Here's a nasty story from the Manchester Evening News. It seems that the Labour-dominated city council intend to crack down on charity workers, specifically the type who hang around places like Market Street and Piccadilly, asking people for permission to set up direct debits for regular donations. The MEN unflatteringly describes these guys as “charity muggers” or “chuggers”. Apparently shoppers have complained about feeling “harassed” and “intimidated” by them.
Sorry, but if you feel intimidated by a charity worker, you really need to grow a backbone. Unlike real muggers, they're not going to stick a knife in your ribs and demand money with menaces. And unlike Manchester City Council, they have no legal power to take your money from you without your permission. If you're approached by a charity worker in the street, and you either don't want to donate money or you can't afford to, a polite “no” will normally do – and if some misguided charity worker tries to give you the hard sell, all you need to do is calmly walk away.
So what's the problem?
Showing posts with label Labour Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour Party. Show all posts
Monday, 20 September 2010
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Sloppily-produced propaganda from the Labour Party
One thing that's surprised me about this campaign so far is that the incumbent Labour councillor (John Flanagan) doesn't seem to be putting much effort into keeping his job. The Lib Dems have been campaigning hard in my area since about the middle of last year – I've had a monthly Focus leaflet off them, along with a Christmas card, calendar and a personalised letter inviting me to join up with them (no thanks). All I've had from Labour this year is a letter from Tony Lloyd, the local MP who's currently after being re-elected. The only time I've seen or heard anything from Flanagan in the last few months was when I attended a local political meeting last year, which was hosted by all three councillors. On that occasion, Flanagan stormed out of the room after one of the local taxpayers gave him a bit too much grief – I really didn't get the impression that Flanagan enjoys his job.
So little or no Labour activity in Newton Heath. Is this because they arrogantly assume that the locals will automatically turn out and vote Flanagan back into power? Or have they given up on Newton Heath on the assumption that this part of the ward now “belongs” to the Lib Dems? It's a false assumption in either case, since the voters all have free will, and anything can happen on election day – but then again, establishment politicians do tend to take the voters for granted, don't they?
It turns out that the Labour Party are doing some campaigning though, just not round my way. By way of this very useful and interesting website, I've found a copy of a “Rose” leaflet that the Labourites have been circulating around Miles Platting and Collyhurst South. It's well worth having a look, even if only to keep yourself amused by counting the typos. Edited by Flanagan himself, frankly it's a bit of a mess.
The leaflet has three pictures of Flanagan on the front, which isn't a good start – he takes an even worse picture than me. Naturally he takes credit for three new schools that are going up in the area, as well as keeping Miles Platting Pools open (for now). He also takes credit for “home improvements” in Miles Platting and Collyhurst, forgetting to mention that some of these “improvements” involve the extensive use of a demolition ball. The plan to demolish nearly 200 homes in Collyhurst South is particularly controversial, but you wouldn't believe it from reading this leaflet. Possibly because it's a relatively small area, not big enough to swing an election, the two big parties seem to be paying scant attention to the feelings of the people who actually live there.
The bottom of the front page is promoting the upcoming St George's Day Parade, which isn't really something that the council should be involved with – if local residents want to organise a parade, that's perfectly OK with me, it's just not something that the council should be financing or taking credit for.
The back page is even worse. According to the leaflet, the council has set aside £600,000 to repair all the extra potholes that have appeared due to the recent cold snap. For a town the size of Manchester, that doesn't sound anything like enough to me. Although I'm in favour of reducing the size of Manchester City Council's overall expenditure, keeping the roads in a decent state of repair is a necessary core function in my book, so it's one area where I think spending a bit of extra money is justified to get it right. And I don't think it's being done right at the moment, because a lot of the potholes near me have just been roughly filled with tarmac – I don't think they'll get through even a moderate winter without needing re-doing.
A bit further down, there's a nice prominent headline: “Manchester Council Tax – no increase”. This is a lie. The reality is that there's been an increase in the council tax bill of up to £22.70, depending on the property you live in. Maybe not as bad as it could have been, but nothing like as good as it could have been either, and definitely not a freeze. If they really cared about the working poor of this town, they could have reduced council tax significantly. Certainly if I'm elected I'll be pushing for at least a 10% reduction (the Lib Dem candidate's only promising a reduction of less than 1%, which isn't surprising as he's an ex-Labourite himself).
The rest of the leaflet is taken up with the usual form to fill in and send back to the Labour Party to get your name added to their mailing list, and some fairly random-looking photos down the side – the top one shows Flanagan standing in front of a playground pointing at the camera as if he's doing a “stick up”. The next one down shows Flanagan apparently being given directions by a Collyhurst resident – not surprisingly, as Flanagan's from Gorton and probably has trouble finding his way around this ward. One pic of Flanagan and Lloyd attending last year's parade. One pic of Flanagan standing outside a youth club, saying it had had a “£100,00 improvement boost” - does he mean £100.00 or £100,000? This leaflet hasn't been proofread at all. Weird how they can afford thousands of leaflets on glossy paper, but don't take the time to get them right.
Note to the Labour Party: I have experience of proofreading. If you want someone to go through your propaganda and check for spelling, punctuation and grammar errors next year, my hourly rate for that kind of work is £7 per hour. For the Labour Party (and Lib Dems and Tories) I offer a special rate of £14 an hour, or we'll call it £10 if cash in hand. You know where to contact me.
So little or no Labour activity in Newton Heath. Is this because they arrogantly assume that the locals will automatically turn out and vote Flanagan back into power? Or have they given up on Newton Heath on the assumption that this part of the ward now “belongs” to the Lib Dems? It's a false assumption in either case, since the voters all have free will, and anything can happen on election day – but then again, establishment politicians do tend to take the voters for granted, don't they?
It turns out that the Labour Party are doing some campaigning though, just not round my way. By way of this very useful and interesting website, I've found a copy of a “Rose” leaflet that the Labourites have been circulating around Miles Platting and Collyhurst South. It's well worth having a look, even if only to keep yourself amused by counting the typos. Edited by Flanagan himself, frankly it's a bit of a mess.
The leaflet has three pictures of Flanagan on the front, which isn't a good start – he takes an even worse picture than me. Naturally he takes credit for three new schools that are going up in the area, as well as keeping Miles Platting Pools open (for now). He also takes credit for “home improvements” in Miles Platting and Collyhurst, forgetting to mention that some of these “improvements” involve the extensive use of a demolition ball. The plan to demolish nearly 200 homes in Collyhurst South is particularly controversial, but you wouldn't believe it from reading this leaflet. Possibly because it's a relatively small area, not big enough to swing an election, the two big parties seem to be paying scant attention to the feelings of the people who actually live there.
The bottom of the front page is promoting the upcoming St George's Day Parade, which isn't really something that the council should be involved with – if local residents want to organise a parade, that's perfectly OK with me, it's just not something that the council should be financing or taking credit for.
The back page is even worse. According to the leaflet, the council has set aside £600,000 to repair all the extra potholes that have appeared due to the recent cold snap. For a town the size of Manchester, that doesn't sound anything like enough to me. Although I'm in favour of reducing the size of Manchester City Council's overall expenditure, keeping the roads in a decent state of repair is a necessary core function in my book, so it's one area where I think spending a bit of extra money is justified to get it right. And I don't think it's being done right at the moment, because a lot of the potholes near me have just been roughly filled with tarmac – I don't think they'll get through even a moderate winter without needing re-doing.
A bit further down, there's a nice prominent headline: “Manchester Council Tax – no increase”. This is a lie. The reality is that there's been an increase in the council tax bill of up to £22.70, depending on the property you live in. Maybe not as bad as it could have been, but nothing like as good as it could have been either, and definitely not a freeze. If they really cared about the working poor of this town, they could have reduced council tax significantly. Certainly if I'm elected I'll be pushing for at least a 10% reduction (the Lib Dem candidate's only promising a reduction of less than 1%, which isn't surprising as he's an ex-Labourite himself).
The rest of the leaflet is taken up with the usual form to fill in and send back to the Labour Party to get your name added to their mailing list, and some fairly random-looking photos down the side – the top one shows Flanagan standing in front of a playground pointing at the camera as if he's doing a “stick up”. The next one down shows Flanagan apparently being given directions by a Collyhurst resident – not surprisingly, as Flanagan's from Gorton and probably has trouble finding his way around this ward. One pic of Flanagan and Lloyd attending last year's parade. One pic of Flanagan standing outside a youth club, saying it had had a “£100,00 improvement boost” - does he mean £100.00 or £100,000? This leaflet hasn't been proofread at all. Weird how they can afford thousands of leaflets on glossy paper, but don't take the time to get them right.
Note to the Labour Party: I have experience of proofreading. If you want someone to go through your propaganda and check for spelling, punctuation and grammar errors next year, my hourly rate for that kind of work is £7 per hour. For the Labour Party (and Lib Dems and Tories) I offer a special rate of £14 an hour, or we'll call it £10 if cash in hand. You know where to contact me.
Monday, 19 April 2010
Go, Leese! Just go!
The major local political news story in Manchester over the last few days hasn't been the local election, but the fact that Richard Leese has had to “temporarily” step down as Leader of Manchester City Council after accepting a police caution for assaulting a 16 year old girl. It seems to have been some kind of domestic argument over medicating a cat, that blew up out of proportion somehow. Whether he will return to his £40,000 a year job as council bossman is unclear at this time.
However, it is worth pointing out that he previously spearheaded a “zero tolerance” campaign on domestic violence.
My opinion is that Richard Leese should have stepped down a long time before this incident happened.
This is the man who tried to bully the people of Manchester into voting for congestion charging, claiming there was “no Plan B” in the event of a “no” vote.
This is the man who encouraged thousands of ticketless Rangers fans to crowd into the centre of Manchester in 2008, leading to some of the worst rioting we've seen in this city in recent years.
This is the man who is happy to collaborate with this government's discredited and expensive ID cards scheme.
This is the man who has overseen annual increases in Council Tax even during times of recession, imposing an unnecessary economic burden on the working poor of this city.
This is the man who's idea of economic regeneration usually involves over-use of the wrecking ball.
This is the man, in short, who is the head of a council that has brought this city to its knees.
He should just go.
It's unfortunate that Leese's term of office as a councillor for Crumpsall doesn't expire until 2012. The honourable thing for him to do would be to resign as a councillor in order to force a by-election and let the people of Crumpsall decide whether they still want him. But I don't expect him to do that. Instead, he will attempt to live this incident down.
But there is no way he should ever be re-instated as Leader of the Council. Manchester deserves better.
However, it is worth pointing out that he previously spearheaded a “zero tolerance” campaign on domestic violence.
My opinion is that Richard Leese should have stepped down a long time before this incident happened.
This is the man who tried to bully the people of Manchester into voting for congestion charging, claiming there was “no Plan B” in the event of a “no” vote.
This is the man who encouraged thousands of ticketless Rangers fans to crowd into the centre of Manchester in 2008, leading to some of the worst rioting we've seen in this city in recent years.
This is the man who is happy to collaborate with this government's discredited and expensive ID cards scheme.
This is the man who has overseen annual increases in Council Tax even during times of recession, imposing an unnecessary economic burden on the working poor of this city.
This is the man who's idea of economic regeneration usually involves over-use of the wrecking ball.
This is the man, in short, who is the head of a council that has brought this city to its knees.
He should just go.
It's unfortunate that Leese's term of office as a councillor for Crumpsall doesn't expire until 2012. The honourable thing for him to do would be to resign as a councillor in order to force a by-election and let the people of Crumpsall decide whether they still want him. But I don't expect him to do that. Instead, he will attempt to live this incident down.
But there is no way he should ever be re-instated as Leader of the Council. Manchester deserves better.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Words of wisdom from Tony Blair
"Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards let that money provide thousands more police officers on the beat in our local communities."
Tony Blair as Leader of the Opposition, Labour Party conference, October 1995
Tony Blair as Leader of the Opposition, Labour Party conference, October 1995
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Labour's Election Leaflet – Sponsored by Manchester City Council!
The local election campaign's been going on in these parts for several months now, at least as far as the “Lib” Dems are concerned. I've been receiving one of their Focus leaflets once a month like clockwork since about the middle of last year – plus a Christmas card, plus a calendar. They're really determined to get their man onto the City Council this May. But at least they (or their rich backers) are paying for their own propaganda, which is fair enough. The incumbent Labour councillor seems to be taking a more laid-back attitude – all I've had off his lot lately has been a letter from the local MP. Nothing else until yesterday.
Yesterday, a copy of “Manchester People” landed on my doormat. This is a “newsletter” published by the Labour-dominated Manchester City Council, supposedly to keep the local population informed about what's going on, and also supposedly non-party political. The headline was “Warm welcome for council tax freeze” - unbiased or what? Especially as the “freeze” in council tax that the council is bragging about is nothing of the kind – if you look way down towards the bottom of the front page (Paragraph 7) you'll find the admission: “Although the Council's element of your council tax bill is frozen, there may be slight increases in the smaller police and fire precepts.” Expect a rise, in other words – maybe 1 or 2%. In these times of hardship, the council should be going all out to cut council tax by getting rid of unnecessary waste and focusing on core services – scrapping “Manchester People” would be a small step in the right direction.
The other major story on the front page and continued onto Page 3 is about the upcoming Manchester Day Parade – another expense that we can do without. The rest of the publication is mostly upbeat filler about how well Manchester's doing (despite the massive unemployment and unacceptable crime levels) and how we all love recycling. Page 15 is given over almost entirely to the decision by the council to allow an outfit called Goals Soccer Centres to demolish part of Heaton Park and build a sports complex there. To those readers who live outside the area, Heaton Park is a huge area (actually the grounds of a stately home) on the north edge of Manchester that was sold to Manchester City Council in 1902 to be kept for the enjoyment of the general public. It's a lovely place, very popular in the spring and summer, the place is full of people in the good weather. Now the council wants to vandalise it. Not surprisingly, there's a lot of opposition to this proposal, in fact I haven't met anyone who's had a good word to say about it – you wouldn't think so from reading “Manchester People” though – I couldn't find one word questioning any council policy in the whole rag.
Instead of “Manchester People” it might just as well have been entitled “Vote Labour” - but then the Labour Party would have had to have paid for it themselves, wouldn't they? Easier just to charge it to the taxpayer.
Yesterday, a copy of “Manchester People” landed on my doormat. This is a “newsletter” published by the Labour-dominated Manchester City Council, supposedly to keep the local population informed about what's going on, and also supposedly non-party political. The headline was “Warm welcome for council tax freeze” - unbiased or what? Especially as the “freeze” in council tax that the council is bragging about is nothing of the kind – if you look way down towards the bottom of the front page (Paragraph 7) you'll find the admission: “Although the Council's element of your council tax bill is frozen, there may be slight increases in the smaller police and fire precepts.” Expect a rise, in other words – maybe 1 or 2%. In these times of hardship, the council should be going all out to cut council tax by getting rid of unnecessary waste and focusing on core services – scrapping “Manchester People” would be a small step in the right direction.
The other major story on the front page and continued onto Page 3 is about the upcoming Manchester Day Parade – another expense that we can do without. The rest of the publication is mostly upbeat filler about how well Manchester's doing (despite the massive unemployment and unacceptable crime levels) and how we all love recycling. Page 15 is given over almost entirely to the decision by the council to allow an outfit called Goals Soccer Centres to demolish part of Heaton Park and build a sports complex there. To those readers who live outside the area, Heaton Park is a huge area (actually the grounds of a stately home) on the north edge of Manchester that was sold to Manchester City Council in 1902 to be kept for the enjoyment of the general public. It's a lovely place, very popular in the spring and summer, the place is full of people in the good weather. Now the council wants to vandalise it. Not surprisingly, there's a lot of opposition to this proposal, in fact I haven't met anyone who's had a good word to say about it – you wouldn't think so from reading “Manchester People” though – I couldn't find one word questioning any council policy in the whole rag.
Instead of “Manchester People” it might just as well have been entitled “Vote Labour” - but then the Labour Party would have had to have paid for it themselves, wouldn't they? Easier just to charge it to the taxpayer.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
£420,000 - Small Change to the Labour Party!
The Manchester Evening News reports that Manchester City Council has overpaid more than £420,000 to the organisation Marketing Manchester (which describes itself as “the agency charged with promoting Manchester on a national and international stage). This was over a six year period. Manchester City Council is supposed to contribute 35 per cent of Marketing Manchester's budget, with the other nine Greater Manchester councils splitting the remaining 65 per cent of the bill between them. Instead, the ratio was reversed – and it took the council six years to notice. That doesn't say much for their accounting methods for a start. To make things worse, a decision has been made not to reclaim the money, but to write it off instead – to write off nearly half a million pounds of taxpayers' money.
It seems that the Council's Deputy Leader, Jim Battle (Labour) reckons it's not worth the effort of reclaiming the money owed. According to Battle:
“There was a misunderstanding and it has now been corrected, end of story. It would be bureaucratic nonsense to chase a few thousand pounds. It will cost more to administer and correct.”
End of story? Leaving to one side the fact that they tend to take a firmer line when the hard-pressed working poor of this city fall behind with their Council Tax payments (they send the bailiffs in), this seems a bit of a cavalier attitude to taxpayers' money – and it is the taxpayers' money, not the council's. Ordinary people work hard to support themselves and then get over-taxed by this kleptomaniac Labour council – the least they can do is spend the money raised through Council Tax wisely. How is it that the council thinks they can afford to use our money to subsidise this glorified PR agency, and yet they couldn't afford to salt the roads properly this winter?
Or maybe the real question that should be asked is this: Should Marketing Manchester even exist? Why does Manchester need promoting? We're one of the major cities in the UK, who doesn't know we're here? Giving money to Marketing Manchester is a pointless extravagance at a time when the council should be focusing on providing core services as efficiently as possible.
It seems that the Council's Deputy Leader, Jim Battle (Labour) reckons it's not worth the effort of reclaiming the money owed. According to Battle:
“There was a misunderstanding and it has now been corrected, end of story. It would be bureaucratic nonsense to chase a few thousand pounds. It will cost more to administer and correct.”
End of story? Leaving to one side the fact that they tend to take a firmer line when the hard-pressed working poor of this city fall behind with their Council Tax payments (they send the bailiffs in), this seems a bit of a cavalier attitude to taxpayers' money – and it is the taxpayers' money, not the council's. Ordinary people work hard to support themselves and then get over-taxed by this kleptomaniac Labour council – the least they can do is spend the money raised through Council Tax wisely. How is it that the council thinks they can afford to use our money to subsidise this glorified PR agency, and yet they couldn't afford to salt the roads properly this winter?
Or maybe the real question that should be asked is this: Should Marketing Manchester even exist? Why does Manchester need promoting? We're one of the major cities in the UK, who doesn't know we're here? Giving money to Marketing Manchester is a pointless extravagance at a time when the council should be focusing on providing core services as efficiently as possible.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
It looks like we've got more readers than we thought.
Apparently as a result of Gregg Beaman's excellent post about the grasping, money-grubbing MP Geraldine Smith, we've received the following email:
Dear Sir,
It has come to our attention that there is a link to one of our Standard Notes, about all women shortlists, on your blog site. Regrettably the table erroneously listed Geraldine Smith as being selected as a candidate at the 1997 general election as a result of being on an all women shortlist. I gather that this mistake has caused Ms Smith some embarrassment and we are very sorry that this has happened; the corrected note is now available at http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05057.pdf.
Yours sincerely,
Isobel White
Isobel White
Parliament and Constitution Centre
House of Commons Library
1 Derby Gate
London
SW1A 2DG
.............................
Fair enough. On behalf of the North West Branch of the Libertarian Party, I would like to withdraw the allegation that the grasping, money-grubbing MP Geraldine Smith got her job as a result of being on an all-women shortlist, and apologise if this has caused any offence or embarrassment to the greedy Ms Smith.
Of course you have to admit that it's an easy mistake for anyone to make, as the Labour Party do still make a habit of selecting some of their candidates on the basis of what's between their legs instead of what's between their ears - as demonstrated by current events in Wigan.
In the Libertarian Party, we're more interested in brains than plumbing, and we select our candidates accordingly. The Labour Party apparently see things differently.
Dear Sir,
It has come to our attention that there is a link to one of our Standard Notes, about all women shortlists, on your blog site. Regrettably the table erroneously listed Geraldine Smith as being selected as a candidate at the 1997 general election as a result of being on an all women shortlist. I gather that this mistake has caused Ms Smith some embarrassment and we are very sorry that this has happened; the corrected note is now available at http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05057.pdf.
Yours sincerely,
Isobel White
Isobel White
Parliament and Constitution Centre
House of Commons Library
1 Derby Gate
London
SW1A 2DG
.............................
Fair enough. On behalf of the North West Branch of the Libertarian Party, I would like to withdraw the allegation that the grasping, money-grubbing MP Geraldine Smith got her job as a result of being on an all-women shortlist, and apologise if this has caused any offence or embarrassment to the greedy Ms Smith.
Of course you have to admit that it's an easy mistake for anyone to make, as the Labour Party do still make a habit of selecting some of their candidates on the basis of what's between their legs instead of what's between their ears - as demonstrated by current events in Wigan.
In the Libertarian Party, we're more interested in brains than plumbing, and we select our candidates accordingly. The Labour Party apparently see things differently.
Friday, 2 October 2009
Droylsden East Labour Party: Are they completely clueless?
I watched a Labour Party member leafletting Fairfield Road in Droylsden (Tameside) the other day. He was very efficient, leafletting a house every 30 seconds. He even remembered to close each garden gate after him. It must be hard work leafletting an area for a political party. I've looked at the leaflet he was delivering now, and I wonder if he thinks it was worth the effort?
The leaflet is a glossy A3 sized effort entitled "the Droylsden East Rose". This is edited by Cllr Sue Quinn, one of the three Labour councillors who "represent" this ward (she's also the Deputy Mayor). Two thirds of the front page is dedicated to covering the recent Copperas Field fun day (basically a sort of local carnival/fete thing). The other third of the front page was dedicated to Labour basically congratulating themselves on having come first place locally in May's Euro elections. Of course a Euro election is a completely different thing from a local election. And Labour didn't do so well in the last local elections.
The back page has five different stories squeezed above the usual cut-out-and-send-back form asking for support. One story is about the re-opening of Littlemoss Memorial Gardens. Another story is about a campaign to bring back the old Droylsden Carnival. Why are Droylsden East Labour Party so heavily obsessed with circuses at a time when people are struggling to pay for bread?
Another bit is about how two of the councillors are members of the Droylsden FC supporters club. That's nice for them, but what's it got to do with council business or local politics?
One story is about Cllrs Kieran and Susan Quinn being opposed to Lord Mandleson's plan to sell part of Royal Mail. This plan seems to have been abandoned now, so why are they covering this? Maybe they are trying to distance themselves form an upopular government.
The last story does have some local relevance. It's short bit warning people not to vote for the BNP. I don't disagree with that, I hate the BNP as much as anyone. But it's funny that they don't give this more prominence, considering that the BNP came a close second in the last local election here.
The full results for the 2008 council election in Droylsden East were:
Jim Middleton (Labour) 1408 votes
David George Lomas (BNP) 1000 votes
Lee Anthony Robinson (Tory) 648 votes
Susan Quinn is up for re-election next year. If this is the best propoganda that the local Labour Party can come up with then she's in serious trouble. Droylsden is not that bad an area, but local people have local concerns that aren't being addressed at all. The biggest concern at the moment is the massive delays to traffic that are being caused by the roadworks around the crossing of Ashton Road and Market Street. This is because of the long-delayed and massively mishandled extension to the tram system and is causing massive delays at rush hour. You would think there would at least be an apology for the inconvenience in "Droylsden East Rose" instead of pointless rubbish about local carnivals. If local politicians ignore the concerns of local voters, then the voters will turn to any party that at least pretends to listen to them. And pretending to care about local issues is what the BNP's good at.
Labour could easily lose a seat in Droylsden East next May. If they do it will be their own fault. I wouldnt' like the BNP to win, because they're the only people I hate more than Labour, but voters want councillors who will take care of the practical business of keeping the town running smoothly, instead of patronising them with rubbish like this. If you don't believe me about hwo bad the local Labour group are have a look at thier blog and make your own mind up:
http://www.droylsdeneastlabour.blogspot.com/
Almost anyone with a decent campaign could beat them.
The leaflet is a glossy A3 sized effort entitled "the Droylsden East Rose". This is edited by Cllr Sue Quinn, one of the three Labour councillors who "represent" this ward (she's also the Deputy Mayor). Two thirds of the front page is dedicated to covering the recent Copperas Field fun day (basically a sort of local carnival/fete thing). The other third of the front page was dedicated to Labour basically congratulating themselves on having come first place locally in May's Euro elections. Of course a Euro election is a completely different thing from a local election. And Labour didn't do so well in the last local elections.
The back page has five different stories squeezed above the usual cut-out-and-send-back form asking for support. One story is about the re-opening of Littlemoss Memorial Gardens. Another story is about a campaign to bring back the old Droylsden Carnival. Why are Droylsden East Labour Party so heavily obsessed with circuses at a time when people are struggling to pay for bread?
Another bit is about how two of the councillors are members of the Droylsden FC supporters club. That's nice for them, but what's it got to do with council business or local politics?
One story is about Cllrs Kieran and Susan Quinn being opposed to Lord Mandleson's plan to sell part of Royal Mail. This plan seems to have been abandoned now, so why are they covering this? Maybe they are trying to distance themselves form an upopular government.
The last story does have some local relevance. It's short bit warning people not to vote for the BNP. I don't disagree with that, I hate the BNP as much as anyone. But it's funny that they don't give this more prominence, considering that the BNP came a close second in the last local election here.
The full results for the 2008 council election in Droylsden East were:
Jim Middleton (Labour) 1408 votes
David George Lomas (BNP) 1000 votes
Lee Anthony Robinson (Tory) 648 votes
Susan Quinn is up for re-election next year. If this is the best propoganda that the local Labour Party can come up with then she's in serious trouble. Droylsden is not that bad an area, but local people have local concerns that aren't being addressed at all. The biggest concern at the moment is the massive delays to traffic that are being caused by the roadworks around the crossing of Ashton Road and Market Street. This is because of the long-delayed and massively mishandled extension to the tram system and is causing massive delays at rush hour. You would think there would at least be an apology for the inconvenience in "Droylsden East Rose" instead of pointless rubbish about local carnivals. If local politicians ignore the concerns of local voters, then the voters will turn to any party that at least pretends to listen to them. And pretending to care about local issues is what the BNP's good at.
Labour could easily lose a seat in Droylsden East next May. If they do it will be their own fault. I wouldnt' like the BNP to win, because they're the only people I hate more than Labour, but voters want councillors who will take care of the practical business of keeping the town running smoothly, instead of patronising them with rubbish like this. If you don't believe me about hwo bad the local Labour group are have a look at thier blog and make your own mind up:
http://www.droylsdeneastlabour.blogspot.com/
Almost anyone with a decent campaign could beat them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)