Monday, 29 June 2015

Influential divine (former LibDem PPC) takes a critical look at Farron

Last week on Lib DemVoice I remarked that when great social reforms had been enacted liberals had the support of many Christians. I was thinking of Roy Jenkin's Homosexual Law reform,when Michael Ramsay was in the front line of supporters and David Steel's Abortion Act passed at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise. This was not just a phenomenon of the 1960's you could go back to Josephine Butler's work on the Contagious Diseases Act. My point was that such Christians who are today working to celebrate same sex marriages in churches and for women to play a full part in the church are a natural constituency for Lib Dems but we do not seem able to attract them in decent numbers .

Step forward the Provost of Glasgow Cathedral to shed some light on this matter- with thanks to Andrew Page for drawing my attention to his posting via twitter.

I have been mildly disconcerted by the debate that has arisen around Tim Farron's faith and how it impacts on his suitability to be Leader.  In particular I wonder what is the motivation of those who have focussed on this issue. In past generations Liberals have had no difficulty in reconciling Liberalism with faith. Mr Gladstone, T H Green and Zoroastrian Liberal MP Dadabhai Naroji (Finsbury Central 1892-95) all made a pretty good fist of it in their time. Equally those without faith like Bradlaugh and Mill found no difficulty.

I cannot say that some Christian supporters of Tim have always dealt with the challenge at all well seeking to present themselves as a persecuted minority. I suspect they would be better served 'turning the other cheek' and considering the advice of Rowan Williams. At the other end of the spectrum ul politeness may stop people robustly analysing Tim's views on these issues.

In recent days a new voice has entered the debate and I thought it ought to be more widely heard as it addresses the central criticism that is be implied by Tim's distractors (although not often openly stated) as one elector put it: "Can you reassure us that if elected you will conduct yourself as a Liberal rather than according to a Christian agenda?”

 This new voice is Kelvin Holdsworth who fought Stirling as a Lib Dem at the 2005 election. His day job is as Provost of St Mary's Cathedral Glasgow. You may be surprised by his conclusions. I recognise that such religious reflections may be unfamiliar to some readers so I have transported him to the pulpit of St Asquith's in the hope that in such familiar setting readers may feel more comfortable and will not be distracted by the incense or the uncomfortable pews. I need to start, in the time honoured way, with a confession. I have not asked his lordships permission to occupy his church . I hope he will forgive me. Now pick up your cushion and your back rest and follow me to a pew under the north widow and let us consider these matters from a different perspective.

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

St Asquith's congregation quietly leave the church and head to the Parish Hall for morning coffee. They are deep in thought. The parish's Patron announced to them recently that there are going to be changes. It has all come about because of the departure of Rev Hughes, as his lordship confided to diary :
The Revd Hughes is not to be moved, and he tells me he has arranged for a locum vicar to take Divine Service and visit the sick whilst he is away. “He’s young and keen and believes every word of the Liberal Democrat manifesto is the literal truth.” I eye him levelly: “It’s not Farron, is it?”
Change as we know can be disconcerting and conditions have been laid down about the locum's behaviour. He is due to arrive on the 16th July and in the meantime they have a visiting preacher, no lesser personage than the Provost of St Mary's Cathedral Glasgow the Rt Rev Kelvin Holdsworth who has kindly shared his sermon online entitled Providence and Vocations for Liberals in Public Life.
The Right Reverend gentleman has struggled with the issues that now confront the young Mr Farron as he stood in a recent General Election the Liberal interest at Stirling. 
He comes to some interesting conclusions but before he mounts the pulpit steps the choir sing an anthem




The most difficult question that I had when I was a candidate came from a couple who were obviously thinking very deeply about how they would cast their vote. Their question was along these lines: “We are disposed to vote for a liberal candidate but we hesitate to vote for you because we know from your profession that you are a Christian. To be honest we are worried about the values that you hold and we presume that your values are not our values. We don’t think Christian values are particularly nice values. Can you reassure us that if elected you will conduct yourself as a Liberal rather than according to a Christian agenda?”
It was a great question and made me think a lot. I did engage with the couple and in the end they told me that they did indeed intend to vote for me.
I was lucky in being able to talk to them about the issues they were concerned about and put my own position over which in the end was not that different from their own. There was no alternative but to go through things issue by issue. As it happened, being able to talk at first hand about being a gay member of the clergy did give them some reassurance.
But the point is, they had come to the view that Christians have a considerably more unpleasant ethical position than decent people in society.
And I fear that this is increasingly the case and that most Christians neither believe that others hold this view nor care about it either. .......

The full posting is on Kelvin Holdsworth's blog and it is well worth  reading. I should say before you leave that I have (eventually) decided to vote for Tim Farron. It is a compromise but my perfect candidate is not on the ballot paper and in an imperfect world that is often the case.

Thursday, 18 June 2015

Recording Britain in World War 2 now showing in Southport



Byron Dawson's watercolour of a Lancashire village
The chairs were being put out in readiness for a school visit when I went into Southport’s Atkinson Art Gallery. The new exhibition ‘Recording Britain’ was on loan from the V&A. This wartime project was designed to capture the landscape and architecture of Britain at a time when many feared it was about to be destroyed by war. There are watercolours and drawings of the smoking rooms of pubs, of churches and chapels as well as landscapes featuring disused Cornish Tin Mines, Welsh slate quarries and the like. Many of the pieces have a nostalgic air of ordered scenes that time rather than war have destroyed. The pub at Ashopton is now submerged below the reservoir that provide water to Sheffield but its bare, and by modern standards, austere rooms was typical of pub interior that was dying out about the time I started  visiting such places guided by the early CAMRA publications.

The Smoke Room, Ashopton Inn, by Kenneth Rowntree (1915-97). Watercolour. Ashopton, Derbyshire, UK, 1940.

 

The idea for commissioning these works apparently came from Sir Kenneth Clark, who in later life was famous for his BBC series on Civilisation which even when it was first broadcast seemed backward looking and Eurocentric. In this collection it appears that he was not only trying to capture a Britain he feared might be destroyed but to rescue what he felt was a particularly British art form.  

The project came under the auspices of the same department as the War Artists and gave useful employment to some of the country’s finest artists including Paul Nash, John Piper and William Russell Flint. The Council does own works by many of these artists and I noticed their Paul Nash painting of the WW1 Ridge at Vimy was hung in a side room.

There was rooms for more additions like that, the John Piper from the permanent collection would not have been out of place or the very fine watercolours of the dunes and slacks where the natterjacks and the sand lizards noisily breed that are randomly displayed around the Town Hall in rooms the public never get to visit.

 

The Atkinson has only has a portion of the 1500 works that make up the collection and these do include some gems. The watercolour of the village of Downham near Clitheroe in Lancashire by Byron Dawson, an artist usually associated with the North East, is one.

Holy Trinity Church and the new Allotments, Clapham Common, London; Recording Britain (April 1940) Watercolour painting on paper Stanley Roy Badmin


I was surprised to find an absence of allotment gardens. In the WW2 gardens and public spaces were all given over to the Dig for Victory Campaign. It had a dramatic impact on the landscape. I checked out the full ‘Recording Britain’ catalogue on the V&A website and there is only one allotment picture in the whole 1500 collection and that isn’t part of The Atkinson Exhibition. There is an incidental kitchen garden in a drawing of a rural cottage on display at The Atkinson but if the Project was meant to record wartime Britain it seems a strange omission especially when they make such interesting subjects for artists.

Sunset Monksdale Rd Allotments Valerie Pirlot

 

A few weeks ago when I had a couple of hours to kill on south London I visited the Dulwich Galleries to see the much reviewed exhibition of works by Eric Rivilious.  I had spent part of the previous week at a funeral in the South Downs which features so much in his work. The vicar who took the funeral used one of the Rivolous drawings as an illustration for a sermon.


These unassuming pictures drawn with the skill of an accomplished draughtsman summon up a distant England but whereas Clarke seemed to be motivated by an inward looking vision of England that he feared was under threat Rivilious, for all his choice of quintessentilally English subjects, sees himself as part of a European tradition. I recalled that one of his drawings hung on a wall at Farnborough Rd School. The same print was on display at my school 50 years ago. It has certainly stood the test of time.
 

I remember those trains with their bench seats and the leather straps on the windows. The last time I recall travelling on one was in 1974- although BR had abolished 3rd Class by then. I can be precise about the date it was October 10th, General Election night. I was going from Leamington to London on the last train. I was a student in London but I had been helping back in Leamington during the election. I had arranged to meet up with some friends at the NLC to follow the results as they were declared. The train was delayed. All the station staff were waiting to go home. In the end one of them lit a fire for me in the Waiting Room and left me a bucket coal and they all went. In those days nobody objected if you stretched out on those bench seats and that’s what I did that night-there was a fierce heating system under them.









Wednesday, 17 June 2015

The pact that defeated the Tories

Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice
 
 
My last posting from the Southport Liberal Party newsletter of the 1960s made it to second place in LibDemVoice Golden Dozen of most read blog entries. This extract is by far the most interesting. Pacts in the north in the 1950's and 1960's were not unheard of-Arthur Holt in Bolton West and Donald Wade in Huddersfield West are the two best known. But there was another one in the north, in Southport and it was with Labour not the Tories. This developed into a strict pact which extended to helping in each others by elections. It is also interesting to note that the Labour PPC in this period was one John Prescot







Wednesday, 3 June 2015

The Birkdale Nightingale

I noticed the other night that there were tweets from people out in the Birkdale Dunes keeping watch over the Natterjack toads and sand  lizards. It put me in mind of a posting on this blog from April 2008 from the award winning poetry book by Jean Sprackland.


On Spring nights you can hear them
two miles away, calling their mates
to the breeding place, a wet slack in the dunes.
Lovers hiding nearby are surprised
by desperate music. One man searched all night
for a crashed spaceship.

For amphibians, they are terrible swimmers:
where it's tricky to get ashore, they drown.
By day they sleep in crevices under the boardwalk,
run like lizards from cover to cover
without the sense to leap when a gull snaps.
Yes, he can make himself fearsome,
inflating his lungs to double his size.
But cars on the coast road are not deterred.

She will lay a necklace of pearls in the reeds.
Next morning, a dog will run into the water and scatter them.
Or she'll spawn in a footprint filled with salt rain
that will dry to a crust in two days.

Still, when he calls her and climbs her
they are well designed. The nuptial pads on his thighs
velcro him to her back. She steadies beneath him.

The puddle brims with moonlight.
Everything leads to this.

Tuesday, 2 June 2015

Welcome to blogging Dan Lewis and Norwood Lib Dems

I am delighted to report that my colleagues now have a blog. Congratulations to Dan Lewis. The blog is on my blog roll on the right of this posting  and can be found here. There is a very excellent posting looking at the successful referendum in Ireland on equal marriage.

351,300 members in England and Wales, now that is what I call a surge.......


Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice


From more that half a century ago comes news of membership surge. I know the world was different then. These were the days before lettraset  and spray glue, well before DTP and yes it was an age when all the political parties had much greater memberships. The factors which caused that surge can be analysed and adapted to meet today's world.

There was community campaigning but in addition there was an excitement over political ideas. Page 4 of this newsletter laid out the key Liberal messages.

How often do we bemoan the lack of clear political identity that our party has achieved. Back in the day when we truly had a mass, membership 351,300 in 1964, member knew what they stood for.

I think we can identify the author of this statement on a Southport Liberal Newsletter of April 1964 as Jack Coleman. Jack fought Southport in the General Elections of 1964 and 66. The emphasis on Industrial Partnership was typical of Liberals of the period. This was a much more radical policy that the 'lite' version preached occasionally today. It comprised of compelling by law companies to share their profits and give workers an equal say with shareholders. How far we have travelled that a Liberal Dem Business Secretary of State merely proposes giving shareholder all the decision making powers and just suggests the work force is consulted.

Do have a look at point 9. The internationalist case. It is not made just so businesses can be more successful. It asserts the desirability of breaking down barriers between nation and confronting what the then Party constitution called the 'warping influence of nationalism'

Charles Kennedy

We have forgotten since then how the ranks of the parliamentary Conservative party – though not all by any means – were cheerleaders for the war, and I can remember them standing in their seats baying, bragging and gesticulating at Kennedy as he walked in.

Friday, 29 May 2015

Putting the boot in Southport Tory style

Negative campaigning was not invented by Lynton Crosby, here is a prize specimen from the Southport Vister of January 1910. Ten reason electors should vote against Baron de Forest (the Liberal Candidate.)

The Tory candidate was one Major White. And yes the Tories played the race card. This poster was put up in Birkdale

Electors of Birkdale
From all Radical Lies
Fraudulent Misrepresentations and other
Low Electioneering Methods
Deliver Us
From Austro-Germanic Invasions
"Political Earthquakes" and Local
Hooliganism
Deliver Us
By voting for
Major White 
 
 
You can find out more here                            

Sunday, 10 May 2015

Update on how UKIP member counted the ballot paper in Birkdale

As I explained here a couple of days ago, last week's election count in Birkdale Ward was much delayed for one of the most bizarre reasons that any of us could ever recall. This was that a couple of UKIP guests to the count ended up "helping" to sort and count hundreds of Birkdale ballot papers. For those who want to know more, here's my (shortly to be re-elected) colleague Cllr Simon Shaw, explaining in the middle of Friday's count, what had gone wrong:

Facing up to political tribalism by reclaiming the alternative liberal agenda



This Assembly of the Liberal Party, indignantly aware of the grossly unequal distribution of property (wealth) in this country, believes that the greatest possible measure of personal ownership, with the independence and security it brings, should be enjoyed by all. It also believes that the opportunities of a full life hitherto open only to the rich should be placed before all.

It recognises these twin ends as the inspiration of its domestic policy and pledges its whole strength in urging on the nation far-reaching reforms to achieve them

Liberal Assembly, Buxton. ( Guess the date?)
 
 
 

We do not have multi party politics. Britain does not have a culture of coalition. Tribalism is alive and well in politics. Unless and until we have major constitutional reform, including electoral form for Westminister, any strategy which is based upon coalitions will fail.

Just look at how the Labour Party behaved on Thursday. Ed Balls lost his seat whilst Labour activists , motivated by loathing of Clegg spent time failing to unseat him rather than defend Balls. The same happened on a smaller scale in Southport. Labour activists were receiving emails beseeching them to go and help in the marginal seat of South Ribble ( which Labour failed to take) but choose instead to work their socks off in Southport where the only outcome which they could hope to achieve would be to reduce the Lib Dem vote and let the Tory in. Fortunately our ground war was just strong enough to repel them. Lab/Con do not have pluralist bone in their body. Take another example close to home. Southport has its own Health Commissioning arrangements (CCG). There are not, and there never have been, any Labour Councillors elected to our council from the town and yet there are only Labour Councillors sitting on the Health and Wellbeing Board which is the mechanism for the CCG's accountability.

The same is true of the Tories. Look at their behaviour over House of Lords Reform and the AV referendum.

If we are to rebuild we have to adopt a strategy which works under the First Past the Post (FPTP) and settle for nothing less than PR before joining a coalition. It is daft, irrational and against all the available evidence to think that either Labour or Tories will adopt PR. It is not in their interest. They will not do it as long as they can along without it. Forget bleating about unfairness. Was the system changed after 1983 when we got 25.4% of the vote and only 3.5%  of the seats? No. It will only change when we can build up a core vote big enough to win through under FPTP.

David Howarth has written an excellent article over of the Social Liberal website which shares this premise. David goes on to outline a strategy which could take us where we want to go. I urge you to read I, all of it, it gets beyond the anger of the lost opportunities and has a vision that can move us forward.

Central to any strategy is the building up of the core vote. If Simon Titley was still with us this is the point he would be making. It is the point Michael Meadowcroft has consistently made. If people only vote for us because we do prodigious amounts of case work we will all burn out before we achieve or goal and, what is more important, unless we persuade them to share our values we will only borrow their votes for a season. To succeed we need them to vote for us because they agree with us not because they are grateful we have fixed the drains.

It is commonplace to say the public are confused about what we stand for. It is nevertheless true and the incompetence exhibited at the highest level over the last five years has added to the lack of clarity. As David Howarth points out we do not have the luxury of being vague like those who appeal is based upon promoting sectional interests-Labour's identification with class and the SNP with the nation. I can do no better than to start by copying and pasting David's summary:

Some of our values are clear –  internationalism, protecting individuality and non-conformity, hating bullying and the abuse of power,  promoting environmentalism, protecting civil liberties and a love of democracy not so much because we think it efficient or effective but because it expresses a basic equality of respect for all individuals. But some of our values are not clear. Most significantly, what is our view of economic inequality? Do we, like Nick Clegg in his disastrous August 2010 speech, worry only about social mobility, or do we care about inequality of wealth in itself? I think most members do care about inequality of wealth, especially in its gross modern form. But the party is going to need to say so loudly and clearly.

I well remember that Clegg speech. I met a journalist who contributed to a Right wing periodical. He was ecstatic. Clegg had passed the Rubicon, he foresaw long term cooperation with the Liberal Democrats. Clegg had removed the biggest barrier. It was all about emphasis now not substance.

It is evidence of how far Clegg has shifted the Party to the Right that we have to address this question. We had very few high profile visitors to Southport during this election: Mathew Oakeshott and Shirley Williams we were pleased to welcome. Shirley was on Any Question on Friday (BBC Radio 4) where she was forthright in her view that the economic inequality in our country needs to be addressed.


Just as there is a difference between a citizen and a mere subject, so there is a difference between an employee who is simply hired by his company and one who shares, officially and formally, in the ultimate power to determine the company’s aims and call its directors to account.
(LPD 1962)



I joined the Liberal Party at the end of the 1960's. The signature economic policy of the party was Co-Ownership. The policy held that those with capital were entitled to a 'rent' on their investment but any profit over and above 3% should be shared with the work force. Capital did not have unconstrained rights. There was to be one company register on which shareholder and workers were to be equal. David Penhaligon always maintained to achieve workers' control all that was required was for a worker to buy a single share. This policy derived from what the academic Stuart White has called the alternative Liberal tradition. He explains:

While this tradition endorses both markets and significant private ownership of wealth, its proponents also see a key role for collective action, including action by the state, in determining, for egalitarian purposes, the content of the right to capital and its distribution. I call this tradition liberal because some of its leading theorists, such as J.S. Mill and James Meade, identified as liberals and because the Liberal party in the UK historically drew on and contributed to it.[2] But it is an alternative liberalism to neoliberalism in that it takes a different view of the content of the right to capital and regards rules regulating the distribution of wealth as properly subject to collective determination and an egalitarian conception of the common good.

To bring this up to date there has been much discussion of the writings of Thomas Piketty particularly his book   Capital in the Twenty First Century. White summarises his argument that without  corrective action, we can look forward to a rise in capital’s share of national income and a corresponding depression of the share of labour. This might not be so significant were capital evenly distributed so that all could share in its higher returns. But Piketty shows that the distribution of capital is extremely unequal and likely to grow more so. At the same time, he argues, the share of wealth that is inherited looks set  to increase. Together these trends threaten to produce a society in which a relatively small section of the population comes to claim a larger share of national income through its (increasingly) concentrated ownership of (increasingly) inherited wealth.

To those of my generation this sounds like pure Meade. He was a disciple of Keynes, a Nobel Prize winner (Economics) and advised the Liberal Party. I well remember a meeting of the Party's Policy Committee (or Standing Committee as it was known then) chaired by Richard Wainwright when he tabled a paper written by Meade. Meade also contributed a chapter to David Steel's 1985 book Partners in One Nation in which he argued the case for employee ownership.

As Piketty argued their is a maldistrubtion of the wealth we create, the share being taken by capital is disproportionate and those who only have their labour to sell are getting a raw deal. Liberal argued that the solution was to transfer ownership. Meade wanted, among other ideas,  companies to create extra shares and establish a workers' Trust much like Ed Davey did with the Post Office.

Some Liberal went further as White explains:

 for some more radical liberals/Liberals the idea of co-determination sometimes gave way to the idea that firms ought to be labour-managed. Firms should be run by their workers. To attract capital, worker-managed firms would of course have to offer a return on investment. But investors would not have a right to directly control the firms themselves. A further step along this road, of course, is to envisage workers owning the firm they manage, either in whole or in part

I can well recall Liberal Assemblies where Richard Wainwright argued that labour should hire capital. When you add this approach to Land Tax and a policy of Inheritance Tax which would be levied on the recipient rather that the estate we are well on the road to achieving the Liberal policy of Ownership for All where wealth is diffused rather than concentrated with a commensurate increase in liberty and security .

Adopting these Radical policies and agreeing that to achieve them the state would need to legislate to compel companies to share profits and to give employees equal rights to shareholders was one of the reasons that led to folk like Arthur Seldon and Oliver Smedley exiting the Liberal Party. They clustered around the Institute of Economic Ideas and acted as mid wives at the birth of Thatcherism. I suspect the some economic Liberals will follow their example today. 

White does not include in the antecedence of alternative liberalism  the Distributist tradition about which David Boyle has written.  The book which launched that movement, written in part by the Liberal MP for Salford, was called The Servile State. This tradition certainly influence Jo Grimond. The book that launched the Liberal Revival proper was the Unservile State published in 1957 and edited by George Watson whose recent sad death left the Lib Dems considerably wealthier .

In the Distributive tradition David Boyle has another way to spread ownership is to give away houses! He writes:

I've come to believe, as a modern Distributist, that the way forward has to be building new homes and then giving them away - on three important conditions:
  • They do not go back onto the open market and fuel house price inflation (ownership need not imply the right to sell).
  • They stay at the same nominal price they were originally sold for, ratcheting down the rest of the market, perhaps for a generation or so.
  • They are built in sufficient numbers to satisfy demand.
Simply giving away social housing also works, but not if it fuels inflation and isn't replaced.  But if the social housing is replaced, giving it away seems to me a more Liberal solution, given that it  provides people with genuine independence.  I've got no time for the idea that, because people are poor, they must be forced to pay rent.

The alternative would seem to me to be more and more private landlords and I am uncomfortable with that because as Boyle says: We are becoming dependent supplicants to the new landlord class, the rentiers which Keynes once told us deserved 'euthanasia'.

In answer to David Howarth's question do we care about inequality in wealth? The answer must be a resounding YES and we have the basis of the ideas to address that inequality.

If the party can agree on its values as out lined by Howarth, including redressing the inequality of wealth, then we have the foundation needed to move forward. It will not be enough to develop a new form of mindless activism we must launch new campaigns that communicate our values and as David points out there are some early opportunities. An immediate example is that we should organise our members to put pressure on MPs and ministers on the snooper’s charter, an issue on which the government’s small majority might easily fall apart. Similarly we will need campaigns to save the Human Rights Act, to preserve Britain’s place in Europe and, though it might be hard to win an anti-NIMBY campaign, against banning new onshore wind farms. We should also be campaigning against the forthcoming £12 billion benefit cuts and more broadly against state bullying of the vulnerable (something we seemed to have stopped doing recently). As in the original ‘dual approach’ to politics pioneered by the Young Liberals 45 years ago, we should be organising resistance both inside and outside political institutions, co-ordinating the two and encouraging citizens to join together to change policies and attitudes.

I would add to David's list opposing the renewal a Trident.

If this dual approach is carried through we can rebuild a loyal core vote and not get stranded when the tide goes out. Nor will we be destroyed again by political tribalism. If this is to be a progressive century and not a conservative one then Radical Liberalism must punch above its weight. We must reclaim alternative liberalism









Saturday, 9 May 2015

John Pugh's Southport Declaration video at which he has important things to say


Southport's winning team and results


After the count was (finally) over we had a group photo taken by young Mr Ashton. One or two folk had gone home or were engaged with running volunteers home and other essential duties.

On the night we won not only the parliamentary seat but the majority of council seats in Southport and lost nothing.

Southport Parliamentary Constituency - results
Election CandidatePartyVotes%
John David PughLiberal Democrats1365231%Elected
Damien MooreConservative Party1233028%Not elected
Liz SavageThe Labour Party846819%Not elected
Terry DurranceUnited Kingdom Independence Party742917%Not elected
Laurence George RankinThe Green Party12303%Not elected
Jacqueline Anne BarlowThe Southport Party9922%Not elected

Norwood - results
Election CandidatePartyVotes%
Marianne WelshLiberal Democrats197132%Elected
Stephen James JowettThe Labour Party145924%Not elected
Jeffrey Thomas HughesUnited Kingdom Independence Party130321%Not elected
Anthony Irvine WhiteConservative Party102417%Not elected
David McIntoshThe Green Party4006%Not elected

Meols - results
Election CandidatePartyVotes%
Nigel AshtonLiberal Democrats206532%Elected
Georgia PactorConservative Party173326%Not elected
Patricia Elaine ShanksUnited Kingdom Independence Party137521%Not elected
Debbie BannonThe Labour Party114117%Not elected
Rick FurnessThe Green Party2374%Not elected

Kew - results
Election CandidatePartyVotes%
Mike BoothLiberal Democrats184232%Elected
Janet Catherine HarrisonThe Labour Party132923%Not elected
Philip Jeffrey CantlayUnited Kingdom Independence Party125122%Not elected
Jordan Thomas ShandleyConservative Party100417%Not elected
Neville GrundyThe Green Party3396%Not elected

Birkdale - results
Election CandidatePartyVotes%
Simon ShawLiberal Democrats221633%Elected
Poppy Elise JonesConservative Party137421%Not elected
Allen FergusonUnited Kingdom Independence Party136021%Not elected
Ged WrightThe Labour Party135120%Not elected
Tony YoungThe Green Party3185%Not elected

Friday, 8 May 2015

Lib Dems storm home in Birkdale despite counting farce-

The count for Birkdale was much delayed and for a while we couldn't understand why until a super sleuth journalist got to the bottom of the story. Apparently a couple of UKIP guests to the count had arrived, and it being their first count didn't know the procedure. They proceeded to sit down at the Birkdale table and for some time helped to count the votes. Upon discovery we had to start all over again and had the equivalent of four recounts as they struggled to reconcile the votes.

This count had the tightest 'security' I have ever encountered: letters, passes, and photo ID's required to get in. It goes to show that all the petty bureaucratic procedure do not add up to security-rather like ID cards and DBS's . A sound dose of common sense is required rather than relying on officious procedures.


Anyway when the wait was over and accompanied by the noise of tables being dismantled we finally got the declaration it was worth waiting for a big Lib Dem win for Simon Shaw








video by Samuel B Shaw


Birkdale - results
Election CandidatePartyVotes%
Simon ShawLiberal Democrats221633%Elected
Poppy Elise JonesConservative Party137421%Not elected
Allen FergusonUnited Kingdom Independence Party136021%Not elected
Ged WrightThe Labour Party135120%Not elected
Tony YoungThe Green Party3185%Not elected

Saturday, 2 May 2015

Nasty anti semitic smear by local UKIP candidate.

News reaches us of a nasty anti semitic smear from a local UKIP candidate standing in West Lancs

.Jack Sen, who is standing in West Lancashire, sent the tweet to Liverpool Wavertree candidate Luciana Berger.The post reads:

"Protect child benefits? If you had it your way you'd send the £ to Poland/ Israel."

This is just another example of why we have to confront UKIP and the prejudices that fuel their support. Locally we have had more than our fair share of vile nonsense. Readers may remember Southport UKIP's chair outburst. Ferguson is still in post and he and his son are high profile candidates for Southport. I wrote about the incident and the full text of Mr Ferguson's letter is here