On 27 Nov 2011 at 10:52pm the old mayor wrote:
I recently received a personal letter through the door from Norm together with a template of a letter objecting to the changes. How helpful is that ? However, I now KNOW it is useless to object to anything at all as it all gets pushed through regardless.
Norm should ruddy well know this by know. It starts with the local problem of the Car Parking Scheme in Lewes and goes on with Still being in The European Union, Mass Immigration to the UK, VAT Tax on Duty with Petrol, 20% VAT on nearly everything. No one knowing the REAL price of Gas & Electricity. The list goes on.
But Norm sends me a template to save his job. As 'the other Norm' said 'on yer bike' ! Career politicians can move and find another constituency. Let them do as they like - THEY ALWAYS DO !!
On 28 Nov 2011 at 10:33am Grunge wrote:
Just who decided we should be lumped in with East Brighton, and what sauce were they on at the time?
We are totally different entities with different issues, and several miles of not much between us.
Surely, if we are playing the numbers game, we should be with Seaford and Newhaven and maybe as far up as Uckfield and points in between.
On 28 Nov 2011 at 12:14pm Dingo wrote:
Norman Baker is currently looking for a job in the private sector, either on the comedy circuit or with the oil industry.
On 28 Nov 2011 at 4:27pm Clifford wrote:
It's funny really because there was a Liberal MP writing somewhere the other day saying he always ignored templated letters. Perhaps he should have a word with Norman.
On 28 Nov 2011 at 5:26pm Merlin Milner wrote:
Lewes is the county town of East Sussex and NOT part of the Brighton and Hove. Therefore it follows that it should NOT be part of a Brighton constituency. Put to oneside party politics and look at what is best for Lewes.
On 28 Nov 2011 at 6:09pm Clifford wrote:
I agree with you Merlin, but when it comes to boundary changes party politics is never put on aside.
On 28 Nov 2011 at 6:32pm SHS wrote:
Norman Baker made me aware of something important that would affect my life and made it very easy to do something about it. I added my address, signed and posted the letter. This boundary change is not just political, it is the start of something much bigger, yet none of us have even been consulted and ignored, let alone consulted.
On 28 Nov 2011 at 7:15pm Matt Kent wrote:
IMHO, there are pros and cons to the boundary changes proposal.
Cons - There will be more people for an MP to deal with, thus eroding the service that parliament has with its constituents, this may further disenfranchise people with the political system as it creeks with additional case work. And will it really save millions of pounds?
Pros - The demographic of the constituency will change (and I still haven't heard a compelling reason why this is a bad thing) and will offer a greater challenge to the candidates to win the vote, and will not favour the usual suspects (i.e. a more marginal constituency).
However much it pains me to say, I think the cons (as in consequences) out-way the pro's and am personally against the boundary change, even if it encourages certain parties to keep banging on about the constituency being a 'two horse race'. Maybe in 2015 there will be some better horses to choose from. Cheers
On 28 Nov 2011 at 9:41pm supporter wrote:
not the greens thats for certain.
On 28 Nov 2011 at 9:52pm Paul Newman wrote:
I agree with the old Mayor .
On 28 Nov 2011 at 10:05pm Bazooka Joe wrote:
Interesting post by Matt Kent, now makes me suspicious that this could be a conspiracy theory to get Norman out (such a good politician embarrasses the Torys)
On 29 Nov 2011 at 12:25am Dingo wrote:
No Norman Baker doesn`t just embarrass the Tories, he embarrasses everybody.As for a conspiracy for getting gormless Norman out, I think he will be able to bring about his own demise well enough without any outside help.
On 29 Nov 2011 at 3:51am Peasant wrote:
I'd go for cock-up, not conspiracy, this time.
When dividing the country up into new constituencies, you have to start somewhere. The outcome for the places where you start is generally sensible.
Sadly, the last places to fit in never do. The new arrangements are usually a mess for them.
If they had started with Lewes, most of us would probably have liked the outcome. Unfortunately they started with Brighton & Eastbourne, the big boys round here, so we are in the bits that have to be forced to fit in, willy nilly.
On 29 Nov 2011 at 1:36pm MI goodness wrote:
What use are these new boundaries to democracy when a majority of the population can't be bothered to vote.
So the change is purely academic and a waste of money for those of us who do pay taxes.
On 29 Nov 2011 at 4:36pm PLUMPTON LAD wrote:
Peasant - you could still start with Brighton and get a better result by moving Brighton "west" to include Portslade etc which would give the continuous urban area 3 parliamentary seats and have a Lewes seat
On 29 Nov 2011 at 8:31pm Julian wrote:
I moved from Brighton To Lewes for the very reason that Lewes is not like Brighton.
Bollotics will always make people miserable as it never gives us anything other than a view onto a pantomime of idiots.
Norman Baker excepted of course as he winds them up and is a true thorn in their side.
On 29 Nov 2011 at 11:21pm Voter wrote:
What the hell is wrong with you lot?
The country is full of constituencies which encompass mixed areas. Why should Lewes be a special example, apart from the fact that you lot live there and like to think you're deserving of custom-made boundaries?
If an MP is a good one, he or she looks after the constituents and understands local issues which matter. If you get a crap MP, you vote him or her out if enough people share the sentiment.
It seems to me that just people who want to keep their familiar MP are up in arms. Time to grow up, me thinks.
On 30 Nov 2011 at 4:11pm PLUMPTON LAD wrote:
Voter - you miss the main point. The vast majority of the population of the new Lewes and East Brighton seat, if it happens, will live in East Brighton. So naturally whoever is MP will devote most of his or her time to that rather than the smaller towns and villages on the periphery. The fact that there may be other constituencies with this problem in other parts of the country doesn't justify replicating the problem here. The alternative proposal would give a better mix of smaller towns and villages which would be a fairer balance.
On 30 Nov 2011 at 5:52pm Voter wrote:
Nonsense! Any MP will listen and act on potential voters' issues when they are made aware of them. Sit quietly 8 miles away and yes, you might be ignored; highlight the number of votes to be secured by action on whatever local issue takes your fancy, and you'll get his or her attention.
If Lewes has a population of about 16k, then that'll be about a third of the constituency.
On 2 Dec 2011 at 12:07pm PLUMPTON LAD wrote:
A third of the constituency represents a better balance than 75% of it!
You are still missing the point - that if possible, it is surely better to group together an area with similar interests and concerns rather than a completely artificial cobbled-together mess.