UKIP was right not to let the 'One London' defectors back in says top Tory in capital

Britannist · 05-12-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by One Londoner

I think you may be pleasantly surprised by the amount of media coverage we get in the 2008 mayoral/assembly campaign.

Even if One London runs an impressive election campaign next year it could find its vote split by UKIP and by the English Democrats.

All three are pro-sovereignty parties and all three quite rightly want the horrible europhile Livingstone out.

UKIP could lose votes to One London and One London might lose votes in the London Assembly elections of May 2008 to UKIP and the English Democrats.

The vote-splitting among the pro-sovereignty parties in the capital which I have long warned about looks like it is about to happen.

There is still time to avoid this.

Have the leadership of One London made contact lately with the leaderships of the English Democrats and UKIP to try to see if all three parties can find a way to work together on avoiding vote-splitting next May in London?

SponPlague · 05-12-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

I read (and do not know if it is true) that the Respect Party of leftist europhile George Galloway MP (a party which has been strong in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in the inner east of the capital) has split in two. This (if it is correct that it has happened) could affect how other small parties do in the next London Assembly elections. If the Respect Party has split (and the two sides of that party both stand against each other)

"Respect" is now:

a) "Respect" - for everyone except George Galloway
b) "Respect renewed" - George Galloway

prober · 05-12-2007, 10:17 PM

If Blair changes from condemning Livingstone as " a potential disaster for London" when he broke away to hailing him as the "proud to have him as the New Labour candidate" when NL looked like losing if it didnt take back Ken, why cant UKIP do the same with One London ?... innocent question.

One Londoner · 06-12-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by One Londoner

We are discussing the form of our (robust) response with the Editor of the New Statesman

Watch this space.

Further developments - the New Statesman has kindly published Damian Hockney's riposte to Brian Coleman. Far more productive than threats of libel writs!

It is a very long article (much longer than Coleman's column). This is the start, with a link at the end to the full article:

Quote:

Hockney bites back
Damian Hockney
Published 06 December 2007

Brian Coleman used his blog to take potshot at a couple of fellow London Assembly members. One London's Damian Hockney responds:

Spraying invective and bile against the two smaller political groups on the London Assembly, Brian Coleman betrays just how far the old parties have to go to become genuinely inclusive of diverse voices.

And to understand why two thirds of the electorate for the Mayor and Assembly elections just couldn't be bothered to even turn out to vote. The old parties just don't get it.

Brian berates the electorate for voting for "Others" like the Greens and our own free market anti-regulation One London Party, and betrays the arrogance of those who assume they have a God-given right to hold the reins of power.

Presumably Brian sheds mere crocodile tears for the millions who abstain - he makes no reference to them in his column. The real threat to the cosy duopoly lies with the rise of smaller parties that are cleverly exploiting this complacency.

He blames everyone (voters, BNP, Greens, One London, even the voting system itself) - everyone except himself for his failure to stop the haemorraging of votes from the old parties... More, much more. Worth a read!

Lawrie Boxall · 06-12-2007, 06:47 PM

Hi Michael
Can yo ask Damian how One London can be inclusive and libertarian at the same time?
innocent question
PS - any candidate vacancies?

mkpdavies · 06-12-2007, 07:07 PM

I suppose it depends on what you define inclusive as.

I am very inclusive towards people who take the line not to hurt others, in return for true freedom. IE they can believe and do what they want, as long as they don't make me do it. That's pretty inclusive in my mind. It only excludes fascists.

One Londoner · 06-12-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrie Boxall

Hi Michael
Can yo ask Damian how One London can be inclusive and libertarian at the same time?
innocent question
PS - any candidate vacancies?

Good to hear from you again, Lawrie. I trust all is well with you.

I didn't read it as saying One London is inclusive, but that Lib/Lab/Con are not inclusive of the vast numbers of people who have given up on them.

We are inclusive of anyone that shares our libertarian views in the same way that the Greens are inclusive of anyone who likes to knit their own electricity generators. How's that for a politician's answer?

(PS. Would that be a libertarian or an inclusive candidate?

)

Lawrie Boxall · 07-12-2007, 08:01 AM

Not bad thanks Michael

Now is that inclusive in the sense the rest of the planet understands it - of minorities, the poor, the weak, the disposessed, the unloved - all those on the margins of society?

I suppose that depends on what I mean by society?

Heck - why does it matter anyway this is politics after all - my job is driving me nuts and I could do with a change - wind me up and I will tell them what you want!

mkpdavies · 07-12-2007, 01:24 PM

Quote:

of minorities, the poor, the weak, the disposessed

They would be the biggest benfeactors in a truly free society. They would get to keep the fruits of their labour and those fruits would buy them more.

If they truly couldn't do anything about it, through no fault of their own, then they would benefit from the massive increase in good will and generosity that a truly free society would bring.

For example, someone like me who spends a small fortune on trying to return Britain to being a free country, would instead have other priorites to fight for and would have more money to do it.

Mark Croucher · 07-12-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by One Londoner

Good to hear from you again, Lawrie. I trust all is well with you.

I didn't read it as saying One London is inclusive, but that Lib/Lab/Con are not inclusive of the vast numbers of people who have given up on them.

We are inclusive of anyone that shares our libertarian views in the same way that the Greens are inclusive of anyone who likes to knit their own electricity generators. How's that for a politician's answer?

(PS. Would that be a libertarian or an inclusive candidate?

)

And how many people voted for None London at the last Assembly elections? How many voted for its individual members?

Oh, that's right. None.

Quite inclusive then.

M

06-12-2007, 07:07 PM	#16 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 32,078 Party: Libertarian Party	I suppose it depends on what you define inclusive as. I am very inclusive towards people who take the line not to hurt others, in return for true freedom. IE they can believe and do what they want, as long as they don't make me do it. That's pretty inclusive in my mind. It only excludes fascists. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-12-2007, 10:17 PM	#13 (permalink)
prober Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 860	If Blair changes from condemning Livingstone as " a potential disaster for London" when he broke away to hailing him as the "proud to have him as the New Labour candidate" when NL looked like losing if it didnt take back Ken, why cant UKIP do the same with One London ?... innocent question.

06-12-2007, 06:47 PM	#15 (permalink)
Lawrie Boxall Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sandhurst Posts: 1,031	Hi Michael Can yo ask Damian how One London can be inclusive and libertarian at the same time? innocent question PS - any candidate vacancies?

07-12-2007, 08:01 AM	#18 (permalink)
Lawrie Boxall Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sandhurst Posts: 1,031	Not bad thanks Michael Now is that inclusive in the sense the rest of the planet understands it - of minorities, the poor, the weak, the disposessed, the unloved - all those on the margins of society? I suppose that depends on what I mean by society? Heck - why does it matter anyway this is politics after all - my job is driving me nuts and I could do with a change - wind me up and I will tell them what you want!