Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Right to Reply

It appears that I was wrong about Thanet South MP, Stephen Ladyman, seeking a safe seat in the north before the next General Election. He's been re-selected in South Thanet - my congratulations - so he must be confident that the marginal Labour seat will stay that way or perhaps the writing is on the wall and there are no safe seats left, which haven't been allocated to close friends of the inner-sanctum of the governing party. That's not cynicism, it's simply politics.

Ladyman, in his Thanet Extra interview, implies that the Conservative Laura Sandys is a 'carpetbagger' which is a little unkind.

After all, says Laura, who wasn't give an opportunity to respond, "I have lived in Ramsgate ever since I was selected and live here full time too!"

Laura adds: "Every day I try and achieve something for ThanetI have campaigned hard for South Thanet in particular with regard to the no 56 bus route, I'm a governor of Ellington Girls School and I am working very closely with the Thanet Skills Centre."

"And where has Steve Ladyman been?"


Anonymous said...

Sitting on my zafu ... and it struck me that you have not made the case that you were wrong.

There is an alternative explanation, not as yet ruled out I think, that constituencies in the North expressed their wish that he remain in Thanet ....

As I recall (and I will be looking out the correspondence shortly) he wrote that as Thanet MP the death of a child at Guys Hospital was not his concern. Even though the emergency power, to life support, which failed was made by a company in his constituency whom he had helped receive seven million of public funded grant aid ?

I can tell you that was not the attitude taken by Jonathan Aitken about the child death. He wrote to Health Minister, refused to let Health and safety Executive hide behind generalisations and, when the suspicion of sabotage raised its head he went to MI5.

Aitken did not take sides in the matter. He supported a constituent's right to argue it out .. and I then won the technical argument against HSE.

So this was not a matter of judgement. The cause is to raise proper investigation and any right minded MP would support that.

Stephen Ladyman did not support that position.

My uncle (Post Office Union convenor) and my grandfather (Health Service Union) would turn in their graves that the ilk of Mr Ladyman associate themselves with the Labour Party.

Don't care about a child p[atient death. I hope people weigh that when deciding whether to vote for him.

Richard Card

Cllr David Green said...

Reading the article Simon, I dont believe Ladyman mentioned Sandes. I think perhaps you are being a little oversensitive on her behalf.
Perhaps you should retract your comment, otherwise it might look as though he should have been refering to her?
As for anonymous 2.16, you shouldnt believe everthing you read on a blogsite, particularly in the comments section!

DrMoores said...

Really David, an observer might also draw the conclusion that this was exactly what he meant. Unless of course you know any other alleged "carpet baggers" who might be political candidates for South Thanet?

He's a politician and knows very well that "carpet bagger" is unlikely to be taken as an innocent comment in the local press.

Anonymous said...

Oh Good!

That means that the people of south thanet will have a tory mp next time round, lets hope its sooner rather than later!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Unless the Tories can convince people that Buggins Brown is part of the shambles of 10 years of Blair, Ladyman is likely to get re-elected. Some very smooth 'spin' yesterday with Brown and cabinet with BBC in tow discussing the flooding crisis and all stage managed to show a safe pair of hands with a dedicated team at work! Where was Cameron; in Africa? Tory environment shadow? Flood warnings 48hrs before they ocurred with Met Office pulling no punches and no-one but no one thought about Severn Trent and water supplies until a critical plant was under 15ft of water? Questions will need to be asked about a water plant supplying 350,000 being built in a flood plain with critical electrical machinery and pumps in a 'cellar' 20ft below ground? No one clearly thought about it?

Jeremy Jacobs said...

I think Thanet will be going all blue as it used to be. Who remembers the man with the one-arm?

Anonymous said...

One reason why Ladyman may have thought it safe to stay in his old constituency here is that the boundaries of South Thanet are being massaged so that in fact there will be more Labour stronghold wards in South Thanet.
So his slim majority of 500 or so (reduced by 1000 from the previous election) should be swollen by the Labour voters who will now be in South Thanet.
This leaves me in a difficult position,I will soon be in South Thanet and I am by nature traditionally a Labour voter but I won't vote for Ladyman whom I detest.
But I do think he will get in to what is going to be for the foreseeable future due to boundary manipulation a safer seat.

Anonymous said...

Nice to read that 18th Century Gerrymandering and 'rotten boroughs' are part of Labour's strategy to gaet another term.

Anonymous said...

Laura Sandys has made a very inauspicious start for the Tories and would seem a bit of a liability.

Her sole or main "skill" seems to be headline grabbing and spinning on the basis of either mistaken or wilfully distorted information - or lies.

She made herself look utterly foolish over the new fast rail links with completely ludicrous cost details (£12000 for a season ticket from Ramsgate to London). She also argued that money could be diverted from the identity card to neighbourhood policing, providing many thousands more police officers - without realising the difference between capital expenditure and running costs.

Well I suppose they are one step up from their last successful candidate - prisoner 10056 Aitken.


James Maskell said...

OVIT, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Jonathan Aitken. Anything you wish to disclose to us readers?

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to dealing with the problem...

Anonymous said...

What a very silly post, James. And why are you commenting at all? As you have pointed out on another strand in another place (to "explain" your lack of action over turncoat Ramsgate Councillor Mike Taylor being given the Tory Whip), you are "not a member of the South Thanet Conservative Association". Can't have it both ways, sunshine.


James Maskell said...

You seem to have rather deluded yourself about the Mike Taylor situation into thinking that I somehow can make a by-election happen even though Ive explained I have absolutely nothing to do with it. You are desperate to argue even though we have both publicly agreed over the issue. You need to move on.

"why are you commenting at all"

Calm down before posting. It was only a joke.

Anonymous said...

Mr Maskell, let me re-assure you that I am always calm and certainly was when I replied to you. I was also making a joke - we both seem to have an appalling lack of regard for each other's humour - about your past comments distancing yourself from matters Thanet South.

To be serious again, my question to you is why you have not been promoting and pursuing your opinion about Councillor Taylor and a by-election within the Thanet Tory Party. I should have thought that as it is a Thanet Council matter, there would be some Party governance that united the two Parliamentary Constituencies and through which you could argue your point of view. You have suggested this is not so. OK.


James Maskell said...

Ive argued my point here on the blogs. Why would I need to pursue this elsewhere? Your over-estimate my influence.

Its not really a Thanet Council matter since a change of Party allegiance doesnt change an almighty lot in the Council, given the Tory majority. Its a matter for Mike Taylor. If the residents are unhappy at his decision to defect and feel cheated, and Cllr Taylor decides not to hold a by-election, then the residents can have their say in 4 years time.

Anonymous said...

You've said, Mr Maskell, that in your view Taylor should resign and fight a by-election. We agree on that.

I have queried why you haven't been pressing that principle and that argument within the Tory Party locally of which you are a member. You have explained that it is a Thanet South matter and you are a member of the Thanet North Constituency. Your new point about not having much influence is therefore somewhat academic, but does make the future of democracy in the Tory Party look a bit grim.

It is ENTIRELY a Council matter, and to say it isn't because it doesn't affect the size of the Tory majority is facile and astonishing. It certainly affects the voters in Ramsgate who elected a candidate in good faith who turns out to be a deceitful turncoat; but they have to wait for 4 years to show him what they think? THAT is why politicians - in this case a new Tory one - have earned such a bad name.

Again, why doesn't the Tory Group show faith with the electorate and deny him the Whip until he has reigned and stood in his true colours?

A receiver of stolen goods is a criminal as is the original thief after all.


DrMoores said...

If Mike Taylor wishes to fight a by-election then that's his choice but please moderate your language OVIT. If he had joined the Labour Party I'm sure that you would be declaring his actions a victory for truth and commonsense!

Anonymous said...

No, Councillor, I would not. I believe anyone who, between elections, "crosses the floor" should resign and fight a by-election. I have said the same recently of the MP, Quentin Davies. Sadly, none of the major parties has an honourable position on this issue.

A bit like disarmament, it's probably unralistic to expect anyone to "go first" but there is an opportunity here for your Party in Thanet...


James Maskell said...

"THAT is why politicians - in this case a new Tory one - have earned such a bad name"

And that is why I have agreed with you there should be a by-election. But it is not for you or me to decide whether a by-election should occur nor do neither of us have any influence on whether a by-election should happen, so this argument is a pretty pointless one really. Its up to the Councillor him/herself to decide. If the Group Leader were to remove the Whip until the Councillor called a by-election, an argument could be made that the Group Leader was acting in a dictatorial and inappropriate fashion. Ultimately in four years time, if the residents are unhappy at this change of allegiance they can democratically kick him out. either way, they will have their say.

We've agreed much more than we've disagreed. Strangely though you seem desperate to disagree. Do you just irrationally hate the Conservatives irrelevant of who it is?

James Maskell said...

"nor do either", that should say.

Bog standard Grammar School education...