fun reading and credit where credit is due, between them they do lead the way in Southend political blogging. Whether much of what they write is fair or written with strong Labour specs on is another matter but they do churn out content.
I was asked the other day if I had any advice for him and I casually replied that he should invest in a copy of McNae’s. All the cool kids have one (myself included) although I aced Journalism Law at university and am pretty confident that my blurbs never skate even near the line.
He questions whether Cllr. Paul Collins’ big defeat (and lets not beat around the bush – it was a big defeat) in Westborough last year is the reason for having no PPC selected for Southend West as yet. I can answer that question, No, No it isn’t. I can give a much more informed opinion of why there is no PPC in place at this point but this is not the forum. I’m being a good boy today.
As for when a PPC will be selected and announced, I’d expect movement to happen on this subject before I’ve raided the Cornish Bakehouse for my Monday four double chocolate doughnuts for £1.50 treat (seriously if I lived within walking distance of that bakery then I’d eat so many freaking double chocolate doughnuts it would be insane).
On the Rochford & Southend East issue, this is a much harder candidacy to fill, I think that is fair comment. The party across the land have lost many members and many good candidates are disillusioned, that is the truth and there is no hiding from this fact. The Lib Dems in Southend are not immune to this but I’m sure there will be a candidate on the ballot for people in Rochford & Southend East to give them a Lib Dem option. Who knows maybe it’ll be a 31 year-old double chocolate doughnut enthusiast? Who knows…? (I know but I don’t want to spoil Matthew’s hypothetical fun)
He really does think the Lib Dems are dead in the water as he predicts that the party will lose Leigh ward but still be a junior partner in the administration come the summer. Well with four councillors (which is the number he predicts) then the Lib Dems would be the smallest party (or group) on the council. If that is the case I’d hope the Lib Dems step aside and allow the other four groups to form an administration. I said this in 2014 that Southend had (rightly or wrongly) rejected the party and should they go down to the fifth largest party then I can see no reason why the party should be involved in the administration in any way. Also losing Leigh ward would be a real kick in the teeth for the party but if I was a bookmaker I wouldn’t be putting my mortgage on that result just yet.
Also he sincerely doubts that the party will be able to find a full slate of candidates across the borough, well lets see what happens eh? I’m not saying I know the answer as nomination papers etc. haven’t been sent out yet but I have an idea as to whether the party will go 17/17 I wouldn’t want Matthew to be unduly surprised so I’ll give him fair warning to not worry too much about the Lib Dems in Southend on this front. If the party goes 17/17 it won’t be a shock but if they don’t I wouldn’t exactly have a heart attack either. Sincerely doubts is probably over-stretching.
I’m not going to sit here and say everything is rosy in the Southend Lib Dem garden because it isn’t. I’m a realist but I also wouldn’t be writing the obituary just yet either. I expect a very good person will be selected as the Southend West Lib Dem PPC within a few days. Just because Matthew Dent isn’t briefed on the inner workings of the local party doesn’t mean nothing is happening. If he is so interested in finding out all the gossip before everyone else I will happily offer him the chance to resign from the Labour Party and join the Lib Dems, then he can write with all the facts, wouldn’t that be novel?
Look I enjoy his blog, I really do but I always struggle to trust any politco (including my lot) who basically say that the party they are a member of is great and everyone else sucks. The political spectrum is relatively narrow as the main political parties are all realists but when in opposition they’ll widen that spectrum to appeal to a wider set of voters before actually narrowing what they do in power because sometimes there is only so much money in the pot etc.
Labour introduced tuition fees and they introduced privatisation to the NHS. The two big sticks they use to attack the Lib Dems and Tories respectively, they actually started. This isn’t political rhetoric, it is fact. It just goes to show that all political parties will often take the same road when presented with similar financial options. The whole funding of new hospitals and new hospital wings with private money was fantastic short-term but has crushed many NHS trusts financially but as Julian Ware-Lane told me on twitter, ‘The GE will be a chance for voters to pass judgement on the ConDem Govt. What happened before is history.’
So the Iraq War, introducing (and trebling) tuition fees, starting the privatisation of the NHS, crushing NHS trusts long-term with sky high rental costs of new buildings, being in charge of an economy that collapsed and let the bankers run wild is all in the past and doesn’t matter. Therefore by the 2020 General Election I’m sure the fact the Lib Dems were in a coalition or anything the Tories did in power between 2010-2015 if they find themselves in opposition won’t matter and won’t be mentioned by any Labour candidate. Yeah right…
I’m not saying Labour are bad. I’m not saying the Lib Dems are great. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and determining where that is for all of us personally should determine where our vote goes. Same with the other political parties. This is one of the things that I really deplore about politics, just how black and white politicos and candidates get whereas in reality most things are a shade of grey to some degree. I’ve written many blog posts both praising and attacking the Lib Dems for what they are doing in government and I like to think that this is a mature attitude and not just acting like a political sheep.
So anyway that will be all. Short version is the Lib Dems in Southend aren’t dead yet and things are going on. Many local candidates are in place and just because they haven’t been announced yet, doesn’t mean that they aren’t. I think it is fair to say that bountiful success is not expected in May but nor do I expect being last in every seat with no votes whatsoever. The reality will be somewhere in the middle. The Southend West PPC will get selected and announced in the very near future and the Rochford & Southend East candidate will be next on the list but who knows who it will be…? *has a twinkle in his eye*
I hope you enjoyed this blog post. Please leave any comments or contact me directly via the E-Mail Me link on the Right Hand Nav. You can stay in touch with the blog following me on Twitter or by liking the blog on Facebook. Please share this content via the Social Media links below if you think anyone else would enjoy reading.
Oh Sheffield Hallam. The baying public are looking for this seat to provide the Michael Portillo moment. The evil bugger Clegg who sold his soul for a car. Sold out Forgemasters for reasons unbeknown to his mere mortals. Laughed in the faces of students when he turned around and not only didn’t consign tuition fees to history but in fact actually increased them. He also married someone he loved but she was foreign, I mind how fucking dare he fall in love with a non English person and then naming his kids with traditional Spanish names, who wears the trousers Clegg, who wears the trousers? I know that happened ages ago but it still needs to be reiterated.
There is of course no doubt that he’ll lose his Sheffield Hallam seat because he is the most evil of the evil. A man so evil that Montgomery Burns bows down to him as a hero. A man so two-faced that he actually wears a prototype invisible neck brace that was paid for by you – the tax payer – after millions of secret pounds of research were poured into it to stop him feeling the effects of whiplash. A man so dastardly that Mutley now lives with him. A man so blue that unlike every other smurf, he even pisses blue and not yellow.
In case you can’t tell I’m being sarcastic.
The Guardian wrote an article that they have written before and will write many times between now and May over the weekend, Could Nick Clegg lose his Sheffield seat in May general election?. The first five paragraphs of the article concentrate on an encounter Clegg has with a 53 year-old who usually votes Lib Dem but intends to vote UKIP this time. Is he voting against Clegg because he thinks that he is evil? Well no, he’s voting UKIP based on the issue of foreigners and actually says he likes Clegg and has listened to him talk many times and is impressed by him. However his vote is going to someone who hasn’t been selected yet based on reasons that Clegg couldn’t actually do anything about.
The writer goes on to say that the Labour candidate is playing up two things against Clegg, one the Forgemasters loan and one is he doesn’t care about Sheffield Hallam and is busy in Westminster. The article also states that he actually spends two days a week in his constituency, which is actually a very high number for a minister in a non London based constituency but still. The Labour candidate is getting no central money, is starting from a standing start with no ground game, in a seat which is very affluent and remembers the bad old days of Labour in south Yorkshire before the Lib Dems came in and wrestled the seat from the Tories in 1997. This is not a seat where Labour have any realistic hope of winning yet all the talk from the media will amp it up to a crazy and unfair level.
I have just had a look at the Betfair Exchange and Nick Clegg is 1/10 to win. Labour are hilariously at 3/2 – I mean lay that bet as much as you can folks. If people want to throw their money away then feel free to help them. Labour are 19,000 odd votes behind in a seat with no history, where the council seats even in recent elections have been flat out dominated by the Lib Dems and people don’t think Clegg is evil.
As I’m a kind type of person I’m going to help you try to understand how likely a Nick Clegg defeat in May in Sheffield Hallam.
List of things that are as likely as Nick Clegg losing:
Kermit the frog coming out and admitting that he has cheated on Miss Piggy with George from Rainbow.
Pat Sharp not being greeted as the second coolest student union visitor (Karl Kennedy from Neighbours will always be #1)
Jeff Stelling resisting a pun whenever Gareth Jellyman scores.
I get asked to be the fifth coach on The Voice and the fifth judge on The X Factor is a shock duel role as the main influential voice in the music industry.
Kevin Pietersen captaining England in the World Cup.
The existence of dragons gets confirmed and they in fact don’t like the Welsh.
Kay Burley gets through the General Election campaign without being involved in a clash with someone on camera.
Nigel Farage quits his role of leader of UKIP to play basketball for the Harlem Globetrotters.
Ginger kittens will stop being cute.
Ginger women will stop being feisty and extremely attractive.
The People’s Republic of Southsea finally declares independence from the UK.
Leprechauns not liking Lucky Charms.
The Mirror publishing the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photo on the front page for every day of the General Election campaign with the headline, ‘Ed has Tommy K instead of HP Brown because he’s red through and through’
I’ll attract a female partner before the General Election.
I think that sums up the odds of Labour winning Sheffield Hallam seat once and for all. Look I know Nick’s majority will be reduced, I know he won’t waltz it based on his name but I also am a man of numbers and logic. Despite what Labour activists believe, not everyone pours scorn on Nick Clegg. Plenty of people still believe that the Lib Dems are the better option than the Tories and in seats like these, that is the decision they have. UKIP will take votes from all three parties but nowhere near enough to challenge. Labour will pick up some disaffected Lib Dem voters, of that I have no doubt but look at the numbers. I know in politics people like to publicly say that they are always in it to win it but most of the time candidates are in it to fight the good fight, to give the electorate the option and to build momentum going forward.
So lets not all get our knickers in a twist (for the record at this juncture I am not wearing knickers but boxers) about Labour’s chances of pulling off a Michael Portillo moment. It isn’t going to happen. There will be 100 more interesting battles in March-May but sadly because of the narrative the media will have this seat as #1 because it fits their storyline and that my friends is oh so depressing, the media attempting to create the story because they want sex and excitement. The fact Labour aren’t giving their candidate here any money shows what they really think but still it is the good local man trying to beat the evil Nick Clegg, I mean who wouldn’t want that to be the big story of the campaign? It isn’t the big story of the campaign but the news media don’t report the news these days, they direct and set up the news narrative and that is a problem with modern society and modern news companies.
I hope you enjoyed this blog post. Please leave any comments or contact me directly via the E-Mail Me link on the Right Hand Nav. You can stay in touch with the blog following me on Twitter or by liking the blog on Facebook. Please share this content via the Social Media links below if you think anyone else would enjoy reading.
So just a quickie but it sums up why I get pissed off at politicians and particularly UKIP.
Douglas Carswell tweeted the following earlier today (it got RT into my timeline)
The article linked to was this one
When you click on the twitter button this is what actually comes up to RT
So Carswell changes it to state that a Cameron adviser confirms that the UK will join the UK whereas the actual story is that former deputy Michael Hestletine’s personal opinion is that the UK will join the Euro but not in the foreseeable future.
It is shit like this that pisses me off. He has changed the tone of the tweet and actually completely misidentified Hestletine as a Cameron adviser when in fact he is just giving his own opinion and isn’t an adviser to the PM but who wants the truth eh? UKIP make a living on spreading misinformation that the public believe and clearly Douglas Carswell quickly got the memo that you win votes by lies and not trusting the public with the facts and the truth.
Doesn’t it just make you want to vomit and yet no doubt he is busy slapping himself on the back for being so smart as to change a view words to change the tone of a story knowing that many people will believe it and won’t even bother clicking on the link to see the actual facts behind the story.
I despair and have vomit to clean up. Thanks Douglas!
The website biggreen.co.uk today published the results from a national environmentally-conscious recycling and waste manage company who reviewed all the local recycling percentages from council to council across the United Kingdom. The results are based on the 2012-2013 financial year period.
Top of the list was Rochford Council, which is not a stones throw from where I am, however Southend itself was 87th on the list. I happen to think that Southend Council do a pretty good job in promoting recycling in the borough, I know it is cool to rag on local councils but my lot provide pink sacks for everything, collect the recycling all the time, recently they’ve provided food bins and yeah, they do a pretty decent job. Of course they could do more but a lot of it is now down to educating the public of what can and can’t be recycled.
One of the big surprises is the Green run council of Brighton & Hove was 327th with only 26.80% of all refuse being recycled, that is a shockingly low percentage for a council run by a party who has this on the forefront of their identity. That just doesn’t make much sense to me but I think the issues of that council have been well known for a while.
All councils can do better and the fact the difference between top and bottom is so stark shows that many councils do not take this issue seriously enough. It isn’t hard to recycle. Councils, certainly those nearer the bottom of the list, need to take a long hard look at themselves and get better.
So anyway here is the full list of councils along with how much refuse is recycled, reused or composted. So how did your council do…?
1 Rochford District Council 66.75%
2 South Oxfordshire District Council 65.32%
3 Vale of White Horse District Council 65.13%
4 Surrey Heath Borough Council 63.77%
5 Three Rivers District Council 61.96%
6 Stockport MBC 60.97%
7 Calderdale MBC 60.61%
8 Stratford-on-Avon District Council 60.28%
9 West Oxfordshire District Council 60.11%
10 Rutland County Council 59.83%
11 Oxfordshire County Council 59.79%
12 Epping Forest Borough Council 58.80%
13 Woking Borough Council 58.57%
14 Cotswold District Council 58.57%
15 North Somerset Council 58.43%
16 Lichfield District Council 57.84%
17 West Devon Borough Council 57.01%
18 Braintree District Council 56.86%
19 Harborough District Council 56.70%
20 Mole Valley District Council 56.69%
21 Suffolk Coastal District Council 56.66%
22 Warwick District Council 56.52%
23 Teignbridge District Council 56.38%
24 Cheshire West and Chester 56.10%
25 South Cambridgeshire District Council 55.97%
26 Huntingdonshire District Council 55.91%
27 Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council 55.55%
28 Uttlesford District Council 55.53%
29 Castle Point Borough Council 55.50%
30 Leicestershire County Council 55.46%
31 Cherwell District Council 54.85%
32 Devon County Council 54.82%
33 Bexley LB 54.30%
34 West Lindsey District Council 53.95%
35 Staffordshire Moorlands District Council 53.95%
36 East Riding of Yorkshire Council 53.91%
37 Cambridgeshire County Council 53.90%
38 South Hams District Council 53.85%
39 Cheshire East 53.78%
40 Staffordshire County Council 53.63%
41 East Lindsey District Council 53.57%
42 Milton Keynes Council 53.53%
43 Tewkesbury Borough Council 53.15%
44 East Staffordshire Borough Council 52.92%
45 Oadby and Wigston Borough Council 52.69%
46 Guildford Borough Council 52.51%
47 Horsham District Council 52.45%
48 Suffolk County Council 52.37%
49 Warwickshire County Council 52.34%
50 Stafford Borough Council 52.25%
51 Surrey County Council 52.13%
52 Essex County Council 52.05%
53 Ryedale District Council 51.97%
54 Cannock Chase Council 51.96%
55 Bradford City MDC (MBC) 51.85%
56 Basildon District Council 51.85%
57 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council 51.73%
58 South Gloucestershire Council 51.42%
59 Lincolnshire County Council 51.35%
60 St Edmundsbury Borough Council 51.22%
61 Tamworth Borough Council 51.13%
62 Rushcliffe Borough Council 50.84%
63 North Kesteven District Council 50.79%
64 Central Bedfordshire 50.67%
65 Shropshire 50.60%
66 Waverley Borough Council 50.59%
67 Waveney District Council 50.46%
68 South Staffordshire Council 50.37%
69 Rugby Borough Council 50.35%
70 Dorset Waste Partnership 50.32%
71 Somerset County Council 50.31%
72 Elmbridge Borough Council 50.11%
73 West Berkshire District Council 50.06%
74 Blaby District Council 49.91%
75 Barnsley MBC 49.88%
76 Bournemouth Borough Council 49.72%
77 Daventry District Council 49.72%
78 Fenland District Council 49.45%
79 Bromley LB 49.07%
80 Brentwood Borough Council 49.05%
81 Wolverhampton MBC 48.99%
82 South Ribble Borough Council 48.88%
83 South Northamptonshire District Council 48.76%
84 Charnwood Borough Council 48.71%
85 Kingston-upon-Hull City Council 48.54%
86 Wigan MBC 48.52%
87 Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 48.42%
88 South Kesteven District Council 48.27%
89 Chorley Borough Council 48.14%
90 Gloucestershire County Council 48.07%
91 Peterborough City Council 48.01%
92 Sandwell MBC 47.95%
93 Trafford MBC 47.90%
94 Derbyshire Dales District Council 47.85%
95 Buckinghamshire County Council 47.61%
96 Lancashire County Council 47.58%
97 West Lancashire District Council 47.51%
98 Wyre Borough Council 47.47%
99 North Hertfordshire District Council 47.31%
100 Forest Heath District Council 47.01%
101 Maldon District Council 46.95%
102 Mid Devon District Council 46.85%
103 Dacorum Borough Council 46.84%
104 Forest of Dean District Council 46.71%
105 East Hertfordshire District Council 46.58%
106 North West Leicestershire District Council 46.55%
107 Harlow District Council 46.45%
108 Kettering Borough Council 46.33%
109 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames 46.31%
110 Northamptonshire County Council 46.21%
111 Isle of Wight Council 46.21%
112 Chelmsford Borough Council 46.19%
113 East Northamptonshire Council 46.18%
114 Wiltshire 46.10%
115 East Devon District Council 46.05%
116 Epsom and Ewell Borough Council 46.03%
117 Richmond upon Thames LB 46.03%
118 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 46.02%
119 York City Council 45.96%
120 Cumbria County Council 45.93%
121 Bath and North East Somerset Council 45.83%
122 Fylde Borough Council 45.83%
123 Shepway District Council 45.78%
124 Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council 45.70%
125 North Yorkshire County Council 45.68%
126 Hertfordshire County Council 45.55%
127 Reigate and Banstead Borough Council 45.51%
128 Derbyshire County Council 45.49%
129 Chiltern District Council 45.44%
130 Maidstone Borough Council 45.42%
131 Dover District Council 45.41%
132 Broadland District Council 45.41%
133 Derby City Council 45.39%
134 Bristol City Council 45.30%
135 Hambleton District Council 45.24%
136 Wychavon District Council 45.21%
137 Cheltenham Borough Council 45.20%
138 South Derbyshire District Council 45.20%
139 Taunton Deane Borough Council 45.08%
140 Sedgemoor District Council 45.03%
141 Rother District Council 45.00%
142 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council 44.92%
143 Oxford City Council 44.83%
144 Corby Borough Council 44.77%
145 Harrow LB 44.75%
146 North East Derbyshire District Council 44.73%
147 Melton Borough Council 44.70%
148 Torbay Council 44.62%
149 Carlisle City Council 44.55%
150 Northampton Borough Council 44.34%
151 Swindon Borough Council 44.33%
152 Croydon LB 44.30%
153 North Devon District Council 44.24%
154 Eden District Council 44.21%
155 West Somerset District Council 44.08%
156 Lincoln City Council 44.08%
157 Norfolk County Council 43.98%
158 North Lincolnshire Council 43.93%
159 Solihull MBC 43.92%
160 Wealden District Council 43.90%
161 Welwyn Hatfield Council 43.82%
162 County Durham 43.56%
163 Worcestershire County Council 43.54%
164 Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council 43.42%
165 Craven District Council 43.38%
166 Runnymede Borough Council 43.33%
167 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council 43.30%
168 Selby District Council 43.27%
169 Allerdale Borough Council 43.25%
170 Telford and Wrekin Council 43.16%
171 Hillingdon LB 43.04%
172 Bury MBC 43.03%
173 North Norfolk District Council 43.01%
174 High Peak Borough Council 42.98%
175 Torridge District Council 42.96%
176 Thurrock Council 42.96%
177 Tandridge District Council 42.96%
178 Warrington Borough Council 42.94%
179 South Somerset District Council 42.94%
180 Canterbury City Council 42.86%
181 Cambridge City Council 42.85%
182 Hartlepool Borough Council 42.79%
183 South Lakeland District Council 42.74%
184 Nottinghamshire County Council 42.69%
185 Spelthorne Borough Council 42.64%
186 West Sussex County Council 42.61%
187 Brent LB 42.50%
188 Greater Manchester WDA (MBC) 42.17%
189 St Albans City and District Council 41.63%
190 Richmondshire District Council 41.61%
191 Wellingborough Borough Council 41.57%
192 Rotherham MBC 41.47%
193 Bromsgrove District Council 41.47%
194 Leicester City Council 41.45%
195 Wokingham Council 41.31%
196 Broxtowe Borough Council 41.23%
197 Doncaster MBC 41.18%
198 Medway Borough Council 41.03%
199 Kent County Council 41.03%
200 Mid Suffolk District Council 40.97%
201 Mid Sussex District Council 40.96%
202 Bolsover District Council 40.95%
203 Scarborough Borough Council 40.89%
204 Mendip District Council 40.84%
205 Copeland Borough Council 40.84%
206 Lancaster City Council 40.81%
207 Ipswich Borough Council 40.77%
208 Ealing LB 40.57%
209 Hertsmere Borough Council 40.46%
210 Walsall MBC 40.45%
211 Chesterfield Borough Council 40.44%
212 Wirral MBC 40.43%
213 Colchester Borough Council 40.30%
214 Leeds City Council MBC 40.28%
215 Eastleigh Borough Council 40.23%
216 Poole Borough Council 40.18%
217 Northumberland 40.15%
218 West London Waste Authority 39.95%
219 Greenwich LB 39.94%
220 Erewash Borough Council 39.91%
221 Herefordshire Council 39.70%
222 Watford Borough Council 39.66%
223 Blackpool Borough Council 39.56%
224 Wakefield City MDC 39.54%
225 East Sussex County Council 39.20%
226 South Norfolk Council 39.17%
227 Bedford 39.12%
228 Wycombe District Council 39.07%
229 Sefton MBC 38.96%
230 Merton LB 38.86%
231 Enfield LB 38.81%
232 Hampshire County Council 38.68%
233 Bracknell Forest Borough Council 38.48%
234 Chichester District Council 38.47%
235 Gloucester City Council 37.95%
236 Hart District Council 37.95%
237 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 37.90%
238 Darlington Borough Council 37.78%
239 Aylesbury Vale District Council 37.78%
240 Halton Borough Council 37.36%
241 Worcester City Council 37.10%
242 Tameside MBC 37.04%
243 Norwich City Council 37.01%
244 Breckland Council 36.97%
245 Stevenage Borough Council 36.82%
246 Manchester City Council MBC 36.79%
247 Gateshead MBC 36.76%
248 Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council MBC 36.75%
249 Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council 36.70%
250 Fareham Borough Council 36.63%
251 Stoke-on-Trent City Council 36.63%
252 Ribble Valley Borough Council 36.59%
253 Arun District Council 36.57%
254 Sutton LB 36.53%
255 Gedling Borough Council 36.41%
256 City of London 36.41%
257 Coventry City Council 36.27%
258 Boston Borough Council 36.24%
259 Merseyside WDA (MBC) 36.22%
260 Reading Borough Council 36.09%
261 Mansfield District Council 36.08%
262 Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council 35.97%
263 Oldham MBC 35.96%
264 Pendle Borough Council 35.88%
265 Hyndburn Borough Council 35.77%
266 North Tyneside Council 35.58%
267 Winchester City Council 35.45%
268 Hounslow LB 35.05%
269 South Tyneside MBC 34.89%
270 Exeter City Council 34.85%
271 Dudley MBC 34.79%
272 Preston Borough Council 34.72%
273 Rossendale Borough Council 34.62%
274 Harrogate Borough Council 34.60%
275 Havering LB 34.60%
276 East Hampshire District Council 34.53%
277 Broxbourne Borough Council 34.26%
278 Worthing Borough Council 34.14%
279 Sunderland City Council 34.07%
280 Cornwall 33.88%
281 Ashfield District Council 33.85%
282 North Warwickshire Borough Council 33.69%
283 Luton Borough Council 33.61%
284 Test Valley Borough Council 33.56%
285 Rochdale MBC 33.37%
286 East Cambridgeshire District Council 33.37%
287 Adur District Council 33.25%
288 Barnet LB 33.03%
289 Plymouth City Council 32.85%
290 Eastbourne Borough Council 32.78%
291 Burnley Borough Council 32.68%
292 Kirklees MBC 32.57%
293 South Bucks District Council 32.43%
294 North East Lincolnshire Council 32.43%
295 Sevenoaks District Council 32.29%
296 Swale Borough Council 32.20%
297 Wyre Forest District Council 31.74%
298 North London Waste Authority 31.72%
299 Haringey LB 31.66%
300 Nottingham City Council 31.62%
301 Malvern Hills District Council 31.43%
302 Islington LB 31.43%
303 Knowsley MBC 30.91%
304 Camden LB 30.91%
305 Waltham Forest LB 30.79%
306 Bolton MBC 30.72%
307 Southwark LB 30.38%
308 Birmingham City Council 30.38%
309 Havant Borough Council 30.30%
310 South Holland District Council 30.06%
311 Slough Borough Council 29.93%
312 New Forest District Council 29.67%
313 Redbridge LB 29.44%
314 St Helens MBC 29.32%
315 Redditch Borough Council 29.26%
316 Salford City Council MBC 29.23%
317 Stroud District Council 28.92%
318 Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council 28.91%
319 Tendring District Council 28.69%
320 Amber Valley Borough Council 27.99%
321 Sheffield City Council 27.72%
322 Tower Hamlets LB 27.65%
323 East London Waste Authority 27.57%
324 Dartford Borough Council 27.01%
325 Barking and Dagenham LB 26.84%
326 Great Yarmouth Borough Council 26.84%
327 Brighton and Hove Council 26.80%
328 Thanet District Council 26.78%
329 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 26.44%
330 Crawley Borough Council 26.11%
331 Rushmoor Borough Council 25.78%
332 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council 25.23%
333 Liverpool City Council 24.70%
334 Western Riverside Waste Authority 24.60%
335 Gravesham Borough Council 24.47%
336 Newark and Sherwood District Council 24.46%
337 Hackney LB 24.32%
338 Gosport Borough Council 24.14%
339 Southampton City Council 23.86%
340 Hastings Borough Council 23.68%
341 Wandsworth LB 23.45%
342 Portsmouth City Council 22.80%
343 Lambeth LB 22.76%
344 Hammersmith and Fulham LB 22.66%
345 Bassetlaw District Council 22.48%
346 Lewes District Council 22.32%
347 Westminster City Council 21.70%
348 Middlesbrough Borough Council 21.55%
349 Newham LB 21.04%
350 Lewisham LB 20.03%
351 Council of the Isles of Scilly 17.70%
352 Ashford Borough Council 11.88%
Oh boy. Where do I start? Some of you will no doubt have read the story in the Independent today where it lists the new sexual acts that are banned in UK pornography. If you haven’t then you’ll be interested to know the following acts are not allowed to be shot in porn shoots here in the UK any more:
Penetration by any object “associated with violence”
Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)
Urolagnia (known as “water sports”)
The theme here is clearly violence but what about consensual violence? No-one knows what goes on behind closed doors and the amount of people who enjoy consensual violence is far higher than most people imagine. Porn shoots will often have acts of domination and that often goes hand in hand with consensual acts of violence. The thing that is also clear though is this list seems to lean heavily towards acts from which women derive the most pleasure and the FemDom porn industry is going to be hurt substantially by this.
I have written before abut how we need to be more open as a society with our viewpoints towards sex and sexuality. Just because something isn’t someone’s cup of tea, they shouldn’t judge that others and we certainly shouldn’t be banning it and making it harder for people to explore their erotic desires.
This isn’t the time or place to talk openly about my views towards sex and sexuality but if you know me well then you’ll know that I’m pretty open and liberal sexually (despite my distinct lack of actual first hand knowledge). I think what happens between two (or more) consenting adults is all fair game and heck, life is hard enough without being judged for what we may or may not like in bed. I look at that list and I can only see one thing listed that I wouldn’t try (not including female ejaculation obviously, because you know, genetically I’d probably struggle with that). I can say that I have watched porn that includes all ten of the newly banned things on that list. I’m happy to admit that. Some of what I’ve watched has been extremely exciting and interesting and I’d watch more and I’d be involved in many of those scenarios, in both positions.
The problem is some people in grey suits have decided that because someone might enjoy watching people be spanked or being verbally abused or degraded that it is a ‘slippery slope’ to those people going out and committing crimes to fulfil their fantasies. I would love to see the evidence of this. I really would. Also banning it would surely drive some of these people to find new ways to get their rocks off so to speak? Pushing sexual things underground only goes to pushing a problem under the carpet, out of sight, out of mind and all that but here’s the thing – their isn’t a problem.
There is a beautiful comment on that story in the Independent, ‘As a hard working taxpayer I feel I have the right to unwind in the evening and watch a woman being strangled while she urinates with someone’s fist up her arse.
Who is in charge of this madness?‘
You’ve got to chuckle by he/she is right. I know people who like to be strangled. I know people who like to be strangled so much they lose control of their bladder. I know people who like being fisted. I know people who would like to watch such an encounter. Why shouldn’t the people who enjoy it not be able to be filmed and paid for such a shoot and why should people not be allowed to purchase said video? It is just an example of a government overstepping their remit and trying to impose their sense of moral judgement on those who might have more open morals. It isn’t governments place to tell us what is good and what is bad.
I believe strongly in individual freedom for people to live their lives how they see fit as long as they aren’t harming anyone else. If people want to sell and buy sex freely then so be it. I have long been for the legalisation of prostitution for people who freely want to sell and buy sex. The same is true of pornography. If the people involved are consenting and they are adults then who has the right to tell these people that they shouldn’t be allowed to do it? No-one.
Also what the hell is wrong with seeing a female ejaculate? I mean c’mon. What is wrong with facesitting? What is wrong with water sports? What is wrong with spanking? I could go on but you get the picture.
Yes you’ll see a tiny fraction of people watch violence towards women or men and become obsessed and want to find harder core stuff and eventually get to a place where they could go on to do something nasty in the real world with without consent. However you can’t legislate for the tiny minority. At some point you need to take a step back and allow humans to live their lives how they see fit as long as they don’t hurt others. This change to the 2003 Communications Act has gone beyond that and are treating humans as creatures that quite simply cannot be trusted.
It is moves like this that instead of protecting potential victims down the road actually does the opposite. If you starve a person of something they won’t just forget about it and move on, they’ll become more active in seeking what they want and if they can’t find it by their usual means of porn then they may take things into their own hands. So it falls down on two points. It hurts on the fact that government are legislating against adults having free will in the porn they wish to create or watch and it also will probably cause more issues down the road as fewer people will be open and will try to suppress their sexual desires until they explode.
Bravo government. Bravo.
What do you get when you have a well known local political face gets beaten in an internal vote by a man who no-one has heard of and is clearly playing at politics? You get fall out. That is what you get. Some hurt feelings maybe but maybe just some wounds to let heal but no, oh no, this isn’t what has happened here in Southend and the local UKIP party and it is all out civil war.
Recently I have been sitting back on the political scene, certainly locally. I didn’t expect to still be living here by the time of the next election so thought it was a good time to just sit back and watch. Due to the slowdown in the housing market though, my landlord looks unlikely to sell so I may be around for a few months yet before I ride off into the sunset. Who knows what will happen in the intermeaning months but I might as well raise my head above the parapet on this issue because it is quite amusing.
Labour blogger Matthew Dent has blogged extensively on the matter both here and here. The long and the short of it though is UKIP had a clear candidate who they should have selected if they were serious about making a run at actually winning Rochford & Southend East next May, that man was James Moyies. He is the only UKIP councillor in Southend who has any real background in politics and is the leader of the UKIP group on the council. He stood in 2010 and it seemed a no brainer that he would be selected again. However UKIP decided to get their gun out and shoot themselves in the foot and Floyd Waterworth got the nod.
Mr. Waterworth is a councillor for Blenheim Park ward and from the rumblings that reach me (from all sides of the political spectrum) he’s a pretty lacklustre councillor. I’m not saying this as a knock on UKIP, all parties have better and shall we say less good councillors, that is human nature, but he doesn’t seem to take the job of councillor seriously. Fellow Blenheim Park councillor James Courtenay wrote on his blog about Cllr. Waterworth:
This hasn’t been too much of a problem for the people of Blenheim Park, since electing Floyd Waterworth in May… He’s barely been seen, failing to attend two out of the three meetings of the (full) Council and not attending the only opportunity he has had to review the decisions of the new Administration (scrutiny committee). He hasn’t attended a Neighbourhood Action Panel meeting – important to set the policing priorities in Blenheim- since being elected either. Still at least Blenheim Park still has me and Graham Longley to represent them. We may disagree, but at least we turn up to ensure Blenheim is kept on the map!
Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it? I know many say it is all politics but the more you get involved in politics, the more you see that many people from all sides of the political spectrum genuinely do care about what they do and doing the best they can for their residents. They may well disagree on what that is but they aren’t just playing at politics and doing it for the money or the cachet. If you are going to be a councillor then at least do what you were elected to do and what you are continue to be being paid to do – represent your constituents.
The fact this guy got the nod over Cllr. Moyies for the Rochford & Southend East seat means either one of two things, either lots of UKIP members locally really dislike Mr Moyies and are disappointed that he only led UKIP to several seats in May or something fishy is going on. I don’t profess to have any inside knowledge but if you were to push me, I know which of the two possibilities is more likely.
Yesterday’s Echo had the story Ukip sensationally suspends its own group leader on the issue and I suspect there is plenty more to come out on this subject. The long and short of it though is that internally in Southend, UKIP are an absolute mess. Whether the voters care or not is another matter entirely as the UKIP surge isn’t because of good local politics, its all about the national picture and this won’t effect their campaign too much I suspect. What it will do though is give other parties something to attack on UKIP, I mean if they are too busy fighting between themselves then how can they fight for their constituents? For many they won’t care but some will and those people might be the difference for UKIP.
I may be old school and believe you put your best people in the most winnable seats. That just seems sensible politics for me. Instead UKIP members have decided to go the opposite route and all hell has broken loose. Some would say they are a party of egomaniacs who are all about what they can get for themselves and not what they can do for the people they represent, some would say that, they really would…
I suppose I should open this blog post with posting my personal knowledge on drugs. I have never taken them, no politicians answer of ‘I had a toke once but I never inhaled’ – I have just never done drugs. It has never interested me. So take my views with that knowledge out there.
Sensible debate is something that isn’t conducive to politics in democracies. It is often about who can shout the loudest and who are are voting against and not for. It is one of the large drawbacks of politics and it saddens me deeply. Listening to opposing viewpoints and evidence and coming to your own conclusion is one of the best things about being human. I don’t surround myself with people who agree with me as that would be boring. I enjoy actually talking with people who have differing points of view.
One of the big discussions that is starting to once more makes waves is how to deal with drugs. Following a fierce internal battle, Norman Baker the report Drugs: International Comparators published and if you don’t have the time to read the whole thing, here is a snapshot of the conclusion – our drug policy doesn’t work and hasn’t worked for decades. This is not the biggest surprise in the world but it is good to see a study actually state this.
The man who fought to get this published was Norman Baker, who resigned yesterday in essence because his boss Teresa May wanted a Conservative Home Office and not a coalition one. He said this last week:
“The Liberal Democrats believe drugs policy should be based on evidence, not dogma or the desire to sound tough. If you are anti-drugs you should be pro-reform.
“For too long successive governments have been unwilling to look at the evidence. This comprehensive report shows that other ways of tackling drug addiction and supply can save lives and cut crime.
“It’s time for a radical change in British drugs policy. The fact is we should spend more time and effort cracking down on the Mr Bigs’ and criminal gangs who traffic drugs than users and addicts who should be helped to recover, not put behind bars.”
It is immensely hard to read the report and Baker’s words and with an open mind actually disagree with him. Polls on the subject are relatively mixed but whilst the overall numbers are split down the middle on how to deal with the drug issues, the problem is the majority of those who vote are still in favour of a hard line on drugs. As long as this is the case then politicians whose primary objective is power will pander to these people.
Political parties in general want to get into power to carry out their agenda, however it is hard to get into power and to do so you have to not appeal to the widest possible electorate but the widest possible electorate…who vote and therein lies the biggest problem. Not everyone votes. In fact those who are least likely to vote are often the most disenfranchised and the unhappiest believing that their views aren’t taken aboard by politicians and they are right – because they don’t vote and the circle is complete.
To have a sensible discussion on real subjects in this day and age is always going to hard. We live in a 24/7 rolling news cycle world and the broadcasters and other media outlets want to attract viewers and readers and you don’t do that by opening up to actual discussion. You do that by shouting the loudest or sounding the toughest. Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime goes down well with those who don’t actually want to see the real world for what it is. This is why I admire Norman Baker so much for trying to get this discussion out there and trying to engage with people on this important topic.
I want to live in a country where politicians make decisions based on evidence and not rhetoric. This is the dream. I won’t sit here and say I know exactly what we should do on drugs but I do know that what we’ve been doing hasn’t been working. I also firmly believe that adults should be free to make their own decisions on how they live their lives as long as it isn’t at the direct detriment of others. I would maybe hark back to education and educating people on drugs and if they still use to use then that is their decision.
One thing though is very clear to me. Those who are addicted and want to get off should be helped and not treated as criminals. We all make mistakes in life, some more serious than others I grant you, but everyone deserves help if they reach out for it. We shouldn’t give up on members of society just for making mistakes. Rehabilitation is by far the best way to fight addiction and until the moment a government sees this then I doubt we’ll see any significant progress.
The Lib Dems have made a step on this and are talking very loudly and proudly on this matter and I praise them for that. It is just a shame that many won’t listen because they’ve already made their minds up about the party because of past issues and that shows that many vote because of emotions and not because of policy but that is a story for another day. For now the Lib Dems are trying to bring real topics to the forefront of the discussion and for that we should all be grateful. I just hope people actually engage and not just dismiss because of emotions.
Sometimes folks I get frustrated. No not at my pathetic lack of a private life but more at how some people can read what I write here yet not understand a word that I have written. In the past week I have written extensively about Labour’s decision to select Cllr. Ware-Lane as their PPC for Southend West. In isolation it was the obvious choice but in terms of delivering a Labour MP for one of the two Southend seats then it was not so much of a good move. I explained my reasoning in a simple and logical way. However unsurprisingly said councillor missed the point entirely, which isn’t the biggest shock in the world considering but still.
He writes in his blog post, whose title is taken from a Dale Winton Lottery Programme, In it to win it
I am not sure quite what Neil’s campaigning credentials are although I do know he stood in Westborough ward in 2012. He came sixth place in a ward that at the time had Lib Dem representation; sixth out of six, with a 90 votes and 5.4% of the votes cast. I will leave it to the reader to pass judgement on this but if the strategy was to do as badly as possible then Neil’s campaign was a roaring success.
So he’s not quite sure what my credentials are but he does throw out my Westborough result in 2012 to pass judgement on my credentials. I would expect nothing less from said councillor. I got smashed in 2012 but also I didn’t run my campaign. Also my dad died during that election process so I had no time to actually campaign. I’m sure even Cllr. Ware-Lane would concede that my dad having a major stroke, being on life support and subsequently dying is a fairly good reason for not being busy campaigning but you never know.
My credentials are simple. I work in my day to day life in analytics. I analyse data, a lot of data, for a rather big company. I suspect said councillor is not a fan of sabermetrics, heck I wouldn’t be surprised if he had never even heard of the term. There is a reason Nate Silver correctly predicted all 50 American States in the 2012 US Presidential Election and it isn’t because he is a soothsayer. It is because he analysed numbers and analysed them well. The more data you have them the better your accuracy of predicting a result can be. This data isn’t just about canvass data but looking deeper. It is what I do to earn a living and I like to think I’m at least semi decent at it so my credentials in analytics and therefore reading data aren’t too shabby.
Politics isn’t just about banging on doors and writing leaflets these days (and it should be said to my lot that this is something to learn as well) but the world of politics has moved on. An energetic campaigner can bang on say 200 doors in a canvass session but may only find 50 doors that open for them. People want their information as and when it suits them. Advanced sabermetrics, demographics, social media etc. are all vital tools in analysing a candidates chances of winning an election.
The rest of his blog is a meandering prose of limited facts and more dye in the wool hope. The fact is even in Tony Blair’s surge in 1997, when Labour were sweeping all before them and the Tories were as popular as I am…well anywhere, Labour still fell 8,000 odd votes short. If Labour can’t get remotely close when the Tories were embarrassingly unpopular and Labour were the great hope and riding as high as Ricky Williams did whilst on his year out of the NFL in India, then why would anyone with any semblance of nous believe that Labour can win this seat in 2015?
Another part I want to opine on:
The Nick Clegg bounce significantly boosted the Lib Dem vote; this time around it will be what is known as a dead cat bounce – voters are deserting a party that has kept Cameron at number ten and enabled him to foist all sorts of unpopular legislation on the UK.
The Clegg bounce. Yes it was very significant and very much helped the Lib Dems in Southend West. However the degree of the national Lib Dem bounce wasn’t as much down to Nick Clegg as I think Cllr. Ware-Lane believes. Again I have number crunched and I know more than I suspect he does. Will the Lib Dem vote go down in 2015? I fully expect so. However the last time the Lib Dems (or Lib Dems in previous guises) failed to reach the 9,000 vote mark in the constituency was 1970. What does that tell us?
Well it tells us that a significant number of people in the constituency are inherently liberal. The fact is that the Tories have only once come remotely close to losing the seat (in 1997) and that was to the Lib Dems. In fact had the national Tony Blair bounce not been a factor then it is eminently possible that Nina Stimson would have won in 1997. What would have happened had we seen that result we’ll never know but it does show that Labour do not poll well in Southend West and the reason isn’t because of poor PPCs or councillors or anything like that it is because the demographics aren’t right for them to succeed.
Southend West is generally relatively affluent, certainly when you compare it to Rochford & Southend East. Like most seats there are wards and polling districts that look good for Labour but in general the people in the ward would lean towards voting for the party they trust most on the economy. The Conservative party always poll higher in economy trust compared to Labour.
However this is what I want to write about – Cllr. Ware-Lane’s belief that lots of unpopular legislation has been foisted on the UK. Whilst it may be true that a lot of people are unhappy with the ‘Bedroom Tax’ as the Labour Party and media have dubbed it, more people in Southend West will be effected by the rise in the income tax threshold and the Pupil Premium and the free school meals for under 7s than will be effected by benefit changes. The fact that a million public sector jobs have gone is an issue but not a big issue in Southend West, the fact over 1.5million private sector jobs have been created is just as big a factor. That isn’t spin, it is just demographic fact. If the economy is on the up then Southend West constituents will vote Conservative or Lib Dem and even when it wasn’t – they still voted Conservative or Lib Dem.
Just because one person believes something is unpopular then it doesn’t automatically equate to others believing the same thing. If you put me in a room of fifty blondes and they all turned me down then it wouldn’t necessarily mean the same would happen in a room with fifty brunettes or redheads, oh wait, maybe that is a bad example but you get my point. People come from different backgrounds and have different thoughts as to what is important to them.
He says that voters are deserting the Lib Dems, I would say deserting is a strong adjective in Southend West but a significant proportion are indeed leaving but they aren’t all flocking en masse to Labour. They are going back to the Tories or they are staying at home. Labour will not sweep up 2010 Lib Dem votes in Southend West to any significant degree. In fact I would suggest that more people who voted Lib Dem in 2010 but won’t in 2015 will vote Conservative than vote Labour. So a collapse of the Lib Dem vote actually doesn’t help Labour one jot in their goal is indeed to unseat David Amess.
Next his opening paragraph:
My selection as Labour’s General Election candidate in Southend West has inspired the Liberal Democrat’s sole surviving blogger in the borough to write not one, but two, pieces about it. You can almost sense the rising panic at Southend’s equivalent of Lib Dem Central, so much so that they want to me to give in just as I am getting going.
It is nice that he considers me a Lib Dem blogger now as he questioned whether I should be classed as such when I pointed out to them that my blog is actually far more well read than his, ‘Maybe, although if it is yours that out-performs mine I could question whether yours is really a political blog, or a blog that occasionally has political bits in it, he typed. Not that he has a big ego or anything but when I said there was a blog more well read than his in the local blogosphere them boom, he tried to find a way around it. Genuinely amusing.
However it is the panic rising at Southend’s equivalent of Lib Dem Central bit that is truly misplaced. I blog purely in a personal capacity here. I always have done and always will do. I have blogged openly and critically of the Lib Dem party both locally and nationally should I feel it was warranted. I can detach myself from typing with a Lib Dem hat on. I have heard absolutely nothing from Lib Dem Central as to their reaction to Cllr. Ware-Lane’s selection as the Labour PPC, so as for how anyone can sense rising panic is beyond me.
My blog posts were purely looking at things objectively. If Labour do intend to run two significant campaigns across both constituencies instead of prioritising the one that they are more likely to win then it is just poor strategy. Plain and simple. In a Utopian world then every voter gets the full attention from every party at every turn but this is the real world and that just isn’t possible.
I am in the contest to win it. Southend West Labour Party members deserve a candidate who tries his best, Labour supporters deserve a candidate who tries his best, the electorate in Southend West deserve a candidate who tries his best. David Amess deserves an opponent who will take the fight to him. That a Liberal Democrat views this as bad news merely serves as an additional incentive.
One day Julian will learn to comprehend basic English, sadly this is not that day. I said that it is bad news for the Labour party in their hopes to get an elected member of the House of Commons in 2015, I never said nor implied it was bad news for the Lib Dems. If Cllr. Gilbert won in Rochford & Southend East, it would give Labour a foothold in SE Essex, it would also bring more money from Labour HQ, also they would be able to afford full-time or part-time people on the payroll to help spread the Labour word. Getting an MP in an area which isn’t natural home to a party is key because local activists can rally around that seat and numbers can swell if the MP is doing a good job. It is like a snowball, you have to start the snowball rolling to see speedy progress and to get the snowball rolling you have to win, so when you have a chance to win you go all out for it as the long-term benefits will be far greater.
If Labour want to help ensure the Tories win both seats in 2015 then keep doing what they are doing. Labour have a chance (albeit not a big one but significant enough) to stop the Conservative monopoly in Southend in terms of parliamentary seats, it is a shame for those non-Tories out there that they are doing their best job to pass on this rare opportunity. The Perfect Storm is brewing for Labour in Southend and instead of planning for it, they are busy shooting themselves in the foot to make the task much harder for themselves than they need to.
You know what, I’m going to miss this when I’m gone. I hope my next home will be as interesting politically speaking. Considering I have an inkling of where this may well be, it might even be more exciting!
In 2010 a lot of political analysts believed that Labour wanted to lose so they could sit on the opposition benches for five years, throw stones whilst the economy turned around and then promise the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to lure people back. It was a very persuasive argument and one that I thought actually carried some merit. Sometimes in life it is better to fight the good fight but lose and say that you’ve fought the good fight without actually then having to make the big decisions.
Yesterday I wrote what I thought was a fair and honest critique of the decision by Labour to essentially run two legitimate campaigns in Southend next year instead of really aggressively targeting one of the two seats. There were two people I expected to rile by my comments and unsurprisingly they both were. I maybe a member of the Lib Dems and therefore I may have a vested interest in things but I can also look at things from a logical point of view and not just spin and push the bandwagon (I initially mistyped that as bangwagon and have smirked to myself).
The fact is political parties do not have an infinite amount of resources, either in terms of dollar dollar bills nor in terms of manpower. Labour of course know this and that is why I never see a Labour leaflet in Thorpe Bay despite living here for several years. They know it is a waste of time and money to write, publish and deliver leaflets in this area. Thorpe Bay is not what you’d call Labour territory as the demographics and mathematics are all wrong.
Cllr. Ware-Lane tweeted me last night that my blog post reminded him that he needed to start his Leigh ward campaign. A nice shot at saying that he was coming to get the Lib Dems at the heart of their western operation. I cried all night I was so frightened at the thought of Labour pulling in the votes in Leigh to come through the pack and beat out the Tories and the Lib Dems in a General Election year. Give me a fucking break. There are votes to be had for Labour in Leigh of course but they’ll be third at best, they will not beat either the Tories or the Lib Dems there even if they ran their whole GE campaign on a ‘Leigh Independence Movement’ backdrop. The numbers nor the demographics are there. It’s not rocket science.
This is where I think a lot of people fall down. Just because I myself am a liberal doesn’t make me think that other people will be just because I am, or I talk to them about liberal values. The same with all the other parties from across the political spectrum. There are swing voters out there, a good chunk of them, but the vast majority will only swing between two parties (although having said that I did meet someone the other day who told me they had voted Lib, Lab and Con within the past five years) but those people are few and far between.
Matthew Dent says that in part he suspects my blog post was at least partially motivated by my own party’s interests, you can read his full blurb here. I can assure him it wasn’t. I know the Tories are winning Southend West next year and deep deep down whilst being second would be great, second gets you nowhere in this game bar momentum. I’m all but certainly out of Southend in the near future (landlord wants to sell and it is time for me to go elsewhere) but even saying that, I still fully expect the Lib Dems to be second next year in the west, with or without a concerted effort by Labour there and even if they aren’t – it won’t be by any significant amount. The Tories will still run away with it and long-term the demographics of the west is more Lib Dem than Labour.
Lets put it into context, Labour came last in five of the west wards in the 2014 local elections, last. It would have been six had it not been for the Greens. They won one ward (the same as the Lib Dems) but the Lib Dems were only last in Chalkwell and Belfairs. Here is the breakdown of the 2,014 council numbers in the west (I have only used the top result for each party in Westborough as two seats were up).
3645 – Labour
4126 – Lib Dems
7945 – Conservative
So even in a down year for the Tories where UKIP had a significant impact on their vote, the Tories cleared Labour by more than double in terms of votes cast and the Lib Dems by nearly double. I just don’t see any reason for any optimism for any party to overtake the Tories next year, certainly when you look at the 2010 numbers and see that the Tories may lose split votes locally but gain them nationally (Amess received around 3,000 more votes than the Tory council candidates in 2010). Of course UKIP could impact the Tory vote should they field a candidate but I would expect their impact to be less dramatic than in the east.
I maybe a Lib Dem member and activist but I am not blinded by loyalty and believe that we can win every battle no matter what the realistic situation is. I can write open and honestly and do so frequently without my Lib Dem hat on but more my Journalism degree hat on and yesterday’s post was one of those occasions. Labour’s high mark in the west is second, Labour’s high mark in the east is first, why not just go for it and go for the win instead of fighting to be best of the rest?
I think the best metaphor I can give is if you are a sprinter going for the Olympic double and someone offered you a chance for a gold in the 100m and a bronze in the 200m or a guaranteed silver in the 100m and a chance for a second silver in the 200m then which do you take? Do you go for gold or do you set your sights on two silvers? I know what I go for…
Politics is not ideal. Yes all parties should be able to put their full resources behind every potential councillor and every potential member of the House of Commons. Every single voter should get the full treatment and should be treated as equal but we all know that is impossible under the current system. You have to prioritise otherwise you risk not getting any member of your party elected. People understand that and strategically I wonder just how much Labour do…