Skip to main content

Labour and Consistency

Labour have frequently critisised the Lib Dems for being inconsistent. For example they criticise us for the fact that the Edinburgh Lib Dems have not implemented a congestion charge.

Our response is that it is "horses for courses" and what is appropriate locally should apply.

Now Labour are delivering leaflets in Birmingham criticising the administration for introducing a congestion charge. Firstly the administration does not actually have a policy of introducing a congestion charge. Furthermore, however, Labour can either claim that consistency should apply in which case they should be consistent.

Alternatively they should allow local discretion and not criticise the Lib Dems for using local discrretion.

The same Labour leaflet criticises the extension of the Metro system. This is a policy supported by Labour.

Comments

PoliticalHack said…
Funny how none of the areas occupied by LDs were ever regarded as being suitable for a congestion charge. Indeed, the then transport spokesman wrote to the Secretary of State explaining in detail why his constituency of Bath was entirely unsuitable for the congestion charge (as supported by the LDs). See also wind farms and anything else that might gain some local advantage for the surrender of a national policy.

I've not seen this leaflet.

There's enough to attack the Tory/LD administration in Birmingham without going on about the congestion charge.

The disastrous meltdown of the email and web systems is an interesting case as well. Many companies audited their disaster recovery processes after the Buncefield explosion last year, but Birmingham seems to have been happy to keep all the IT servers in one room. Which was insane, but worked until yesterday's fire, I believe.

Cue one council in chaos.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…