Fourth Conservative councillor in Totton and Eling defects to UKIP

UKIP councillors Chris Lagdon, Mel Molyneux, Ian Molyneux and group leader Ron Scrivens celebrate Mel joining the party. All four were once Conservative party members.

UKIP councillors Chris Lagdon, Mel Molyneux, Ian Molyneux and group leader Ron Scrivens celebrate Mel joining the party. All four were once Conservative party members.

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter, New Forest

A FOURTH member of a Hampshire council has quit the Conservatives and defected to UKIP.

Lifelong Tory Mel Molyneux said no he longer wished to be associated with the party, which he accused of looking after the financial elite instead of those in need.

Last year three other Tory members of Totton and Eling Town Council, Chris Lagdon, Ron Scrivens and Cllr Molyneux’s son Ian also defected to UKIP.

Cllr Lagdon and Cllr Scrivens are also members of New Forest District Council and were protesting at the authority’s plan to make disabled motorists pay to park in council-owned car parks.

Civic chiefs later dropped proposals to scrap the free parking enjoyed by 10,000 Blue Badge holders in the district.

Mel Molyneux’s decision to join UKIP was revealed just moments after he completed his 12-month term as chairman of the town council.

He said: “I’ve resigned from the Conservatives because I can no longer associate myself with a national party which cannot or will not put Britain and its people first and seems to look after the financial elite rather than those in need.”

But Cllr Di Brooks, Tory group leader on the town council, hit back at his criticism of the party.

She said: “When there’s a recession it hits everyone but the Conservatives are doing their best to get us out of it.

Things are getting better and the employment situation is improving.”

UKIP is already the biggest opposition group on the 20-member town council.

The Conservative-controlled authority used to be run by the Liberal Democrats, but Cllr David Harrison is now the only Lib Dem on the council.

Commenting on the latest Tory defection to UKIP he said: “I don’t think this is likely to make much difference to the way the council is run.

“Decisions are not very often taken with politics in mind.”

Comments (55)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:43pm Thu 5 Jun 14

loosehead says...

I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to. loosehead
  • Score: 21

5:53pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Bobs Your Uncle ? says...

back to the 50s lol
back to the 50s lol Bobs Your Uncle ?
  • Score: -23

6:17pm Thu 5 Jun 14

redsnapper says...

United Kingdoms Idiot Party. .and the others are all as bad . Only in the political cesspit for their own ends
United Kingdoms Idiot Party. .and the others are all as bad . Only in the political cesspit for their own ends redsnapper
  • Score: -65

6:25pm Thu 5 Jun 14

solomum says...

Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor. solomum
  • Score: 10

7:26pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
[quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 14

7:28pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

I am not too sure what all the fuss is about really ...
.
Who in their right mind would want to associated with the Tories anyway ..... Its the rats deserting a sinking ship ...... and the sooner it sinks the better
I am not too sure what all the fuss is about really ... . Who in their right mind would want to associated with the Tories anyway ..... Its the rats deserting a sinking ship ...... and the sooner it sinks the better Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 29

9:05pm Thu 5 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
I am not too sure what all the fuss is about really ...
.
Who in their right mind would want to associated with the Tories anyway ..... Its the rats deserting a sinking ship ...... and the sooner it sinks the better
I agree with you about Thomas & Morrell or any politician who's elected standing for one party who then defects to another but this post really ?
Why not attack those who betray the electorate by this type of act?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: I am not too sure what all the fuss is about really ... . Who in their right mind would want to associated with the Tories anyway ..... Its the rats deserting a sinking ship ...... and the sooner it sinks the better[/p][/quote]I agree with you about Thomas & Morrell or any politician who's elected standing for one party who then defects to another but this post really ? Why not attack those who betray the electorate by this type of act? loosehead
  • Score: -1

10:18pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
I am not too sure what all the fuss is about really ...
.
Who in their right mind would want to associated with the Tories anyway ..... Its the rats deserting a sinking ship ...... and the sooner it sinks the better
You are right about the rats, but although I support the principle that when elected on any political party's ticket people should stick by that party or leave the office of can't support that party's whips any more, provided those whips are applied to implement the manifesto on which election was contested.

But as it is all the main political parties do not practice what they and their supporters like your good self preach.

Blair and co had not only accepted Tory deserters into NuLabour but in certain cases even gifted them with ministerial berths. And Tories are also guilty of similar things.

It is interesting to read that you have landed in the company of Loosehead, can't resist saying serves you right!!!!! By the way no disrespect to Loosehead because he has consistently posted same views about Don and Keith.

In case you may have conveniantly forgotten as independent candidate contesting the election on the basis of real Labour values Keith won the last election in Coxford with thumping great majority, and what happened to your NuLabour candidate?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: I am not too sure what all the fuss is about really ... . Who in their right mind would want to associated with the Tories anyway ..... Its the rats deserting a sinking ship ...... and the sooner it sinks the better[/p][/quote]You are right about the rats, but although I support the principle that when elected on any political party's ticket people should stick by that party or leave the office of can't support that party's whips any more, provided those whips are applied to implement the manifesto on which election was contested. But as it is all the main political parties do not practice what they and their supporters like your good self preach. Blair and co had not only accepted Tory deserters into NuLabour but in certain cases even gifted them with ministerial berths. And Tories are also guilty of similar things. It is interesting to read that you have landed in the company of Loosehead, can't resist saying serves you right!!!!! By the way no disrespect to Loosehead because he has consistently posted same views about Don and Keith. In case you may have conveniantly forgotten as independent candidate contesting the election on the basis of real Labour values Keith won the last election in Coxford with thumping great majority, and what happened to your NuLabour candidate? Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 2

4:47am Fri 6 Jun 14

skeptik says...

1904 Churchill crossed the floor from Tory to Liberal and in 1924 he crossed back again to the Tories. he excused himself : 'Anyone can rat but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat'.
1904 Churchill crossed the floor from Tory to Liberal and in 1924 he crossed back again to the Tories. he excused himself : 'Anyone can rat but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat'. skeptik
  • Score: 13

9:18am Fri 6 Jun 14

Kirk D says...

Mel, congratulations for joining the 'common sense' party. I wish you all the best and good luck & of course thank you for coming over to the 'peoples army'. I'm sure you will do us & the community you serve proud. It's clear from Newark, where one in four of the voters endorced us, that we are now a threat to all parties........as Roger Helmer said this morning: 'nobody with a majority under seven thousand is safe from UKIP!
Mel, congratulations for joining the 'common sense' party. I wish you all the best and good luck & of course thank you for coming over to the 'peoples army'. I'm sure you will do us & the community you serve proud. It's clear from Newark, where one in four of the voters endorced us, that we are now a threat to all parties........as Roger Helmer said this morning: 'nobody with a majority under seven thousand is safe from UKIP! Kirk D
  • Score: 27

9:41am Fri 6 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
I am not too sure what all the fuss is about really ...
.
Who in their right mind would want to associated with the Tories anyway ..... Its the rats deserting a sinking ship ...... and the sooner it sinks the better
You are right about the rats, but although I support the principle that when elected on any political party's ticket people should stick by that party or leave the office of can't support that party's whips any more, provided those whips are applied to implement the manifesto on which election was contested.

But as it is all the main political parties do not practice what they and their supporters like your good self preach.

Blair and co had not only accepted Tory deserters into NuLabour but in certain cases even gifted them with ministerial berths. And Tories are also guilty of similar things.

It is interesting to read that you have landed in the company of Loosehead, can't resist saying serves you right!!!!! By the way no disrespect to Loosehead because he has consistently posted same views about Don and Keith.

In case you may have conveniantly forgotten as independent candidate contesting the election on the basis of real Labour values Keith won the last election in Coxford with thumping great majority, and what happened to your NuLabour candidate?
Well Paramjit ..... I did not conveniently forget about an Independent being elected in Southampton ..... and i congratulate him as i have always done when it is deserved ........ Unless you have conveniently forgotten he was acting as an Independent or Cllrs against cuts or TUSC or something on the back of the Labour Party who would have paid for his previous election campaign prior to him deciding to jump off .....
.
What a pity that he never had the guts to resign from the Labour Party first
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: I am not too sure what all the fuss is about really ... . Who in their right mind would want to associated with the Tories anyway ..... Its the rats deserting a sinking ship ...... and the sooner it sinks the better[/p][/quote]You are right about the rats, but although I support the principle that when elected on any political party's ticket people should stick by that party or leave the office of can't support that party's whips any more, provided those whips are applied to implement the manifesto on which election was contested. But as it is all the main political parties do not practice what they and their supporters like your good self preach. Blair and co had not only accepted Tory deserters into NuLabour but in certain cases even gifted them with ministerial berths. And Tories are also guilty of similar things. It is interesting to read that you have landed in the company of Loosehead, can't resist saying serves you right!!!!! By the way no disrespect to Loosehead because he has consistently posted same views about Don and Keith. In case you may have conveniantly forgotten as independent candidate contesting the election on the basis of real Labour values Keith won the last election in Coxford with thumping great majority, and what happened to your NuLabour candidate?[/p][/quote]Well Paramjit ..... I did not conveniently forget about an Independent being elected in Southampton ..... and i congratulate him as i have always done when it is deserved ........ Unless you have conveniently forgotten he was acting as an Independent or Cllrs against cuts or TUSC or something on the back of the Labour Party who would have paid for his previous election campaign prior to him deciding to jump off ..... . What a pity that he never had the guts to resign from the Labour Party first Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

10:56am Fri 6 Jun 14

aldermoorboy says...

Lone Ranger in 2012 Labour were the lying and smearing party in Southampton politics, you won by lying, a terrible example to the young of your party. It also sadly cost your leader his career.
In 2014 Labour fought a fair election as far as I know.
I would prefer to be an honest loser than win by deception.
Will done to all candidates who fought fairly for their beliefs.
Lone Ranger in 2012 Labour were the lying and smearing party in Southampton politics, you won by lying, a terrible example to the young of your party. It also sadly cost your leader his career. In 2014 Labour fought a fair election as far as I know. I would prefer to be an honest loser than win by deception. Will done to all candidates who fought fairly for their beliefs. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 2

12:49pm Fri 6 Jun 14

southy says...

Kirk D wrote:
Mel, congratulations for joining the 'common sense' party. I wish you all the best and good luck & of course thank you for coming over to the 'peoples army'. I'm sure you will do us & the community you serve proud. It's clear from Newark, where one in four of the voters endorced us, that we are now a threat to all parties........as Roger Helmer said this morning: 'nobody with a majority under seven thousand is safe from UKIP!
When the candidates come up for re-election they will lose, the seats will return back to the Tory's, the only way UKIP can win these seats and that is if the normal Labour voters switch there vote to UKIP, tactical voting, But that is very unlikely to happen, all 3 have basically put them selfs out off office.
[quote][p][bold]Kirk D[/bold] wrote: Mel, congratulations for joining the 'common sense' party. I wish you all the best and good luck & of course thank you for coming over to the 'peoples army'. I'm sure you will do us & the community you serve proud. It's clear from Newark, where one in four of the voters endorced us, that we are now a threat to all parties........as Roger Helmer said this morning: 'nobody with a majority under seven thousand is safe from UKIP![/p][/quote]When the candidates come up for re-election they will lose, the seats will return back to the Tory's, the only way UKIP can win these seats and that is if the normal Labour voters switch there vote to UKIP, tactical voting, But that is very unlikely to happen, all 3 have basically put them selfs out off office. southy
  • Score: -5

1:01pm Fri 6 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 3

1:52pm Fri 6 Jun 14

southy says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
Your poor at researching I see.
And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.[/p][/quote]Your poor at researching I see. And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year. southy
  • Score: -1

2:47pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lone Ranger in 2012 Labour were the lying and smearing party in Southampton politics, you won by lying, a terrible example to the young of your party. It also sadly cost your leader his career.
In 2014 Labour fought a fair election as far as I know.
I would prefer to be an honest loser than win by deception.
Will done to all candidates who fought fairly for their beliefs.
If your claims are true .... IF ...... then why did your party not romp home and win back all of the seats thay had lost.
.
As it stands, with the majority which Labour hold, you will do well to get anything in two years either ....
.
Perhaps ..... and just perhaps ....... The good people of this great City have had enough of the Tories ..... after all their successes are hardly noticable and their leader was hardly held in high esteem ....... More noticable for bin strikes
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Lone Ranger in 2012 Labour were the lying and smearing party in Southampton politics, you won by lying, a terrible example to the young of your party. It also sadly cost your leader his career. In 2014 Labour fought a fair election as far as I know. I would prefer to be an honest loser than win by deception. Will done to all candidates who fought fairly for their beliefs.[/p][/quote]If your claims are true .... IF ...... then why did your party not romp home and win back all of the seats thay had lost. . As it stands, with the majority which Labour hold, you will do well to get anything in two years either .... . Perhaps ..... and just perhaps ....... The good people of this great City have had enough of the Tories ..... after all their successes are hardly noticable and their leader was hardly held in high esteem ....... More noticable for bin strikes Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Fri 6 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
Your poor at researching I see.
And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.
Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.[/p][/quote]Your poor at researching I see. And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.[/p][/quote]Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 2

3:34pm Fri 6 Jun 14

southy says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
Your poor at researching I see.
And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.
Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?
Do some research
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.[/p][/quote]Your poor at researching I see. And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.[/p][/quote]Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?[/p][/quote]Do some research southy
  • Score: -3

3:39pm Fri 6 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
Your poor at researching I see.
And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.
Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?
Do some research
Why can't you just answer the question Southy? I don't have time to do the research, if there's a simple answer just tell me - why is that difficult for you?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.[/p][/quote]Your poor at researching I see. And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.[/p][/quote]Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?[/p][/quote]Do some research[/p][/quote]Why can't you just answer the question Southy? I don't have time to do the research, if there's a simple answer just tell me - why is that difficult for you? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 2

5:22pm Fri 6 Jun 14

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
Your poor at researching I see.
And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.
Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?
Do some research
Southy on the TV Morrel sat there with TUSC people saying he was standing under the TUSC so how can he say that but then be independent? Was he scared of losing?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.[/p][/quote]Your poor at researching I see. And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.[/p][/quote]Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?[/p][/quote]Do some research[/p][/quote]Southy on the TV Morrel sat there with TUSC people saying he was standing under the TUSC so how can he say that but then be independent? Was he scared of losing? loosehead
  • Score: 1

5:48pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

southy wrote:
Kirk D wrote:
Mel, congratulations for joining the 'common sense' party. I wish you all the best and good luck & of course thank you for coming over to the 'peoples army'. I'm sure you will do us & the community you serve proud. It's clear from Newark, where one in four of the voters endorced us, that we are now a threat to all parties........as Roger Helmer said this morning: 'nobody with a majority under seven thousand is safe from UKIP!
When the candidates come up for re-election they will lose, the seats will return back to the Tory's, the only way UKIP can win these seats and that is if the normal Labour voters switch there vote to UKIP, tactical voting, But that is very unlikely to happen, all 3 have basically put them selfs out off office.
Do you mean the sort of tactical TUSC voting that gave two Southampton wards to the Tories this time?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kirk D[/bold] wrote: Mel, congratulations for joining the 'common sense' party. I wish you all the best and good luck & of course thank you for coming over to the 'peoples army'. I'm sure you will do us & the community you serve proud. It's clear from Newark, where one in four of the voters endorced us, that we are now a threat to all parties........as Roger Helmer said this morning: 'nobody with a majority under seven thousand is safe from UKIP![/p][/quote]When the candidates come up for re-election they will lose, the seats will return back to the Tory's, the only way UKIP can win these seats and that is if the normal Labour voters switch there vote to UKIP, tactical voting, But that is very unlikely to happen, all 3 have basically put them selfs out off office.[/p][/quote]Do you mean the sort of tactical TUSC voting that gave two Southampton wards to the Tories this time? Inform Al
  • Score: 1

5:53pm Fri 6 Jun 14

aldermoorboy says...

Lone Ranger, I believe the bin strike was political. Royston proved to be a hero when it mattered most as did your Labour colleague Mrs Cunio.

I agree with you Southampton choose Labour 8 wards Tories 7 Indes 1, not a huge victory for Labour but yes you won, well done.

In a years time it might be different, I hope we are both there to see it, have a good weekend.
Lone Ranger, I believe the bin strike was political. Royston proved to be a hero when it mattered most as did your Labour colleague Mrs Cunio. I agree with you Southampton choose Labour 8 wards Tories 7 Indes 1, not a huge victory for Labour but yes you won, well done. In a years time it might be different, I hope we are both there to see it, have a good weekend. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Fri 6 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Inform Al wrote:
southy wrote:
Kirk D wrote:
Mel, congratulations for joining the 'common sense' party. I wish you all the best and good luck & of course thank you for coming over to the 'peoples army'. I'm sure you will do us & the community you serve proud. It's clear from Newark, where one in four of the voters endorced us, that we are now a threat to all parties........as Roger Helmer said this morning: 'nobody with a majority under seven thousand is safe from UKIP!
When the candidates come up for re-election they will lose, the seats will return back to the Tory's, the only way UKIP can win these seats and that is if the normal Labour voters switch there vote to UKIP, tactical voting, But that is very unlikely to happen, all 3 have basically put them selfs out off office.
Do you mean the sort of tactical TUSC voting that gave two Southampton wards to the Tories this time?
Or the tactical voting by UKIP to keep Letts in office?
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kirk D[/bold] wrote: Mel, congratulations for joining the 'common sense' party. I wish you all the best and good luck & of course thank you for coming over to the 'peoples army'. I'm sure you will do us & the community you serve proud. It's clear from Newark, where one in four of the voters endorced us, that we are now a threat to all parties........as Roger Helmer said this morning: 'nobody with a majority under seven thousand is safe from UKIP![/p][/quote]When the candidates come up for re-election they will lose, the seats will return back to the Tory's, the only way UKIP can win these seats and that is if the normal Labour voters switch there vote to UKIP, tactical voting, But that is very unlikely to happen, all 3 have basically put them selfs out off office.[/p][/quote]Do you mean the sort of tactical TUSC voting that gave two Southampton wards to the Tories this time?[/p][/quote]Or the tactical voting by UKIP to keep Letts in office? loosehead
  • Score: -3

1:35pm Sat 7 Jun 14

southy says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
Your poor at researching I see.
And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.
Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?
Do some research
Why can't you just answer the question Southy? I don't have time to do the research, if there's a simple answer just tell me - why is that difficult for you?
I don't have time my self but I manage to read articles and look up more about it, try starting at the TUSC pages
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.[/p][/quote]Your poor at researching I see. And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.[/p][/quote]Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?[/p][/quote]Do some research[/p][/quote]Why can't you just answer the question Southy? I don't have time to do the research, if there's a simple answer just tell me - why is that difficult for you?[/p][/quote]I don't have time my self but I manage to read articles and look up more about it, try starting at the TUSC pages southy
  • Score: -1

1:37pm Sat 7 Jun 14

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
Your poor at researching I see.
And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.
Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?
Do some research
Southy on the TV Morrel sat there with TUSC people saying he was standing under the TUSC so how can he say that but then be independent? Was he scared of losing?
He said standing with the TUSC, plus he was all ready registered as an Indepenent
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.[/p][/quote]Your poor at researching I see. And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.[/p][/quote]Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?[/p][/quote]Do some research[/p][/quote]Southy on the TV Morrel sat there with TUSC people saying he was standing under the TUSC so how can he say that but then be independent? Was he scared of losing?[/p][/quote]He said standing with the TUSC, plus he was all ready registered as an Indepenent southy
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Sat 7 Jun 14

southy says...

Inform Al wrote:
southy wrote:
Kirk D wrote:
Mel, congratulations for joining the 'common sense' party. I wish you all the best and good luck & of course thank you for coming over to the 'peoples army'. I'm sure you will do us & the community you serve proud. It's clear from Newark, where one in four of the voters endorced us, that we are now a threat to all parties........as Roger Helmer said this morning: 'nobody with a majority under seven thousand is safe from UKIP!
When the candidates come up for re-election they will lose, the seats will return back to the Tory's, the only way UKIP can win these seats and that is if the normal Labour voters switch there vote to UKIP, tactical voting, But that is very unlikely to happen, all 3 have basically put them selfs out off office.
Do you mean the sort of tactical TUSC voting that gave two Southampton wards to the Tories this time?
No difference between Tory's or Labour they both offer the same thing, it was only the TUSC and the Independent that offer any thing different all others was the same
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kirk D[/bold] wrote: Mel, congratulations for joining the 'common sense' party. I wish you all the best and good luck & of course thank you for coming over to the 'peoples army'. I'm sure you will do us & the community you serve proud. It's clear from Newark, where one in four of the voters endorced us, that we are now a threat to all parties........as Roger Helmer said this morning: 'nobody with a majority under seven thousand is safe from UKIP![/p][/quote]When the candidates come up for re-election they will lose, the seats will return back to the Tory's, the only way UKIP can win these seats and that is if the normal Labour voters switch there vote to UKIP, tactical voting, But that is very unlikely to happen, all 3 have basically put them selfs out off office.[/p][/quote]Do you mean the sort of tactical TUSC voting that gave two Southampton wards to the Tories this time?[/p][/quote]No difference between Tory's or Labour they both offer the same thing, it was only the TUSC and the Independent that offer any thing different all others was the same southy
  • Score: 1

1:45pm Sat 7 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
Your poor at researching I see.
And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.
Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?
Do some research
Southy on the TV Morrel sat there with TUSC people saying he was standing under the TUSC so how can he say that but then be independent? Was he scared of losing?
He said standing with the TUSC, plus he was all ready registered as an Indepenent
The question is, why? Why was he even registered as an Independent, despite the fact that he was clearly a part of TUSC? It was all TUSC people campaigning for him. Why was he not prepared to be public about the fact that he was the TUSC candidate?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.[/p][/quote]Your poor at researching I see. And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.[/p][/quote]Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?[/p][/quote]Do some research[/p][/quote]Southy on the TV Morrel sat there with TUSC people saying he was standing under the TUSC so how can he say that but then be independent? Was he scared of losing?[/p][/quote]He said standing with the TUSC, plus he was all ready registered as an Indepenent[/p][/quote]The question is, why? Why was he even registered as an Independent, despite the fact that he was clearly a part of TUSC? It was all TUSC people campaigning for him. Why was he not prepared to be public about the fact that he was the TUSC candidate? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 2

3:30pm Sat 7 Jun 14

southy says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
Your poor at researching I see.
And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.
Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?
Do some research
Southy on the TV Morrel sat there with TUSC people saying he was standing under the TUSC so how can he say that but then be independent? Was he scared of losing?
He said standing with the TUSC, plus he was all ready registered as an Indepenent
The question is, why? Why was he even registered as an Independent, despite the fact that he was clearly a part of TUSC? It was all TUSC people campaigning for him. Why was he not prepared to be public about the fact that he was the TUSC candidate?
Now did I say he was part of the TUSC, I said standing with the TUSC, And the TUSC would step down from this ward to give the Independent a Clear run, If you had been reading and listening like Loose was but he did miss hear a little but he was close.
Do you under stand how the TUSC is made up, research that it might help you a little, Hint the TUSC do not force groups with in the TUSC to stand as TUSC they can stand under there own group name and stand with the TUSC.
Knowing this now have a real good long look at all the councillors and MP's in England and Wales.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.[/p][/quote]Your poor at researching I see. And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.[/p][/quote]Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?[/p][/quote]Do some research[/p][/quote]Southy on the TV Morrel sat there with TUSC people saying he was standing under the TUSC so how can he say that but then be independent? Was he scared of losing?[/p][/quote]He said standing with the TUSC, plus he was all ready registered as an Indepenent[/p][/quote]The question is, why? Why was he even registered as an Independent, despite the fact that he was clearly a part of TUSC? It was all TUSC people campaigning for him. Why was he not prepared to be public about the fact that he was the TUSC candidate?[/p][/quote]Now did I say he was part of the TUSC, I said standing with the TUSC, And the TUSC would step down from this ward to give the Independent a Clear run, If you had been reading and listening like Loose was but he did miss hear a little but he was close. Do you under stand how the TUSC is made up, research that it might help you a little, Hint the TUSC do not force groups with in the TUSC to stand as TUSC they can stand under there own group name and stand with the TUSC. Knowing this now have a real good long look at all the councillors and MP's in England and Wales. southy
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Sat 7 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
loosehead wrote:
I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.
I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election.

I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.
Your poor at researching I see.
And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.
Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?
Do some research
Southy on the TV Morrel sat there with TUSC people saying he was standing under the TUSC so how can he say that but then be independent? Was he scared of losing?
He said standing with the TUSC, plus he was all ready registered as an Indepenent
The question is, why? Why was he even registered as an Independent, despite the fact that he was clearly a part of TUSC? It was all TUSC people campaigning for him. Why was he not prepared to be public about the fact that he was the TUSC candidate?
Now did I say he was part of the TUSC, I said standing with the TUSC, And the TUSC would step down from this ward to give the Independent a Clear run, If you had been reading and listening like Loose was but he did miss hear a little but he was close.
Do you under stand how the TUSC is made up, research that it might help you a little, Hint the TUSC do not force groups with in the TUSC to stand as TUSC they can stand under there own group name and stand with the TUSC.
Knowing this now have a real good long look at all the councillors and MP's in England and Wales.
Do you own a dictionary Southy? If so, open it at S and look up the word 'semantics'. 'Stand with the TUSC'! So in other words, Keith is more than happy to take advantage of the TUSC ground operation, but astute enough to know that the TUSC label itself is electoral poison. If TUSC had credibility at the ballot box these people would use the label. They don't. That should tell you something. I suspect that deep down even you realise it, but you're in denial.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: I don't care what party they belonged to but if they were elected for one party but no longer felt they could belong to it they should have resigned & forced an election & fought it for what ever party they wanted to defect to.[/p][/quote]I agree 100% Loosehead. It is deceitful to be elected for one party and then betray the electorate by jumping ship. In my view that should always trigger a by-election. I notice that no-one from TUSC has yet offered any kind of explanation as to why Keith did not stand under their banner but instead chose to go as an 'Independent'. But I'm sure we can all guess.[/p][/quote]Your poor at researching I see. And try to guess you will be wrong, like others where wrong about why I never stood this year.[/p][/quote]Stop me guessing then. Why Independent for Keith, and not TUSC?[/p][/quote]Do some research[/p][/quote]Southy on the TV Morrel sat there with TUSC people saying he was standing under the TUSC so how can he say that but then be independent? Was he scared of losing?[/p][/quote]He said standing with the TUSC, plus he was all ready registered as an Indepenent[/p][/quote]The question is, why? Why was he even registered as an Independent, despite the fact that he was clearly a part of TUSC? It was all TUSC people campaigning for him. Why was he not prepared to be public about the fact that he was the TUSC candidate?[/p][/quote]Now did I say he was part of the TUSC, I said standing with the TUSC, And the TUSC would step down from this ward to give the Independent a Clear run, If you had been reading and listening like Loose was but he did miss hear a little but he was close. Do you under stand how the TUSC is made up, research that it might help you a little, Hint the TUSC do not force groups with in the TUSC to stand as TUSC they can stand under there own group name and stand with the TUSC. Knowing this now have a real good long look at all the councillors and MP's in England and Wales.[/p][/quote]Do you own a dictionary Southy? If so, open it at S and look up the word 'semantics'. 'Stand with the TUSC'! So in other words, Keith is more than happy to take advantage of the TUSC ground operation, but astute enough to know that the TUSC label itself is electoral poison. If TUSC had credibility at the ballot box these people would use the label. They don't. That should tell you something. I suspect that deep down even you realise it, but you're in denial. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 2

1:44pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Sean Woodward? Of course daddy-in-law being a Labour stalwart, not to mention a zillionaire had nothing whatsoever to do with that, did it?
Sean Woodward? Of course daddy-in-law being a Labour stalwart, not to mention a zillionaire had nothing whatsoever to do with that, did it? Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Sun 8 Jun 14

elvisimo says...

Ah ukip. Never fail to entertain. The weekly gaffes I am sure are planned. This weeks was a plan to 'cure' gay people . Can't wait to see what comes next
Ah ukip. Never fail to entertain. The weekly gaffes I am sure are planned. This weeks was a plan to 'cure' gay people . Can't wait to see what comes next elvisimo
  • Score: -6

2:26pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

elvisimo wrote:
Ah ukip. Never fail to entertain. The weekly gaffes I am sure are planned. This weeks was a plan to 'cure' gay people . Can't wait to see what comes next
A bit more fun than "I'll rationalise the Death tax. No I won't" . Dave and "You're too stupid to understand the issues so you'll not get a referendum" Miliband. Or "Fair electoral boundaries? I'm putting my fingers in my ears and going "la la" Nicholarse.
After all the homosexual lobby has pretty near run out of objectives, save beatification of all homosexuals, so it'll give them something to fulminate about.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: Ah ukip. Never fail to entertain. The weekly gaffes I am sure are planned. This weeks was a plan to 'cure' gay people . Can't wait to see what comes next[/p][/quote]A bit more fun than "I'll rationalise the Death tax. No I won't" . Dave and "You're too stupid to understand the issues so you'll not get a referendum" Miliband. Or "Fair electoral boundaries? I'm putting my fingers in my ears and going "la la" Nicholarse. After all the homosexual lobby has pretty near run out of objectives, save beatification of all homosexuals, so it'll give them something to fulminate about. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

4:34pm Sun 8 Jun 14

saints4eva12 says...

tories falling at the seams
tories falling at the seams saints4eva12
  • Score: -1

4:37pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

saints4eva12 wrote:
tories falling at the seams
Or maybe they'll re-focus on what matters....
[quote][p][bold]saints4eva12[/bold] wrote: tories falling at the seams[/p][/quote]Or maybe they'll re-focus on what matters.... Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

9:10pm Sun 8 Jun 14

loosehead says...

saints4eva12 wrote:
tories falling at the seams
really how did Labour do in the last by election?
[quote][p][bold]saints4eva12[/bold] wrote: tories falling at the seams[/p][/quote]really how did Labour do in the last by election? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Sun 8 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Why is it when a Labour councillor resigns his post in the cabinet & resigns from the Labour council to align himself with TUSC he & his compatriot are attacked by Labour yet when some idiots who were only elected because they were Tories defect to UKIP the Tories are in trouble?
Why don't these councillors quit & force a local council by election & stand for UKIP then let's see if they're elected?
Why is it when a Labour councillor resigns his post in the cabinet & resigns from the Labour council to align himself with TUSC he & his compatriot are attacked by Labour yet when some idiots who were only elected because they were Tories defect to UKIP the Tories are in trouble? Why don't these councillors quit & force a local council by election & stand for UKIP then let's see if they're elected? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Sun 8 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

loosehead wrote:
Why is it when a Labour councillor resigns his post in the cabinet & resigns from the Labour council to align himself with TUSC he & his compatriot are attacked by Labour yet when some idiots who were only elected because they were Tories defect to UKIP the Tories are in trouble?
Why don't these councillors quit & force a local council by election & stand for UKIP then let's see if they're elected?
You're right Loosehead. It doesn't really say anything about either Labour or the Conservatives, but speaks volumes about the opportunism that councillors are showing by making these moves. If a switch of party allegiance automatically triggered a by-election, it simply wouldn't happen.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Why is it when a Labour councillor resigns his post in the cabinet & resigns from the Labour council to align himself with TUSC he & his compatriot are attacked by Labour yet when some idiots who were only elected because they were Tories defect to UKIP the Tories are in trouble? Why don't these councillors quit & force a local council by election & stand for UKIP then let's see if they're elected?[/p][/quote]You're right Loosehead. It doesn't really say anything about either Labour or the Conservatives, but speaks volumes about the opportunism that councillors are showing by making these moves. If a switch of party allegiance automatically triggered a by-election, it simply wouldn't happen. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

8:36pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Mike_Smith_Gloucester says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party. Mike_Smith_Gloucester
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Mon 9 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Mike_Smith_Glouceste
r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
[quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent? loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:17am Tue 10 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste

r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about. Inform Al
  • Score: 1

12:46pm Tue 10 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste


r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

5:21pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste



r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had. Inform Al
  • Score: 1

5:41pm Tue 10 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste




r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
Well if you do decide to stand for selection then good luck. I know we have disagreed on policy but I respect the fact that you're trying to do your best to represent local interests, even if I don't think UKIP is really a good party for people of principle to associate themselves with.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]Well if you do decide to stand for selection then good luck. I know we have disagreed on policy but I respect the fact that you're trying to do your best to represent local interests, even if I don't think UKIP is really a good party for people of principle to associate themselves with. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

5:43pm Tue 10 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste




r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ?
Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ? Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes? loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:44pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste





r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ?
Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?
No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ? Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?[/p][/quote]No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Tue 10 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste






r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ?
Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?
No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.
So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ? Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?[/p][/quote]No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.[/p][/quote]So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you? loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:13am Wed 11 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste







r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ?
Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?
No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.
So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?
That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ? Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?[/p][/quote]No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.[/p][/quote]So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?[/p][/quote]That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Wed 11 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste








r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ?
Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?
No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.
So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?
That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.
What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ? Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?[/p][/quote]No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.[/p][/quote]So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?[/p][/quote]That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.[/p][/quote]What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party. loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste









r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ?
Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?
No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.
So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?
That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.
What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.
As usual you have got it wrong again with your inventive attitude. There is not a chance in heaven, or hell, that I would consider standing for TUSC. And although I would not stand for Labour either as my firm conviction is that the immediate future of the UK will only be secure in UKIP hands, I would rather see a Labour win in local elections than a Tory.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ? Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?[/p][/quote]No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.[/p][/quote]So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?[/p][/quote]That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.[/p][/quote]What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.[/p][/quote]As usual you have got it wrong again with your inventive attitude. There is not a chance in heaven, or hell, that I would consider standing for TUSC. And although I would not stand for Labour either as my firm conviction is that the immediate future of the UK will only be secure in UKIP hands, I would rather see a Labour win in local elections than a Tory. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Wed 11 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste










r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ?
Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?
No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.
So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?
That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.
What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.
As usual you have got it wrong again with your inventive attitude. There is not a chance in heaven, or hell, that I would consider standing for TUSC. And although I would not stand for Labour either as my firm conviction is that the immediate future of the UK will only be secure in UKIP hands, I would rather see a Labour win in local elections than a Tory.
Even though Labour is opposite poles apart from UKIP? Just think of this I have a UKIP manifesto so before you answer this post try reading your manifesto then read Labours.
Labour when Williams was in charge before they won the council told the electorate the Tories were cutting everything & Labour wouldn't.
Yet then did an article in this paper contradicting that statement saying Labour would cut more jobs & services than the Tories & put up council tax.
he of course denied saying it after a meeting with the unions but now Labour are doing exactly what he said they would do & are blaming the Government,
Like Southy you back them up so I can't see you that far apart from Southy.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ? Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?[/p][/quote]No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.[/p][/quote]So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?[/p][/quote]That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.[/p][/quote]What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.[/p][/quote]As usual you have got it wrong again with your inventive attitude. There is not a chance in heaven, or hell, that I would consider standing for TUSC. And although I would not stand for Labour either as my firm conviction is that the immediate future of the UK will only be secure in UKIP hands, I would rather see a Labour win in local elections than a Tory.[/p][/quote]Even though Labour is opposite poles apart from UKIP? Just think of this I have a UKIP manifesto so before you answer this post try reading your manifesto then read Labours. Labour when Williams was in charge before they won the council told the electorate the Tories were cutting everything & Labour wouldn't. Yet then did an article in this paper contradicting that statement saying Labour would cut more jobs & services than the Tories & put up council tax. he of course denied saying it after a meeting with the unions but now Labour are doing exactly what he said they would do & are blaming the Government, Like Southy you back them up so I can't see you that far apart from Southy. loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:46pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Brzęczyszczykiewicz says...

Dear UKIP! Please, make me an offer - in return of my 10 years worth tax and NI contributions, I will leave the UK. Deal?
Dear UKIP! Please, make me an offer - in return of my 10 years worth tax and NI contributions, I will leave the UK. Deal? Brzęczyszczykiewicz
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste











r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ?
Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?
No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.
So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?
That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.
What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.
As usual you have got it wrong again with your inventive attitude. There is not a chance in heaven, or hell, that I would consider standing for TUSC. And although I would not stand for Labour either as my firm conviction is that the immediate future of the UK will only be secure in UKIP hands, I would rather see a Labour win in local elections than a Tory.
Even though Labour is opposite poles apart from UKIP? Just think of this I have a UKIP manifesto so before you answer this post try reading your manifesto then read Labours.
Labour when Williams was in charge before they won the council told the electorate the Tories were cutting everything & Labour wouldn't.
Yet then did an article in this paper contradicting that statement saying Labour would cut more jobs & services than the Tories & put up council tax.
he of course denied saying it after a meeting with the unions but now Labour are doing exactly what he said they would do & are blaming the Government,
Like Southy you back them up so I can't see you that far apart from Southy.
The Tory government is victimising local authorities that are not Tory, so take off your donkey coat and wake up to reality.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ? Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?[/p][/quote]No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.[/p][/quote]So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?[/p][/quote]That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.[/p][/quote]What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.[/p][/quote]As usual you have got it wrong again with your inventive attitude. There is not a chance in heaven, or hell, that I would consider standing for TUSC. And although I would not stand for Labour either as my firm conviction is that the immediate future of the UK will only be secure in UKIP hands, I would rather see a Labour win in local elections than a Tory.[/p][/quote]Even though Labour is opposite poles apart from UKIP? Just think of this I have a UKIP manifesto so before you answer this post try reading your manifesto then read Labours. Labour when Williams was in charge before they won the council told the electorate the Tories were cutting everything & Labour wouldn't. Yet then did an article in this paper contradicting that statement saying Labour would cut more jobs & services than the Tories & put up council tax. he of course denied saying it after a meeting with the unions but now Labour are doing exactly what he said they would do & are blaming the Government, Like Southy you back them up so I can't see you that far apart from Southy.[/p][/quote]The Tory government is victimising local authorities that are not Tory, so take off your donkey coat and wake up to reality. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Thu 12 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste












r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ?
Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?
No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.
So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?
That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.
What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.
As usual you have got it wrong again with your inventive attitude. There is not a chance in heaven, or hell, that I would consider standing for TUSC. And although I would not stand for Labour either as my firm conviction is that the immediate future of the UK will only be secure in UKIP hands, I would rather see a Labour win in local elections than a Tory.
Even though Labour is opposite poles apart from UKIP? Just think of this I have a UKIP manifesto so before you answer this post try reading your manifesto then read Labours.
Labour when Williams was in charge before they won the council told the electorate the Tories were cutting everything & Labour wouldn't.
Yet then did an article in this paper contradicting that statement saying Labour would cut more jobs & services than the Tories & put up council tax.
he of course denied saying it after a meeting with the unions but now Labour are doing exactly what he said they would do & are blaming the Government,
Like Southy you back them up so I can't see you that far apart from Southy.
The Tory government is victimising local authorities that are not Tory, so take off your donkey coat and wake up to reality.
Where? Tell me of any local authority in this area that has the fantastic cash cow of the Itchen Bridge & would love to recieve that extra revenue on top of the governments money?
Yet we have you saying the Government pays non Tory council's less?
The truth is many non Tory councils made up jobs & departments that were not needed so the government refused to pay for them hence a bigger cut than any council that lived close to it's means.
Why don't you mention the £25million cut to the previous Labour council's budget which became the Tory councils budget by the then Labour Government to give to Northern cities & we were the least hit Southern Authority the rest were cut even more so again please tell us why you never mention this?
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ? Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?[/p][/quote]No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.[/p][/quote]So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?[/p][/quote]That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.[/p][/quote]What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.[/p][/quote]As usual you have got it wrong again with your inventive attitude. There is not a chance in heaven, or hell, that I would consider standing for TUSC. And although I would not stand for Labour either as my firm conviction is that the immediate future of the UK will only be secure in UKIP hands, I would rather see a Labour win in local elections than a Tory.[/p][/quote]Even though Labour is opposite poles apart from UKIP? Just think of this I have a UKIP manifesto so before you answer this post try reading your manifesto then read Labours. Labour when Williams was in charge before they won the council told the electorate the Tories were cutting everything & Labour wouldn't. Yet then did an article in this paper contradicting that statement saying Labour would cut more jobs & services than the Tories & put up council tax. he of course denied saying it after a meeting with the unions but now Labour are doing exactly what he said they would do & are blaming the Government, Like Southy you back them up so I can't see you that far apart from Southy.[/p][/quote]The Tory government is victimising local authorities that are not Tory, so take off your donkey coat and wake up to reality.[/p][/quote]Where? Tell me of any local authority in this area that has the fantastic cash cow of the Itchen Bridge & would love to recieve that extra revenue on top of the governments money? Yet we have you saying the Government pays non Tory council's less? The truth is many non Tory councils made up jobs & departments that were not needed so the government refused to pay for them hence a bigger cut than any council that lived close to it's means. Why don't you mention the £25million cut to the previous Labour council's budget which became the Tory councils budget by the then Labour Government to give to Northern cities & we were the least hit Southern Authority the rest were cut even more so again please tell us why you never mention this? loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:24am Fri 13 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Mike_Smith_Glouceste













r
wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
solomum wrote:
Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.
Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.
In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.
sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to?
Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?
It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.
So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories?

Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?
Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.
what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ?
Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?
No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.
So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?
That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.
What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.
As usual you have got it wrong again with your inventive attitude. There is not a chance in heaven, or hell, that I would consider standing for TUSC. And although I would not stand for Labour either as my firm conviction is that the immediate future of the UK will only be secure in UKIP hands, I would rather see a Labour win in local elections than a Tory.
Even though Labour is opposite poles apart from UKIP? Just think of this I have a UKIP manifesto so before you answer this post try reading your manifesto then read Labours.
Labour when Williams was in charge before they won the council told the electorate the Tories were cutting everything & Labour wouldn't.
Yet then did an article in this paper contradicting that statement saying Labour would cut more jobs & services than the Tories & put up council tax.
he of course denied saying it after a meeting with the unions but now Labour are doing exactly what he said they would do & are blaming the Government,
Like Southy you back them up so I can't see you that far apart from Southy.
The Tory government is victimising local authorities that are not Tory, so take off your donkey coat and wake up to reality.
Where? Tell me of any local authority in this area that has the fantastic cash cow of the Itchen Bridge & would love to recieve that extra revenue on top of the governments money?
Yet we have you saying the Government pays non Tory council's less?
The truth is many non Tory councils made up jobs & departments that were not needed so the government refused to pay for them hence a bigger cut than any council that lived close to it's means.
Why don't you mention the £25million cut to the previous Labour council's budget which became the Tory councils budget by the then Labour Government to give to Northern cities & we were the least hit Southern Authority the rest were cut even more so again please tell us why you never mention this?
So in one breath you accuse me of living in the past, then you bring up the wrongs done by the last Labour government. At the time I did complain of the unfairness of sending my money up North. It's what I do, look at what is currently going wrong, and the reasons certain areas, both nationally and in Southampton, are currently suffering.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike_Smith_Glouceste r[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: Being able to jump ship and still stay elected is gross betrayal to those who voted for a particular party. He should not be allowed to keep his seat as he was not elected as a ukip councillor.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct .... the same happened in Southampton.[/p][/quote]In local elections one should vote for the person, not the party.[/p][/quote]sorry but most voters look at the party then the person.but for these four plus the ex-Labour two they stood for one party then defected to another would they have been elected if they had stood for the parties they defected to? Why did a TUSC candidate stand as an independent?[/p][/quote]It is an unfortunate fact that most voters are party donkeys. I myself did not stand in Swaythling, the ward I live in, as I knew that Maureen Turner, an excellent councillor, would not survive as she was Lib Dem and did not wish to be held in any way responsible for her demise. I now wish I had stood in Swaythling as I would have taken enough votes from the Tory for either me or the Labour candidate to win. I cannot understand how any one in Swaythling can vote for the party that decimated our facilities. Too many donkeys about.[/p][/quote]So if you had stood in Swaythling, and not won, you'd have been happier for Labour to win than the Tories? Are you standing again for UKIP in the General Election next year Alan? I haven't seen any announcements yet from UKIP regarding this, I was wondering what the timescales were?[/p][/quote]Still making my mind up whether to stand or not. And yes, I would rather a Labour candidate wins If I don't in Swaythling, at least they did not sell everything we had.[/p][/quote]what you failed in Basset so your trying what should be a safe Labour area ? Surely if it's as deprived as you say it is no one can vote Tory there so your trying to win Labour votes?[/p][/quote]No, I was worried about taking Labour votes there but as the difference between the Tories and Labour was less than the Tory votes cast by the TUSC muppets then standing in Swaythling next time should produce either a Labour or UKIP councillor. Anything is better that the self centred selfish Tories. And of course I failed in Bassett, as someone else posted soon after, they would vote for a raincoat there if it was blue.[/p][/quote]So what if you're beloved residents of Swaythling refuse to vote for you?[/p][/quote]That is called democracy, something you and the rest of the Tory donkeys would do well to look up the meaning of.[/p][/quote]What I know is you have this enormous chip on your shoulder & would stand for the TUSC if you thought it would deny a tory so I really can't see why UKIP continue to allow you to stand for them because you aren't fighting on their policies just out of an insane hate for a party.[/p][/quote]As usual you have got it wrong again with your inventive attitude. There is not a chance in heaven, or hell, that I would consider standing for TUSC. And although I would not stand for Labour either as my firm conviction is that the immediate future of the UK will only be secure in UKIP hands, I would rather see a Labour win in local elections than a Tory.[/p][/quote]Even though Labour is opposite poles apart from UKIP? Just think of this I have a UKIP manifesto so before you answer this post try reading your manifesto then read Labours. Labour when Williams was in charge before they won the council told the electorate the Tories were cutting everything & Labour wouldn't. Yet then did an article in this paper contradicting that statement saying Labour would cut more jobs & services than the Tories & put up council tax. he of course denied saying it after a meeting with the unions but now Labour are doing exactly what he said they would do & are blaming the Government, Like Southy you back them up so I can't see you that far apart from Southy.[/p][/quote]The Tory government is victimising local authorities that are not Tory, so take off your donkey coat and wake up to reality.[/p][/quote]Where? Tell me of any local authority in this area that has the fantastic cash cow of the Itchen Bridge & would love to recieve that extra revenue on top of the governments money? Yet we have you saying the Government pays non Tory council's less? The truth is many non Tory councils made up jobs & departments that were not needed so the government refused to pay for them hence a bigger cut than any council that lived close to it's means. Why don't you mention the £25million cut to the previous Labour council's budget which became the Tory councils budget by the then Labour Government to give to Northern cities & we were the least hit Southern Authority the rest were cut even more so again please tell us why you never mention this?[/p][/quote]So in one breath you accuse me of living in the past, then you bring up the wrongs done by the last Labour government. At the time I did complain of the unfairness of sending my money up North. It's what I do, look at what is currently going wrong, and the reasons certain areas, both nationally and in Southampton, are currently suffering. Inform Al
  • Score: -2

7:58pm Tue 1 Jul 14

MrHarsh says...

Hmm a real bunch of heavyweight political philosophers. Brother Langdon, a Mason and cab driver. Brother Molyneux senior, a Mason and, strangely, a union official for that right wing organisation the RMT - any port in a storm? Brother Striven. A "double ratter" having been Lib Dec in a previous life. I'm not sure if mini-molyneux has read the UK I literature on benefits claimants but as a habitually unemployed claimant he may be in for a shock. Still he could be in for a shock.
Hmm a real bunch of heavyweight political philosophers. Brother Langdon, a Mason and cab driver. Brother Molyneux senior, a Mason and, strangely, a union official for that right wing organisation the RMT - any port in a storm? Brother Striven. A "double ratter" having been Lib Dec in a previous life. I'm not sure if mini-molyneux has read the UK I literature on benefits claimants but as a habitually unemployed claimant he may be in for a shock. Still he could be in for a shock. MrHarsh
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree