On 13 Apr 2015 at 11:23am Won`t vote Lib Dem again wrote:
Norman Baker and his chums are despicable, double dealing liars. They are TOTALLY without principles..They would team up with the devil if he offered them a job and a ministerial limo.They are the lowest of the low and Baker`s election campaign leaflet which has been shoved through my innocent letterbox this morning is so full of duplicitous nonsense it literally makes me barf with disgust . Vote Baker and keep the Conservatives out? Labour can`t win here? OH YES THEY CAN! SACK NORMAN`S AND HIS YELLOW TORIES. LETS KICK THEM OUT TOGETHER!LET`S VOTE LABOUR FOR OUR CHILDREN`S SAKE....................FOR THE FUTURE.
On 13 Apr 2015 at 12:12pm Voter wrote:
A little bit ranty, but I agree with the principle. The thin, achievement-lite leaflet relies on examples predating the last Election, emphasising how little Mr Baker has done for anyone since 2010. Since Mr Baker has done nothing whatsoever for anti-Tory tactical voters, other than show no regret for getting a ministerial position with the Tories, and supporting the Tories for 5years. Mr Baker clearly doesn't respect , value or need my tactical vote, so I shall let a party I support have my vote instead.
On 13 Apr 2015 at 12:23pm Psychologist wrote:
I wouldn't listen to the ramblings of a person who barfs just because they read some nonsense - they must have few issues (IMHO)
On 13 Apr 2015 at 12:44pm A Doctor wrote:
Barfing after consuming a Baker`mouldy old goods?Sounds like a healthy response to food poisoning to me.
On 13 Apr 2015 at 1:39pm P*x Doctor wrote:
He needs to pay me a visit
On 13 Apr 2015 at 2:08pm Perfectly Well wrote:
Psychologist. It is not strange to feel sick having read Norman Bakers silly election leaflet. The 5year old language and out-dated claims are simply a nauseating reminder of what us well meaning tactical voters felt like 5 years ago when we discovered that Norman had shafted us by embracing a Tory Government, rather than distancing himself from it, and not voting for their awful policies.
On 13 Apr 2015 at 3:53pm Sussex Jim wrote:
I actually saw Norman Baker this morning while waiting at the traffic lights by Boots. He rounded the corner with a male friend while wearing a black and red (Dennis the menace) tee shirt!
Was he off duty: or about to mix with the proletariat as an ordinary guy?
On 13 Apr 2015 at 4:05pm Englishman wrote:
Sussex Jim_ I can assure you that Norman Baker is a menace to Lewes, and has a dark history.
On 13 Apr 2015 at 4:53pm Ex Lib Dem Voter wrote:
Well I have no idea what he does with his time that is good for Lewes, having just read a summary of his shocking voting record. I think Lib Dem voters would be amazed.
On 13 Apr 2015 at 5:57pm Belladonna wrote:
I have to feel pleased with myself for not believing the hype in 2010 and voting with my principles. I'll do the same this time round.
On 13 Apr 2015 at 7:49pm Boris wrote:
I'm so pleased to be reading that people are going to vote according to preference instead of tactic.
On 13 Apr 2015 at 8:50pm voice of caution wrote:
I would be a bit careful as there is actually a point to voting tactically in Lewes in that it used to be a safe Conservative seat and with Norman gone it will be again. Having said that I agree with what's been said by other posters. It does seem a bit strange to vote tactically in this situation as Keeping the enemy away from your town has the effect of putting them in number 10!
On 13 Apr 2015 at 9:22pm Paul Newman wrote:
The Liberal Party was always a duplicitous beast simultaneously occupying space to the left and right of the Labour Party. Having finally had to pick a lane ( any lane )it will lose all its Labour facing seats and be down to about 25 mostly Conservative facing and all incumbent seats .
This leave the Orange Book Party ,by Liberal Party standards it is right wing but not by any other measure . Baker himself is quite leftish and Greenish and has said the Party will be equally likely to go into government with either Labour or Conservative
This is what will happen
1 Conservative Party 6 points ahead today …likely to be the largest single Party just
2 SNP have said they will vote down a Conservative Queens speech
3 Labour will form a minority government with the SNP on a secretly agreed pork barrel basis
4 As this is the only possible government the Liberals will give an entirely undemocratic SNP driven arrangement a fig leaf of respectability by forming a formal pact with Labour.
This is why if you want to make a Conservative or colaation government likely you have to vote Conservative
I must admit whilst if I really worked for the Conservative Party ( as some fule suggested) I ought to encourage people to vote Labour. Honestly I just couldn`t do it . Aside from anything else the candidate is pathetic (but we`ll get onto that in due course)
Nah I can`t be bothered to be tactical, just say what you think ,let politicians get on with positioning
On 13 Apr 2015 at 9:28pm PS wrote:
Sorry - the point of this is that although this administration will only exist because the SNP will block any other , the Lib Lab ( SNP) arrangement will be able to claim they have a majority in England and Scotland thus defusing ( they hope) the democratic illegitimacy question
That is what they will do and I would be staggered if it has not already been discussed - so want to keep Labour out ? Vote Conservative , its the only way and UKIPPERS.... need you on side here !
On 13 Apr 2015 at 10:21pm Voter wrote:
Note of Caution: I understand your point but the thing is, I am so appalled by Mr Baker, and what he has being doing, that I would rather have a Tory this time (since we got one anyway). We can then go from there, based on discovering what the voting figures are like for the parties when less people vote tactically for a man who voted for the bedroom tax, VAT increases and stopping a badger cull (just 3 amazing examples of what Mr Baker has actually been up to)
On 14 Apr 2015 at 12:07am Converted wrote:
did you say he voted to stop the Badger cull??
He now has my vote!!!
On 14 Apr 2015 at 6:50am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Even in his days as a county councillor, Norman was always very committed to animal welfare.
It could be the last principle he has left.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 7:33am Badger Baiter wrote:
TB or not TB that is the question
On 14 Apr 2015 at 10:07am Voter wrote:
ACT. Sorry , was his last principle. I made a typo. I am told he voted against stopping the cull.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 11:50am Bedroom tax wrote:
The bedroom tax - the way I see it...
1) There is a shortage of suitable social housing.
2) Families are put in property that is too small because it is all that is available.
3) People who have had families that have grown up and moved out remain in bigger properties.
If such people in point 3 are too selfish to move and let more needing people in point 2 have the extra bedrooms, give them an incentive to downsize by hitting them where it hurts (ie the pocket).
Obviously there are some reasons that should be considered such as a disabled person needing overnight carers and extra storage space for additional equipment, but in general, if it helps get a large family out of a small flat and into a house then what's the problem?
I appreciate that this is a very loathed idea, but if someone an explain where I'm wrong, please do.
It couples nicely with the great idea of solving the social housing problem by selling them off at a reduced price.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 12:26pm Voter wrote:
You obviously are not aware of the real problems this nasty scheme has created. But thanks for recycling the PR blurb. Try speaking with anyone who works with people affected, rather than politicians like Norman Baker who actually endorsed this right wing agenda when he voted for it. Of course, he has a nice large house with lots of spare rooms,in an affluent historic County town in the South east.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 2:32pm Bedroom Tax wrote:
Guess I'm not aware. Care to explain?
I think most people can see the difference between buying a house greater than your minimum needs and stopping people who cannot buy a house living in the right sized property, so what has the size and location of Baker's house got to do with it?
On 14 Apr 2015 at 5:19pm Voter wrote:
It's a big house with empty rooms. maybe you should be sharing it with him, since you expect others to be carted around to save space, and to suffer the injustice and upheaval of this nasty, shoddy little scheme. It completely fails to address the bigger picture. Right to Buy on one hand, no right to occupy on another. It is make it up as you go along nonsense, created by people who have absolutely no experience of the effects of their actions.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 6:47pm Southover Queen wrote:
Can I point out the single most obvious fact in this policy and that is that the group most likely by far to be occupying social housing which is larger than they need are the empty nesters/retired whose family have left home. They are NOT required to move, because, you might be very well think, the government doesn't like upsetting pensioners.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 7:37pm The Colonel wrote:
The other point which has been over looked here is that it only effects people that are claiming housing benefit, not every single person in social housing.
On 14 Apr 2015 at 8:26pm Colonel Waffen SS wrote:
Oh well,that`s perfectly alright then.Beggars can`t be choosers eh?Why don`t we just gas em or boil em up for soap eh?