Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Lydia taking the leap--I'm a Tory now!
Hello Harringay,
A few weeks ago a good friend in the Conservatives asked me to run under their banner in the local elections and I didn't laugh right in his face.
My original excursion into politics was in 2001, when I joined the Conservatives because I was so angry about the Victoria Climbie thing but then I left them in 2005 because:
a) I got fed up of politics and
b) I got fed up of the Conservatives (mind you I was just as fed up of the other lot).
When, a few weeks ago, I was invited back to the treadmill, I wasn't any better disposed to the political life but there is so much sh*t going on in this borough that I decided I couldn't ignore it any more. I don't fit that well into a Party mold but seeing as the Conservatives are the only group really serious about opposition in this borough and seeing as I am an Angry Old Woman, I decided that *someone* has to do something. Don't talk to me about the LibDems. The place for nodding dogs is in the back of the car, not in the Council chamber.
*If you want to follow me on Twitter, the address is <@LoveHarringay>
*If you want to get in touch with me by phone, leave a message with Tottenham Conservatives on 020 8374 6305. I'll get back to you. Or email loveharringay@gmail.com.
*If you want to discuss political theory, ring the LSE.
And from now on, you can be as suspicious as you want about anything I say.
btw:
I and my two running-mates, Sean Rivers and Massimo Rossini (NB--Rivers, Rivlin & Rossini make The Three Rs, which all good Conservatives support) will be putting out a leaflet soon.
The local party have agreed to let us write up our own stuff, so we are actually going to be working hard on it, ourselves. At least take a look when it lands on your doormat.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Lydia R on
-
Sorry I missed this, Finsbury Park Ranger.
FYI, just had to say that although in moderation Greens are necessary, swallow too much and you, rather than the Greens, do the running.
-
Permalink Reply by william spring on
-
Lydia Rivlin hangs out on why she is a Tory. But I question if today's" Conservative Party" is Tory at all. I think Cameron destroyed the Tory Party by pressing ahead with gay marriage. Neither the Tories nor the other main political parties at Westminster made the redefinition of marriage any part of their election manifesto. Nor was it in the coalition agreement. Cameron told Sky News he had no plans to change the law. There was no green paper or white paper. As to the Government’s online response form, this was anonymous, anyone anywhere in the world could submit a response, as many times as they liked, while Cameron ignored the 500,000 names and addresses of UK residents on the C4M petition refusing to accept them as responses to the consultation. Although the consultation ruled out religious same-sex weddings, when the Bill was published religious ceremonies were included, which now exposes religious organisations to the threat of legal action. In 2010 I stood for the Tories in Tottenham Hale. If I had asked people to vote Tory because we intended to bring in gay marriage....in such a God fearing area as Tottenham Hale, the most Christian part of the UK with the possible exception of the Outer Hebrides, the doors would have shut in my face. If I had followed this up by saying "Oh!! and another thing we'll bomb Libya, kill 30,000 Libyans, destroy that country's infrastructure, lynch Col Gadaffi ..."(with the support of the SAS, which is what happened) I would have been run out of town. Cameron cynically used us. I feel polluted, defiled, by my brief association with his undemocratic power bid.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Hinchcliffe on
-
William, keep 'em coming. The fact is the Conservative Party has changed. And you're doing a great job in reminding people of that fact. Yes, it was a Conservative-led government who brought in equal marriage - thank you to the LD minister responsible, Lynne Featherstone, and to all the Members (of all parties) who supported bill as it made it's way through Parliament. Equal marriage becomes a reality in a few days time. You have been a Conservative, RESPECT, Lib Dem and now, I hear, UKIP member. It's difficult to take you seriously, I'm afraid. Again, thank you for reminder HOL that, on our watch, equal marriage is on the statute book. Justin (Agent and Chair, Tottenham Conservatives)
-
-
Dear Justin, Of course the Party has changed... for the worse, and you have to thank Lynne Featherstone for Cameron's supposed success!! How extraordinary!! Years ago Featherstone wrote to me & said in effect holding Christian views are OK only as long as they are kept out of the public sphere. Congrats to Cameron & yourself & the C4 propagandists, for endorsing fake, bogus (though still legal marriages)
-
Permalink Reply by 1rk254kmc0kqw on
-
The coalition have achieved quite a lot of things during their term. And the equal marriage bill has been one of them. I suspect that William Spring disagrees with the equal marriage bill. What's there to disagree with?
-
-
in reply to Jerry "what's there to disagree with", the answer is a lot actually. Apart from linguistic issues there is also the application of the new law with ferocious 3rd Reich type victimisation of people who disagree with the concept e.g. the b & b proprietors who have had their business ruined by agent provacateurs.
Lynne Featherstone trampled down all conscientious objections, including by Registrars or former Registrars such as Lilian Ladele.
-
-
You cannot not 'opt-out' of legislation where you, personally, are in disagreement with it. End of.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
He's not opting out of it: he's just saying he disagrees with it.
But I think I see Godwin's Law just breaking the surface
-
-
this is really amazing stuff you are sending up justin. On the one hand you locate Lynne Featherstone as the epitome of (new - Cameronian) Conservative values, on the other hand you attack the failed attempt to bring in a conscience clause, in respect to gay marriage, (saying in effect Lilian Ladele was lawfully dismissed) while you defend the conscience clause in respect of the 1967 Abortion Act.
-
-
I was asked about my views on the education system round here and promised I would talk about it when I had done some research.
Here are my findings. This discussion might migrate to the education thread or to the election section which I see Hugh has now set up. But I did want to get this to you while the info is fresh in my mind.
I spoke to five people, three in this borough and two out, including a school principal and a school governor and three more who asked me not to specify, so I will not. I shall state here that I was not taking notes or recording these conversations so what I have written below contains what I remember of the meetings, which means that there may be a certain amount of my own interpretation.
There was a remarkable consensus between them all, saying similar things in different ways but one of them rather shocked me. S/he said that a huge and obstructive bureaucratic layer in the schools’ administrative structure had built up, especially in the far leftwing councils and that cuts started by Mrs Thatcher and followed up by subsequent governments--Conservative and Labour—had pared down this unnecessary interference. Haringey Council which was a particular sinner, made the situation worse by delaying cuts, so that instead of the reductions happening in small slices over a period of years, everything had to be done simultaneously. This caused tremendous difficulties because as pointless as the bloated structure was, the pedagogical architecture had been built to accommodate it. Its sudden removal caused chaos. S/he then made a very telling comment. "I was against the cuts because Thatcher had proposed them…but they were the right thing to do and schools are much improved now because of it".
Does this not strike you as strange? An intelligent and highly literate person who has with great competence held heavy responsibilities and who, during our conversation, I came to respect very deeply, still could not sanction essential reconstruction of a failing system because the changes had been set in motion by a politician with an outlook unpopular in certain circles. I am absolutely certain that this was a majority view. I find that extraordinary, and heartbreaking. Politics absolutely MUST end where our children’s welfare begins.
Two of my interviewees made a special point of telling me that in the main, members of the teaching profession are very conservative (small "c"), hanging on to the familiar even when they know it is not working optimally. Furthermore, they tend to be political idealists who often--I shall paraphrase now—frequently pull down their ideological blinds at the first sign of the flare of reality at their windows.
I discovered from all of them that something like 85% of all the money going into a school is spent on wages. What is left over is used for education. If the Principal finds the Council support services too expensive or inefficient and scources a better delivery, then the savings will swell the education budget. How much goes into education, therefore, depends to an astonishing degree on the business skills of the Principal.
Some schools are headed by people who think independently, while others just take orders and what the Council provides. The ones who take orders are the ones whose schools end up with fewer financial resources and, predictably, the least impressive educational statistics.
Councils still have a presence on the governing board of all schools (except the academies, which were founded by the Labour Party so if you Labour supporters don't like it, don't shout at *me*), meaning that the Council can — if they are so inclined, — shoehorn in a Principal more sympathetic to their political ideology than competent in administration. Such an appointee would be less likely to find alternatives to Council services and this is where the children lose out.
First question: Is it right that the guts and determination of ONE administrator can make or break an entire school full of hundreds of kids?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
A great work of English. I prefer using the plural pronouns to clumsy he/she stuff. As much as I think you're cool, it's a good job you won't be elected. :)
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
