[cite]Posted By: BrentfordAddick[/cite]I've voted No, though I don't like the company I'm keeping.
Two reasons. In the Mayoral elections in 2008 I know people who voted UKIP fist and Conservative second. They knew that their UKIP vote would be recorded ("ooh look UKIP did well, we'd better take more notice of them") even though they actually wanted the Conservative candidate Johnson to win. Like it or not, they had two votes, one of which they gave to a candidate they knew wouldn't win but would get a reputaional boost.
In addition to this, candidates will become even blander. I've been involved in selection contests done on the AV system and candidates have spent a lot of time wondering how to get the second preferences of people who don't support them. Elections will become more about trying to keep everyone happy than trying to carve out a distinct voice.
And as for party list systems, no. Then we will have minority parties deciding govt policy.
That's what I'm getting at above when I say that it is going away from "one man one vote".
However, I'm a simple man, so I can't for the life of me imagine why someone who wants the Conservative candidate to win would care about UKIP's reputation. If you can explain the thinking behind it I'd appreciate it.
This is a difficult decision to make and one I will be considering in greater detail over the next few days. Having voted now in every election since 1974 I do see inherent problems in FPTP, likewise I'm not fully sure that AV is the answer either.
Where my doubts about FPTP lie was firstly in 1951 the party that won the highest % of votes (Labour 48.8%) did not form the government as the Tory's who got 48.0% of the vote ended up with a 17 seat majority in the commons, thus FPTP gave the UK public a government that did not even win the most votes! (by the way the Lib-Dems only got 2.8% of the votes that time round).
Since then it happened again in 1974, Labour got 37.2% the Tories 37.8% and Lib-Dems 19.3% yet Labour formed the government - albeit a minority one - since then each government has been formed (even those with huge majority's Thatchers in 79,83 and 87 and Blairs in 97 and 01) with less than 44% of all votes cast. When we have parties that have huge majoritys then there is not a lot to stop them bringing in policies which are maybe not wanted by the majority of voters.....or good for the country!
The other problem now of course is everyone of the main 3 parties are trying to occupy the centre ground. Gone are the days of extreme left/right policies its all a bit 'insipid' now.
AV maybe the way forward as it would stop the unbridled pursuit of policies for dogma sake if a party wins a huge majority, however if this current 'coalition' is anything to go by then being the 'second party' in a government doesn't seem to be bearing much fruit!
I've always voted Labour in the past, except for the last election when I went to Lib-dem as a tactical vote, but, as I said before, huge parlimentary majoritys for any one party is not in itself good for the country whoever is in power.....but coalition governments should be just that....a meeting of minds that is BEST for the country...not any one politician, and would AV be able to deliver that?? Who knows!!
[cite]Posted By: Redmidland[/cite]This is a difficult decision to make and one I will be considering in greater detail over the next few days. Having voted now in every election since 1974 I do see inherent problems in FPTP, likewise I'm not fully sure that AV is the answer either.
Where my doubts about FPTP lie was firstly in 1951 the party that won the highest % of votes (Labour 48.8%) did not form the government as the Tory's who got 48.0% of the vote ended up with a 17 seat majority in the commons, thus FPTP gave the UK public a government that did not even win the most votes! (by the way the Lib-Dems only got 2.8% of the votes that time round).
Since then it happened again in 1974, Labour got 37.2% the Tories 37.8% and Lib-Dems 19.3% yet Labour formed the government - albeit a minority one - since then each government has been formed (even those with huge majority's Thatchers in 79,83 and 87 and Blairs in 97 and 01) with less than 44% of all votes cast. When we have parties that have huge majoritys then there is not a lot to stop them bringing in policies which are maybe not wanted by the majority of voters.....or good for the country!
The other problem now of course is everyone of the main 3 parties are trying to occupy the centre ground. Gone are the days of extreme left/right policies its all a bit 'insipid' now.
AV maybe the way forward as it would stop the unbridled pursuit of policies for dogma sake if a party wins a huge majority, however if this current 'coalition' is anything to go by then being the 'second party' in a government doesn't seem to be bearing much fruit!
I've always voted Labour in the past, except for the last election when I went to Lib-dem as a tactical vote, but, as I said before, huge parlimentary majoritys for any one party is not in itself good for the country whoever is in power.....but coalition governments should be just that....a meeting of minds that is BEST for the country...not any one politician, and would AV be able to deliver that?? Who knows!!
The NO campaign is undemocratic if you ask me, it has spread so many untruths about AV that have confused people in a very important referendum.
For me FPTP has two fundamental problems, primarily because it's designed for the two-party politics of a bygone age. Firstly, the winner often represents only a minority of their constituency. In a parliamentary democracy this is very bad news, because these guys speak for us for up to 5 years. The second is that where there is a safe seat so many people' votes count for absolutely nothing.
AV isn't perfect, but it does recognise that people tend to vote more widely these days and addresses those specific problems.
It addresses the first because it guarantees that the winner has wide approval, either because they've achieved more than 50% of the vote or because, in the event there's no outright winner it recognises those who are happy to give approval to an alternative if their candidate cannot win.
It addresses the second because where a safe seat doesn't represent 50% of the vote then constituents have a greater say in who they want. Ultimately the most popular candidate will win, with the odd anomaly. But there are anomalies in FPTP too, and Airman outlined one of those.
I'll be voting YES because I believe it reflects modern politics and enhances our democracy. David Cameron will vote NO because the historical Tory wins have relied upon FPTP rather than a majority national vote, which is another reason to vote YES - not because of personal views of Cameron or the Tories, but because it's important that in a parliamentary democracy those who represent us have majority approval, even if that's not first choice.
On the other hand, Tory boy would have won regardless of AV in Old Bexley and Sidcup last year, because he got 54% of the vote. Airman Brown........
Well aint that a fact!..... despite all the wonderful work he had done for the locals!.......
Still, you can rely on me Airman...... just be good to see a little more of local debate about the issues!, policies and local issues, which seemed pretty non existent to me!
I thought the local who was an independent was a decent type, but got the rug pulled underneath him by the undertaking that QM would not close!
We shall see!......It is enough to make you want to rejoin the labour party!.....
[cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: BrentfordAddick[/cite]
However, I'm a simple man, so I can't for the life of me imagine why someone who wants the Conservative candidate to win would care about UKIP's reputation. If you can explain the thinking behind it I'd appreciate it.
Sure. He's a Tory and wants the Tory to win. But wants his party to acnolwedge the concern of many of their members that a review of the Party's position on the EU is overdue. So he gets to help show that the UKIP vote is high and still get his man in as Mayor.
In the Mayoral elections in 2008 I know people who voted UKIP fist and Conservative second. They knew that their UKIP vote would be recorded ("ooh look UKIP did well, we'd better take more notice of them") even though they actually wanted the Conservative candidate Johnson to win. Like it or not, they had two votes, one of which they gave to a candidate they knew wouldn't win but would get a reputaional boost.
But if they're sympathetic to UKIP, why shouldn't they have the opportunity to express that? People are a lot more sophisticated politically these days, it's not like the 1950s when nearly everybody voted Labour or Tory. It happened on the left, too, when a lot of people voted Green first to give them a boost, and then put Livingstone second.
Wasn't too fussed about it - it won't make the big difference yes advocates say - but if David Cameron, creepy Blairite John Reid and that old fraud John Prescott are in the NO camp, the put me down as a YES. And after reading some of the bullshit in the no leaflet, I might even stick a big YES in the window.
I am a Yes to AV voter simply because it hands power to the people rather than the party politicians in that local profiles will probably get a greater proportion of votes - imagine the return of the Valley Party - I could guesstimate that a fair chunk of Greenwich and Woolwich voters would have this party as their second or third choices so ......
Also politicians will be more accountable to all of us rather than their parties if a conflict arises between a local issue and the party political line - ie the East London River Crossing....
Finally the BNP and other extremists are against AV simply because they KNOW that they cannot get 50.1% of the population to vote for them but hey they could get into power with 33%... So I am voting YES to keep them and other lunatics out indefinitely...
[cite]Posted By: BrentfordAddick[/cite]I've voted No, though I don't like the company I'm keeping.
Two reasons. In the Mayoral elections in 2008 I know people who voted UKIP fist and Conservative second. They knew that their UKIP vote would be recorded ("ooh look UKIP did well, we'd better take more notice of them") even though they actually wanted the Conservative candidate Johnson to win. Like it or not, they had two votes, one of which they gave to a candidate they knew wouldn't win but would get a reputaional boost.
But the Mayoral election wasn't run under AV, was it? It was supplementary vote, I think. But even if you want to think of it as them having two votes, so did everybody else. They voted for UKIP in the first round and Boris in the 2nd, and those who put Ken as their first choice voted for Ken in the first round and Ken in the second.
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]On the other hand, Tory boy would have won regardless of AV in Old Bexley and Sidcup last year, because he got 54% of the vote. Airman Brown........
Well aint that a fact!..... despite all the wonderful work he had done for the locals!.......
Still, you can rely on me Airman...... just be good to see a little more of local debate about the issues!, policies and local issues, which seemed pretty non existent to me!
I thought the local who was an independent was a decent type, but got the rug pulled underneath him by the undertaking that QM would not close!
We shall see!......It is enough to make you want to rejoin the labour party!.....
I thought the local independent was a nutcase. If he wanted to run on the hospital - an argument that was never going to be be won, whoever won OBS and whoever won nationally - he should have stuck to that issue, instead of which he assembled a ragbag of policies on a wide variety of things and crammed them into a leaflet.
Everybody knew the Tory would win and it informed everything about the election, but we did have a pretty decent public meeting with the three main candidates and several hundred people organised by the churches in Sidcup. It's a shame there weren't three or four of these, because it was the only time the issues were really discussed, but as everyone knows the Tory is going to win I suppose no one can be bothered to organise them.
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]On the other hand, Tory boy would have won regardless of AV in Old Bexley and Sidcup last year, because he got 54% of the vote. Airman Brown........
Well aint that a fact!..... despite all the wonderful work he had done for the locals!.......
Still, you can rely on me Airman...... just be good to see a little more of local debate about the issues!, policies and local issues, which seemed pretty non existent to me!
I thought the local who was an independent was a decent type, but got the rug pulled underneath him by the undertaking that QM would not close!
We shall see!......It is enough to make you want to rejoin the labour party!.....
I thought the local independent was a nutcase. If he wanted to run on the hospital - an argument that was never going to be be won, whoever won OBS and whoever won nationally - he should have stuck to that issue, instead of which he assembled a ragbag of policies on a wide variety of things and crammed them into a leaflet.
Everybody knew the Tory would win and it informed everything about the election, but we did have a pretty decent public meeting with the three main candidates and several hundred people organised by the churches in Sidcup. It's a shame there weren't three or four of these, because it was the only time the issues were really discussed, but as everyone knows the Tory is going to win I suppose no one can be bothered to organise them.
Cannot agree about the nutcase comment Airman, I see you have a high regard for your fellow candidates!.......
You seem to have a very defeatist attitude, as you were the candidate!
I agree about the public meetings, I did enquire and was informed that I would be notified!.....but they probably thought I was another 'nutcase' ! .. let the people speak eh!
Running a polling station for this one. Expecting a longgggggggggggggggggggg day. Be surorised if the turn out is more than 25%.
Going to be difficult as well.
If anyone asks any of the polling staff what the alternate voting system is we have to reply "sorry I am not allowed to answer that question". Going to cause untold problems as we can't even direct people to a poster or leaflet in the station whioch explains things.
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]On the other hand, Tory boy would have won regardless of AV in Old Bexley and Sidcup last year, because he got 54% of the vote. Airman Brown........
Well aint that a fact!..... despite all the wonderful work he had done for the locals!.......
Still, you can rely on me Airman...... just be good to see a little more of local debate about the issues!, policies and local issues, which seemed pretty non existent to me!
I thought the local who was an independent was a decent type, but got the rug pulled underneath him by the undertaking that QM would not close!
We shall see!......It is enough to make you want to rejoin the labour party!.....
I thought the local independent was a nutcase. If he wanted to run on the hospital - an argument that was never going to be be won, whoever won OBS and whoever won nationally - he should have stuck to that issue, instead of which he assembled a ragbag of policies on a wide variety of things and crammed them into a leaflet.
Everybody knew the Tory would win and it informed everything about the election, but we did have a pretty decent public meeting with the three main candidates and several hundred people organised by the churches in Sidcup. It's a shame there weren't three or four of these, because it was the only time the issues were really discussed, but as everyone knows the Tory is going to win I suppose no one can be bothered to organise them.
Cannot agree about the nutcase comment Airman, I see you have a high regard for your fellow candidates!.......
You seem to have a very defeatist attitude, as you were the candidate!
I agree about the public meetings, I did enquire and was informed that I would be notified!.....but they probably thought I was another 'nutcase' ! .. let the people speak eh!
Ken, I don't know what you're on about! Why should Airman have any regard for his "fellow" candidates? Should he hold the BNP candidate in high regard because I certainly do not!
I'll leave it to Airman to address your other points.
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]On the other hand, Tory boy would have won regardless of AV in Old Bexley and Sidcup last year, because he got 54% of the vote. Airman Brown........
Well aint that a fact!..... despite all the wonderful work he had done for the locals!.......
Still, you can rely on me Airman...... just be good to see a little more of local debate about the issues!, policies and local issues, which seemed pretty non existent to me!
I thought the local who was an independent was a decent type, but got the rug pulled underneath him by the undertaking that QM would not close!
We shall see!......It is enough to make you want to rejoin the labour party!.....
I thought the local independent was a nutcase. If he wanted to run on the hospital - an argument that was never going to be be won, whoever won OBS and whoever won nationally - he should have stuck to that issue, instead of which he assembled a ragbag of policies on a wide variety of things and crammed them into a leaflet.
Everybody knew the Tory would win and it informed everything about the election, but we did have a pretty decent public meeting with the three main candidates and several hundred people organised by the churches in Sidcup. It's a shame there weren't three or four of these, because it was the only time the issues were really discussed, but as everyone knows the Tory is going to win I suppose no one can be bothered to organise them.
Cannot agree about the nutcase comment Airman, I see you have a high regard for your fellow candidates!.......
You seem to have a very defeatist attitude, as you were the candidate!
I agree about the public meetings, I did enquire and was informed that I would be notified!.....but they probably thought I was another 'nutcase' ! .. let the people speak eh!
Ken, I don't know what you're on about! Why should Airman have any regard for his "fellow" candidates? Should he hold the BNP candidate in high regard because I certainly do not!
I'll leave it to Airman to address your other points.
Not quite sure why that makes him a nut case!. I can quite see how you would have little regard for certain candidates, but if the guy holds a sincere belief for the benefit of the community how is that being a nutcase!
I do not agree with the current MP Brokenshire, and certainly like yourself did not agree with the former MP Conway who started off the expenses row!. Not sure I would go as far as to say he is a nutcase though!, simply because he holds a different political view! More than happy to discuss this with yourself and the Airman if you like. On the BNP let the racist share a platform with the other candidates to expose his bigotry!. As you know I voted for the Airman!, still thought the guy had the courage to take on the established parties though!. I appreciate that this is a safe tory seat!. Which is why the public need to know the policies and the people behind them!. One meeting arranged by the 'Churches' is hardly a broad church of opinion is it! . John Hemming-Clark was his name by the way, and he polled a total of 393 votes, more than the green candidate in fact!.....If the political parties do not engage with the public they should not be surprissed that people do not have an interest!, which perhaps is why this particular event will have a poor turnout!, only an idea of course!........
I have a number of 20-year-old YES posters if anyone needs one . . .
Regarding the QMH candidate, what he should have done is asked for votes solely on the hospital issue, as we did with the Valley Party. By introducing other subjects he almost certainly diluted his position rather than added to it. And I see he was in the local press the other week claiming that Tory boy will pay at the next election for the failure of Lansley's review of the changes to overturn the original decision, which he certainly won't. Mind you, the boundary changes will probably mean a south Bexley seat always held by the Tories and a north Bexley seat usually won by Labour.
Agreed Rick, I think he panicked when people accussed him of being a one issue candidate!.
Interesting comments about the ward, looked back on this on the research I did at the time Jim Dickson in 2001 got 15,785 votes, Conway got 19,130.......
I was surprissed by the support for the tory boy, probably people were glad to be rid of Conway! as he matched Heath's level and you reached Donna Brierly's count, but then you do not need me to remind you!
Oh well there is next time!
Yes Ken, let the racists share the platform to expose their bigotry, but I was responding to your comment that Airman should have "regard for his fellow candidates" - candidates, not candidate. Sounded like you felt Airman should treat all his fellow candidates with the same respect.
You're surprised at the support for tory boy - I was gobsmacked and I despair at the people of Old Bexley and Sidcup - even after what Conway did they still vote tory.
Oh, and after the election, when Mr Hyphenated-Name organised a protest outside the hospital I was there - it's a shame there were not a few more of us because he did get press coverage.
Well one meeting with just the three candidates does not seem the best way to hold a debate in what is a democratic country!.
Good to see that you supported the protest mate!. Tell me next time I will come along......
By the way I did contact the labour party and enquire about local meetings......... it was early in the election and nothing had been agreed!, they did not get back to me!
Comments
That's what I'm getting at above when I say that it is going away from "one man one vote".
However, I'm a simple man, so I can't for the life of me imagine why someone who wants the Conservative candidate to win would care about UKIP's reputation. If you can explain the thinking behind it I'd appreciate it.
Where my doubts about FPTP lie was firstly in 1951 the party that won the highest % of votes (Labour 48.8%) did not form the government as the Tory's who got 48.0% of the vote ended up with a 17 seat majority in the commons, thus FPTP gave the UK public a government that did not even win the most votes! (by the way the Lib-Dems only got 2.8% of the votes that time round).
Since then it happened again in 1974, Labour got 37.2% the Tories 37.8% and Lib-Dems 19.3% yet Labour formed the government - albeit a minority one - since then each government has been formed (even those with huge majority's Thatchers in 79,83 and 87 and Blairs in 97 and 01) with less than 44% of all votes cast. When we have parties that have huge majoritys then there is not a lot to stop them bringing in policies which are maybe not wanted by the majority of voters.....or good for the country!
The other problem now of course is everyone of the main 3 parties are trying to occupy the centre ground. Gone are the days of extreme left/right policies its all a bit 'insipid' now.
AV maybe the way forward as it would stop the unbridled pursuit of policies for dogma sake if a party wins a huge majority, however if this current 'coalition' is anything to go by then being the 'second party' in a government doesn't seem to be bearing much fruit!
I've always voted Labour in the past, except for the last election when I went to Lib-dem as a tactical vote, but, as I said before, huge parlimentary majoritys for any one party is not in itself good for the country whoever is in power.....but coalition governments should be just that....a meeting of minds that is BEST for the country...not any one politician, and would AV be able to deliver that?? Who knows!!
Great post. It is certainly a dilemma.
For me FPTP has two fundamental problems, primarily because it's designed for the two-party politics of a bygone age. Firstly, the winner often represents only a minority of their constituency. In a parliamentary democracy this is very bad news, because these guys speak for us for up to 5 years. The second is that where there is a safe seat so many people' votes count for absolutely nothing.
AV isn't perfect, but it does recognise that people tend to vote more widely these days and addresses those specific problems.
It addresses the first because it guarantees that the winner has wide approval, either because they've achieved more than 50% of the vote or because, in the event there's no outright winner it recognises those who are happy to give approval to an alternative if their candidate cannot win.
It addresses the second because where a safe seat doesn't represent 50% of the vote then constituents have a greater say in who they want. Ultimately the most popular candidate will win, with the odd anomaly. But there are anomalies in FPTP too, and Airman outlined one of those.
I'll be voting YES because I believe it reflects modern politics and enhances our democracy. David Cameron will vote NO because the historical Tory wins have relied upon FPTP rather than a majority national vote, which is another reason to vote YES - not because of personal views of Cameron or the Tories, but because it's important that in a parliamentary democracy those who represent us have majority approval, even if that's not first choice.
Well aint that a fact!..... despite all the wonderful work he had done for the locals!.......
Still, you can rely on me Airman...... just be good to see a little more of local debate about the issues!, policies and local issues, which seemed pretty non existent to me!
I thought the local who was an independent was a decent type, but got the rug pulled underneath him by the undertaking that QM would not close!
We shall see!......It is enough to make you want to rejoin the labour party!.....
But if they're sympathetic to UKIP, why shouldn't they have the opportunity to express that? People are a lot more sophisticated politically these days, it's not like the 1950s when nearly everybody voted Labour or Tory. It happened on the left, too, when a lot of people voted Green first to give them a boost, and then put Livingstone second.
Wasn't too fussed about it - it won't make the big difference yes advocates say - but if David Cameron, creepy Blairite John Reid and that old fraud John Prescott are in the NO camp, the put me down as a YES. And after reading some of the bullshit in the no leaflet, I might even stick a big YES in the window.
Also politicians will be more accountable to all of us rather than their parties if a conflict arises between a local issue and the party political line - ie the East London River Crossing....
Finally the BNP and other extremists are against AV simply because they KNOW that they cannot get 50.1% of the population to vote for them but hey they could get into power with 33%... So I am voting YES to keep them and other lunatics out indefinitely...
That's me for now.
No, this one
I thought the local independent was a nutcase. If he wanted to run on the hospital - an argument that was never going to be be won, whoever won OBS and whoever won nationally - he should have stuck to that issue, instead of which he assembled a ragbag of policies on a wide variety of things and crammed them into a leaflet.
Everybody knew the Tory would win and it informed everything about the election, but we did have a pretty decent public meeting with the three main candidates and several hundred people organised by the churches in Sidcup. It's a shame there weren't three or four of these, because it was the only time the issues were really discussed, but as everyone knows the Tory is going to win I suppose no one can be bothered to organise them.
Cannot agree about the nutcase comment Airman, I see you have a high regard for your fellow candidates!.......
You seem to have a very defeatist attitude, as you were the candidate!
I agree about the public meetings, I did enquire and was informed that I would be notified!.....but they probably thought I was another 'nutcase' ! .. let the people speak eh!
Going to be difficult as well.
If anyone asks any of the polling staff what the alternate voting system is we have to reply "sorry I am not allowed to answer that question". Going to cause untold problems as we can't even direct people to a poster or leaflet in the station whioch explains things.
Ken, I don't know what you're on about! Why should Airman have any regard for his "fellow" candidates? Should he hold the BNP candidate in high regard because I certainly do not!
I'll leave it to Airman to address your other points.
He stood essentially as a one platform candidate the future of QM. Subsequent events have led to a grave concern about the site's future as a general hospital. http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8672320.SIDCUP__Future_of_Queen_Mary_s_reaches_the_last_throw_of_the_dice/
Not quite sure why that makes him a nut case!. I can quite see how you would have little regard for certain candidates, but if the guy holds a sincere belief for the benefit of the community how is that being a nutcase!
I do not agree with the current MP Brokenshire, and certainly like yourself did not agree with the former MP Conway who started off the expenses row!. Not sure I would go as far as to say he is a nutcase though!, simply because he holds a different political view! More than happy to discuss this with yourself and the Airman if you like. On the BNP let the racist share a platform with the other candidates to expose his bigotry!. As you know I voted for the Airman!, still thought the guy had the courage to take on the established parties though!. I appreciate that this is a safe tory seat!. Which is why the public need to know the policies and the people behind them!. One meeting arranged by the 'Churches' is hardly a broad church of opinion is it! . John Hemming-Clark was his name by the way, and he polled a total of 393 votes, more than the green candidate in fact!.....If the political parties do not engage with the public they should not be surprissed that people do not have an interest!, which perhaps is why this particular event will have a poor turnout!, only an idea of course!........
Regarding the QMH candidate, what he should have done is asked for votes solely on the hospital issue, as we did with the Valley Party. By introducing other subjects he almost certainly diluted his position rather than added to it. And I see he was in the local press the other week claiming that Tory boy will pay at the next election for the failure of Lansley's review of the changes to overturn the original decision, which he certainly won't. Mind you, the boundary changes will probably mean a south Bexley seat always held by the Tories and a north Bexley seat usually won by Labour.
Interesting comments about the ward, looked back on this on the research I did at the time Jim Dickson in 2001 got 15,785 votes, Conway got 19,130.......
I was surprissed by the support for the tory boy, probably people were glad to be rid of Conway! as he matched Heath's level and you reached Donna Brierly's count, but then you do not need me to remind you!
Oh well there is next time!
You're surprised at the support for tory boy - I was gobsmacked and I despair at the people of Old Bexley and Sidcup - even after what Conway did they still vote tory.
Oh, and after the election, when Mr Hyphenated-Name organised a protest outside the hospital I was there - it's a shame there were not a few more of us because he did get press coverage.
Good to see that you supported the protest mate!. Tell me next time I will come along......
By the way I did contact the labour party and enquire about local meetings......... it was early in the election and nothing had been agreed!, they did not get back to me!