Thursday, July 12, 2007

The Times: Strange Non Story on Defective Tories

I'm not sure that Iain Dale has read this properly. He claims excitedly in his headline that there are "More Defections in Ealing" but it turns out it concerns two swing voters. Who were once councillors somewhere else. In Hounslow as it goes. Gulp!?!


dizzy said...

Do you know where Hounslow is?

dizzy said...

Do you know London very well in fact?

Chris Paul said...

Er, yes to both Dizzy. These are ex Councillors from a neighbouring borough. Don't know whether they were good, bad or indifferent councillors. Perhaps someone will tell us.

Don't know whether they got axed by the party or the people. Or however axed whether this was over their politics, their behaviour in office, some scandal, or just being, well, idiots.

Perhaps someone will tell us. But in the meantime Iain's screaming headline is once again OTT.

In terms of their status in Ealing Southall in my opinion we might as well count them as two swing voters or at worst two disillusioned members.

As councillors they were defunct, deceased, dead.

Iain Dale - guilty of hyperbole? - never!

PS Any reason why he's stopped coming over and hissing "Typical of you" in person?

dizzy said...

How the fuck would I know? Perhaps he was still in bed. Implying that I;m doing his bidding as you have is just fucking dumb though.

Anonymous said...

Not only are these two ex-Hounslow councillors, both of them stood for the 'Hounslow Independent Alliance' in the 2006 elections so they evidently were not Labour Party members then.

Anonymous said...

Both Gill and Kad joined the 'Hounslow Independent Alliance' after being expelled from the Labour Party after the investigation into the notorious Heston and Cranford Planning Committee record of dodgy decisions.

A report that can be seen on the Local Government Ombudsman site says " The area committee decided not to take (enforcement) action. In doing so, they took into account irrelevant matters and factually inaccurate information. They gave little weight to the Council’s policies and planning guidance. Some members of the committee had received no training in planning issues. One of the reasons given for their decision was factually inaccurate.

A review of the Council’s records revealed that in recent years this area committee had refused a higher proportion of officers’ recommendations to take planning enforcement action than the Council’s other area planning committees, and that concerns about this committee’s planning decision making had been raised in a report to the Council’s Executive Committee by its Scrutiny Committee in 2003."

Clearly Cameron will take anyone these days.