Jump to content

Recommended Posts

northdulmum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just Google Simon hughess and Peter tatchell 1983


Made worse by the fact that Hughes, himself, was outed in 2006.


Further evidence that it is the LibDems that's the nasty party. Like Danny Alexander presenting his own "budget" to parliament on the day after budget day.



This is wrong. Labour increased the top rate from 40% to 50% in their last months in office (far too late IMHO) and Osborne then cut the rate to 45%, since they were so concerned about the tax "burden" on multi-millionaires. If it had not been for the Lib Dems, they would have probably cut it back to 40%.


This is not to defend the Lib Dems' role in the coalition since they allowed many bad things to happen, in particular the so-called "reform" of the NHS.

I confess to being delighted Simon Hughes lost his seat. He was a venomous snake who deserved to be dumped a long time ago. I lived in SE1 for 8 years and had some contact with him in various roles re housing and tenants associations - he was a self serving egotist and a snide.


I have always thought JB to be a decent cove though and hope he sticks at it.

I think the Lib Dems put a brake on the more extreme policies and cutbacks that the Torys wanted to make, this time round David C and his cronies will have a free hand in privatising various sections of NHS etc and also more draconian cuts in welfare spending and monies to local authorities.

For those who voted tactically - you may have made a wrong choice

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Two - these constituencies are often small(er) than rural ones

> (population, not area) so there are more of them.

> So a smaller electorate can elect more MPs (per

> 100,000 head of population)


This is not correct. The average electorate across England is 72,400 and there is no difference in the 'target size' or Electoral Quota, to give the official term, of urban and rural constituencies set out by the Boundary Commission at the commencement of each boundary review process. There is usually, on average, a lower turnout of electors in urban constituencies so it may appear that it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP but that is a statistical issue not one of any structural bias in favour of urban areas.

ali2007 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> just wanted to echo what a few other people have

> said here - I voted Lib Dem solely for James

> Barber who definitely deserved to win!


One might vote for a particular candidate because he/she appeals to you ona personal level but, in the end, you are going to get his/her party.


I also think JB is a decent bloke but his party lives in an ivory tower of idealism far detached from the real world.

HappyFamily Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Im afraid James and others in "Dulwich & West

> Norwood" will have been disadvantaged by the

> previous Gerrymandering by the labour party (key

> being that the East Dulwich Tory/libdem district

> is merely swamped by the lumping in of West

> Norwood which gives the easy Labour vote).


This is not correct. The change from Dulwich to Dulwich and West Norwood when, for the first time in a boundary review process borough boundaries were crossed, was in the review that reported in 1995. That was under a Tory government. So even if gerrymandering of the process was possible (which it really isn't given the independence of the Boundary Commissions) it could not have been done by Labour. That review took out wards to the north of Dulwich (ie Peckham and strongly Labour) and added wards from Lambeth. Two of those at the time were Tory, one LibDem and one Labour. The 'notional' Labour majority of the new seat compared to the old one went down from 2056 to 1800 odd. Labour actually fought the proposals tooth and nail (to no effect) as they reduced Labour seats across Lambeth and Southwark from five to four.


Later changes merely reflected a relative increase in the population of Lambeth compared to Southwark and changes to the local 'ward' boundaries in both boroughs (wards are not allowed to be split between parliamentary seats).

SteveUK1978 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was 5 so not aware of any early 80's naughtiness

> on his part. He just looked a bit sad on the TV

> tonight, like a bloke in his early 60's who had

> just lost his job.

>

> (ps...what did he do?)



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-homophobic-campaign-that-helped-win-bermondsey-524703.html

In fairness, there's no evidence he did anything himself, and he did apologise unreservedly. I'm not sure it's fair to judge 30+ years of service to a constituency (and despite comments here, he is generally seen a good constituency MP) based on some dodgy/dirty tricks in the original election campaign, some of which are hearsay. I know people who have worked for him, and who live in the constituency, and I used to work in it - and he came across as extremely hard working.

northdulmum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... er feel sorry for SH?

> You live by the sword you die by the sword. What

> he did back then was unforgivable.


Turns out it is forgivable...


"Peter Tatchell has forgiven Simon Hughes for the "homophobic" campaign run against him by the Liberal Party at the 1983 Bermondsey by-election."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-candidate-mike-freer-labour-canvassers-are-telling-orthodox-jews-im-gay-10228322.html



Hadn't heard about that, and if true totally disgusting.


But only his word for it and no.suggestion the Labour candidate had any knowledge.

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps worth reading the Wiki version of those

> events in 1983 rather than incomplete rumours:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermondsey_by-electio

> n,_1983



Because wiki is always so reliable and unbiased.

Returning to the election result. Labour campaigned hard here, including a visit from our new MP two weeks ago.


While I voted Labour for the first time in a General Election as I didn't like our ex North London based MP who I felt was disconnected with our area, I have a lot of respect for James Barber and the work he's done and continues to do as a Ward Cllr in ED ward. He, Simon Hughes and Vince Cable were the victims of being associated with a party who propped up the Tory Coalition.

Does it matter how hard they campaign? I personally go by the manifesto and previous record. I also think that people vote out of self interest. The well-off in Dulwich Village are untouched by Labour policies and doctors etc. will vote Labour for the sake of the NHS and then send their kids to private schools. Poorer people on estates around Dulwich and West Norwood will vote Labour to preserve their levels of benefits. As a middle-englander I suffer under Labour and therefore do not vote Labour- I voted for James to try to keep Labour out. (Also I firmly believe that all the extreme lefties are now firmly secreted away in the Labour Party after the Militant 'scandal' in the '80s)

You assume all labour voters are on benefits now Uncle? That'll be why London is overwhelmingly Labour then of course!


Of course most people vote out of self interest and that's why all parties set policies to 'reward' groups of people for voting for them. But there are also a group of people who are not self interested uncleglen, people who believe in trying to be as fair as possible to everyone. I would choose a cohesive society over a devisive one anyday. Some things are very important in levelling opportunity and the playing field. Education is one of them, and in that, good education for everyone. Not underfunded overcrowded schools in poor areas whilst the luckier people in life can send theirs to smaller better funded schools. The ideal party would be one that can deliver improved opportunity, jobs, education, upward social mobility etc FOR ALL, not just 33% of the population (which is around the share of the vote the Tories received - and only around 2% moire than in 2010 btw).


The same is true of MPs. Some are less interested in party politics and more interested in delivering for the needs of constituents they represent (and that will differ from borough to borough). Many people voted for the MP they wanted because of their record in delivering/ fighting for the area they represent. Party politics had little to do with it.


Labours success in London is not down to people on benefits, it's down to a whole mix of people, from Judges and the well educated, to the small business owner. They will all have their own reasons for choosing Labour just as those who vote Tory/ Lid Dem etc will have theirs. Let's not be so arrogant as to assume we know why anyone votes the way they do shall we?

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...