Local elections

[Bowden Guy]

Lisa Smart, Lib Dem prospective candidate for Hazel Grove is a "local candidate", lives in Romiley and has been a school governor 9 years!!! Take a look at the official  LD website.....

http://www.libdems.org.uk/lisa_smart

But hang on, a couple of years ago, Lisa stood for the London Assembly elections and, surprise surprise, was, again, a 'local" candidate, having lived in WANDSWORTH for ten years..... ( just a few miles down the A6, I believe).

http://www.mertonlibdems.org.uk/news-mainmenu-2/27-2011-news/133-lib-dems-choose-local-campaigner-to-contest-london-assembly-elections.html

You don't need to be a member of Mensa to ascertain that Lisa wasn't actually a Governor at a school in any part of this constituency. She is also a professional politician, as the LDs admit on their website.

[wheels]

Yes well as you would expect Duke I don't find any of that attractive at all so no you don't get my vote.

But the real point is you would have to find 31 others with similar strange views to be able to form a majority. And so it would be for any policy any independent wanted to introduce. You have to be able to work with others to enact your views policies and that means working through one of the parties. The only reason the Heald Green Independents achieves all they do on Stockport Council is that they work as a group and are in essence a political party serving Heald Green.

They also have by far the best machine.

[Duke Fame]

Well we differ Duke I would never vote for an independent they offer nothing I want someone who has clear political views to vote for. The majority of decision making members make is of a strategic nature not about particular ward issues. That requires that the controlling group and indeed members the opposition come from the same root and are not a range of independents who could only bring localism and their ward issues to the table.

You'd not vote for me if I gave you a great set of Stockport policies?

I'd revitalise the town centre by allowing the Portas Pilot steering group to shape things. I'd change the town centre's jobs to being very bonus driven, fill the shops and they get paid well, otherwise they are out.

I'd sell off all the unused council property.

I'd not allow the council to waste money on duplication such as: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/newsroom/Qualitybusinesses?view=Standard

I'd get rid of all the waste and hey-nonny nonny jobs within hte council.

Any savings, I'd pass on to council tax payers.


VOTE FOR ME - I'm great

[Duke Fame]

We all have our own issues which are central to us and for me this was a core issue. I am not denying you your issues the point I was making was that we have had  a much more Liberal government because of the coalition and Equal Marriage would never have seen the light of day under "Bigot Gordon"

Despite the success of the coalition I would still rather see Brussels assume Westminsters powers

I would support a regional govt but that would require local taxation to be raised locally and that would in turn make the local govt more responsible.

I agree, equal marriage would not have happened without the coalition.

I can;t agree with the EU, an economic zone for me, not a governing area.

[wheels]

Equal Marriage - what an issue! That's sorted the country out.

We all have our own issues which are central to us and for me this was a core issue. I am not denying you your issues the point I was making was that we have had  a much more Liberal government because of the coalition and Equal Marriage would never have seen the light of day under "Bigot Gordon"

Despite the success of the coalition I would still rather see Brussels assume Westminsters powers

[wheels]

Well we differ Duke I would never vote for an independent they offer nothing I want someone who has clear political views to vote for. The majority of decision making members make is of a strategic nature not about particular ward issues. That requires that the controlling group and indeed members the opposition come from the same root and are not a range of independents who could only bring localism and their ward issues to the table.

[Duke Fame]

Why would you want to take the politics out of local government Duke. There seems to be this fond belief in some quarters that good men and women will rise and magically manage our local affair without once saying in advance what the principles/philosophy is that will be underlying the control. Political should be central to local government so that we know in advance what we should expect. The people of Manchester who you often cite have the Party they have in control because that's what they have voted.

I am also always amazed that in some way local government is seen as secondary to Westminster, the Leader of Stockport Council has I am told a budget of £258 backbenchers at Westminster like Stunell a budget of zero.

Duke and I might agree to scrap Westminster altogether and transfer its powers to Brussels

I want to get the party politics out of local government. Local councillors are usually good if all they want to achieve is a good local economy and town. The ones that are trying to get into national politics are the worst, they are usually not good enough to be in politics at all and given a go at the council to keep them happy but not usually up to much.

Manchester have the council and leader they have because they are lemmings. Only when you get away from Manchester do the electorate think for themselves, the same can be said of the likes of (sorry to day this) Newcastle & Liverpool.


I agree that we need to know what the candidates are about. I'd like to stand as an indy but it can;t be in Marple as i don;t want LD's to lose a seat when Labour may take control. Imagine the carnage!

[simonesaffron]

Equal Marriage - what an issue! That's sorted the country out.

[wheels]

I agree on the coalition Duke we would never have had Equal Marriage had it been left to Labour.

[wheels]

Why would you want to take the politics out of local government Duke. There seems to be this fond belief in some quarters that good men and women will rise and magically manage our local affair without once saying in advance what the principles/philosophy is that will be underlying the control. Political should be central to local government so that we know in advance what we should expect. The people of Manchester who you often cite have the Party they have in control because that's what they have voted.

I am also always amazed that in some way local government is seen as secondary to Westminster, the Leader of Stockport Council has I am told a budget of £258 backbenchers at Westminster like Stunell a budget of zero.

Duke and I might agree to scrap Westminster altogether and transfer its powers to Brussels

[Duke Fame]

If you've got the best party machine then why did you lose two local wards where you were incumbent in the recent election?

If you've got the best party machine why have you gone from 30 plus Councillors in Manchester to wipeout in the space of three years?

Anyway Wheels you've got inside information which we don't have so who is going to win the ward seats next year?

Are we ever going to be free from this LibDem stranglehold in Marple?  

Labour have the best party machine, they have this strange network of activists whom mostly do not agree with the policies but will campaign because they like red rosettes.

if you've ever ventured onto Twitter, labour have a huge presence. Tweeting nonsense but they are there in numbers. I remember at the last general election, there was a campaign going about with Labour fans saying that they will win ht eelection because of the number of labour avatars on Twitter, fortunately, those who actually care about the country were more concerned about the country being governed by Brown and Balls so chucked them out.

[Duke Fame]

Indeed, it will be very interesting!  So let's amuse ourselves with a spot of forecasting. 

First, a bit of background.  Sir Andrew Stunell was first elected in 1997, and has been re-elected at four successive elections since then.  In 1997 he won 54% of the vote (i.e. of those who actually voted).  Since then his majority has fallen slightly at each election, and at the most recent election in 2010 he had 49% of the vote.

At all four elections, the Tory candidate came second, but the share of the vote has shown no clear trend,  hovering around 30%, but rising to 34% In 2010.

Labour have come a poor third each time, with between 12% and 17% of the vote.

Interestingly, UKIP have steadily increased their vote, albeit from a very low start: they won a mere 0.5% of the vote in 1997, but by 2010 this had increased tenfold, to over 5%.

All this is from Wikipedia, of course. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Grove_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

So here's a prediction based on the above, along with two further assumptions:

1.  Sir Andrew attracted a degree of 'loyalty factor' - he seems to have been regarded as a decent and hardworking constituency MP.  A new candidate will not benefit from anything like that, of course.

2.  There will be in Hazel Grove, as everywhere else, a fall in support for the LibDems because of their participation in the Tory-led Coalition. 

On that basis, I'll speculate that the % of the vote in Hazel Grove next year might divide up roughly as follows:

LibDem: 40%
Tory:      25%
Labour:   22%
UKIP:      13%

So my guess, for what it's worth (i.e. no more than anyone else's guess)  is that the LibDems will hold this seat with a reduced majority, losing a significant number of votes to Labour, while a few Tory and Labour voters will have defected to UKIP.   

In the national vote, all I care about is Labour do not get in and muck it up. The economy is now back on track and I think the coalition have been excellent, if that means we have a coalition again, that's fine by me.

[Duke Fame]

SimoneSaffron states

'If the Lib Dems put a donkey up it would still attract the core vote'.

I do not agree. I have not voted for the Lib Dems since the coalition with the Conservatives resulting in swingeing cuts in provision of local authority services but seven years as an SMBC employee in a post which involved a lot of interaction with Councillors throughout the Borough provided a valuable insight into which Councillors worked hard to solve constituents' problems. The LibDem local councilors always seemed to me to work incredibly hard for their constituents, full stop. The main reason that existing LibDem Councillors have been re-elected is definitely not the fact that they represent the LibDem Party: it is because over the years a huge number of people have complained to their LibDem Councillor about a hole in the road, an un-emptied dustbin, a faulty street light, a problem at a local school etc, etc, etc and they have then seen action as a result of intervention by the Councillor. A large proportion of these people may well not be happy with the current situation or with the LibDems but assistance at some time during the last few years led to them going to the voting booth. For many it is loyalty to individual Councillors that has led to re-election - not that they represent the LibDem Party.

It is often the case that people vote for the party they always vote for or whoever puts the best spin on a situation.

I don't always vote for LD but have been impressed with their performance in coalition and it's far better than the in-fighting, egos and rank economic incompetence we've seen in the previous national government.

That said, I wish we took the politics out of local govt, we see in Manchester they want their public to feel the effect of cuts so they cut budgets for libraries, swimming pools etc but maintain all the hey nonny-nonny roles within the council and throw a 1/2m concert for minor local celebs, local councillors and Richard leese' hangers on. there it's all about making the coalition look bad because they know a Labour council can sail the council tax-payer down the river and still get elected.

[wheels]

Much more fun to play with who's going to win which wards next May.


If you've got the best party machine then why did you lose two local wards where you were incumbent in the recent election?

Because the machine had slipped in those ward. The point I was making was that party machines win elections not personalities of policies

If you've got the best party machine why have you gone from 30 plus Councillors in Manchester to wipeout in the space of three years?

I thought that even extending my thoughts to Stockport in a Marple web site was risky, but as you raised it its an easy one to answer Labour have a better machine in Manchester. End off.

Are we ever going to be free from this LibDem stranglehold in Marple?   

I hope not although I would be happy to see some of the individuals changed.

[simonesaffron]

Well I could play this game and give you my forcasts as well. First of all I do agree incumbency is a important factor. However lets not forget that Stunell had no background in the constituency prior to winning it and was a living elsewhere when selected. Other than a rented house in Hibbert Lane he was not living here before he won. Lisa Smart has however been permanently living here for over two years.

The Tory candidate is not a teacher but is a teaching assistant and is not regarded as a serious candidate by many in the Town Hall.

I suspect Dave's numbers might well be pretty near the mark. Individuals it is said can put on about 1000 votes the rest all comes from the party machine and its clear to everyone who has the best machine.

Much more fun to play with who's going to win which wards next May.

If you've got the best party machine then why did you lose two local wards where you were incumbent in the recent election?

If you've got the best party machine why have you gone from 30 plus Councillors in Manchester to wipeout in the space of three years?

Anyway Wheels you've got inside information which we don't have so who is going to win the ward seats next year?

Are we ever going to be free from this LibDem stranglehold in Marple?