Posts
Green Party: Call on Clogg to Back Berry not Paddick
Looks like the scourge of the photoshopping classes - Lib Dem Voice - are not practicing what they preach. Now there's a surprise.
In essence they are running an attack on Ken Livingstone, Gordon Brown and Sian Berry - the Green Mayoral candidate - for being cosier together than they should be. By calling for second preference trading. Rather than the Greens defaulting to the Liberal Democrats. A party who are as we all know still too yellow to be green (and too yellow to be fair) and whose stock in trade is squeezing greens 'til the pips squeak.
Lib Dem Voice are following their party's tradition and not even beginning to deal with Sian Berry's New Statesman piece claiming that Paddick is neither a "real Lib Dem" (whatever that may be) nor a supporter of even mainstream green-ish policies. They have even called on Nick Clegg himself to switch to backing Berry. He is weighing that up.
There is also a rather worrying acceptance from the LDV commentati of their party being in bed with Booby Boris Johnson's Conservatives. Surely London Lib Dems should also be calling for 2nd pref votes to Ken not Boz? Over the war. Over a very good level of community leadership after 7/7. Over the Green stuff too. Instead there is just smearage, even outrageously alleging Ken somehow supported the "execution" of Jean Charles De Menezes.
Berry's points re Paddick's policies need a response. And apparently wishing for a Tory Mayor for London and a great boost for Dave Cameron's Conservatives - mostly at the expense of the Lib Dem Party! - also needs an explanation from Lib Dems who like to have it every which way but true.
Tory supporting? Not something that will go down well among their very strange coalition in our urban centres. Liberal Democrats want to do business with Tories. Iain says so here: second preferences 39.4% to Tories, just 14.2% to Labour . And so do LDV in their vote tory strand.
That is Tories who were 1% against the war, rather than 40% from the PLP. Tories who clearly harbour plans to slash the public services. Tories who deliberately destroyed employment, distinctly dog whistle on race, and diligently deny community. Is that the party that Lib Dem voters borrowed from the independent left, working communities, and the greenish should support? Along with tactical Tories?
In my own ward the Lib Dems are desperately trying to squeeze Greens to vote for them. With empty propaganda that bears no relation to their own sham or non-existent greenery where they hold power. Most notably in NW in poor Liverpool.
Commenters at LDV have called Greens names for siding with Labour in Bristol - against Lib Dems who were removing subsidy from local trains, threatening to ban door mats, amd giving themselves a humungous pay rise - and in Sheffield where their reign was short though not sweet.
Even more on the plus side we have the Greens support in Manchester for a cross-party initiative on no cooperation with the BNP. Probably even the Nu Tory will sign that. Lib Dems have refused the opportunity to sign up to this on at least three occasions. The Greens are highly likely to lose their solitary representation on our Council on May 1. Now is not the time for their supporters to be drifting away to Paddick's crew - in this case a right young fibber - who will say anything it takes to get elected.
With her boss even lying - in "utter twaddle" to quote one of their own most enthusiastic supporters - to cancer patients waiting for chemotherapy.
Luke Akehurst also has coverage.
14 comments:
Been busy today strangling the English language again haven't you, Chris?
I was having such trouble understanding what you were talking about so I asked my eleven-year old and he tells me that you are enacting almost exactly a video game called "Labour's Death Wish 4". Unlike previous versions, because of a programming fault, it's impossible to get off the first level. Apparently it's been infected by viruses called "The Brown Bomb", "Darling's Disaster" and a new version of the Balls trojan called "So What".
So, Chris, exposed by a fellow eleven-year old? Don't give up completely, though. Us "Paulogists" still need a little laugh from time-to-time.
By the way, when will Gordon call the next General Election? You seemed to think it was June 2009, didn't you?
Finished at the pub early again my friend? Strange that your "eleven-year-old" was available on your return to help you understand.
Unless that is simply one of your alter egos? Your inner blog-tician is 11? Is that it?
What a liar you are my friend!
Clearly the point of the post is that London Greens are rightly calling for a Ken second preference over one for Bry. And suggesting that Sian would be a better bet for Clogg if he wishes to be true to Lib Dem pronouncements.
Bry is not Green-ish, and he is not even in tune with Lib Dem greenwash. That's the point.
Meanwhile LDV people including commenters are cosying up to Boris Johnson instead of calling for Ken second which is more obvious positioning for Lib Dems in the North.
And meanwhile Lib Dems here in the North are trying to squeeze the greens and retain leftish voters. Backing Tories in London ... pretending to red-green in the North.
That won't do. It's a cult and a franchise well deserving of the term Libdemology.
A Paulologist would be a pathological supporter of the cult of Paul ... and you're not that now are you?
Your stalker has done the same as LDV. Confronted with some politics they flip into smear mode. Typical libdemology - execrable, abominable, unholy - a franchise cult, not a political party.
I am proud to call them my fellows. Hope thay make lots of money as fiction writers. As I did.
Surely your stalker is the cowardly Rochdale cowboy and bully Dave Hennigan?
That is a fairly likely diagnosis it must be said anon 2. He is a coward. He is a bully. He likes a drink and a rant. But his inner blog-tician is about six years old. He has no idea what he actually stands for. Just carve ups, show downs, go betweens and other verb-preposition combos.
Rowen is the worst MP in Rochdale's history as a parliamentary seat. By a good margin too. He needs a good agent. As it is he has a bibulous street fighting liar, bully and cheat.
Dear oh dear, where did you dig up your Bristol info? Some of it obviously from Bristol Labour election leaflets, but as you remind us at the top of your article, there were many things in Bristol Labour election leaflets that weren't true.
The trains subsidy was removed because a contract was negotiated with First GW to deliver the service without subsidy. But presumably you would rather that public money continued to be handed to First GW - for free - for the benefit of their shareholders...
The "threatening to ban doormats" claim is so lame it doesnt deserve a response. Bristol Labour didnt even try to claim that one, which should give you some indication.
As for "voting themselves a humungous pay rise", this one scrapes new lows even for you. An independent review recommended that Bristol's relatively low allowances be raised to the average for core-cities unitaries. The review was passed unanimously in the chamber, which you know full well means that most of the votes werent even Lib Dem. This comment of yours is more suited to Guido or other UKIP head-bangers.
You do some quite good investigative blogging sometimes Chris, but you spoil it more often than not with this kind of tripe.
Chris, if you go back to the LDV post, you'll see that I've answered your point about responding to Berry's criticisms. I did this on my blog several days ago - link is provided.
I'd appreciate it if you'd go and take a look - I'm quite happy to engage on the issues. I gather that at least I can rely on you not to just mindlessly repeat "Brian is just like Boris. So ner" ninety-seven times which seems to be the strategy of the Greens at the moment.
Thanks to anonymous Lib Dem
1. The removal of the train subsidy was well documented and reversed when the LDs lost power. I used to use the train service in question every day for a couple of years. And inevitably Great West Trains DID NOT maintain the service when the money was removed.
2. The mats story is also true. The LD pollies blamed officers. But true nonetheless.
3. The pay rise may well have been justifiable for all I know. But it does fly in the face of LD calls everywhere else for amounts to be lowered and posts cut etc - see recent dialogue with Salford Steve on that kind of logic. The LDs also gave various senior officers a big boost and asked them in return to make unpopular decisions "on their own" when exec members were on holiday.
Clearly it is fairly rare for elected members of any party to vote against increases in exes. That's human nature.
The point was that the Greens decided not to go along with those kinds of things in Bristol.
I notice that there is no response to the issue of Manchester Lib Dems not joining the cross party concensus against the BNP.
Or to the main point of the post about the green credentials of the LD candidate in London and the cosying up to Tories there.
Alix makes a better point. Clearly I know that there are answers to the Green points re Bry and I will look at the URL mentioned and blog about it later if I get a chance.
But it must be said LDV have not chosen to make a proper response. They have to paraphrase said:
"Ken is just a judicial murder supporting, homphobe supporting commie. So ner"
Which brings a smile to my face given your point that that isn't a good argument!
Chris, "Anonymous Lib Dem" here again.
I'm sorry but your responses are utter, utter bollox.
1. Untrue. Simply. As I said, First GW became contractually obliged to carry out the original subsidised service *without* subsidy, and they did so, because they were contractually obliged. After that, a significantly larger sum was proposed as subsidy to extend the service even further, which First GW agreed to. This should have been implemented by now, but First have given lots of excuses as to why they havent been able to do it. If you want to know really why not, you'll have to ask Bristol Labour Party, since they have been running the city for the last year (with Tory and Green backing), but I honestly dont think it is Labour's fault (amazingly), rather First were never really into the deal and now want out.
2. Utter, utter bollox. Seriously. Where are you getting this stuff, because - as I said - not even Bristol Labour are claiming this. Seriously: where are you getting it?
3. "The LDs also gave various senior officers a big boost and asked them in return to make unpopular decisions 'on their own' when exec members were on holiday".
Oh. My. Gosh.
Just *where* are you getting this nonsense Chris? Seriously? You are digging in a hole here that is rapidly losing you all the credibility that you built over years of exposing that idiot Guido and buddy Iain Dale.
As for LDs elsewhere voting for or against allowances increases, well my opinion on that depends on how justified the increases are. The workload of cllrs is rapidly increasing so it seems to me at the moment logical that allowances increase faster than inflation, but not much so.
I know nothing about Manchester politics - I'm busy enough in Bristol.
Busy, but sadly anonymous. The train subsidy WAS removed. Services suffered. Then reinstated.
The mats were proposed for banning. Officers were blamed.
There was a pay hike for both elected members and for senior officers and there are examples I know of of such officers making unpopular decisions while Exec members were off.
I agree about the allowances. i don't have much trouble with them being at Manchester levels for example. But Lib Dem Steve Cooke (Salford) has been moaning about the level in Salford and that's lower than both Labour Manchester and Lib Dem when rises took place Bristol. Also than Lib Liverpool AFAIK.
Anyways, the criticism on LDV was of Greens choosing to back Lab rather than Lib Dem and hence changing the regime at College Green.
That's their choice locallly. Using it as a rod to beat Greens in London seems a bit unpleasant and the LDV reversion to smearage instead of dealing with the politics was the main purpose of the post.
That's up to them. But when they do it they deserve criticism almost as much as GuF and Dale. And I do try to catch them doing something right every now and then too.
Yes, busy and anonymous Lib Dem for a final stab.
I can see that you're not going to produce any evidence at all to support your trains and mats comments, but just repeating stuff that's clearly made up.
I have never heard of Steve Cooke, but my scant knowledge of "up north" suggests that Salford is way smaller than Manchester, Bristol and Liverpool. Anyway, I have never understood why councillor allowances are not set nationally according to a formula.
Dear Anonymous,
You seem to have discovered what others of us have learned - there's little point in trying to argue with a conspiracy theorist. It doesn't matter who wrong they are, or how much evidence they see, they'll always find a way to convince themselves that their original belief was right. Very many of Chris's opinions are faith-based rather than evidence-based - there's little to be gained by engaging with him.
Oh Steve, and there's me praising you for questioning you own comrades at LDV for the old re-run election nonsense yesterday. And linking to Alix Mortimer on the Green Greenwash also.
The stuff from Bristol is all documented in the local papers and EDMs. It is not a conspiracy.
The amusing thing of course is that your friend in Bristol hasn't presented any evidence I'm wrong, just smears and hissy assertions!!
And smears from you like "conspiracy theorist" don't really help now do they?
Post a Comment