Another excellent leaflet from Denton South Independent candidate Carl Simmons
Click on leaflet to enlarge.
15 comments:
Cretinocracy
said...
As the electorate becomes increasingly gutless, moronic, apathetic, foreign (often hostile to Britain and its values) and generally inferior, democracy may become the method by which Britain is destroyed.
Two Manchester postcodes, M8, Cheetham Hill and M12, Levenshulme have been listed in the twenty worst areas in the country for uninsured drivers, by the Motor Insurers' Bureau this year. Uninsured drivers in Gretaer Manchester are up at least 39% this year, and that rise was from an already astronomically high level. Greater Manchester Police's spineless, incompetent, politically correct (don't upset the ethnics) approach has led to this explosion of uninsured drivers in the last ten years (they don't quite appear to have matched West Yorkshire Police's magnificent 61% uninsured in Bradford a few years ago yet). In many areas such as Hulme, Moss Side and Whalley Range many companies now refuse to offer quotes at all such is the Third World motoring state of the area, from mass uninsurance, to dodgy claims, theft, damage and appalling driving standards.
I don't see this as an 'excellent' leaflet. Debate the number of councillors by all means but where's the justification for ending husband/ wife or family teams. If a couple are interested in local politics or how the local area is run where is the justification for stopping this other than jealousy. There are probably a lot of husband / wife combo's across the country who are involved in local politics. Forget local individuals and justify an end to more than one individual in a single household being excluded from local democracy.
One (rather honest) reason for ending husband / wife teams is the fact that the local ruling Labour Party is put in power by numb-skull brainwashed lemmings who would elect an empty yoghurt pot for the office of local government if a Labour rosette were attached.
When those already in local government offer up to the lemmings a prospective candidate, one would hope that they were selected purely on the basis of merit and ability, rather than the prospect of doubling the already-generous income of their spouse. Call me cynical, but somehow I don't trust politicians to act in such a way that concerns only the benefit of the local area and the nation.
I think I said leave local personalities to one side and let's have a serious debate bout whether husband / wife combo's shouldn't be allowed whether they be Labour, Tory, Libdem, BNP or whatever. I forgot that serious debate doesn't happen on this blog
I think I said leave local personalities to one side and let's have a serious debate bout whether husband / wife combo's shouldn't be allowed whether they be Labour, Tory, Libdem, BNP or whatever. I forgot that serious debate doesn't happen on this blog
I used to employ my partner, and paid her wages. It was not some type of fiddle/tax dodge. I employed her because she was good at her job, trustworthy and to be quite honest our skills complemented each other.Together we were better than the sum of our parts. We are both UKIP members, attend conferences together, leaflet/canvass together and we will both be standing for election next year as we have for several elections. Had either of us been elected in last years general election, we would have employed the other. Not as a cynical fiddle as many MPs did, but simply for the reasons above. Merry Christmas all
Local Labour Rag and willing weekly mouthpiece of JT 'The Reporter' chose not to publish the letter I sent a few weeks back in response to his rant about poppy box theft...
"It never ceases to amaze me the way our politicians have the front to write to local newspapers bemoaning the state of the country, without once seeming to take account of the fact that they themselves are willing and active members of the very political parties who are responsible.
Councillor Taylor pulled no punches in his letter last week regarding the ‘scum’ who steal poppy collection boxes, and added that the criminal justice system is far too soft and needs to ‘wake up’.
Well in case the councillor has himself been asleep for the last 14years, I will point out that his beloved Labour Party has just spent over a decade in power. The ‘criminal justice system’ to which he refers is in fact a direct product of the governments. It is they who make the laws, whilst the judiciary merely apply them.
Every judge who hands down a soft sentence has been empowered to do so by successive Labour and Conservative governments. It is all well and good Cllr. Taylor crowing about Labour’s ‘achievements’ and morally-superior policies when it suits him to win over voters. But he conveniently changes tactic on issues he knows are less likely to endear the public to his political colours.
The strategy here is obvious – credit me with my party’s achievements, but by all means disassociate me from its failings. Our politicians are at liberty to criticise the justice system, so long as in so doing they have the good grace to acknowledge that their own political creed needs to carry its share of the blame."
Not surprisingly, the Reporter's new hard-hitting and priggish columnist 'Curmudgeon' remarked this week that the judges want locking up for soft sentences, not once mentioning the politicians and those who year after year decade after decade display their determination to keep them in power by way of the ballot box.
There's no evidence that judges tend to veer toward the softer side of the sentencing guidlines handed to them by the politicians, but clearly Curmudgy and his Reporter friends just don't get it.
Mr Cooke don't worry about getting elected you know you've no chance. You don't really deserve the right, you never ever campaign yourself in elections. Shows just how bad you want to be elected
Not wishing to sound un-seasonal, or even Scrooge like but I must declare that I stand by my claim that Mr Simmons’s leaflet is an excellent leaflet. The point he makes about husband & wife teams on the councillors pay role is valid in some cases.
In this borough we have had (and still do) husband and wife teams whose entire financial existence gravitates around the very handsome living they earn as councillors. If the figures touted around this blog and elsewhere by Roy West regarding councillors income can be taken as a true, you have to ask yourself what exactly, other than attending DA’s four times a year, plus the occasional council meeting and the odd letter in the local newspapers, do councillors, be they husband and wife teams or even individual councillors do to earn such seemingly astronomical sums for what on the surface appears to be very little work.
A husband and wife who are both councillors in this borough would on average (if Roy West’s figures are accurate) have a combined income in excess of £40k per year. In the real world, that is a lot of money and you would have to work hard in an everyday job to command such an income. I really have very little idea on what being a councillor entails, but if it is just attending meetings and writing letters to the papers there is no way they should be getting paid so well in these times of austerity.
TC, I did not take it as unseasonal. They are valid points. However I was not critisising Carls leaflet, far from it. I agree with many of his points, I am afraid the abuses of some of the husband/wife teams have rather poisoned the Well. My point was that this does not apply to all. The main difficulty with all this is just what DO councillors do? If it is the 15 hours per week average, that is just do-able alongside a full time job. If however it rises above 15 hours PW then it becomes problematic. I think on the whole the basic allowance (£12k?)should stand. It covers the expenses incurred. Hours worked @£6.08 Plus a decent amount for milage,phone calls, printer ink,postage and the repair/replacement of the above. This includes pretty much 24/7 on call, so all in all a decent compromise. I do not agree that 4 DA meetings PA should receive any extra funding at all, I would also like to see each meeting chaired by different councillors from the Township, each councillor should be required to attend at least 3 of the DAs in whatever capacity. The big problem is when the weekly hours exceed 15pw, then the councillor needs to replace their work income. A very tricky point. much as I dislike Cllr K Quinns and Cllr J Taylors politics and doubt their qualifications for the jobs they hold, they do need to be paid a full time wage. Where do you draw the line? I hope this post provides a few points for debate, I doubt I will reply for a few days now. Merry Christmas!
Mr John Cooke of ukip you never lift a finger when you stand in elections. We all know your real game, the reasons why you stand in these elections, that is. All ways will, see you as a Searchlight agent.
The point is there are too many councillors. We don't need 57 to represent a mere 215,000 constituents (the equivalent of just over two parliamentary constituencies). When they worked for nothing it was OK but now, particularly in the current dire economic circumstances we can't afford such largesse, EVERYONE should be feeling the pinch and ALL services and staff should be being cut. Just as they are in the 'non-exempt' private sector.
As for the other poster's totally inaccurate comment that there's no serious debate on this blog, tell us your views on mass immigration and we'll get some going.
15 comments:
As the electorate becomes increasingly gutless, moronic, apathetic, foreign (often hostile to Britain and its values) and generally inferior, democracy may become the method by which Britain is destroyed.
Two Manchester postcodes, M8, Cheetham Hill and M12, Levenshulme have been listed in the twenty worst areas in the country for uninsured drivers, by the Motor Insurers' Bureau this year.
Uninsured drivers in Gretaer Manchester are up at least 39% this year, and that rise was from an already astronomically high level.
Greater Manchester Police's spineless, incompetent, politically correct (don't upset the ethnics) approach has led to this explosion of uninsured drivers in the last ten years (they don't quite appear to have matched West Yorkshire Police's magnificent 61% uninsured in Bradford a few years ago yet).
In many areas such as Hulme, Moss Side and Whalley Range many companies now refuse to offer quotes at all such is the Third World motoring state of the area, from mass uninsurance, to dodgy claims, theft, damage and appalling driving standards.
I don't see this as an 'excellent' leaflet. Debate the number of councillors by all means but where's the justification for ending husband/ wife or family teams. If a couple are interested in local politics or how the local area is run where is the justification for stopping this other than jealousy. There are probably a lot of husband / wife combo's across the country who are involved in local politics. Forget local individuals and justify an end to more than one individual in a single household being excluded from local democracy.
One (rather honest) reason for ending husband / wife teams is the fact that the local ruling Labour Party is put in power by numb-skull brainwashed lemmings who would elect an empty yoghurt pot for the office of local government if a Labour rosette were attached.
When those already in local government offer up to the lemmings a prospective candidate, one would hope that they were selected purely on the basis of merit and ability, rather than the prospect of doubling the already-generous income of their spouse. Call me cynical, but somehow I don't trust politicians to act in such a way that concerns only the benefit of the local area and the nation.
I think I said leave local personalities to one side and let's have a serious debate bout whether husband / wife combo's shouldn't be allowed whether they be Labour, Tory, Libdem, BNP or whatever. I forgot that serious debate doesn't happen on this blog
I think I said leave local personalities to one side and let's have a serious debate bout whether husband / wife combo's shouldn't be allowed whether they be Labour, Tory, Libdem, BNP or whatever. I forgot that serious debate doesn't happen on this blog
I used to employ my partner, and paid her wages. It was not some type of fiddle/tax dodge. I employed her because she was good at her job, trustworthy and to be quite honest our skills complemented each other.Together we were better than the sum of our parts. We are both UKIP members, attend conferences together, leaflet/canvass together and we will both be standing for election next year as we have for several elections. Had either of us been elected in last years general election, we would have employed the other. Not as a cynical fiddle as many MPs did, but simply for the reasons above. Merry Christmas all
Local Labour Rag and willing weekly mouthpiece of JT 'The Reporter' chose not to publish the letter I sent a few weeks back in response to his rant about poppy box theft...
"It never ceases to amaze me the way our politicians have the front to write to local newspapers bemoaning the state of the country, without once seeming to take account of the fact that they themselves are willing and active members of the very political parties who are responsible.
Councillor Taylor pulled no punches in his letter last week regarding the ‘scum’ who steal poppy collection boxes, and added that the criminal justice system is far too soft and needs to ‘wake up’.
Well in case the councillor has himself been asleep for the last 14years, I will point out that his beloved Labour Party has just spent over a decade in power. The ‘criminal justice system’ to which he refers is in fact a direct product of the governments. It is they who make the laws, whilst the judiciary merely apply them.
Every judge who hands down a soft sentence has been empowered to do so by successive Labour and Conservative governments. It is all well and good Cllr. Taylor crowing about
Labour’s ‘achievements’ and morally-superior policies when it suits him to win over voters. But he conveniently changes tactic on issues he knows are less likely to endear the public to his political colours.
The strategy here is obvious – credit me with my party’s achievements, but by all means disassociate me from its failings. Our politicians are at liberty to criticise the justice system, so long as in so doing they have the good grace to acknowledge that their own political creed needs to carry its share of the blame."
Not surprisingly, the Reporter's new hard-hitting and priggish columnist 'Curmudgeon'
remarked this week that the judges want locking up for soft sentences, not once mentioning the politicians and those who year after year decade after decade display their determination to keep them in power by way of the ballot box.
There's no evidence that judges tend to veer toward the softer side of the sentencing guidlines handed to them by the politicians, but clearly Curmudgy and his Reporter friends just don't get it.
Mr Cooke don't worry about getting elected you know you've no chance. You don't really deserve the right, you never ever campaign yourself in elections.
Shows just how bad you want to be elected
Hi readers please join this cause by following the blue link message.
Its your duty to speak out.
Thank You all
Not wishing to sound un-seasonal, or even Scrooge like but I must declare that I stand by my claim that Mr Simmons’s leaflet is an excellent leaflet. The point he makes about husband & wife teams on the councillors pay role is valid in some cases.
In this borough we have had (and still do) husband and wife teams whose entire financial existence gravitates around the very handsome living they earn as councillors. If the figures touted around this blog and elsewhere by Roy West regarding councillors income can be taken as a true, you have to ask yourself what exactly, other than attending DA’s four times a year, plus the occasional council meeting and the odd letter in the local newspapers, do councillors, be they husband and wife teams or even individual councillors do to earn such seemingly astronomical sums for what on the surface appears to be very little work.
A husband and wife who are both councillors in this borough would on average (if Roy West’s figures are accurate) have a combined income in excess of £40k per year. In the real world, that is a lot of money and you would have to work hard in an everyday job to command such an income. I really have very little idea on what being a councillor entails, but if it is just attending meetings and writing letters to the papers there is no way they should be getting paid so well in these times of austerity.
TC, I did not take it as unseasonal. They are valid points. However I was not critisising Carls leaflet, far from it. I agree with many of his points, I am afraid the abuses of some of the husband/wife teams have rather poisoned the Well. My point was that this does not apply to all.
The main difficulty with all this is just what DO councillors do? If it is the 15 hours per week average, that is just do-able alongside a full time job. If however it rises above 15 hours PW then it becomes problematic. I think on the whole the basic allowance (£12k?)should stand. It covers the expenses incurred. Hours worked @£6.08 Plus a decent amount for milage,phone calls, printer ink,postage and the repair/replacement of the above. This includes pretty much 24/7 on call, so all in all a decent compromise.
I do not agree that 4 DA meetings PA should receive any extra funding at all, I would also like to see each meeting chaired by different councillors from the Township, each councillor should be required to attend at least 3 of the DAs in whatever capacity.
The big problem is when the weekly hours exceed 15pw, then the councillor needs to replace their work income. A very tricky point. much as I dislike Cllr K Quinns and Cllr J Taylors politics and doubt their qualifications for the jobs they hold, they do need to be paid a full time wage. Where do you draw the line? I hope this post provides a few points for debate, I doubt I will reply for a few days now. Merry Christmas!
Mr John Cooke of ukip you never lift a finger when you stand in elections.
We all know your real game, the reasons why you stand in these elections, that is. All ways will, see you as a Searchlight agent.
The point is there are too many councillors. We don't need 57 to represent a mere 215,000 constituents (the equivalent of just over two parliamentary constituencies). When they worked for nothing it was OK but now, particularly in the current dire economic circumstances we can't afford such largesse, EVERYONE should be feeling the pinch and ALL services and staff should be being cut. Just as they are in the 'non-exempt' private sector.
As for the other poster's totally inaccurate comment that there's no serious debate on this blog, tell us your views on mass immigration and we'll get some going.
Yes oh yes, the greedy amongst us take our freedoms away from us
Post a Comment