Thursday, May 03, 2007

MP Hayes sinks to new low in personal attack...

Until yesterday, I always believed that our local MP John Hayes was a decent sort, despite being firmly on the hard-right of the Conservative Party.

But he's decided to make an unjustified personal attack against me for accepting an allowance for my work as councillor for Deeping St James.

In a desperate dirty trick to damage my credibility in today's local elections, John Hayes delivered an eve-of-poll leaflet to my neighbours, portraying me as claiming a "staggering" amount in expenses.

As John Hayes and the Tories know, the truth is rather different.

Unlike him, and most other councillors, I have never claimed a penny in travel expenses.

Over the years, I could have claimed thousands of pounds for the 90-mile round trip backwards and forwards to the council's offices. The public record shows I've never claimed any of this entitlement.

Unlike some, I don't do it for the money!

26 comments:

Michael Oakeshott said...

Worth every penny Phil. Or not as the case may be.

fairdealphil said...

michael:

welcome back. hope you've voted today!

Michael Oakeshott said...

I voted last week. Want to exercise the privilege before Labour abolishes it.

fairdealphil said...

i blame blair for all this hot weather.

Michael Oakeshott said...

Agreed. I would accept his immediate resignation and suicide as an apology.

fairdealphil said...

you've clearly been in Japan too long.

Samantha said...

I couldn't believe it, Fairdeal! The leaflet started by accusing you of gutter politics and then said it wouldn't do the same, and THEN spent another page and a half doing exactly that. AND all its negative stuff about Labour was on national issues - for a local election! They can't say anything negative about Labour in the district, though, can they? Because they've never listened to what Labour has said, so they have no idea, do they?

Geoffrey G Brooking said...

Hello again everyone.

fairdealphil said...

samantha:

thanks for your comments.

trouble is, no-one has taken them on before.

these people have a record of saying one thing in the deepings, then going to grantham and voting on party lines and forgetting their responsibilities to those who elected them.

they knew i had them on the run - and despite their protestations, it was them who sunk into the gutter.

as i say, i was really surprised that john hayes mp sank to that level by attacking me so personally - and without justification.

Anonymous said...

CONSERVATIVE GAIN LINCOLN.

EAT YOUR HUMBLE PIE!

fairdealphil said...

geoffrey:

welcome back!

fairdealphil said...

anonymous:

i will if you will.

as i posted earlier today, Tories win Lincoln from Labour and Labour wins North Lincs from Tories.

Michael Oakeshott said...

Tories gain 900.
Labour lose 500.

The winners and losers are quite apparent. Some corner of Lincoln isn't going to delude anybody.

fairdealphil said...

michael:

No argument with your figures, Labour have indeed lost in the order of 500 seats, Lib Dems have lost a couple of hundred and the Tories have won 875 with only a handful of councils still to declare.

Not good, but better than expected and certainly not the Labour meltdown predicted by some.

And significantly, nowhere near the 1995 meltdown when the Conservatives lost 2,000 local council seats in a single night.

Up to that point, the Tories were regularly mauled in local elections, but continued to win General Elections.

Labour's share of the vote this week was actually higher than in the local elections which preceeded the 2005 General Election...which you may recall delivered Labour's historic third term victory.

We're in the middest of mid-terms yet councils like Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Gateshead are STILL Tory-free zones.

Nearer to home, Labour still making GAINS in places like Nottingham, where the Conservatives held ALL the local parliamentary seats in the 1980s.

Michael Oakeshott said...

Get real Phil. Labour barely had 2000 seats left to defend after previous disasters. Labour got stuffed and it would be more dignified if you accepted it. The result is actually worse than most commentators expected(and even that would have been bad). Losing 750 on such a small proportion would have been bad. But 900?! Picking out regional pockets doesn't change the overall score. It is rather like saying: "well United lost 3-0 but I thought Scholes got a great tackle in on Gattuso in 56th minute". To (mis)quote David Steel: "Go back to your constituencies(oops lost a few boroughs haven't we?!) and prepare for Opposition". It's going to be a long time in the wilderness for you boys.

fairdealphil said...

michael:

Most of the political experts in today's UK papers tend to agree with me michael, not you:

Bad for Labour, though not the expected meltdown, but nowhere near good enough for the Tories.

Very different to Labour's performance in local elections the last time the country decided it wanted change.

Perhaps we can agree that was in 1995, approx at a similar place to where we are in the present electoral cycle - two years before the likely date of the next General Election.

Since you quote figures, let's put them in context:

Before the local elections in 1995, the Tories held 4,100 council seats. They lost 2,000 in one night.

Labour started in 1995 with 4,400 and added 1,800 on the same night.

This week, Labour started with 6,100 councillors and has ended the week with approx 5,200.

The Tories started this week with 8,500 and ended with approx 9,400.

In 1995, the Tories lost 61 councils in one night.

So far, I can only identify 10 councils lost by Labour this week.

To stay with your football analogy, Labour's losses are not in the same league.

In 1995, the game was up for the Major Government.

Today. it's still all to play for.

Michael Oakeshott said...

The usual Labour con-trick with numbers. If this is an example of your honesty Phil, no wonder your electorate had enough of you on Thursdays.

As for the papers, you obviously buy the ones you like. Read a few of the others then come back.

You mention Labour having kept 5,200 councillors. Might be something to do with the fact they only contested 2,200. Labour only lost 10. But this was a quarter of what they had...and even before Thursday this was 30% of what the Tories had. And then you wonder why no one believes Labour stats.

Keep kidding yourself Phil, I won't care. You didn't think you'd lose on Thursday. Another surprise coming your way methinks.

fairdealphil said...

In fact, Labour contested 6,345 council seats this week, that's more than treble the number you suggest michael.

not even close.

Michael Oakeshott said...

Not the case Phil. They defended 2349. So in fact the result is far worse than you implied.

Are there going to be more posts on here Phil, what with all that free time? I could do with the laugh.

fairdealphil said...

michael:

you said 'Labour...only contested 2,200'

you're confusing seats contested with those defended.

check it out in your Ladybird Book of Politics.

Michael Oakeshott said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Geoffrey G Brooking said...

Phil:

There's a very intersting story that really throws a spanner into your argument at:

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/05/and-then-there-were-none-89-labour-free.html

fairdealphil said...

comment from michael oakeshott deleted by blog author.

commenters very welcome, but may i remind everyone that the laws of defamation apply to weblogs and the internet. thanks.

fairdealphil said...

geoffrey:

don't get too excited, it's the white areas of the map that are labour free.

would be interesting to compare the population of those areas with the "tory-free" councils such as Newcastle, Gateshead, Liverpool, Knowsley, Manchester.

i heard cameron talking about the progress the Tories had made in "places like Sunderland and North Tyneside..."

Yep, the Tories now have a councillor in Sunderland... the 54 Labour councillors must be really worried...!

As for North Tyneside, the only gainers on Thursday were Labour!

Tories failed to win their number one target of Bury - again and also places they predicted to take such as Crewe and Nantwich where Labour lost just one seat and Bolton where Labour actually gained two).

Yes, definitely excellent results for the Conservatives in places like Chester and Ribble Valley (both largely at the expense of LibDems, South Ribble (at Labour and LibDem expense) and Blackpool (largely at Labour's expense).

Closer to home, losing Lincoln is obviously painful for Labour (we lost five seats) and a great result for the Conservatives.

I wonder if Labour in Lincoln put too much effort into (successfully apparently) stopping the BNP but took their eye off their real opponents...?

Michael Oakeshott said...

Tut tut Phil, if you don't value freedom of speech then I can see why your former electorate decided to end your tenure. If you read the comment carefully(ie one more time), you will find that I merely made a statement about Jose Mourniho's contract remuneration. Paranoia springs eternal.

fairdealphil said...

of course i value freedom of speech, just as i value honesty, integrity and freedom itself.

but i trust others will recognise that freedom comes with responsibility.

defamatory or insulting comments are not welcomed and will be deleted.

i value all contributions to this blog and the comment was the first i've felt the need to delete in well over a year of this blog's existence.

i try to have a respectful conversation with 'allcomers'...

i welcome challenge and robust debate, but there is a line...

let's move on...