News reached me late last night that local travel agent Neil Basnett plans to stand as an independent candidate in Stratford at the forthcoming general election.
I attended his public meeting last week along with approximately 40 others , many of which urged him not to stand (hardly giving him a larger local mandate to represent local conservatives than Nadhim Zahawi who was selected by a vote of nearly 200 people). What was interesting was that he refused to be drawn on policy with the exception of his views on Afghanistan (that troops should be brought home immedieately leaving a potential security vacuum in the region) and that he was pro the building of more affordable housing in Stratford.
Many of his issues, and those of his supporters are those dealt with at a local council level, the Bancroft gardens, parking in the town etc. These are obviously important issues to residents of the town (who make up less than a third of the constituency electorate) but what about flooding in Shipston or the state of the economy which affects the whole constituency, not just empty shops in the town. Does Mr Basnett think the deficit should be cut quickly or slowly, does he even know the difference between debt and deficit?
The other worrying thing that came from both him and his supporters was that they felt that a damaging hung parliament was inevitable and would actually be a benificial thing for Stratford if he was our MP. Never mind that interest rates would rise, that the government credit rating would be cut from triple A increasing the cost of borrowing, Neil Basnett's independent vote would be courted by all parties, stroking his ego suitably.
So lets compare the options. On one hand you have Nadhim Zahawi, a strong Conservative who decided to support his country by registering with the Conservative party to become a candidate before a cushy local seat became available. Someone who since being selected has made his home in the centre of the town. A businessman who built a business from 2 men in a shed to a multinational corporation that floated on the stock exchange for over £200 million pounds. He is a Conservative candidate, whose election would help return a Conservative government locally, with strong views on the economy, defence, Europe and immigration.
On the other hand you have Neil Basnett. A man who admits he had no interest in becoming a politician until his local seat became available and he disagreed with who the local party selected as candidate. A local travel agent running one travel agency in one town, for whom Stratford is also an adopted home. A man who has no policy except for Afghanistan hardly a local issue, but that admits that his views on immigration are the same as Nadhim Zahawi and that has publicly stated that Stratford needs to have more houses built. An independent candidate whose election would help to return a hung parliament rather than the new Conservative government this country needs.
Who would you choose?
Showing posts with label independent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label independent. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Labour Pledges and Accusations
The Independent is saying that Labour will be reintroducing the Pledge card, that was the centerpiece of Blair’s 1997 triumph. The pledge card will summarise all of Labour’s policies into five pithy pledges
The exact five pledges haven’t been agreed but MP’s have been told to focus on the following five areas / pledges for now
They’ll also be targeting conservatives with five primary accusations at the Conservatives
Will any of this work. Personally I don’t think so, we’re now in a very different world to 1997, people know that the issues we face are complicated and the solutions for them can’t be captured in five sentences. There’s also some true pandering to certain groups within the pledges, particularly to the middle class, i.e. antisocial behaviour and free personal care, but then the idea of tax rises (surely not a winner on the doorstep), which sort of destroys that.
At the end of the day there’s nothing radical or spectacular in what they’re offering and I personally think they’re too simple for the modern world.
On the accusations leveled at the Conservatives, we’re back, as I blogged earlier, to the politics of fear. Labour are willing to give just as much airtime (5 points) to what their opposition will allegedly do as to what they will do (5 points also).
Education feature prominently but claims that Tories will cut education (specifically school funding) seem a bit rich when the higher education budget has just been massacred by Mandelson. Also I’m not entirely certain about the fixation on Sure Start, maybe it’s because I’m not a parent but I’ve researched what it is and can’t for the life of me see why it’s so great or why voters should care more about Sure Start itself than the constituent elements of it (free early education for 3-4 year olds, more childcare places etc.) The Sure Start brand itself explains nothing and has no meaning.
The exact five pledges haven’t been agreed but MP’s have been told to focus on the following five areas / pledges for now
- Training or further education will be provided for all school-leavers and a job or training for jobless young adults.
- Suspected cancer patients will receive their diagnosis within one week.
- The elderly and most vulnerable will receive free personal care.
- Families responsible for antisocial behaviour will face tough action.
- The national deficit will be halved in four years through tax rises, spending cuts and growth.
They’ll also be targeting conservatives with five primary accusations at the Conservatives
- Tories would cut education funding
- Tories will scrap the cancer promise
- Tories will preside over a social care “lottery”
- Tories will reduce police numbers
- Tories will axe Sure Start
Will any of this work. Personally I don’t think so, we’re now in a very different world to 1997, people know that the issues we face are complicated and the solutions for them can’t be captured in five sentences. There’s also some true pandering to certain groups within the pledges, particularly to the middle class, i.e. antisocial behaviour and free personal care, but then the idea of tax rises (surely not a winner on the doorstep), which sort of destroys that.
At the end of the day there’s nothing radical or spectacular in what they’re offering and I personally think they’re too simple for the modern world.
On the accusations leveled at the Conservatives, we’re back, as I blogged earlier, to the politics of fear. Labour are willing to give just as much airtime (5 points) to what their opposition will allegedly do as to what they will do (5 points also).
Education feature prominently but claims that Tories will cut education (specifically school funding) seem a bit rich when the higher education budget has just been massacred by Mandelson. Also I’m not entirely certain about the fixation on Sure Start, maybe it’s because I’m not a parent but I’ve researched what it is and can’t for the life of me see why it’s so great or why voters should care more about Sure Start itself than the constituent elements of it (free early education for 3-4 year olds, more childcare places etc.) The Sure Start brand itself explains nothing and has no meaning.
Labels:
Blair,
doorstep,
independent,
sure start,
training,
voting
Monday, January 11, 2010
Tough decisions on efficiencies?
Ed Balls wrote in the Independent this weekend about having to make "tough decisions on efficiencies and non-essential programmes".
What tough decisions need to be made about efficiencies? If something can be made more efficient then surely there's no decision to be made, and it certainly shouldn't be tough, just do it and save some money. Or is Mr Balls suggesting that just the idea of cutting spending is so out of character for the current government that it is tough to do.
What tough decisions need to be made about efficiencies? If something can be made more efficient then surely there's no decision to be made, and it certainly shouldn't be tough, just do it and save some money. Or is Mr Balls suggesting that just the idea of cutting spending is so out of character for the current government that it is tough to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

