Blears survives no confidence vote
Branch delegates (i.e.. those with voting rights) have overwhelmingly voted against the motion of no confidence in Hazel Blears from three ward branches of the CLP. Looks like the local Labour parties are somewhat out of step with the majority of the Labour Party’s opinion on Blears. Swinton Labour are apparently particularly angry with Blears. Bad news for her constituents and for the rest of the British public really.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting.
Edit: 33 votes to 12 in favour of Blears.
7:25 am on June 19th, 2009
The wit & wisdom of Hazel Blears
But she added: “Now I’ve got a chance to rebuild and reinvigorate my politics a little bit about reconnecting with the people.”
(So why did she slide out the back door)
It was a poor show from Salford Labour last night.
What concerns you more, the actions of some people or the surreal world they must live in where they feel they are a champion of the poor whilst claiming for TV’s etc on a £60,000 a year plus job.
7:26 am on June 21st, 2009
I thought that the Labour Party operated a ‘one man one vote’ system. Old habits die hard. No doubt we will have celebrity Independants standing against her in 2010.
9:45 am on June 21st, 2009
There was a motion to open up the vote to the whole membership but it was heavily defeated.
I hope we don’t have any celebrity independents – I want people who know Salford and are standing because they are for Salford rather than just against Hazel. See my previous post on the subject.
2:48 pm on June 21st, 2009
Well… ahem… I know of at least one non-celebrity independent for Salford and Eccles next time!
And he’s likely to remain a non-celebrity if the Guardian Media Group has anything to do with it. He’s been told by one GMG journalist that he will certainly get some news coverage in GMG’s local paper provided that he first raises the dead!
4:37 pm on June 21st, 2009
I look forward to seeing your efforts at necromancy. If Salford is engulfed in a zombie plague then I will know who to blame.
11:25 pm on June 21st, 2009
A hostile takeover bid for the newspaper will probably be easier, or a hefty bribe, or getting an insider journalist girlfriend. And Iain Lindley might put in a good word.
As for Salford zombies, there is one dead woman who just won’t lie down. Completely outgunned in the media stakes by the undead one!
And can I have a quick whinge about Martin Bell? WTF has the white-suited one ever had to do with Salford, and why has the GMG given him a massive platform to spout off about his merely having a think about it, but won’t give so much as half a column inch to a local declared indy? One is completely suppressed whilst the other is the subject of major news articles without even committing to a candidacy.
GMG is as much to blame as anybody for the ongoing survival of HB; for years it has never failed to give HB an unrivalled media platform which opponents can only dream of.
9:02 am on June 22nd, 2009
You’re being a bit harsh on the media Richard. Martin Bell is somewhat more famous and newsworthy than you or I you have to admit! And as for Hazel – she gets more news coverage a) because she is the MP and has been a cabinet minister, and b) because she has people working full time for her churning out press releases and arranging photo-ops. Journalists will take what press releases they can get and fill their papers with them – sheer volume and professional expertise will ensure that Hazel’s people get stuff in the press more often than us amateurs.
12:09 pm on June 22nd, 2009
I agree, but it’s more than that. Certain people who are very active in Salford and who regularly do unquestionably newsworthy things in Salford and all of which is known by the local press are nevertheless deliberately and consistently ignored by the local press. It’s not just me, it’s several people who are frozen out. I understand how the media works and there is a definite agenda going on here – there is no other explanation for it. It’d be very interesting to expand upon the subject and provide lots of examples and analysis but as ever time is marching.
12:51 pm on June 22nd, 2009
Richard could it be that your ignored because many of your views are seen as extremely controversial to say the least.
It would be easy for the papers to portray you as a homophobic, sexist, racist who’s in favor of some serious curtailments to the public liberty and freedom of choice.
Yes I know you’ll bang on about you “Hating the sinner not the sin” but tell that to …
Homosexuals where your views are that they’re “perverts and potential child abused in need of healing or locking up”
Women who you don’t see as suitable or strong enough for the police
Muslims who are ALL involved in a Jihad and even if they pretend to be reasonable its just a deception
Models or actresses who show they bodies who you refer to as “prostitutes” including the article about the students who posed fopr a WI type calender to raise money for charity (just google carvath and it’s there for all to read)
Teachers who are in favor of sex education are accused by you of “Grooming kids for anal abuse” in fact you have called sex education “child abuse”
You don’t like civil liberties groups and hate “multiculturalism” and I won’t even start of the abortion debate before we all get called murderers again!! The Scottish church have “Split from god” because they’ve ordained an openly gay priest in your words and anyone thats having sex outside of marriage is “anti-moral shaggers”.
All of the above are your stated views Richard ( you’ll moan but all of them are either on your website or in blogs and if there is a single inaccuracy please point it out and I’ll show you the quote it came from) and you wonder why you don’t get as much attention!!
Could it be that there’s a degree of embarrassment and they’re hoping you’ll go away quietly if they just ignore you??
2:18 pm on June 22nd, 2009
I do not respond to the anonymous ‘Roger Berry’ directly anymore, following his recent character assassination attempts on the Swinton South Lib Dems blog.
Interested parties can go back over recent comment threads on Mole45’s blog to see for themselves the sort of exchanges which took place.
[If you're familiar with the 'Lord of the Rings' books/films] I view Roger as a Gollum figure in my life.
He’s a sneaky, deceitful, corrupt, pathetic little footpad who creeps around comment-threads after me, occasionally jumping out from beneath a rock to ambush me in a barrage of turd-tossing.
It is pointless trying to reason with him. It is futile to point out that his selective representations of me are at best major distortions and at worst outright lies and fabrications. Even when he does manage to present a genuine quote of mine, it is a dead loss to explain to Roger such concepts as context, background, motive, irony, humour, metaphors and others.
If allowed to, he will simply toss the same turd over and over and over again.
4:11 pm on June 22nd, 2009
In a nutshell then Richard the above are all publicly available comments of yours that you can’t disagree with on a single point but for some reason you don’t like them repeated , now I wonder why that could be ???
5:00 pm on June 22nd, 2009
No impartial jury in the land would agree with RB’s portrayal of me as being either fair or accurate.
RB makes even Lord Haw Haw and Doctor Goebbels cringe!
The last month has been quite an eyeopener. Although I’ve yet to get any significant mainstream media coverage in the context of being a PPC for Salford and Eccles, for the first time I’ve been confronted by an organised anti-me campaign on the web from the likes of RB.
I have no objection to identifiable political opponents giving their opinion of me in a resonable manner – and using genuine and contextualised quotes to do so – even if it is very harsh, but that’s not by and large what has happened.
What’s going on is anonymous persons are going round publishing stuff about me that is well beyond the pale, including making claims about me which are unquestionably false and completely making up some ‘quotes’!
5:49 pm on June 22nd, 2009
So again a generalized whinge that your being picked on but your unable to point out a single inaccuracy in my points above, simply because they’re all your views.
Yes they sound terrible when they are repeated one after another but thats because they are pretty bloody extreme for the vast majority of the population.
If there’s an inaccuracy then point it out Richard otherwise stop throwing your toys out and crying that your being picked on.
6:01 pm on June 22nd, 2009
There’s no point even attempting to reason with the anonymous fool above. It’s a very similar scenario to the recent occasions in which Steve Cooke has been targeted here on his blog by BNP activists writing the most outrageous and wacky crap about him and the Lib Dems. Inaccuracies… where would one begin?!!
6:36 pm on June 22nd, 2009
Look – this is my blog and I’m pretty tolerant of comments all told (though no longer where the BNP are concerned) – but this debate is only tangentially linked with the post I made and has turned rather nasty. As it happens I share many of the concerns about your positions outlined above Richard and I for one would welcome you answering them – but on your own blog and not in the comments section of mine.
Finally, I hardly think that someone who provides their name and an email address (visible to me) is anonymous! The people who try to post here under multiple names, or with made up email addresses or pseudonyms are anonymous – Roger is not (or are you after a photo and address?).
6:59 pm on June 22nd, 2009
Yes Steve he is and has made the request to a number of people in different threads for example http://www.salfordadvertiser.co.uk/news/c/1087942_students_wish_you_a_very_happy_nude_year_
Richard has also made a few very thinly vailed threats to people he terms as “enemy’s” on his own blog and on Mole’s and as a result it’s of a slight concern that he keeps wanting to know where people apposed to him live!
I’m actually quite happy to show up and drop off some sponsorship money for your forthcoming event (probably a weekend though) Steve and then perhaps you’d be good enough to confirm that I’m a person and not part of some huge anti Carvath conspiracy (probably jointly funded by gay rights, feminists, muslims and pro abortionists who are in league with the pro Sex and the City “pornographers” who secretly rule the world and have banded together in fear of Richard!)
8:05 pm on June 22nd, 2009
Very kind of you Roger!
8:17 pm on June 22nd, 2009
No problem perhaps you can return the favor if I finally get fit enough to run a marathon for cancer research ?
Either way just email me an address or phone number and I’ll arrange a donation, it’s good to see anyone who physically does something thats beyond them normally for charity and the sense of achievement after an event is a great reward in itself.
8:44 pm on June 22nd, 2009
Will do Roger. I’ll happily donate to a different cancer charity – such as McMillan, but I’m afraid that (as a committed vegan) I don’t give money to charities that fund experimentation on animals.
8:48 pm on June 22nd, 2009
McMillan will probably be the charity of choice anyway thanks Steve !
Just let me know how and I’ll contact you with my donation.