Lewes Forum thread

Lewes forum | New message New post

What way should I vote? Part the third

On Fri 5 Feb at: 13:59 Ed Can Do wrote:
Off message, I appreciate my post comes across as a little unfocused, mainly because I can't seem to help having a dig at DFL's whenever I mention them, force of habit I guess. I think the influx of Liberal thinking Londoners is a great thing for the area politically and not a recent one either. The huge influx of academics in the 70's to the universities was the start of it and I'm sure when I was growing up in the 80's, at least half of my friend's parents were teachers, lecturers or journalists. These days sadly a lot more of the people moving to the area don't actually work locally but that does have the advantage of bringing London money into the local economy, even if it does mean those of us who were born here will never be able to afford a house ourselves until our parents die.

I would give Jason Sugarman credit for coming on here and facing what is obviously a fairly hostile audience. If nothing else, he's certainly mastered the art of politician question-deflecting so he'll thrive in a Cameron government if by some miracle he does get elected. Whilst he takes great pains to remind us how local he is and how much charity work he's done round here, he sadly forgot to answer any questions in his long, question answering post which I guess is just confirmation that the Tories either don't have any policies or that they're going to be massive hypocrits once they get in and abandon their new, progressive lok in favour of good old upper class conservatism.

I'm not closed minded about the election though. If JS actually answers the questions I raised before and I like the answers, I'd vote for the guy. I suspect though that he can't give answers we want to hear and toe the party line at the same time, making his chances of winning over the people posting here at least a bit slim.

I live in Spences Field by the way JS and am in most days at the moment if you do want to come round for a chat.
On Fri 5 Feb at: 14:08 Brixtonbelle wrote:
You beat me to it, ECD.
Ditto your points exactly re Sugarboy. He's blown his own trumpet about being local, but not answered any of the REAL questions people have been asking on this thread, probably because he just doesn't know what the Tory policies are as they haven't been decided.
Re a previous post an Vote thread 2 - I can't believe that the influx of former Londoners is solely responsible for Baker's election. And I'm certain there are DLF'S who vote Tory and locals who vote Liberal,maybe even Labour. An assumption of those rigid dividing lines as DFL = leftie, local = Tory don't help anyone.
On Fri 5 Feb at: 14:12 Brixtonbelle wrote:
Jason Sugarman - please answer the points below in as coherent a way as you can without obfuscating or avoiding the questions. These are Ed's questions from previous thread.

"What I'd love for him to tell us is what he thinks about Tory dominated ESCC's handling of the parking scheme and apparent hatred of Lewes, where he stands on the Uckfield rail link, how he can possibly think that cutting public services is a benefit to the average man in the street, why the tories won't be taxing the rich and properly punishing the banks for their transgressions, how come the government is the majority shareholder in RBS and yet just ticks off the directors for voting massive bonuses, rather than simply removing them from office and cancelling the bonus payouts, explaining how he intends to launch a new wave of honest, non-money grabbing MP's when Cameron's own cabinet were responsible for some of the most ridiculous expenses claims on the list and promising that he won't claim any money for a second house or travel expenses if he's elected and just get a room in a Travelodge if he has to work late one night and because if the rest of us live outside London and work there we have to pay for our own travel."
On Fri 5 Feb at: 14:31 Ed Can Do wrote:
Oh no, I'm not suggesting that all DFLs are liberals and all locals are Tories but Lewes's demographic shift is fairly unique round here, except for Brighton. Look at somewhere like Worthing where a lot of the population are elderly, born and bred southerners and there has been very little influx relatively, it's one of the safest Tory seats in the country. A lot of Lewes's constituency is countryside and once upon a time, like 20 to 30 years ago, it was country types who dominated the voting population. Now the population of Lewes has grown and more and more people living in villages are people who've made a bit of money in London and moved down, rather than land owning farmer types. If you look at the make-ups of the local councils, Lewes is a liberal blip in an otherwise predominantly Tory county. Increased urbanisation of the county and theoretically better transport links meaning more communters moving to places like Eastbourne will, I believe make it increasingly harder for the Tories to win around here without addressing the needs and wishes of the people moving to the area and growing up here with Liberal parents (Which is always going to be a huge influence on anyone's voting patterns).

As I see it, the Tories problem nationally at the moment is that they need to modernise to attract new, long term support but they can't do so whilst they're being bankrolled by old-school money for fear of alienating their big supporters and running out of cash. Our political system isn't quite as dependent on big money as say America's but running a general election campaign is still an expensive business, plus any Tory MP who retires is going to be looking for a bunch of directorships and after-dinner speaking jobs amongst the wealthier tier of society.

Their campaigns seem to focus on how to "Fix" the country, rather than engaging with the problems and making a positive change. Chucking people in jail and banning alcohol won't stop kids smashing up cars at night, giving their parents some self-respect back by getting them off benefits and into work might though. Cutting public services won't save the economy, creating more jobs through support of growing industries and training, whilst saving money by introducing sensible government spending (Fewer think-tanks and advisors, no more chucking money at badly designed IT systems, a proper tendering process and more nurses/teachers/policemen) might. Tory policies seem so much about demonising our problems rather than solving them (To be fair, so do Labour's) and the attitude one gets from their party is that they're looking down on us thinking up ways to keep the masses placid while they get on with the important business of making their friends more money.
On Fri 5 Feb at: 22:32 Brixtonbelle wrote:
I completely agree with you. Can we form a sensible human party please ?
By the way I wasn't referring to you - it was someone else who made the post saying DFL = Liberal, local = tory.
On Sat 6 Feb at: 11:48 Off-Message wrote:
You were referring to me Brixtonbelle but I was just caricaturing what ECD had written in the earlier post that you among other posters were praising. He realized that even if you didn't! Neither he nor I subscribe to the crude formula: DFL = liberal, local = Tory.
On Sun 7 Feb at: 01:33 Ruth wrote:
Just to retrace a little to the part the second section. I was told I had been mentioned inaccurately.. (not least the spelling of my name!) I looked it up and found Old Labour's post and then the selection of replies/comments/attacks etc. Oh dear. Oh well, time to reply then.
Most of the political parties around locally and many individual Councillors of various different flavours have at one time or another asked me two questions. "How do I get elected/re-elected?" and "What are the current issues?"
Being an Independent I talk to all of them. I have given a talk to the Labour Party on these topics, for example. Doesn't make me closet Labour. As far as I am concerned there is far too much work for one person, or party, to do it all so if people want to take on the issues and do something about them it is fine by me. I just give them the current list in my opinion, explain that you have to work hard, consistently so, and not give people a load of old fluff, start working well before anyone is calling an election and carry on afterwards if you do get elected if you want to get in again. What that party or person does with this is then up to them.
The Conservatives asked me these questions most recently, I gave them a list of the current issues in my opinion, and told them that to convince people it is worth voting for you, you need to work hard on sorting them out, again in my opinion. Doesn't make me a closet Conservative. I will happily give the same or similar list to other parties if they wish to ask. The issues will not have changed! It is what people do about the list that makes the difference, not the giving of the list.
I don't think much of political parties at all, I think being in a party makes people do all kinds of unproductive things, especially at local level, and gave the whole idea up years, and quite a few elections, ago. If someone is really Independent they can talk to people from any party. If I was only willing to talk to some people and not others that would make me a pretty wishy washy Independent. Not having a party makes it essential to work with other people to get things done, and in the end I think more happens by co-operation than confrontation in many political situations. This doesn't mean not questioning things, it means doing so in a way that tries not to put people's backs up and lead them to stop listening to anything you say. I am an Independent. I am not a closet Tory, Liberal, Green, Labour, UKIP person etc etc I don't have a party and I never intend to.
I think people should vote for the person they honestly think will do the work, on the basis of all the information available to them..
To clarify over the Parking and the County Hall move which people posting seem to have little or no idea what I think about:
Parking scheme; I am the only Councillor to take officers out on site for 26 hours in total to listen to residents and try to change things on the ground (in 2005 and 2006). I never liked the scheme, (said so lots of times right from the start) think the central spine of the town needs restrictions and the large employers should sort out their parking another way than making residential areas into commuter parking zones. I have taken a number of petitions to the Chair of the Council about the scheme and amendments needed to it and was asking for a review long before it became the fashion.
The first email correspondence I found on this when I had a look was August 2005:
Date: 13 August 2005 00:20:43 BST
To: R M
Subject: Lewes parking review
Dear RM
I understand from residents .. that they have received a letter from you about the consultation following the Lead Member's Decision Making Meeting recently.
I would be most grateful if you could circulate me in on this letter and all subsequent ones to Priory and Castle Wards in Lewes as I feel that it is most important that I am fully aware of developments "on the ground" so to speak regarding the parking scheme. I am also very willing to attend meetings that are held as part of the consultation and would be very pleased to receive notification of them across the 2 wards.
Many thanks
Ruth O'Keeffe
I found another 60 pieces of correspondence almost immediately spread out across the years from 2005 about parking review..
I have secured a number of minor amendments to the scheme across my County Division over the last 5 years and am still trying to get a number more. To get a major amendment would require a lot of people to want one. You elect them and I will work with them!

County Hall move: Been hearing about this at least since the 90's when as a clerical assistant at County I was consulted as an employee about the imminent move. Personal view (stated on web cam at a County Council meeting and repeated a number of times since); have about a third of the County establishment in each of Hastings, Polegate/Eastbourne and Lewes, use IT and visitor working spaces to make this possible, remove the awful County Council building and have something smaller/better but don't lose all the trade etc that the major employer brings, use part of the space created for a proper sized Childrens' centre for Lewes.
Dave, what can I say? How about you spend a week coming to meetings with me, to find out how many I attend from beginning to end, or balancing which part of which meeting if they conflict for time is the one I am most needed for (I came to the recent Review Board meeting for the item on Ferrers Road for example) and attending meetings any time of day between 8am and 10pm, then for the full experience come home with me and stay around while I answer about 60 emails (if you are lucky I will finish before 2am) and then get up bright and early at 6.30am to take the children to school?
When I read a series of posts like that I think why on earth do I do all this? Then someone I have sorted something out for says how pleased they are or, with other people, (never believe anyone who says they did something utterly alone!!) I am part of getting something done that was needed, and I remember.
Finally, it's O'Keeffe not O'Keefe!
On Sun 7 Feb at: 12:09 Jason Sugarman wrote:
I have been asked to answer the following points by Ed. My purpose on appearing on this forum is because I want to engage and debate local and national issues with Lewes residents. On some issues I am sure we will agree on others we may not. There is a lot to answer so forgive me if this answer is lengthy.
The questions Ed asked me are:
"What I'd love for him to tell us is what he thinks about Tory dominated ESCC's handling of the parking scheme and apparent hatred of Lewes, where he stands on the Uckfield rail link, how he can possibly think that cutting public services is a benefit to the average man in the street, why the tories won't be taxing the rich and properly punishing the banks for their transgressions, how come the government is the majority shareholder in RBS and yet just ticks off the directors for voting massive bonuses, rather than simply removing them from office and cancelling the bonus payouts, explaining how he intends to launch a new wave of honest, non-money grabbing MP's when Cameron's own cabinet were responsible for some of the most ridiculous expenses claims on the list and promising that he won't claim any money for a second house or travel expenses if he's elected and just get a room in a Travelodge if he has to work late one night..."

I realise that the parking issue is very unpopular. You may remember I commissioned a local petition with the Chamber of Commerce on this very issue in 2007. We collected over 3,000 signatures and I took the petition to the County Council offices and spoke to Matthew Lock the County councillor responsible. A similar scheme was proposed for Seaford which I managed to stop with my Conservative colleagues in Seaford. I do not like the scheme I would like to see some free parking in Lewes as there is in Hailsham and other Conservative controlled areas. I think the local businesses would also like to see this as it would encourage more people into the town and help the economy. Unfortunately, the Libdems also have views on restricting vehicles in Lewes and much of what has happened over the recent years is poor communication and cooperation between the LibDem controlled district council, the LibDem MP and the Conservative controlled County Council. This I believe is to blame for the unpopular scheme. If we were to have a larger car park facility (they have an excellent one in Chichester located outside of the historic core so minimum impact on important conservation areas). This would I believe take pressure of local residents and businesses. I have discussed this with the Chamber of Commerce and I know it is something they may be in favour of. I do not think the ESCC hate Lewes, this is political spin by the LibDems. In fact Cllr Roger Thomas (Conservative) took funds from another part of East Sussex to ensure Lewes had some flood defences last year. This was the only investment that has been made on flood defences in Lewes. As I have said before Labour held seats managed to obtain massive funding for flood defences. Our County Council has done what they can with the limited resources it has. It needs national govenment investment to have the scale of flood defences Lewes needs. I cannot guarantee it (as candidates are not allowed to make spending commitments as we do not know what the state of the economy is and my party is trying to be responsible over this by not making rash promises). However, flood defences is a top prority if I am elected as the next MP for Lewes. I have already raised it with David Cameron and others as something I want to have progress on early in the next Parliament.
I fully support the Uckfield rail link and more regular rail services to London from Lewes, Newhaven and Seaford. I would like to make a commitment to this but again I am restricted as I am not allowed to make spending commitments. I did however bring Theresa Villiers MP (shadow Transport Secretary of State who is a very old personal friend) to Lewes and Newhaven in 2007. I showed her the branch for the Uckfield line and we toured the entire constituency. She saw the Newhaven - Dieppe Ferry and the A27 at Selmeston where so many fatal car crashes take place). She said the matters would be considered early by a Conservative government but again we cannot make spending commitments because of the dire state of the economy.
I do believe the Labour party has spent far too much of our money on wasteful initiatives and we need to make we have an efficient and better organised public sector. Taxes are far too high for ordinary people at the moment. We are all paying for Labour's mistakes. The banking crisis could have been avoided if the Bank of England had been regulating them and not the FSA. This is something the Conservative spredicted and argued against the FSA in the last 1990s. I agree the bankers need to help repay the huge public finances that the taxpayer has lent them to bail out the bankings ystem first and as a priority. This is again a Labour mismanagement of the economy and regulation issue. The Labour party destroyed the British economy in the 1970's and have done it again. Watch the LibDems join and try to keep Labour in power as they did in the 1970's. This is why Gordon Brown announces the AV system of voting this week as a bribe to the LibDems. This is all they ever want is a new electoral voting system that would manipulate the voting system so there can never ever be another government apart from a Labour/LibDem coalition. I suspect we will hear more about this as the election approaches.
Om MPs expenses and a new honest approach in politics. I have written on this topic for the Sussex Express last year. It is absolutely appalling that MPs trusted by their constituents have behaved in this dishonest way. I am pleased that action is being taken against the worst offenders. I agree that all parties have clear examples of how appalling their behaviour has been. I think we need a new and honest approach in politics. David Cameron immediately took action against the worst offendersand so many are not standing for re-election again. The same cannot be said for the other two parties. This is a pity as we need to recognise how very very angry people were with the way MPs behaved. This is the nation's legislative body behaving in a way that discredits the entire institution. Historically Parliament has been respected and copied throughout the World. It is the basis for so many democratic system. It is a pity it has been discredited in this way. I hope the reforms are made in such a way that it can never every happen again. For my own situation I have promised never to claim for food, furniture and maintenance. I would submit an annual audit setting out my expenditure. I would not claim for a London home as the current MP for Lewes does. I would have to claim for limited travel expenses but I would again publish these details. I would want to live with my wife and children if this is ok this is non negotiable??! I have been a self employed for 15 years and live in the real world. I know what are "reasonable expenses" and what is an abuse of the system. As a legal aid Barrister specialising in fraud prosecutions I have some experience of spotting this!
I hope these responses take this debate further. Just one small point. The current Libdem MP is suggesting I have a relationship with the Midlands and Dudley in particular, he has alluded to this on leflets sent all over the constituency. Just so you are all aware. I was born in Sussex, educated at Brighton College. Family home in Wivelsfield (which is in the Lewes constituency). My grandparents came to Brighton in 1928 so my grandfather could play football for Brighton and Hove Albion. He was then a custody sergeant at Brighton police station. My parents had businesses in Sussex and my father is the local councillor for Wiveslfield on Lewes District Council. My practice includes appearing in cases in Lewes Crown Court. To suggest that I hail from the Midlands is a bit ridiculous. I stood in 2001 for an election in Dudley South but that is my only connection with that area. It may be an appropriate time to remind everyone that our LibDem MP originates from Scotland but I have not posted this is an leaflets as he has done to me. I do not think the fact that he is Scottish means he cannot be an MP out of Scotland. I do not believe this is an important issue but I wanted it corrected!
I hope this is helpful and I appreciate that everyone may have differing views. But I am committed to delivering real change in this constituency.
Jason Sugarman
On Sun 7 Feb at: 12:20 Nick Robinson wrote:
Ruth works harder than any other politician in Lewes. She has no party behind her and so just gets voted back in based on what ahe's actually done for the electorate. At last year's County elections, the Lib Dems put the seasoned and ambitious Councillor Michael Pierre Chartier up against her. What hapeened? Well, she got more than four votes for every one he got.
Walk down any street in Lewes with her and just about every third person that walks by will beam a friendly smile at her and greet her warmly - name one other politician in Lewes that this happens to.
The Lib Dems (as usual) have consistently played all sorts of dirty tricks against her during elections in 2007 and 2009. Making up upsetting and dishonest stories in order to try to unseat her. But the electorate have seen through this and uniquely returned her at Town, District and County levels time after time - simply because they know she gets things done and works bloody hard.
I suggest people get their facts (and names) straight before slagging off perhaps of the most effective local politician in Lewes.
On Sun 7 Feb at: 12:32 LTR wrote:
I don't agree with everythjing you have written, but appreciate attempts to communicate with the public, unlike many of your political (including Conservative)colleagues.
You may have missed two questions posed elsewhere, so i will remind you of them.
Why did Conservative District Councillors follow, until recently, inaccurate, and improper officer advice that they should not communicate, meet with, or attend meetings regarding planning issues?
Why haven't you shown any interest in the reasons for the now scheduled parking review that was obtained by a local resident. Surely you would want to know what the basis for this is, because I am sure you will appreciate that your opinions about the scheme and its implementation can only be flawed without this evidence. You might even be curious how an individual managed to acheieve what you, the Chamber of Commerce, a lengthy petition, meetings with Cllr Lock, and the attempts by our MP, and other political groups, could not achieve. You will appreciate that it is unfortunate that Councillor lock did not promptly identify, or deal with the flaws in the scheme that a resident identified, or agree to the review you proposed that would also have enabled dealing with the problem without the need for mere 'locals' to sort out the mess left unresolved by elected, and paid representatives.! :-)
F
On Sun 7 Feb at: 12:42 Andy Robinson wrote:
A pretty comprehensive response from Jason Sugarman there. Norman Baker, talks the talk, is a master of self-publicity and readily associates himself with all manner of causes (regularly irritating those who've actually done the work for these causes) - and he must be very, very used to having a camera pointing at him. But many people will say that the Scot actually achieves far less than he'd have you believe.
On Sun 7 Feb at: 19:33 Ed Can Do wrote:
Well credit to JS for coming back to answer my questions and managing to avoid too much party spin in his answers!
On Sun 7 Feb at: 19:50 Independent thinker wrote:
Jason, I just looked at that Baker campaign leaflet again, and all it says about you is that you ran in Dudley last time. That's true isn't it? Which means in 2001 you either put party politics over local issues, or you had a connection to Dudley. I don't personally think it's relevant either way, but I can't see a reason for you to retaliate by bringing up his being Scottish as an issue (using the tried and tested rhetorical device of saying you're not raising it as an issue, which just so happens to publicly raise it as an issue).
As a separate note, you've twice described yourself as a legal aid Barrister, but you work for a City-based chambers handling £250 million fraud cases, and prosecuting multi-million pound trademark infringement and money-laundering cases (according to your website Jasonsugarman.com, and your page on your chamber's website). And the fact you do legal aid work isn't even mentioned on there. So to be clear, do those websites just need updating and the majority of your work is, in fact, legal aid now?
On Sun 7 Feb at: 20:38 LTLR wrote:
Nick we know you are a big friend of Ruth O'Keffee.But Ruth O'Keffee works only for her self, is always late or leaves early at every meeting she attends, only takes on things she thinks will get her name in the paper. And she also gets all of her expenses from the 3 councils she sit on.
On Sun 7 Feb at: 21:02 sashimi wrote:
Interesting (and very long) posts from Ruth O'Keeffe and Jason Sugarman. Ruth works extremely hard and is a very effective constituency case-worker, much like Norman Baker. One of the golden rules of politics, Jason, is don't attack a popular sitting member. Elections as Churchill discovered in 1945 are all about what you are planning to do in the future and not what's happened in the past. By all means attack a member who has been claiming for duck islands or been charged with criminal offences, as that indicates he can't be trusted in future. But that clearly isn't the case here. So, the best advice is to stop making your opponent even more famous by mentioning him all the time.
Ruth rejects parties and in doing so limits herself what she does now so effectively. She's never going to head up an administration or take a cabinet post, because that requires her to act in concert with others to form an administration. Parties are coalitions of people with a wide range of views but a shared gerneral philosophy who agree to sink their differences and manage together. Is that dishonest compromise, or is it just democracy? Ruth can chip away at the parking scheme - and that may be enough. But she's never going to be able to rewrite it.
On Sun 7 Feb at: 21:23 Brixtonbelle wrote:
I don't think Sugarboy answered anything. He said a lot of guff about other candidates, blew his own trumpet (a lot) and admitted the Tories have very few policies because they can't produce a budget and haven't a clue what their fiscal policy is going to be.
Really I am no further enlightened as to what the Conservatives are proposing after his post as before. So we are supposed to elect him on hot air and the fact he has lived in the area all his life.
I'd like to know what his/tory policies are on education, health and the nhs, afghanistan. funding for the armed forces, and how they are going to control the city and stop bankers rewarding themselves. What are tory policy proposals for defending freedom of speech and information in the internet age, how are the Tories going to protect children at risk from abuse and neglect, how are they going to reduce the prison population, what are their proposlas for asylum seekers and will they cap immigration ?
As an MP it's irrelevant what he thinks of the Lewes parking scheme parliament are hardly going have a vote on it.
I'm really interested to know what he thinks he can really do for the people of Lewes that is radical, freethinking and relevant. Does Sugarboy have an original thought or a creative mind or will he just toe the party line ?
I could think of loads more, but that's enough to be going on with.
On Sun 7 Feb at: 22:28 Ruth wrote:
LTLR - same invitation as Dave.
I take the allowance only on all 3 councils, no expenses.
And of course it is O'Keeffe not O'Keffee..
On Sun 7 Feb at: 23:26 Perspective wrote:
I would add that making sure that Ruth O'Keeffe or an other Councillor is accountable to the electorate is perfectly valid, but attacking her honesty, and effectiveness based on gossip, hearsay and partial information does nothing to support those views.
Regardless of what anyone may think of her effectiveness, i hardly think that Cllr O'Keefe is the evil mastermind responsible for the many, many problems we have in Lewes, due to our Rottten Borough status, and other problems caused by ESCC.
Some people need to start considering the bigger picture, and stop wasting their valuable time obsessing about the reasonable, if sometimes imperfect activities of a single Independant Councillor, who is simply doing what many voters are clearly happy with. It is actually insulting to those voters, and simply very unpleasant to read.
If Cllr O'Keeffe really is so weedy, incompetent, and pointless, then people do look a bit silly, trying to pusuade us this is the case. Its also a little patronising. Fiddling whilst Rome burns comes to mind.
On Sun 7 Feb at: 23:31 Jason Sugarman wrote:
Just to correct independent thinker. 90% of my work is legally aided or publicly funded which is the same thing. This includes large fraud cases and trademark infringements which are usually paid at legal aid rates. Legal aid/publicly funded work is not highly paid by comparison with "City" lawyers. Buts is hugely rewarding in other non -financial ways.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 08:17 Sherlock wrote:
Mr Sugerman writes: 'This is why Gordon Brown announces the AV system of voting this week as a bribe to the LibDems. This is all they ever want is a new electoral voting system that would manipulate the voting system so there can never ever be another government apart from a Labour/LibDem coalition.'

What he means is that with a voting system that more accurately reflects the wishes of the people the Tories are in a permanent minority. I'm not sure I'd want Mr Sugerman arguing my case in court.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 08:50 Off-Message wrote:
Under PR Sherlock pretty much all parties are, in themselves, in 'permanent minority' so what's your point?
On Mon 8 Feb at: 10:40 Tessa wrote:
I note Nick Robinson's glowing comments on the capabilities of Councillor O'Keeffe. Could the fact that they have been involved in a "romantic" relationship for some months now possibly have swayed his opinion??
A little more honesty about underlying relationships and alliances wouldn't go amiss in trying to restore a positive side to the sometimes murky world of political posturing.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 10:59 Sherlock wrote:
Off-Message - of course. But my point is that Mr Sugerman specifically said that there would be a permanent Lib-Lab government if the AV change went through. He could equally have said there would be a permanent Lib-Con government or even - as often the case in Germany - that the Libs would be able to determine who formed a government. It is revealing that Mr Sugerman sees his party as the one that would always be in the minority if the voting system gave a fairer reflection of people's views.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 11:03 Off-Message wrote:
Oh I say, Tessa! But why the quotation marks around ' "romantic" '? Is their relationship not romantic in the way you understand is usually denoted by that word?!
On Mon 8 Feb at: 11:05 Independent thinker wrote:
Jason, legal aid is a specific term referring to the provision of legal counsel by the state for those who can't afford to pay for it themselves. It does not mean the same thing as publicly funded (such as a barrister working for the CPS, DTI, HM Customs etc), which you know perfectly well. I asked a pretty simple question about whether the majority of your work is legal aid as you were suggesting on here, using easy to check information taken directly from your own website (not sure what you had to correct me on there), and instead of giving a straight answer, you've just tried redefining a term that anybody can go to a dictionary or Wikipedia to check for themselves. Legal aid may sound noble, and you may think it plays better with voters, but if that isn't how you make the majority of your living why not just admit that you shouldn't have used that term to describe yourself, instead of engaging in the kind of spin and evasion that people are so fed up with in politics?
On Mon 8 Feb at: 11:13 Independent thinker wrote:
Tessa, I don't know who Nick Robinson is (presumably not the BBC political editor), and whether what you're claiming is a scurrilous rumour or public knowledge. I don't think it's any of our business either way. But if that's his real name he's already been more open than most of us on here, including you. So given the issue of transparency is so important to you, perhaps you could tell us your full real name, and what political axe you happen to be grinding here?
On Mon 8 Feb at: 11:14 Off-Message wrote:
Ok Sherlock, I was just goading you. First of all Brown's proposals, thankfully, if they go through, won't result in PR. They'll just result in what some people see as a fairer means of electing MPs in the same constituency-based set-up we've got now, so probably won't mean much change as far as representation at Westminster is concerned, other things being equal. In short they're a fudge, a tinker with the system intended to send an overture to the LDs, not a serious attempt at reform. But I think Sugarman's probably right on this: surely the LDs would be more likely to go into gov with Labour than the Tories? All this reflects is that both parties are, to a greater or less extent, essentially statist parties in the sense that their default position is that gov knows best. What I find laughable is that advocates of PR keep banging on about more representative gov yet you've just revealed one of the flaws of PR - that often it's minority parties who play the pivotal role in determining the gov: how 'representative' is that?
On Mon 8 Feb at: 11:19 Ed Can Do wrote:
I've personally always believed that when you vote for your local MP, it's local issues that should be most important. In my mind, our MP should be representing our issues at a national level, their overall party alegiance gives you an idea of how they'll do this, rather than for me being the reason to elect them or not. Our last Tory MP, Tim Rathbone, did exactly bugger all for Lewes and rarely attended parliament unless he had to whereas whilst you can criticise Norm for courting publicity, at least he does so at times in ways which could benefit the local area. That's why I'm personally more interestied in what JS thinks he can do locally, rather than his views on Tory macro-policy (Or lack thereof). Of course, different people have different voting criteria and different things they look for in an MP.

The main problem with a complete PR voting system in my eyes is that you lose that local-ness. By filling up parliament from pre-proscribed lists, you're not so much voting for a local MP, you're voting for a national government. This makes the governement more representative of the overall views of the country perhaps but leaves less opportunity for local issues to reach a national forum. I think a lot of people here would vote for Norman regardless of his party membership because on the face of things at least, he has the best interests of the area at heart (Despite being Scottish).
On Mon 8 Feb at: 11:21 sashimi wrote:
Ooh, Tessa you are a wicked old gossip. I am sure you must be mistaken. But in any case, I am sure that any personal feelings will not have clouded Nick's very astute judgement.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 11:24 Off-Message wrote:
Spot on, ECD, the best thing written on here in ages (i.e. I agree with it).

On Mon 8 Feb at: 11:38 sashimi wrote:
ECD, isn't the MP's real role being the local representative on national issues and in law making. Norman actually had a vote on whether we should join the Iraq War while the rest us joined millions impotently marching through the streets of London. If Parliament debated whether to control or prohibit bonfire, the MP could do what he could to influence the outcome for the benefit of his constituents. In voting for an MP from one party rather than another we are crudely taking part in a referendum on all the issues set out in their manifesto. The MP also should champion central government funding for local projects, but the rules for this are written so as to limit the scope for the pork barrel politics of the US. I don't think MPs should get too involved in local issues: that's the job of councillors of whom we have a very large number.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 11:42 Sherlock wrote:
Ed Can Do wrote: 'I've personally always believed that when you vote for your local MP, it's local issues that should be most important.'

How the war in Afghanistan relates to the parking scheme, how the Euro relates to the planning system, whether Trident is compatible with Lewes being in the National Park? Surely we're interested in the candidate's view (that is, the party's view) on a range of domestic, national and international issues.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 12:04 Sherlock wrote:
By the way, I hope Mr Sugerman isn't going to disappear now he's been asked to explain what he means by 'legal aid' in the same way he did when he was asked to explain why he thought it was a Tory government that abolished slavery.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 12:13 Eh? wrote:
sashimi, totally agree, though unfortunately our very great number of local Councillors are hardly selling themselves. However different their roles may be, it is time Norman realised that his fellow lib dems are damaging his reputation. They are a complete shower as we limp from David Neighbour, to Marina Pepper, to Peter Gardiner. imaginary rabbits and all.
'Tessa'. For goodness sake, what planet are you on? Don't you think that if you really liked someone (friend or otherwise) that you might rush to their defence. What is 'murky' about using your own name?
On Mon 8 Feb at: 12:17 LTR wrote:
I'm also feeling a bit negelected :-(
I've asked why Mr Sugarman hasn't found out the reasons for the Parking review, when he claims he wants it to be reviewed.
I also asked why his Conservative colleagues in the Disrict Council were following improper advice about discussing planning issues with residents.
Surely that should concern someone with a legal approach to problem solving?
I'll keep waiting, and keep asking.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 13:05 Dave Johnson wrote:
Ruth O'Keeffe has been responsible for several changes to the parking scheme in the past, especially those concerning small busnisses and short time parking outside their premises. She doesn't make a big fuss about doing these things and shed loads of other work she does for us all, whatever party you vote for. She's great on Rocket FM as well.
Tessa, have I spelt that correctly, you should hope your nearest and dearest would stick up for you however, if they share your small mindedness I doubt they would.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 13:54 Ed Can Do wrote:
I think after so many years of living with such a farce of a district and county council, I've basically given up hope of either ever achieveing anything in the area. Sherlock and Sashimi are both right of course, as I said before, we all look for different things in our MP which is why it's a tough role to fill. I personally hope though that both the candidates here take their party colleagues to task on both council bodies and ask them exactly what it is they think they're playing at as surely both Norm and JS realise the damage these bumbling petty bureaucrats are doing to the images of their respective parties. One would hope that Norm would have enough authority to kick a few of the less savoury LibDems out of his party unless they shaped up and became less useless.
On Mon 8 Feb at: 14:06 'ere be monsters wrote:
Haven't any of you watched "Yes Prime Minister". That really is what it's like apparently. Mr Sugarman only seems interested in rubbishing other parties policies. Why are we suprised at that? He's a politician. They are basically all the same when in a party, they are the ones that couldn't cut it on their own. The whole party system is rotten, that's why we vote one lot in, get fed up with them for not delivering, and then vote the lot in that we chucked out previously. When have we had a government that we can say has done a really good job?
On Mon 8 Feb at: 23:07 Brixtonbelle wrote:
There once was a chap made of Sugar
Who thought he was really quite clev-ar
But his plans to win votes
Were as weasly as stoats
And as changeable as Lewes weath-ar.
Apologies for the poor rhyming !
On Mon 8 Feb at: 23:14 Lead Wood Wier wrote:
Thankyou, your skill of a point well made with brevity may hopefully inspire Mr Sugarman
On Tue 9 Feb at: 09:16 Off-Message wrote:
Brixtonbelle, a babe I'm sure
Sugarboy she finds a bore
On 6th May it'll storm
But she'll always vote Norm
Though on the 7th it's blue once more!
On Tue 9 Feb at: 10:56 geoff wrote:
Since you simply don't know how I'm voting
Predictions are not really worth quoting
History is littered
With candidates embittered
By a failure to consider who is floating.
On Tue 9 Feb at: 13:22 Off-Message wrote:
Good one Geoff! Attempting to continue your theme:

Voters should make up their mind
To which candidate to bind
Their cross on election day
It could go any way
Blue, red, or yellow you'll find.