Jump to content

Eastleigh by election candidates in full

TopGun

By TopGun,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

saintbletch

saintbletch

Posted
Posted
Never thought old cleggys defence that he never knew would fall apart quite so quickly.

 

statement being made tonight, like to see how Clegg gets out of this.

 

It's been great watching the Lib Dems staging a wonderfully choreographed semantic-ballet today.

 

On Saturday and again early on Sunday, the Lib Dems fielded various bodies to prove that nobody was aware of "these allegations" against Lord Rennard.

 

On the Andrew Marr show, Vince Cable confirmed that he was "absolutely not" aware of the allegations. He even felt able to state on behalf of the absent Clegg, that the Deputy Prime Minister "wasn't aware of these allegations". Danny Alexander was also fielded to state that he knew nothing of the "specific allegations" against Lord Rennard.

 

At this point in time, given the language used, most observers would conclude that this was all news to the Lib Dem leadership. Listening to them, you'd likely reach the conclusion that this would have been the first they'd heard of it. So you'd then expect the story to die. But it didn't.

 

So on Sunday night Nick Clegg makes a statement confirming that he had no knowledge of these accusations. All good then. It's a non-story, right? Well not really because whilst denying knowledge of "specific allegations", Clegg conceded that he DID have knowledge of "indirect and non-specific concerns" about Lord Rennard's conduct in 2008.

 

Right. So when we were using the term "allegation", nobody knew anything. Nothing at all. But now we're talking about "indirect and non-specific concerns", everybody is nodding and saying "Oh, yes. We all knew about the 'indirect and non-specific concerns' ".

 

So what did Nick Clegg do about it in 2008? He sent Danny Alexander to have a word with Lord Rennard.

 

That's right, the same Danny Alexander that on Saturday knew nothing about the "specific allegations", despite being selected by the leader in 2008 to go and have a word with Lord Rennard about the "indirect and non-specific concerns".

 

That's an amazing brain you've got there Danny. It's almost schizophrenic in its abilities. You were able to simultaneously not be aware of the "specific allegations" against Rennard on Saturday, whilst at the same time being able to remember speaking to Rennard in 2008 about "indirect and non-specific concerns".

 

Before speaking to Rennard in 2008, knowing that Rennard would presumably ask for "non, non-specific" details of the allegations, why did you not seek to find out the details of the direct and specific allegations? Perhaps you did Danny? Perhaps you've simply forgotten that you knew?

 

And now, somewhat predictably, the Lib Dem party has set up an inquiry (two I think). Which means that it would be conveniently wrong for anyone to comment further until the inquiry has reached its conclusion.

 

And they wonder why we don't engage in the political process. ****s.

 

Rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

Nick clegg is a two faced pleb . Let me take him back to the days of the stoneham proposals the liberals were totally opposed to the stadium going there and this before lowe and the multiplex as they wanted to keep it a greenfield site . But forward a few years . Clegg and his cronies are now fully behind the proposals to build 1400 new houses in the area

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solentstars

solentstars

Posted
Posted
Nick clegg is a two faced pleb . Let me take him back to the days of the stoneham proposals the liberals were totally opposed to the stadium going there and this before lowe and the multiplex as they wanted to keep it a greenfield site . But forward a few years . Clegg and his cronies are now fully behind the proposals to build 1400 new houses in the area

 

That was the hampshire consertives led by that child abuser who said it would be built over his dead body and is now in prison.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sunrise

sunrise

Posted
Posted
Quick survey for anyone here in the Eastleigh constituency who were planning on voting Lib Dem:

 

Do the revelations of the past few days make you less likely to vote Lib Dems or do they make no difference at all?

 

Hopefully enough people will vote elsewhere so the fib-dem candidate doesn't become MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

solent stars . it was Cllr Davies Dear and other liberals who were totally opposed to Stonham development.

As a very active member of the Say yes to Stoneham group, I went to the meeting at Eastliegh and having to do battle with the Nimbys and councillors. I spoke quite openly with Glynn Davies Dear. The same one who jumped ship to become independant.

The same one who was shopped by three of his colleagues for not having a valid road tax last year.

 

Any way I had a heated debate with this man and he made it quite clear he detested football but preferred to have Stoneham as an in ternational facility for cross country running based there instead and further stated he would be opposed the siting of the stadium there.

 

yes lowe wanted more added on to the site which angerered folk even more

 

From Ecuk298

The problem was that I don't think that Lowe should take all the blame for the Stoneham failure. The site was ideal with the links to the motorway, railway and airport. It also included a leisure centre, football pitches, tennis courts etc for community use. apart from the usual group of nimbys the whole thing was very political with the 3 councils involved. If Southampton had been Tory controlled things might have been different, but with HCC you had councillors from faraway places like Aldershot, Hartley Whitney etc voting.

 

Eastleigh objected to lowes additional plans and the whole thing fell apart. Remember it was going to be a 25k stadium and lowe tried for 30K and a multiplex cinema, Strange how ebc then built one.

 

It was John prescott who gave the go ahead for the stadium to built. Mr Hancock is a liberal Democrat who was head of HCC during the Stoneman debate .

 

David Chigdey liberal democrat succeeded milligan (tory) in 1994. So it was not the tories who were in power at the time of stoneham proposals, the liberals were Im afraid to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TopGun

TopGun

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Early polls showing an LD win but Tories and UKIP scrapping for second.

 

Personally I think it's sad that a formerly proud working town like Eastleigh has abandoned the main parties for a rabble like UKIP who just represent dissention and have no realistic or coherent policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ecuk268

ecuk268

Posted
Posted
@mrjamesob: Net migration is down a third and Cameron's promised an in/out EU referendum. What, exactly, does your UKIP voter want? A time-machine?

 

Well, as Cameron said "A bunch of loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
@mrjamesob: Net migration is down a third and Cameron's promised an in/out EU referendum. What, exactly, does your UKIP voter want? A time-machine?

 

To leave the EU.

 

For the UK to govern itself.

 

It's just not about immigration . The point about EU immigration is that the British electorate, and the British parliament have no choice. What is racist about wanting the British people to decide how to run our borders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Simster

Simster

Posted
Posted

I used to know Mike Thornton as a colleague about 20 years ago and considered him a friend back in the day. He's always been fairly local, and is a decent chap very likely to serve the community well IMO. And importantly has actually done some WORK in his life rather than being another cack career politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
@mrjamesob: Net migration is down a third and Cameron's promised an in/out EU referendum. What, exactly, does your UKIP voter want? A time-machine?

 

Someone to actually hold a referendum. All three of the main parties have gone back on their word, the Tories will again after the next election if they win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TopGun

TopGun

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
I've put a notice on my door requesting no political material being posted through my letterbox, the only party to ignore it are the Lib-dems. Guess who are not going to get my vote...

 

That didn't work too well then.

 

Why complain about leaflets that inform you about what's going on? One might think people want to feel disenfranchised so they can then moan about it to their friends! ;) I can understand some people not wanting leaflets through the letterbox from the local estate agents and takeaways of course.

Edited by TopGun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TopGun

TopGun

Posted
  • Author
Posted
To leave the EU.

 

For the UK to govern itself.

 

It's just not about immigration . The point about EU immigration is that the British electorate, and the British parliament have no choice. What is racist about wanting the British people to decide how to run our borders?

 

Nothing. It's just a bit simplistic. We all benefit from trade and employment and that's no longer just a national issue.

 

I have no issue with a referendum however as I am sure that the silent majority would vote to stay within the EU, even if a few of the terms were altered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
Nothing. It's just a bit simplistic. We all benefit from trade and employment and that's no longer just a national issue.

 

I have no issue with a referendum however as I am sure that the silent majority would vote to stay within the EU, even if a few of the terms were altered.

 

 

The problem with that position is it fundamentally misunderstands the very nature of the EU. The principles of the EU involve ever closer union, that's what is at the heart of it. It is an ever moving beast that pauses every now and again before consuming more national sovereignty. It has gone from a trading bloc to where it is now and will not stop until there is a federal Europe.

 

Remaining in the EU, as it is now is not an option, because it wont remain as it is now. It is like World Peace, a dream that looks good on paper but has no basis in reality. The options are remaining in and trusting future PM's to try and put the brakes on further integration ( they all go native in the end), or getting out.

 

I doubt whether there's 1% of the British population who would want to get out of the EEC, had it remained a trading bloc. As Michael Portillio once said, the Europeans view the EU as an evolving thing, whereas the British view it as a club we joined , whose rules will remain the same. Those two positions have not and can not be reconciled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...