Mayor Dorothy Thornhill: election victory vindicates “controversial decisions”

Dorothy Thornhill with her husband Councillor Iain Sharpe at the count

Dorothy Thornhill with her husband Councillor Iain Sharpe at the count

First published in News
Last updated
by

Dorothy Thornhill comfortably secured her fourth consecutive term as Watford’s mayor beating her nearest rival by almost double.

The Liberal Democrat did not get enough first preference votes to secure an outright win in the first round of counting.

But she then saw off Labour challenger Jagtar Singh Dhindsa in the second round after UKIP’s Phil Cox and Conservative candidate Linda Topping were knocked out of the running.

Mayor Thornhill described the win as a vindication of the “controversial decisions” made during her last term in office.

She said: “The overwhelming feeling is gratitude. I’m absolutely humbled by the trust the people of Watford have put in me, especially as this has been a quite a controversial term of office.

“We’ve had to take some tough decisions, we’ve had to do things that were controversial with some people so I guess to me this is a vindication of these decisions.

“My job now is to finish the job I started and make Watford an even better place to live.”

The incumbent won with 14,193 total votes, compared to Dhindsa’s 7,504 votes.

She managed 11,741 votes on the first round and picked up a further 2,452 in second preferences.

Nearest rival Councillor Dhindsa secured 6,577 in the first round and another 927 in the second round.

But Councillor Dhindsa was proud of his effort, saying Labour had challenged Mayor Thornhill this election.

He said: “I feel great. It was a great team effort, I’d like to thank my team on a great job.

“We’ve come from third place to second and we’ve seen UKIP off, which was a threat in Watford, and I think we are now in a strong position to take the Parliamentary seat in Watford.”

Watford Observer:

Jagtar Singh Dhindsa (centre).

Councillor Dhindsa continued that he didn’t think Mayor Thornhill will stand for her whole four year term, but is convinced she will run in the Parliamentary elections next year.

He said: “I don’t think she will complete her term of four years. We have been asking this question a long time and even today I heard her say she has not made her mind up.”

Mayor Thornhill said she was still undecided about whether or not to run for Parliament, but added: “I love this job, I really do.”

She said she hadn’t been able to think about anything beyond this election.

UKIP’s Mr Cox came third gaining 3,789 first preference votes – a mere 316 more than last place contender Conservative Linda Topping.

Mr Cox admitted he was disappointed with the showing.

He said: “I am disappointed with the result. I had hoped to have done a bit better.”

Mrs Topping, who finished last with 3,470 first preference votes, said: “I am happy with the campaign we ran, I have confidence in the MP and we heard some very positive things when out on people’s doorsteps.”

Comments (85)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:01pm Fri 23 May 14

croxleyite says...

Oh now then!
Oh now then! croxleyite
  • Score: -4

10:32pm Fri 23 May 14

Hornets number 12 fan says...

Lack of credible opposition!
Lack of credible opposition! Hornets number 12 fan
  • Score: 9

4:42am Sat 24 May 14

trebleywebley says...

Who says there was no credible opposition ? O h I get it , the electorate.
Are those the same people that voted foe the Mayor responsible for many
controversial decisions in her last year.She's now blaming you saying you voting her in is an endorsement of her controversial decisions.She hasn't committed herself to another full term in office.See you at the polling station soon.
Who says there was no credible opposition ? O h I get it , the electorate. Are those the same people that voted foe the Mayor responsible for many controversial decisions in her last year.She's now blaming you saying you voting her in is an endorsement of her controversial decisions.She hasn't committed herself to another full term in office.See you at the polling station soon. trebleywebley
  • Score: 6

10:09am Sat 24 May 14

phil mitchel says...

With over 50,000 people eligible to vote only around a fifth voted for her outright, the rest were second choices, less than a quarter voted for her overall. Over three quarters either didn't want her or thought non of those standing worth the effort.
With over 50,000 people eligible to vote only around a fifth voted for her outright, the rest were second choices, less than a quarter voted for her overall. Over three quarters either didn't want her or thought non of those standing worth the effort. phil mitchel
  • Score: 10

10:11am Sat 24 May 14

TRT says...

I take it one of those controversial decisions was the decision to lie and mislead the electorate and the secretary of state over the new shape of the hospital development?
As a lifelong Lib Dem / Green I was left without a means of expressing support for my beliefs. I don't like the way the people I voted in last time abandoned their integrity so readily. A road over the playing fields over my dead body became a road that had to be because the NHS insists on it if A&E is to remain in Watford. That just tells me the hospital's in the wrong place. Then we get t
I take it one of those controversial decisions was the decision to lie and mislead the electorate and the secretary of state over the new shape of the hospital development? As a lifelong Lib Dem / Green I was left without a means of expressing support for my beliefs. I don't like the way the people I voted in last time abandoned their integrity so readily. A road over the playing fields over my dead body became a road that had to be because the NHS insists on it if A&E is to remain in Watford. That just tells me the hospital's in the wrong place. Then we get t TRT
  • Score: 10

10:23am Sat 24 May 14

TRT says...

told that it's either the allotments or the hospital but really it's the allotments or houses - an argument that doesn't wash. Then £4.5 million replacing a 15 year old make over whilst there are areas of the town that haven't seen a penny spent on them for 30, 40, 50 years.
Purple flags and cultural shows sucking up the loose change whilst our roads crumble and our street lights go out.
So, with no mayoral candidate from the greens, what do I do? No green councillor in my ward. I'm stuck. I'm not voting for people who have lied so readily. Better the devil you know they say, but I doubt it. They take it as a vindication of their decisions, it's not; it's a combination of habit and believing their lies.
told that it's either the allotments or the hospital but really it's the allotments or houses - an argument that doesn't wash. Then £4.5 million replacing a 15 year old make over whilst there are areas of the town that haven't seen a penny spent on them for 30, 40, 50 years. Purple flags and cultural shows sucking up the loose change whilst our roads crumble and our street lights go out. So, with no mayoral candidate from the greens, what do I do? No green councillor in my ward. I'm stuck. I'm not voting for people who have lied so readily. Better the devil you know they say, but I doubt it. They take it as a vindication of their decisions, it's not; it's a combination of habit and believing their lies. TRT
  • Score: 16

10:58am Sat 24 May 14

Wacko Jacko says...

Lots of sour grapes amongst these comments. If you don't agree with LibDem policies, you need to make that clear at the ballot box. What is obvious from this result is the vast majority of those Watford residents who care enough about local issues and go out to cast their vote, are solidly behind the Mayor. Now let's crack on with the Health Campus.
Lots of sour grapes amongst these comments. If you don't agree with LibDem policies, you need to make that clear at the ballot box. What is obvious from this result is the vast majority of those Watford residents who care enough about local issues and go out to cast their vote, are solidly behind the Mayor. Now let's crack on with the Health Campus. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: -18

10:59am Sat 24 May 14

phil mitchel says...

I wonder how she feels when realises 3 out of 4 people don't like her or don't want her as mayor ?
I wonder how she feels when realises 3 out of 4 people don't like her or don't want her as mayor ? phil mitchel
  • Score: 8

11:38am Sat 24 May 14

TRT says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Lots of sour grapes amongst these comments. If you don't agree with LibDem policies, you need to make that clear at the ballot box. What is obvious from this result is the vast majority of those Watford residents who care enough about local issues and go out to cast their vote, are solidly behind the Mayor. Now let's crack on with the Health Campus.
I don't like the way that the party I've given lifelong support to is treating the electorate. You read it here yourself. There will not be a new hospital in Watford. When 750 homes go up at the rear of the hospital, there will be no SPACE for a new hospital. The 2nd most densely populated ward in Hertfordshire will become the most densely populated. The place with the worst traffic problems in Watford is being forced to take more and more traffic. And why? Because they are in the pockets of Kier, because they've committed resources to the preparation of the site and plans only to be let down by central government and they can't openly condemn that because their own party is in power through coalition . Watch the language - they express regret, they say it's a shame, they never say it's downright wrong to renege on a promise (though they are happy to do that themselves time and again).
No sour grapes here, just a finger pointing at a mayor who's happy to say with contempt "that's democracy for you" when she's not happy about citizens exercising their legal rights (reminds me of that tv show ad that's on). So when in 15 years time we're filling these columns with debate on the state of West Watford, I'd like the WO to come back to these comments and we can all say "you know, we had a chance to do it differently on 22nd May 2014 but we messed it up".
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: Lots of sour grapes amongst these comments. If you don't agree with LibDem policies, you need to make that clear at the ballot box. What is obvious from this result is the vast majority of those Watford residents who care enough about local issues and go out to cast their vote, are solidly behind the Mayor. Now let's crack on with the Health Campus.[/p][/quote]I don't like the way that the party I've given lifelong support to is treating the electorate. You read it here yourself. There will not be a new hospital in Watford. When 750 homes go up at the rear of the hospital, there will be no SPACE for a new hospital. The 2nd most densely populated ward in Hertfordshire will become the most densely populated. The place with the worst traffic problems in Watford is being forced to take more and more traffic. And why? Because they are in the pockets of Kier, because they've committed resources to the preparation of the site and plans only to be let down by central government and they can't openly condemn that because their own party is in power through coalition . Watch the language - they express regret, they say it's a shame, they never say it's downright wrong to renege on a promise (though they are happy to do that themselves time and again). No sour grapes here, just a finger pointing at a mayor who's happy to say with contempt "that's democracy for you" when she's not happy about citizens exercising their legal rights (reminds me of that tv show ad that's on). So when in 15 years time we're filling these columns with debate on the state of West Watford, I'd like the WO to come back to these comments and we can all say "you know, we had a chance to do it differently on 22nd May 2014 but we messed it up". TRT
  • Score: 21

12:18pm Sat 24 May 14

watfordrick says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Lots of sour grapes amongst these comments. If you don't agree with LibDem policies, you need to make that clear at the ballot box. What is obvious from this result is the vast majority of those Watford residents who care enough about local issues and go out to cast their vote, are solidly behind the Mayor. Now let's crack on with the Health Campus.
I must admit like sour grapes the thought of another 4 years of Dorothy does leave a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. However at least we know she's what she's like. I think the LibDems only got 6 councils overall unfortunately we were one of them. I don't think they can blame UKIP for the poor results. Anyway where's Cox he has a lot to answer for.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: Lots of sour grapes amongst these comments. If you don't agree with LibDem policies, you need to make that clear at the ballot box. What is obvious from this result is the vast majority of those Watford residents who care enough about local issues and go out to cast their vote, are solidly behind the Mayor. Now let's crack on with the Health Campus.[/p][/quote]I must admit like sour grapes the thought of another 4 years of Dorothy does leave a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. However at least we know she's what she's like. I think the LibDems only got 6 councils overall unfortunately we were one of them. I don't think they can blame UKIP for the poor results. Anyway where's Cox he has a lot to answer for. watfordrick
  • Score: 3

1:05pm Sat 24 May 14

Retlas says...

"I watch with interest all the electioneering.
I was a Watford Borough resident and paid rates - not council tax. Gives a clue to my age and was astounded when Dorothy was re- elected in 2010 but hey ho.
I can see no other result than a fourth term for her as the electorate is so divided and no, I have no influence on the outcome as I am not a WBC resident.
I look with, foreboding, to the outcome for Watford residents."

I posted this earlier in the week and I cannot fathom how she has been re-elected!!
Unfortunately I am lumbered with the same scenario in Three Rivers.
So thank you everyone, that will moan and grumble but probably didn't bother to vote!!
"I watch with interest all the electioneering. I was a Watford Borough resident and paid rates - not council tax. Gives a clue to my age and was astounded when Dorothy was re- elected in 2010 but hey ho. I can see no other result than a fourth term for her as the electorate is so divided and no, I have no influence on the outcome as I am not a WBC resident. I look with, foreboding, to the outcome for Watford residents." I posted this earlier in the week and I cannot fathom how she has been re-elected!! Unfortunately I am lumbered with the same scenario in Three Rivers. So thank you everyone, that will moan and grumble but probably didn't bother to vote!! Retlas
  • Score: 10

1:22pm Sat 24 May 14

mrsmoanalot says...

Ho No! Another 4 years of playing "Where's Dorothy" in the Watford Observer, it's like "Where's Wally" only with more chances.
Ho No! Another 4 years of playing "Where's Dorothy" in the Watford Observer, it's like "Where's Wally" only with more chances. mrsmoanalot
  • Score: 19

2:41pm Sat 24 May 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Don't blow your trumpet too much Dorothy, you were just the best of a bad bunch! No hospital now? well what a surprise. Nice timing,...
Don't blow your trumpet too much Dorothy, you were just the best of a bad bunch! No hospital now? well what a surprise. Nice timing,... LocalBoy1
  • Score: 11

3:18pm Sat 24 May 14

LocalBoy1 says...

phil mitchel wrote:
I wonder how she feels when realises 3 out of 4 people don't like her or don't want her as mayor ?
Well, when she becomes an MP she will dump Watford and won't finish her term anyway..
[quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: I wonder how she feels when realises 3 out of 4 people don't like her or don't want her as mayor ?[/p][/quote]Well, when she becomes an MP she will dump Watford and won't finish her term anyway.. LocalBoy1
  • Score: 7

5:10pm Sat 24 May 14

rew001 says...

Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.
Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them. rew001
  • Score: -19

7:42pm Sat 24 May 14

Wacko Jacko says...

phil mitchel wrote:
I wonder how she feels when realises 3 out of 4 people don't like her or don't want her as mayor ?
I don't know where you get your sums from, that's the opposite of what the poll result shows. If you are criticising the apathy of those who moan a lot but can't be bothered to get out and vote then you have a point. But that's democracy for you, it depends on people taking part. I take the view that if you don't bother to vote then you lose the moral right to criticise those who get elected.
[quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: I wonder how she feels when realises 3 out of 4 people don't like her or don't want her as mayor ?[/p][/quote]I don't know where you get your sums from, that's the opposite of what the poll result shows. If you are criticising the apathy of those who moan a lot but can't be bothered to get out and vote then you have a point. But that's democracy for you, it depends on people taking part. I take the view that if you don't bother to vote then you lose the moral right to criticise those who get elected. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 2

7:45pm Sat 24 May 14

Wacko Jacko says...

rew001 wrote:
Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.
Couldn't agree more, well said.
[quote][p][bold]rew001[/bold] wrote: Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: -8

7:58am Sun 25 May 14

Sara says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Don't blow your trumpet too much Dorothy, you were just the best of a bad bunch! No hospital now? well what a surprise. Nice timing,...
And there was me thinking you were one of Phil Cox's cheerleaders...
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: Don't blow your trumpet too much Dorothy, you were just the best of a bad bunch! No hospital now? well what a surprise. Nice timing,...[/p][/quote]And there was me thinking you were one of Phil Cox's cheerleaders... Sara
  • Score: 4

9:15am Sun 25 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
phil mitchel wrote:
I wonder how she feels when realises 3 out of 4 people don't like her or don't want her as mayor ?
I don't know where you get your sums from, that's the opposite of what the poll result shows. If you are criticising the apathy of those who moan a lot but can't be bothered to get out and vote then you have a point. But that's democracy for you, it depends on people taking part. I take the view that if you don't bother to vote then you lose the moral right to criticise those who get elected.
This is probably there first time I have agreed with Wacko Jacko. If people do not go out and vote, then they have no room to complain later if they do not get the result they wanted.

It doesn't matter that they were misled by the incumbent Mayor during and before the elections. They had the hard-won opportunity to go out and vote and 2 out of every 3 decided not to.

This is politics and some parties are out to mislead you. You have to take what they say with a pinch of salt sometimes.

In truth there are 70,909 electors in Watford.

Only 1 in every 6 eligible voters voted for Dorothy as first choice.

A little more than one in 6 voters voted first choice for someone else, but the biggest vote by far was for "none of the above".

Nearly 4 in every 6 eligible voters just didn't bother voting at all.

That is a loss to our democracy. The reason why? Nobody knows, but I do know people are turned off politics by all the dirty tricks, smears and lies that are thrown around by our elected politicians and their supporters. This year, to head off the UKIP threat the LibDems played the race card well, in a dirty tricks type of way.

The fact that UKIP is a non-racist party did not deter her trying to portray the opposite. Shameful politics, but it worked, she was re-elected.

At these elections, no-one seems to have mentioned this fact yet.

The LibDem vote was down by 50% in 2014.

The Labour vote was down by about 40% in 2014.

The Conservative vote was down by 66% in 2014.

UKIP had never stood in Watford before for the Mayoral and so 15% of the votes cast, whilst disappointing, was perhaps not a bad start considering all the mud that was flung our way. We conducted a clean campaign and we are proud of that fact. We told the truth.

Our sincere thanks go out to all those who trusted UKIP and voted UKIP in 2014, in the Mayoral elections, the Borough elections and the EU elections. From this firm footing in Watford we will grow and next year I have little doubt we will convert this support into seats.

Had the Conservatives not narrowly captured Park, this would have been an absolutely disastrous election for them in Watford.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: I wonder how she feels when realises 3 out of 4 people don't like her or don't want her as mayor ?[/p][/quote]I don't know where you get your sums from, that's the opposite of what the poll result shows. If you are criticising the apathy of those who moan a lot but can't be bothered to get out and vote then you have a point. But that's democracy for you, it depends on people taking part. I take the view that if you don't bother to vote then you lose the moral right to criticise those who get elected.[/p][/quote]This is probably there first time I have agreed with Wacko Jacko. If people do not go out and vote, then they have no room to complain later if they do not get the result they wanted. It doesn't matter that they were misled by the incumbent Mayor during and before the elections. They had the hard-won opportunity to go out and vote and 2 out of every 3 decided not to. This is politics and some parties are out to mislead you. You have to take what they say with a pinch of salt sometimes. In truth there are 70,909 electors in Watford. Only 1 in every 6 eligible voters voted for Dorothy as first choice. A little more than one in 6 voters voted first choice for someone else, but the biggest vote by far was for "none of the above". Nearly 4 in every 6 eligible voters just didn't bother voting at all. That is a loss to our democracy. The reason why? Nobody knows, but I do know people are turned off politics by all the dirty tricks, smears and lies that are thrown around by our elected politicians and their supporters. This year, to head off the UKIP threat the LibDems played the race card well, in a dirty tricks type of way. The fact that UKIP is a non-racist party did not deter her trying to portray the opposite. Shameful politics, but it worked, she was re-elected. At these elections, no-one seems to have mentioned this fact yet. The LibDem vote was down by 50% in 2014. The Labour vote was down by about 40% in 2014. The Conservative vote was down by 66% in 2014. UKIP had never stood in Watford before for the Mayoral and so 15% of the votes cast, whilst disappointing, was perhaps not a bad start considering all the mud that was flung our way. We conducted a clean campaign and we are proud of that fact. We told the truth. Our sincere thanks go out to all those who trusted UKIP and voted UKIP in 2014, in the Mayoral elections, the Borough elections and the EU elections. From this firm footing in Watford we will grow and next year I have little doubt we will convert this support into seats. Had the Conservatives not narrowly captured Park, this would have been an absolutely disastrous election for them in Watford. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 4

9:18am Sun 25 May 14

D_Penn says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
rew001 wrote:
Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.
Couldn't agree more, well said.
If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'.

To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rew001[/bold] wrote: Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said.[/p][/quote]If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'. To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford. D_Penn
  • Score: 5

11:18am Sun 25 May 14

UAFhornet says...

D_Penn wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
rew001 wrote:
Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.
Couldn't agree more, well said.
If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'.

To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.
Hi David, how was the Ukip Watford earthquake?

Did the earth move for you?
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rew001[/bold] wrote: Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said.[/p][/quote]If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'. To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.[/p][/quote]Hi David, how was the Ukip Watford earthquake? Did the earth move for you? UAFhornet
  • Score: 1

11:33am Sun 25 May 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Sara wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
Don't blow your trumpet too much Dorothy, you were just the best of a bad bunch! No hospital now? well what a surprise. Nice timing,...
And there was me thinking you were one of Phil Cox's cheerleaders...
To be quite truthful Sara, I didn't cheer on any of the mayoral candidates.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: Don't blow your trumpet too much Dorothy, you were just the best of a bad bunch! No hospital now? well what a surprise. Nice timing,...[/p][/quote]And there was me thinking you were one of Phil Cox's cheerleaders...[/p][/quote]To be quite truthful Sara, I didn't cheer on any of the mayoral candidates. LocalBoy1
  • Score: -2

1:46pm Sun 25 May 14

UAFhornet says...

Honest Rog wrote:
Phil Cox.....ha ha ha ha. We spoke. You didn't hear. Now feck off!
I gave you a thumbs up, someone gave you a thumbs down prior to my thumbs up..

Phil, give it up mate you lost, you lost in a massive way, you told us there would be a Ukip earthquake in Watford..

Now all you have left is clicking down thumb on Honest Rog's posts..

Bit of a difference from the 80k a year plus expenses job you were after eh?
You are a chancer Phil and Honest Rog has hit the nail on the head with his succinct post.

Now Phil will you please do what Rog suggested and feck off and take that muppet David Penn with you..


cheers x
[quote][p][bold]Honest Rog[/bold] wrote: Phil Cox.....ha ha ha ha. We spoke. You didn't hear. Now feck off![/p][/quote]I gave you a thumbs up, someone gave you a thumbs down prior to my thumbs up.. Phil, give it up mate you lost, you lost in a massive way, you told us there would be a Ukip earthquake in Watford.. Now all you have left is clicking down thumb on Honest Rog's posts.. Bit of a difference from the 80k a year plus expenses job you were after eh? You are a chancer Phil and Honest Rog has hit the nail on the head with his succinct post. Now Phil will you please do what Rog suggested and feck off and take that muppet David Penn with you.. cheers x UAFhornet
  • Score: -1

2:01pm Sun 25 May 14

BCB69 says...

Next Dotty will announce that she will not stand as an M.P. next year as she loves Watford so much, and she will tell you her job as Mayor is not finished yet, she will start to ruin our town a bit more over the next 4 years, those of you who voted for her have got what you deserve, watch this space. and can we please have our street lights back on, just a thought.
Next Dotty will announce that she will not stand as an M.P. next year as she loves Watford so much, and she will tell you her job as Mayor is not finished yet, she will start to ruin our town a bit more over the next 4 years, those of you who voted for her have got what you deserve, watch this space. and can we please have our street lights back on, just a thought. BCB69
  • Score: 10

3:34pm Sun 25 May 14

D_Penn says...

UAFhornet wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
rew001 wrote: Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.
Couldn't agree more, well said.
If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'. To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.
Hi David, how was the Ukip Watford earthquake? Did the earth move for you?
I suspect you are being facetious, but I'll answer anyway.

It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, but you cannot expect people to switch to a new party overnight. This is only the first time that we have stood in all the wards and on the council side I was amazed that we took so many second places. That really augers well for the future because turning seconds into firsts is very achievable.

I'll admit we were slightly disappointed with the mayoral total because we hoped to be a bit closer to Labour. The LibDems were of course unbeatable this time as they have been working all the wards for many years and are well entrenched. It will take a while to shift them. We also know that Labour has strong support in particular areas and that they would be hard wards for us to make ground in. However, beating the Conservatives into fourth place? That would have been unthinkable four years ago when the mayoral contest was last held, so that was very pleasing.

So overall, I'm very pleased that we made so much progress in a borough that, because it is so heavily fought over, is difficult to make an impact. However, as people get to know us and start to realise that we are not the racist party that the media try to slur us with, I'm confident that we will make swift progress.

This election is only the start for UKIP. We are here to stay and give the people of Watford a real alternative to vote for. I believe that to be good for democracy.

Right now we wait for the European results and then it's roll on next year. I can't wait for the challenge!
[quote][p][bold]UAFhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rew001[/bold] wrote: Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said.[/p][/quote]If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'. To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.[/p][/quote]Hi David, how was the Ukip Watford earthquake? Did the earth move for you?[/p][/quote]I suspect you are being facetious, but I'll answer anyway. It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, but you cannot expect people to switch to a new party overnight. This is only the first time that we have stood in all the wards and on the council side I was amazed that we took so many second places. That really augers well for the future because turning seconds into firsts is very achievable. I'll admit we were slightly disappointed with the mayoral total because we hoped to be a bit closer to Labour. The LibDems were of course unbeatable this time as they have been working all the wards for many years and are well entrenched. It will take a while to shift them. We also know that Labour has strong support in particular areas and that they would be hard wards for us to make ground in. However, beating the Conservatives into fourth place? That would have been unthinkable four years ago when the mayoral contest was last held, so that was very pleasing. So overall, I'm very pleased that we made so much progress in a borough that, because it is so heavily fought over, is difficult to make an impact. However, as people get to know us and start to realise that we are not the racist party that the media try to slur us with, I'm confident that we will make swift progress. This election is only the start for UKIP. We are here to stay and give the people of Watford a real alternative to vote for. I believe that to be good for democracy. Right now we wait for the European results and then it's roll on next year. I can't wait for the challenge! D_Penn
  • Score: -2

3:34pm Sun 25 May 14

BCB69 says...

UAFhornet wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
rew001 wrote:
Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.
Couldn't agree more, well said.
If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'.

To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.
Hi David, how was the Ukip Watford earthquake?

Did the earth move for you?
Why do we need an elected Mayor?
[quote][p][bold]UAFhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rew001[/bold] wrote: Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said.[/p][/quote]If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'. To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.[/p][/quote]Hi David, how was the Ukip Watford earthquake? Did the earth move for you?[/p][/quote]Why do we need an elected Mayor? BCB69
  • Score: 4

3:41pm Sun 25 May 14

TRT says...

BCB69 wrote:
UAFhornet wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
rew001 wrote:
Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.
Couldn't agree more, well said.
If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'.

To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.
Hi David, how was the Ukip Watford earthquake?

Did the earth move for you?
Why do we need an elected Mayor?
Watford. Little London.
[quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UAFhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rew001[/bold] wrote: Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said.[/p][/quote]If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'. To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.[/p][/quote]Hi David, how was the Ukip Watford earthquake? Did the earth move for you?[/p][/quote]Why do we need an elected Mayor?[/p][/quote]Watford. Little London. TRT
  • Score: 1

3:46pm Sun 25 May 14

D_Penn says...

BCB69 wrote:
UAFhornet wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
rew001 wrote: Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.
Couldn't agree more, well said.
If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'. To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.
Hi David, how was the Ukip Watford earthquake? Did the earth move for you?
Why do we need an elected Mayor?
The simplest answer is because it gives the whole town the chance to vote for a particular person to be their political leader rather than the choice of leader being a decision made by the councillors.

Whether it is a better or worse system for local democracy is very arguable.
[quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UAFhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rew001[/bold] wrote: Congratulations to Dorothy. She's done a fine job as Mayor. It's true that her opposition wasn't up to much but that's more to do with the fact the other parties knew they had no chance and, in any case, have nobody, with any ability amongst them.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, well said.[/p][/quote]If there's one thing worse that a sore loser, it's a triumphalist winner who does not understand the meaning of 'magnanimous'. To claim that other parties had nobody with any ability amongst them is just the sort of insulting, smug arrogance that turns off voters. Eventually it will be one of the reasons that leads to your downfall across Watford.[/p][/quote]Hi David, how was the Ukip Watford earthquake? Did the earth move for you?[/p][/quote]Why do we need an elected Mayor?[/p][/quote]The simplest answer is because it gives the whole town the chance to vote for a particular person to be their political leader rather than the choice of leader being a decision made by the councillors. Whether it is a better or worse system for local democracy is very arguable. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Sun 25 May 14

UAFhornet says...

Hi Mr Penn, so considering the decent performance by Ukip around the country, why do you think you did so badly in Watford?

Was it the election strategy, was it the quality of the candidate?

In my opinion it was both, that is why you only got about 3 thousand voters in Watford voting for Mr Cox.
Hi Mr Penn, so considering the decent performance by Ukip around the country, why do you think you did so badly in Watford? Was it the election strategy, was it the quality of the candidate? In my opinion it was both, that is why you only got about 3 thousand voters in Watford voting for Mr Cox. UAFhornet
  • Score: 7

5:50pm Sun 25 May 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg's head.........
Figures in the Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg to resign in the wake of dismal local election results....... Hot from the PM Telegraph.
Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg's head......... Figures in the Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg to resign in the wake of dismal local election results....... Hot from the PM Telegraph. LocalBoy1
  • Score: -2

6:14pm Sun 25 May 14

UAFhornet says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg's head.........
Figures in the Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg to resign in the wake of dismal local election results....... Hot from the PM Telegraph.
Its great, Fib Dems who used to split the left of centre vote are finished at the next general election, Ukip splitting the right wing tory vote..


Labour are going to walk it at the 2015 general election..

I might even support Cox and Penn in splitting the vote, after all election experts are predicting that Ukip might get one seat i.e. Farage, so Ukip will be as big as the Greens are..
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg's head......... Figures in the Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg to resign in the wake of dismal local election results....... Hot from the PM Telegraph.[/p][/quote]Its great, Fib Dems who used to split the left of centre vote are finished at the next general election, Ukip splitting the right wing tory vote.. Labour are going to walk it at the 2015 general election.. I might even support Cox and Penn in splitting the vote, after all election experts are predicting that Ukip might get one seat i.e. Farage, so Ukip will be as big as the Greens are.. UAFhornet
  • Score: -6

6:32pm Sun 25 May 14

D_Penn says...

UAFhornet wrote:
Hi Mr Penn, so considering the decent performance by Ukip around the country, why do you think you did so badly in Watford? Was it the election strategy, was it the quality of the candidate? In my opinion it was both, that is why you only got about 3 thousand voters in Watford voting for Mr Cox.
Neither. As I have already said, the chief reason is that Watford has been a heavily fought borough for years. The existing parties are well entrenched and well practised and battle hardened. Many faces are well known to the electorate and the other parties have years or even decades to build up support. We have only just started!

Given the difficulties we faced as the new kids on the block, we have done really well. In fact, I was surprised that we performed so strongly in the council wards. Only my mayoral electoral prediction was off as I had hoped we would exceed 4000 votes. But you have to remember that we had no previous history to go on, so it really was guesswork and we could just as easily have got half that number.

Overall, we are quite satisfied, but now we have cut our teeth, the real work begins. Next year will be exciting. The real winners though will be the electorate with plenty of choice.
[quote][p][bold]UAFhornet[/bold] wrote: Hi Mr Penn, so considering the decent performance by Ukip around the country, why do you think you did so badly in Watford? Was it the election strategy, was it the quality of the candidate? In my opinion it was both, that is why you only got about 3 thousand voters in Watford voting for Mr Cox.[/p][/quote]Neither. As I have already said, the chief reason is that Watford has been a heavily fought borough for years. The existing parties are well entrenched and well practised and battle hardened. Many faces are well known to the electorate and the other parties have years or even decades to build up support. We have only just started! Given the difficulties we faced as the new kids on the block, we have done really well. In fact, I was surprised that we performed so strongly in the council wards. Only my mayoral electoral prediction was off as I had hoped we would exceed 4000 votes. But you have to remember that we had no previous history to go on, so it really was guesswork and we could just as easily have got half that number. Overall, we are quite satisfied, but now we have cut our teeth, the real work begins. Next year will be exciting. The real winners though will be the electorate with plenty of choice. D_Penn
  • Score: -5

6:48pm Sun 25 May 14

LocalBoy1 says...

UAFhornet wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg's head.........
Figures in the Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg to resign in the wake of dismal local election results....... Hot from the PM Telegraph.
Its great, Fib Dems who used to split the left of centre vote are finished at the next general election, Ukip splitting the right wing tory vote..


Labour are going to walk it at the 2015 general election..

I might even support Cox and Penn in splitting the vote, after all election experts are predicting that Ukip might get one seat i.e. Farage, so Ukip will be as big as the Greens are..
Fib Dems. I like that, it's good.
[quote][p][bold]UAFhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg's head......... Figures in the Lib Dems call for Nick Clegg to resign in the wake of dismal local election results....... Hot from the PM Telegraph.[/p][/quote]Its great, Fib Dems who used to split the left of centre vote are finished at the next general election, Ukip splitting the right wing tory vote.. Labour are going to walk it at the 2015 general election.. I might even support Cox and Penn in splitting the vote, after all election experts are predicting that Ukip might get one seat i.e. Farage, so Ukip will be as big as the Greens are..[/p][/quote]Fib Dems. I like that, it's good. LocalBoy1
  • Score: -8

8:15pm Sun 25 May 14

Curly1962 says...

So many people have told me that they didn't bother voting in the Mayoral election as there was no one they wanted to vote for! 13726 people did vote for someone else other than Dottie (more than voted FOR her as a first preference) but many couldn't bring themselves to vote for any of them. What we really needed was a strong independent candidate to oppose Dottie or, at the very least, a "none of the above" option!
So many people have told me that they didn't bother voting in the Mayoral election as there was no one they wanted to vote for! 13726 people did vote for someone else other than Dottie (more than voted FOR her as a first preference) but many couldn't bring themselves to vote for any of them. What we really needed was a strong independent candidate to oppose Dottie or, at the very least, a "none of the above" option! Curly1962
  • Score: 3

8:25pm Sun 25 May 14

Nascot says...

D_Penn wrote:
UAFhornet wrote:
Hi Mr Penn, so considering the decent performance by Ukip around the country, why do you think you did so badly in Watford? Was it the election strategy, was it the quality of the candidate? In my opinion it was both, that is why you only got about 3 thousand voters in Watford voting for Mr Cox.
Neither. As I have already said, the chief reason is that Watford has been a heavily fought borough for years. The existing parties are well entrenched and well practised and battle hardened. Many faces are well known to the electorate and the other parties have years or even decades to build up support. We have only just started!

Given the difficulties we faced as the new kids on the block, we have done really well. In fact, I was surprised that we performed so strongly in the council wards. Only my mayoral electoral prediction was off as I had hoped we would exceed 4000 votes. But you have to remember that we had no previous history to go on, so it really was guesswork and we could just as easily have got half that number.

Overall, we are quite satisfied, but now we have cut our teeth, the real work begins. Next year will be exciting. The real winners though will be the electorate with plenty of choice.
Cox did NOTHING to show that he had ANY political attributes that would appeal to us as voters. His arrogance was astounding. When baited, he descended into smearing all his critics. His total lack of knowledge in how the council operated, demanding to be told how much existing councillors earned etc. when the information was freely available (as it is legally required to be) on the website. Endlessly hijacking reports with inane comments. I could go on, but the truth of the fact is that there are no UKIP representation in Watford. courtesy of the actions of Laurel & Hardy (Cox & Penn)
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UAFhornet[/bold] wrote: Hi Mr Penn, so considering the decent performance by Ukip around the country, why do you think you did so badly in Watford? Was it the election strategy, was it the quality of the candidate? In my opinion it was both, that is why you only got about 3 thousand voters in Watford voting for Mr Cox.[/p][/quote]Neither. As I have already said, the chief reason is that Watford has been a heavily fought borough for years. The existing parties are well entrenched and well practised and battle hardened. Many faces are well known to the electorate and the other parties have years or even decades to build up support. We have only just started! Given the difficulties we faced as the new kids on the block, we have done really well. In fact, I was surprised that we performed so strongly in the council wards. Only my mayoral electoral prediction was off as I had hoped we would exceed 4000 votes. But you have to remember that we had no previous history to go on, so it really was guesswork and we could just as easily have got half that number. Overall, we are quite satisfied, but now we have cut our teeth, the real work begins. Next year will be exciting. The real winners though will be the electorate with plenty of choice.[/p][/quote]Cox did NOTHING to show that he had ANY political attributes that would appeal to us as voters. His arrogance was astounding. When baited, he descended into smearing all his critics. His total lack of knowledge in how the council operated, demanding to be told how much existing councillors earned etc. when the information was freely available (as it is legally required to be) on the website. Endlessly hijacking reports with inane comments. I could go on, but the truth of the fact is that there are no UKIP representation in Watford. courtesy of the actions of Laurel & Hardy (Cox & Penn) Nascot
  • Score: 7

8:27pm Sun 25 May 14

TRT says...

Curly1962 wrote:
So many people have told me that they didn't bother voting in the Mayoral election as there was no one they wanted to vote for! 13726 people did vote for someone else other than Dottie (more than voted FOR her as a first preference) but many couldn't bring themselves to vote for any of them. What we really needed was a strong independent candidate to oppose Dottie or, at the very least, a "none of the above" option!
Quite. This is the situation I found myself in. There's a catalogue of issues with the current administration. Lies over the health campus, vanity capital regeneration schemes to satisfy big studio execs, exorbitant salaries for council execs whilst the coal face workers yet again have frozen pay, uncertaintity over their future, outsourced services etc.
On the other hand there are some achievements they can claim, but they've had their run. They're getting arrogant and power drunk.
A green mayor or a strong independent and Mare Downhill would have had a run for her money.
[quote][p][bold]Curly1962[/bold] wrote: So many people have told me that they didn't bother voting in the Mayoral election as there was no one they wanted to vote for! 13726 people did vote for someone else other than Dottie (more than voted FOR her as a first preference) but many couldn't bring themselves to vote for any of them. What we really needed was a strong independent candidate to oppose Dottie or, at the very least, a "none of the above" option![/p][/quote]Quite. This is the situation I found myself in. There's a catalogue of issues with the current administration. Lies over the health campus, vanity capital regeneration schemes to satisfy big studio execs, exorbitant salaries for council execs whilst the coal face workers yet again have frozen pay, uncertaintity over their future, outsourced services etc. On the other hand there are some achievements they can claim, but they've had their run. They're getting arrogant and power drunk. A green mayor or a strong independent and Mare Downhill would have had a run for her money. TRT
  • Score: 0

10:27pm Sun 25 May 14

Sara says...

@D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, '

So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?
@D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, ' So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public? Sara
  • Score: 4

10:31pm Sun 25 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Nascot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
UAFhornet wrote: Hi Mr Penn, so considering the decent performance by Ukip around the country, why do you think you did so badly in Watford? Was it the election strategy, was it the quality of the candidate? In my opinion it was both, that is why you only got about 3 thousand voters in Watford voting for Mr Cox.
Neither. As I have already said, the chief reason is that Watford has been a heavily fought borough for years. The existing parties are well entrenched and well practised and battle hardened. Many faces are well known to the electorate and the other parties have years or even decades to build up support. We have only just started! Given the difficulties we faced as the new kids on the block, we have done really well. In fact, I was surprised that we performed so strongly in the council wards. Only my mayoral electoral prediction was off as I had hoped we would exceed 4000 votes. But you have to remember that we had no previous history to go on, so it really was guesswork and we could just as easily have got half that number. Overall, we are quite satisfied, but now we have cut our teeth, the real work begins. Next year will be exciting. The real winners though will be the electorate with plenty of choice.
Cox did NOTHING to show that he had ANY political attributes that would appeal to us as voters. His arrogance was astounding. When baited, he descended into smearing all his critics. His total lack of knowledge in how the council operated, demanding to be told how much existing councillors earned etc. when the information was freely available (as it is legally required to be) on the website. Endlessly hijacking reports with inane comments. I could go on, but the truth of the fact is that there are no UKIP representation in Watford. courtesy of the actions of Laurel & Hardy (Cox & Penn)
But then, you would say that, wouldn't you Nascot?

We had by far the best and most honest manifesto, but it wasn't enough.

For reasons best known to yourself you are anti-UKIP, and therefore you are likely to interpret whatever you can in an unfair light.

All the smearing was one-way, against UKIP, particularly from the LibDems who played the racism card so cynically.

Should we be surprised at the LibDems? No, it's how they operate I suppose.

The EU election results are in. Good for UKIP. Not so good for the LibDems.
[quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UAFhornet[/bold] wrote: Hi Mr Penn, so considering the decent performance by Ukip around the country, why do you think you did so badly in Watford? Was it the election strategy, was it the quality of the candidate? In my opinion it was both, that is why you only got about 3 thousand voters in Watford voting for Mr Cox.[/p][/quote]Neither. As I have already said, the chief reason is that Watford has been a heavily fought borough for years. The existing parties are well entrenched and well practised and battle hardened. Many faces are well known to the electorate and the other parties have years or even decades to build up support. We have only just started! Given the difficulties we faced as the new kids on the block, we have done really well. In fact, I was surprised that we performed so strongly in the council wards. Only my mayoral electoral prediction was off as I had hoped we would exceed 4000 votes. But you have to remember that we had no previous history to go on, so it really was guesswork and we could just as easily have got half that number. Overall, we are quite satisfied, but now we have cut our teeth, the real work begins. Next year will be exciting. The real winners though will be the electorate with plenty of choice.[/p][/quote]Cox did NOTHING to show that he had ANY political attributes that would appeal to us as voters. His arrogance was astounding. When baited, he descended into smearing all his critics. His total lack of knowledge in how the council operated, demanding to be told how much existing councillors earned etc. when the information was freely available (as it is legally required to be) on the website. Endlessly hijacking reports with inane comments. I could go on, but the truth of the fact is that there are no UKIP representation in Watford. courtesy of the actions of Laurel & Hardy (Cox & Penn)[/p][/quote]But then, you would say that, wouldn't you Nascot? We had by far the best and most honest manifesto, but it wasn't enough. For reasons best known to yourself you are anti-UKIP, and therefore you are likely to interpret whatever you can in an unfair light. All the smearing was one-way, against UKIP, particularly from the LibDems who played the racism card so cynically. Should we be surprised at the LibDems? No, it's how they operate I suppose. The EU election results are in. Good for UKIP. Not so good for the LibDems. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

11:09pm Sun 25 May 14

Su Murray says...

Sara wrote:
@D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, '

So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?
Careful Sara, they are apparently following Lib dem tactics. I don't think they've quite got it sussed yet though. ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: @D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, ' So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?[/p][/quote]Careful Sara, they are apparently following Lib dem tactics. I don't think they've quite got it sussed yet though. ;-) Su Murray
  • Score: -6

11:11pm Sun 25 May 14

Su Murray says...

TRT wrote:
Curly1962 wrote:
So many people have told me that they didn't bother voting in the Mayoral election as there was no one they wanted to vote for! 13726 people did vote for someone else other than Dottie (more than voted FOR her as a first preference) but many couldn't bring themselves to vote for any of them. What we really needed was a strong independent candidate to oppose Dottie or, at the very least, a "none of the above" option!
Quite. This is the situation I found myself in. There's a catalogue of issues with the current administration. Lies over the health campus, vanity capital regeneration schemes to satisfy big studio execs, exorbitant salaries for council execs whilst the coal face workers yet again have frozen pay, uncertaintity over their future, outsourced services etc.
On the other hand there are some achievements they can claim, but they've had their run. They're getting arrogant and power drunk.
A green mayor or a strong independent and Mare Downhill would have had a run for her money.
So TRT why don't you get in touch with us Greens and help us build the alternative?
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Curly1962[/bold] wrote: So many people have told me that they didn't bother voting in the Mayoral election as there was no one they wanted to vote for! 13726 people did vote for someone else other than Dottie (more than voted FOR her as a first preference) but many couldn't bring themselves to vote for any of them. What we really needed was a strong independent candidate to oppose Dottie or, at the very least, a "none of the above" option![/p][/quote]Quite. This is the situation I found myself in. There's a catalogue of issues with the current administration. Lies over the health campus, vanity capital regeneration schemes to satisfy big studio execs, exorbitant salaries for council execs whilst the coal face workers yet again have frozen pay, uncertaintity over their future, outsourced services etc. On the other hand there are some achievements they can claim, but they've had their run. They're getting arrogant and power drunk. A green mayor or a strong independent and Mare Downhill would have had a run for her money.[/p][/quote]So TRT why don't you get in touch with us Greens and help us build the alternative? Su Murray
  • Score: 1

12:00am Mon 26 May 14

TRT says...

I'm not in a personal position to do so. Sorry Su.
And why not UKIP?
Because the local manifesto was sound. But the local manifesto as put out by the national party was a rabid rant against Romanians.
I'm not in a personal position to do so. Sorry Su. And why not UKIP? Because the local manifesto was sound. But the local manifesto as put out by the national party was a rabid rant against Romanians. TRT
  • Score: 0

9:36am Mon 26 May 14

D_Penn says...

Sara wrote:
@D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, '

So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?
Keep doing what? Sorry, your post is unclear.

I'm also not sure what you meant by 'feeding false information to the public'.

We ran a clean campaign as any neutral who has followed the debates across the WO will attest.

That cannot be said for some members from other parties who tried to twist or even invent truths to discredit UKIP. Fortunately the majority of the public across the country were not hoodwinked by the outrageous smear campaign as was shown in county elections and is now backed up by the European election results.

People have been calling for years for politicians to stop lying and be straight with people. UKIP tells people the way they see it and that has resonated with those who are happy to see a fresh approach in politics. Increasingly that honesty is being rewarded at the ballot box.

Over four million have voted for UKIP and here is the most amazing statistic. UKIP have come top in the nationwide poll - the first time since 1906 that a party outside the leading two has achieved that!

The worrying aspect for other parties is that, like here in Watford, in reality we have only just started our campaign to win votes. Whilst they are going backwards we have so many more voters ready to come our way.

Onwards and upwards.
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: @D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, ' So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?[/p][/quote]Keep doing what? Sorry, your post is unclear. I'm also not sure what you meant by 'feeding false information to the public'. We ran a clean campaign as any neutral who has followed the debates across the WO will attest. That cannot be said for some members from other parties who tried to twist or even invent truths to discredit UKIP. Fortunately the majority of the public across the country were not hoodwinked by the outrageous smear campaign as was shown in county elections and is now backed up by the European election results. People have been calling for years for politicians to stop lying and be straight with people. UKIP tells people the way they see it and that has resonated with those who are happy to see a fresh approach in politics. Increasingly that honesty is being rewarded at the ballot box. Over four million have voted for UKIP and here is the most amazing statistic. UKIP have come top in the nationwide poll - the first time since 1906 that a party outside the leading two has achieved that! The worrying aspect for other parties is that, like here in Watford, in reality we have only just started our campaign to win votes. Whilst they are going backwards we have so many more voters ready to come our way. Onwards and upwards. D_Penn
  • Score: -4

11:40am Mon 26 May 14

Su Murray says...

TRT wrote:
I'm not in a personal position to do so. Sorry Su.
And why not UKIP?
Because the local manifesto was sound. But the local manifesto as put out by the national party was a rabid rant against Romanians.
Why not UKIP locally? Incompetence. They suggest policies of transparency that are already in place. They suggest things that are not possible legally. Across the country they have lost almost 1 in 10 of the councillors that were voted in last year. This of course happens to other parties too, but not to the same extent. Imo this is because the majority of their candidates are standing because of their views on immigration and Europe, and not because they care about their local area.

Why not UKIP nationally? They are pro fracking, pro charging to see your GP, pro a flat rate of tax - think what that will mean to your average persons wage packet! They are also in favour of reducing employee rights.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: I'm not in a personal position to do so. Sorry Su. And why not UKIP? Because the local manifesto was sound. But the local manifesto as put out by the national party was a rabid rant against Romanians.[/p][/quote]Why not UKIP locally? Incompetence. They suggest policies of transparency that are already in place. They suggest things that are not possible legally. Across the country they have lost almost 1 in 10 of the councillors that were voted in last year. This of course happens to other parties too, but not to the same extent. Imo this is because the majority of their candidates are standing because of their views on immigration and Europe, and not because they care about their local area. Why not UKIP nationally? They are pro fracking, pro charging to see your GP, pro a flat rate of tax - think what that will mean to your average persons wage packet! They are also in favour of reducing employee rights. Su Murray
  • Score: 7

11:47am Mon 26 May 14

Su Murray says...

D_Penn wrote:
Sara wrote:
@D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, '

So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?
Keep doing what? Sorry, your post is unclear.

I'm also not sure what you meant by 'feeding false information to the public'.

We ran a clean campaign as any neutral who has followed the debates across the WO will attest.

That cannot be said for some members from other parties who tried to twist or even invent truths to discredit UKIP. Fortunately the majority of the public across the country were not hoodwinked by the outrageous smear campaign as was shown in county elections and is now backed up by the European election results.

People have been calling for years for politicians to stop lying and be straight with people. UKIP tells people the way they see it and that has resonated with those who are happy to see a fresh approach in politics. Increasingly that honesty is being rewarded at the ballot box.

Over four million have voted for UKIP and here is the most amazing statistic. UKIP have come top in the nationwide poll - the first time since 1906 that a party outside the leading two has achieved that!

The worrying aspect for other parties is that, like here in Watford, in reality we have only just started our campaign to win votes. Whilst they are going backwards we have so many more voters ready to come our way.

Onwards and upwards.
UKIP did indeed do well in the EU elections. But then it is the purpose of your existence as a political party. And what does it really tell us when we break the figures down?

Just under 10% of the electorate voted for UKIP so we can assume those people want to leave the EU

Around 20% of the electorate voted for the other parties. All of which to one degree or another are broadly saying, stay in the EU but reform it.

The rest of the electorate said "meh - who cares".

The sad thing is, we now have just over a third of our MEPs who will take the wages and the very generous allowances, but they will rarely turn up, and when they do, they'll vote against things that would benefit members of the UK public.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: @D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, ' So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?[/p][/quote]Keep doing what? Sorry, your post is unclear. I'm also not sure what you meant by 'feeding false information to the public'. We ran a clean campaign as any neutral who has followed the debates across the WO will attest. That cannot be said for some members from other parties who tried to twist or even invent truths to discredit UKIP. Fortunately the majority of the public across the country were not hoodwinked by the outrageous smear campaign as was shown in county elections and is now backed up by the European election results. People have been calling for years for politicians to stop lying and be straight with people. UKIP tells people the way they see it and that has resonated with those who are happy to see a fresh approach in politics. Increasingly that honesty is being rewarded at the ballot box. Over four million have voted for UKIP and here is the most amazing statistic. UKIP have come top in the nationwide poll - the first time since 1906 that a party outside the leading two has achieved that! The worrying aspect for other parties is that, like here in Watford, in reality we have only just started our campaign to win votes. Whilst they are going backwards we have so many more voters ready to come our way. Onwards and upwards.[/p][/quote]UKIP did indeed do well in the EU elections. But then it is the purpose of your existence as a political party. And what does it really tell us when we break the figures down? Just under 10% of the electorate voted for UKIP so we can assume those people want to leave the EU Around 20% of the electorate voted for the other parties. All of which to one degree or another are broadly saying, stay in the EU but reform it. The rest of the electorate said "meh - who cares". The sad thing is, we now have just over a third of our MEPs who will take the wages and the very generous allowances, but they will rarely turn up, and when they do, they'll vote against things that would benefit members of the UK public. Su Murray
  • Score: 7

12:47pm Mon 26 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote: I'm not in a personal position to do so. Sorry Su. And why not UKIP? Because the local manifesto was sound. But the local manifesto as put out by the national party was a rabid rant against Romanians.
Why not UKIP locally? Incompetence. They suggest policies of transparency that are already in place. They suggest things that are not possible legally. Across the country they have lost almost 1 in 10 of the councillors that were voted in last year. This of course happens to other parties too, but not to the same extent. Imo this is because the majority of their candidates are standing because of their views on immigration and Europe, and not because they care about their local area. Why not UKIP nationally? They are pro fracking, pro charging to see your GP, pro a flat rate of tax - think what that will mean to your average persons wage packet! They are also in favour of reducing employee rights.
There were notes pushed through doors on the day of the election saying UKIP would be charging for doctors appointments. Clearly a tactic to try to put people off voting UKIP.

The trouble is, that's not true. It is not our policy and is unlikely to become policy. Our policies have not been released yet for 2015 and of course that is a policy for 2015, the General Election.

What Su fails to see is that UKIP is made up of normal decent people and that policy would be unpopular with us. As such, it just would not happen.

The greens had a drubbing in Watford at this election. They do not seem to have any ideas or organisation in Watford and I think that this weakness featured strongly in why they lost both seats on the council.

Su avoided answering questions on their own policies, makes up policies for their rivals that are not true and attacked other parties.

Perhaps if Su and the other greens had told people why they should vote Green instead of why they should not vote UKIP they would have had some credibility. They didn't and they lost.

With Greens in Watford starting to abandon the party and move to UKIP, I believe TRT is right, why not UKIP?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: I'm not in a personal position to do so. Sorry Su. And why not UKIP? Because the local manifesto was sound. But the local manifesto as put out by the national party was a rabid rant against Romanians.[/p][/quote]Why not UKIP locally? Incompetence. They suggest policies of transparency that are already in place. They suggest things that are not possible legally. Across the country they have lost almost 1 in 10 of the councillors that were voted in last year. This of course happens to other parties too, but not to the same extent. Imo this is because the majority of their candidates are standing because of their views on immigration and Europe, and not because they care about their local area. Why not UKIP nationally? They are pro fracking, pro charging to see your GP, pro a flat rate of tax - think what that will mean to your average persons wage packet! They are also in favour of reducing employee rights.[/p][/quote]There were notes pushed through doors on the day of the election saying UKIP would be charging for doctors appointments. Clearly a tactic to try to put people off voting UKIP. The trouble is, that's not true. It is not our policy and is unlikely to become policy. Our policies have not been released yet for 2015 and of course that is a policy for 2015, the General Election. What Su fails to see is that UKIP is made up of normal decent people and that policy would be unpopular with us. As such, it just would not happen. The greens had a drubbing in Watford at this election. They do not seem to have any ideas or organisation in Watford and I think that this weakness featured strongly in why they lost both seats on the council. Su avoided answering questions on their own policies, makes up policies for their rivals that are not true and attacked other parties. Perhaps if Su and the other greens had told people why they should vote Green instead of why they should not vote UKIP they would have had some credibility. They didn't and they lost. With Greens in Watford starting to abandon the party and move to UKIP, I believe TRT is right, why not UKIP? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

12:48pm Mon 26 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Su Murray wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Sara wrote: @D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, ' So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?
Keep doing what? Sorry, your post is unclear. I'm also not sure what you meant by 'feeding false information to the public'. We ran a clean campaign as any neutral who has followed the debates across the WO will attest. That cannot be said for some members from other parties who tried to twist or even invent truths to discredit UKIP. Fortunately the majority of the public across the country were not hoodwinked by the outrageous smear campaign as was shown in county elections and is now backed up by the European election results. People have been calling for years for politicians to stop lying and be straight with people. UKIP tells people the way they see it and that has resonated with those who are happy to see a fresh approach in politics. Increasingly that honesty is being rewarded at the ballot box. Over four million have voted for UKIP and here is the most amazing statistic. UKIP have come top in the nationwide poll - the first time since 1906 that a party outside the leading two has achieved that! The worrying aspect for other parties is that, like here in Watford, in reality we have only just started our campaign to win votes. Whilst they are going backwards we have so many more voters ready to come our way. Onwards and upwards.
UKIP did indeed do well in the EU elections. But then it is the purpose of your existence as a political party. And what does it really tell us when we break the figures down? Just under 10% of the electorate voted for UKIP so we can assume those people want to leave the EU Around 20% of the electorate voted for the other parties. All of which to one degree or another are broadly saying, stay in the EU but reform it. The rest of the electorate said "meh - who cares". The sad thing is, we now have just over a third of our MEPs who will take the wages and the very generous allowances, but they will rarely turn up, and when they do, they'll vote against things that would benefit members of the UK public.
Sore loser?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: @D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, ' So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?[/p][/quote]Keep doing what? Sorry, your post is unclear. I'm also not sure what you meant by 'feeding false information to the public'. We ran a clean campaign as any neutral who has followed the debates across the WO will attest. That cannot be said for some members from other parties who tried to twist or even invent truths to discredit UKIP. Fortunately the majority of the public across the country were not hoodwinked by the outrageous smear campaign as was shown in county elections and is now backed up by the European election results. People have been calling for years for politicians to stop lying and be straight with people. UKIP tells people the way they see it and that has resonated with those who are happy to see a fresh approach in politics. Increasingly that honesty is being rewarded at the ballot box. Over four million have voted for UKIP and here is the most amazing statistic. UKIP have come top in the nationwide poll - the first time since 1906 that a party outside the leading two has achieved that! The worrying aspect for other parties is that, like here in Watford, in reality we have only just started our campaign to win votes. Whilst they are going backwards we have so many more voters ready to come our way. Onwards and upwards.[/p][/quote]UKIP did indeed do well in the EU elections. But then it is the purpose of your existence as a political party. And what does it really tell us when we break the figures down? Just under 10% of the electorate voted for UKIP so we can assume those people want to leave the EU Around 20% of the electorate voted for the other parties. All of which to one degree or another are broadly saying, stay in the EU but reform it. The rest of the electorate said "meh - who cares". The sad thing is, we now have just over a third of our MEPs who will take the wages and the very generous allowances, but they will rarely turn up, and when they do, they'll vote against things that would benefit members of the UK public.[/p][/quote]Sore loser? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -3

1:04pm Mon 26 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

EU election results were positive for UKIP.

The LibDems, crowing after their victory here on Thursday in the local elections, have lost all but one MEP.

They even lost that duff MEP that they put all the leaflets out about, saying what a wonderful MEP he was. Clearly not everyone agreed with them.

The party of IN is now, to all intents and purposes, the party of "NOT IN", at least not in the EU parliament.

This does not bode well for Dotty's ambitions next year. Her party is melting down and is slated to lose 20 MPs at the next election. It could even be worse. It can only be a matter of time before people in Watford twig the connection between the failed and failing still LibDem party and the incumbents in Watford and start voting accordingly. Already their vote was halved this year compared to four years ago.

I notice their signs this year, around Watford, never mentioned their toxic brand. Clever marketing now includes "don't mention the LibDems".

The future doesn't look so bright for them, they have had a disastrous night whichever way you look at it.
EU election results were positive for UKIP. The LibDems, crowing after their victory here on Thursday in the local elections, have lost all but one MEP. They even lost that duff MEP that they put all the leaflets out about, saying what a wonderful MEP he was. Clearly not everyone agreed with them. The party of IN is now, to all intents and purposes, the party of "NOT IN", at least not in the EU parliament. This does not bode well for Dotty's ambitions next year. Her party is melting down and is slated to lose 20 MPs at the next election. It could even be worse. It can only be a matter of time before people in Watford twig the connection between the failed and failing still LibDem party and the incumbents in Watford and start voting accordingly. Already their vote was halved this year compared to four years ago. I notice their signs this year, around Watford, never mentioned their toxic brand. Clever marketing now includes "don't mention the LibDems". The future doesn't look so bright for them, they have had a disastrous night whichever way you look at it. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -8

4:02pm Mon 26 May 14

TRT says...

Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years.
On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility.
So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do.
I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.
Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green. TRT
  • Score: 1

6:29pm Mon 26 May 14

Wacko Jacko says...

Seems like the best way to avoid the advancing hoards of UKIPpers is to move to Scotland where they came fourth.
Seems like the best way to avoid the advancing hoards of UKIPpers is to move to Scotland where they came fourth. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: -3

7:46pm Mon 26 May 14

Su Murray says...

TRT wrote:
Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years.
On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility.
So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do.
I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.
We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates.

I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.[/p][/quote]We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-) Su Murray
  • Score: 3

8:07pm Mon 26 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.
We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)
If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site.

You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements.

It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election.

Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit?

What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su?

Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.[/p][/quote]We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)[/p][/quote]If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site. You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements. It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election. Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit? What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su? Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

8:41pm Mon 26 May 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.
We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)
If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site.

You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements.

It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election.

Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit?

What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su?

Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?
Phil,

I never said anything to the W/O about 'my' manifesto.

As to parking, different areas of Watford have different problems. Obviously my main concern was to focus on Callowland's problems. We had already held a consultation with local residents. Once we had the results of that, we held a further focus group meeting with the local residents. We will be taking the ideas from that forward. It's called democracy. It's also more constructive than commenting on every article on this website!

If I had the one magic answer for all the parking problems in Watford, my fellow citizens would probably put a blue plaque up in my honour. Or at least buy me a coffee!

Phil, if you had any understanding of local politics, it would be obvious to you what the difficulty for the Greens was in Callowland in the recent election.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.[/p][/quote]We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)[/p][/quote]If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site. You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements. It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election. Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit? What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su? Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?[/p][/quote]Phil, I never said anything to the W/O about 'my' manifesto. As to parking, different areas of Watford have different problems. Obviously my main concern was to focus on Callowland's problems. We had already held a consultation with local residents. Once we had the results of that, we held a further focus group meeting with the local residents. We will be taking the ideas from that forward. It's called democracy. It's also more constructive than commenting on every article on this website! If I had the one magic answer for all the parking problems in Watford, my fellow citizens would probably put a blue plaque up in my honour. Or at least buy me a coffee! Phil, if you had any understanding of local politics, it would be obvious to you what the difficulty for the Greens was in Callowland in the recent election. Su Murray
  • Score: 4

9:01pm Mon 26 May 14

crazyfrog says...

Just had a phone all from a relative who had to go to the harmony clinic tonight at watford general, And the A+E had to shut down tonight apparently because it was overwhelmed, some people were sent to the Harmony clinic, apparently people were queuing down the corridor like something out of the third world! How often is this happening ? And how will moving thousands more residents next to it help this hospital that is obviously at a dangerous breaking point?
Just had a phone all from a relative who had to go to the harmony clinic tonight at watford general, And the A+E had to shut down tonight apparently because it was overwhelmed, some people were sent to the Harmony clinic, apparently people were queuing down the corridor like something out of the third world! How often is this happening ? And how will moving thousands more residents next to it help this hospital that is obviously at a dangerous breaking point? crazyfrog
  • Score: 3

10:02pm Mon 26 May 14

D_Penn says...

crazyfrog wrote:
Just had a phone all from a relative who had to go to the harmony clinic tonight at watford general, And the A+E had to shut down tonight apparently because it was overwhelmed, some people were sent to the Harmony clinic, apparently people were queuing down the corridor like something out of the third world! How often is this happening ? And how will moving thousands more residents next to it help this hospital that is obviously at a dangerous breaking point?
Now that the LibDems have been re-elected, the house building policy will carry on unabated.

With Thornhill admitting that there was no new hospital (cynically, only 4 days before the election so that few people would learn the truth by polling day) we can be certain that as the town crams in ever more people that the need for more medical resource will climb but that the resource will not be there.

I wonder if those that are pursuing this unforgivable policy can understand that delays in treatment will inevitably lead to a rise in death rates as the hospital is overwhelmed. Do they care? Do they have private health insurance?
[quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: Just had a phone all from a relative who had to go to the harmony clinic tonight at watford general, And the A+E had to shut down tonight apparently because it was overwhelmed, some people were sent to the Harmony clinic, apparently people were queuing down the corridor like something out of the third world! How often is this happening ? And how will moving thousands more residents next to it help this hospital that is obviously at a dangerous breaking point?[/p][/quote]Now that the LibDems have been re-elected, the house building policy will carry on unabated. With Thornhill admitting that there was no new hospital (cynically, only 4 days before the election so that few people would learn the truth by polling day) we can be certain that as the town crams in ever more people that the need for more medical resource will climb but that the resource will not be there. I wonder if those that are pursuing this unforgivable policy can understand that delays in treatment will inevitably lead to a rise in death rates as the hospital is overwhelmed. Do they care? Do they have private health insurance? D_Penn
  • Score: 1

8:30am Tue 27 May 14

WatfordBandB says...

So glad the majority of voters kept this Clown in power, have you seen the state of the new works near the pond that is STILL going on in town, for that alone she should resign!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for pot holes every 2 meters on our roads…
So glad the majority of voters kept this Clown in power, have you seen the state of the new works near the pond that is STILL going on in town, for that alone she should resign!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As for pot holes every 2 meters on our roads… WatfordBandB
  • Score: 0

8:49am Tue 27 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.
We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)
If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site. You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements. It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election. Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit? What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su? Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?
Phil, I never said anything to the W/O about 'my' manifesto. As to parking, different areas of Watford have different problems. Obviously my main concern was to focus on Callowland's problems. We had already held a consultation with local residents. Once we had the results of that, we held a further focus group meeting with the local residents. We will be taking the ideas from that forward. It's called democracy. It's also more constructive than commenting on every article on this website! If I had the one magic answer for all the parking problems in Watford, my fellow citizens would probably put a blue plaque up in my honour. Or at least buy me a coffee! Phil, if you had any understanding of local politics, it would be obvious to you what the difficulty for the Greens was in Callowland in the recent election.
Su,

the WO asked every party candidate to give them a 3-line quote about their policy. You could write whatever you wanted or even quote from the Watford Green manifesto (where can I find it?). That was your 3 lines..

If you had a manifesto, why did you choose to give them those policies? It still looks really weak.

Where can I find the Watford Green party manifesto for 2014? Has it been published anywhere?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.[/p][/quote]We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)[/p][/quote]If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site. You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements. It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election. Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit? What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su? Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?[/p][/quote]Phil, I never said anything to the W/O about 'my' manifesto. As to parking, different areas of Watford have different problems. Obviously my main concern was to focus on Callowland's problems. We had already held a consultation with local residents. Once we had the results of that, we held a further focus group meeting with the local residents. We will be taking the ideas from that forward. It's called democracy. It's also more constructive than commenting on every article on this website! If I had the one magic answer for all the parking problems in Watford, my fellow citizens would probably put a blue plaque up in my honour. Or at least buy me a coffee! Phil, if you had any understanding of local politics, it would be obvious to you what the difficulty for the Greens was in Callowland in the recent election.[/p][/quote]Su, the WO asked every party candidate to give them a 3-line quote about their policy. You could write whatever you wanted or even quote from the Watford Green manifesto (where can I find it?). That was your 3 lines.. If you had a manifesto, why did you choose to give them those policies? It still looks really weak. Where can I find the Watford Green party manifesto for 2014? Has it been published anywhere? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

9:41am Tue 27 May 14

TRT says...

crazyfrog wrote:
Just had a phone all from a relative who had to go to the harmony clinic tonight at watford general, And the A+E had to shut down tonight apparently because it was overwhelmed, some people were sent to the Harmony clinic, apparently people were queuing down the corridor like something out of the third world! How often is this happening ? And how will moving thousands more residents next to it help this hospital that is obviously at a dangerous breaking point?
WTF is a Harmony Clinic? Something to do with hairspray? Crazyfrog, I hope your relative is OK.
There is a definite need for a NEW hospital. The old hospital is creaking along in a ~50 year old concrete tower. Given the information we have so far about the "health campus" there's no way that, no space for, a building to be built that is capable of taking the functions of the tower block. You can't move wards over one by one - it's a tower block. You have to demolish it all in one blow if it's going to go. In 2015, we might get a complete change of government that sees HS2 for the white elephant that it is, and that decides to restart the hospital renewal program. The Trust will have published its review then. There as so many good reasons to wait until summer 2015 before committing any more resources to this project.
[quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: Just had a phone all from a relative who had to go to the harmony clinic tonight at watford general, And the A+E had to shut down tonight apparently because it was overwhelmed, some people were sent to the Harmony clinic, apparently people were queuing down the corridor like something out of the third world! How often is this happening ? And how will moving thousands more residents next to it help this hospital that is obviously at a dangerous breaking point?[/p][/quote]WTF is a Harmony Clinic? Something to do with hairspray? Crazyfrog, I hope your relative is OK. There is a definite need for a NEW hospital. The old hospital is creaking along in a ~50 year old concrete tower. Given the information we have so far about the "health campus" there's no way that, no space for, a building to be built that is capable of taking the functions of the tower block. You can't move wards over one by one - it's a tower block. You have to demolish it all in one blow if it's going to go. In 2015, we might get a complete change of government that sees HS2 for the white elephant that it is, and that decides to restart the hospital renewal program. The Trust will have published its review then. There as so many good reasons to wait until summer 2015 before committing any more resources to this project. TRT
  • Score: 1

12:21pm Tue 27 May 14

garston tony says...

Considering the turnout percentage even though Dotty got double the amount or there abouts than the 2nd place candidate she can hardly call the result a vindication of her decisions.

The fact is that the majority of people who could vote in these elections didnt vote for her so Dotty should pull her neck in before her big head snaps it and take note of this fact.

This is where a 'none of the above' vote would be so so handy, Dotty smugness would be obliterated if the truth was really shown, that whilst she got 14 thousand votes 35 thousand people didnt vote for her.

More than two thirds of the electorate didnt ask for Dotty to be mayor but as usual the politicians will conveniently ignore this inconvenient fact
Considering the turnout percentage even though Dotty got double the amount or there abouts than the 2nd place candidate she can hardly call the result a vindication of her decisions. The fact is that the majority of people who could vote in these elections didnt vote for her so Dotty should pull her neck in before her big head snaps it and take note of this fact. This is where a 'none of the above' vote would be so so handy, Dotty smugness would be obliterated if the truth was really shown, that whilst she got 14 thousand votes 35 thousand people didnt vote for her. More than two thirds of the electorate didnt ask for Dotty to be mayor but as usual the politicians will conveniently ignore this inconvenient fact garston tony
  • Score: 8

7:32am Wed 28 May 14

cgpc Rob says...

Until we have electoral turnouts of over 90% at elections, all the statements by politicians who are elected of whichever party are meaningless.

For years NONE OF THE ABOVE should have been added on ballot papers, should we use the Australian model, don't vote, get fined!
Until we have electoral turnouts of over 90% at elections, all the statements by politicians who are elected of whichever party are meaningless. For years NONE OF THE ABOVE should have been added on ballot papers, should we use the Australian model, don't vote, get fined! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 0

7:52am Wed 28 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.
We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)
If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site. You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements. It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election. Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit? What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su? Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?
Phil, I never said anything to the W/O about 'my' manifesto. As to parking, different areas of Watford have different problems. Obviously my main concern was to focus on Callowland's problems. We had already held a consultation with local residents. Once we had the results of that, we held a further focus group meeting with the local residents. We will be taking the ideas from that forward. It's called democracy. It's also more constructive than commenting on every article on this website! If I had the one magic answer for all the parking problems in Watford, my fellow citizens would probably put a blue plaque up in my honour. Or at least buy me a coffee! Phil, if you had any understanding of local politics, it would be obvious to you what the difficulty for the Greens was in Callowland in the recent election.
Su, the WO asked every party candidate to give them a 3-line quote about their policy. You could write whatever you wanted or even quote from the Watford Green manifesto (where can I find it?). That was your 3 lines.. If you had a manifesto, why did you choose to give them those policies? It still looks really weak. Where can I find the Watford Green party manifesto for 2014? Has it been published anywhere?
Like usual, ask a green (Su Murray) a question about local policy and they go all quiet on you or change the subject. Never an answer.

I'm sorry Su, but until the greens in Watford start to actually stand for something the electorate are going to go on rejecting them.

It's no longer good enough to put "Green" on the ballot paper and expect to be elected, you need to give people a positive reason to vote for you, preferably local, to do with the elections.

UKIP had a full, local, achievable manifesto. We came third in the Mayoral election, knocking the Tories into 4th place. No mean achievement. We also achieved 2nd place in 5 wards across Watford.

We were serious about the election.

The Greens now need to decide if they are a serious party of local government in Watford.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.[/p][/quote]We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)[/p][/quote]If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site. You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements. It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election. Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit? What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su? Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?[/p][/quote]Phil, I never said anything to the W/O about 'my' manifesto. As to parking, different areas of Watford have different problems. Obviously my main concern was to focus on Callowland's problems. We had already held a consultation with local residents. Once we had the results of that, we held a further focus group meeting with the local residents. We will be taking the ideas from that forward. It's called democracy. It's also more constructive than commenting on every article on this website! If I had the one magic answer for all the parking problems in Watford, my fellow citizens would probably put a blue plaque up in my honour. Or at least buy me a coffee! Phil, if you had any understanding of local politics, it would be obvious to you what the difficulty for the Greens was in Callowland in the recent election.[/p][/quote]Su, the WO asked every party candidate to give them a 3-line quote about their policy. You could write whatever you wanted or even quote from the Watford Green manifesto (where can I find it?). That was your 3 lines.. If you had a manifesto, why did you choose to give them those policies? It still looks really weak. Where can I find the Watford Green party manifesto for 2014? Has it been published anywhere?[/p][/quote]Like usual, ask a green (Su Murray) a question about local policy and they go all quiet on you or change the subject. Never an answer. I'm sorry Su, but until the greens in Watford start to actually stand for something the electorate are going to go on rejecting them. It's no longer good enough to put "Green" on the ballot paper and expect to be elected, you need to give people a positive reason to vote for you, preferably local, to do with the elections. UKIP had a full, local, achievable manifesto. We came third in the Mayoral election, knocking the Tories into 4th place. No mean achievement. We also achieved 2nd place in 5 wards across Watford. We were serious about the election. The Greens now need to decide if they are a serious party of local government in Watford. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -3

7:31pm Wed 28 May 14

Nascot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.
We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)
If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site. You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements. It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election. Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit? What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su? Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?
Phil, I never said anything to the W/O about 'my' manifesto. As to parking, different areas of Watford have different problems. Obviously my main concern was to focus on Callowland's problems. We had already held a consultation with local residents. Once we had the results of that, we held a further focus group meeting with the local residents. We will be taking the ideas from that forward. It's called democracy. It's also more constructive than commenting on every article on this website! If I had the one magic answer for all the parking problems in Watford, my fellow citizens would probably put a blue plaque up in my honour. Or at least buy me a coffee! Phil, if you had any understanding of local politics, it would be obvious to you what the difficulty for the Greens was in Callowland in the recent election.
Su, the WO asked every party candidate to give them a 3-line quote about their policy. You could write whatever you wanted or even quote from the Watford Green manifesto (where can I find it?). That was your 3 lines.. If you had a manifesto, why did you choose to give them those policies? It still looks really weak. Where can I find the Watford Green party manifesto for 2014? Has it been published anywhere?
Like usual, ask a green (Su Murray) a question about local policy and they go all quiet on you or change the subject. Never an answer.

I'm sorry Su, but until the greens in Watford start to actually stand for something the electorate are going to go on rejecting them.

It's no longer good enough to put "Green" on the ballot paper and expect to be elected, you need to give people a positive reason to vote for you, preferably local, to do with the elections.

UKIP had a full, local, achievable manifesto. We came third in the Mayoral election, knocking the Tories into 4th place. No mean achievement. We also achieved 2nd place in 5 wards across Watford.

We were serious about the election.

The Greens now need to decide if they are a serious party of local government in Watford.
Is the biggest quote of a quote of a quote that has appeared as a comment?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.[/p][/quote]We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)[/p][/quote]If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site. You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements. It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election. Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit? What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su? Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?[/p][/quote]Phil, I never said anything to the W/O about 'my' manifesto. As to parking, different areas of Watford have different problems. Obviously my main concern was to focus on Callowland's problems. We had already held a consultation with local residents. Once we had the results of that, we held a further focus group meeting with the local residents. We will be taking the ideas from that forward. It's called democracy. It's also more constructive than commenting on every article on this website! If I had the one magic answer for all the parking problems in Watford, my fellow citizens would probably put a blue plaque up in my honour. Or at least buy me a coffee! Phil, if you had any understanding of local politics, it would be obvious to you what the difficulty for the Greens was in Callowland in the recent election.[/p][/quote]Su, the WO asked every party candidate to give them a 3-line quote about their policy. You could write whatever you wanted or even quote from the Watford Green manifesto (where can I find it?). That was your 3 lines.. If you had a manifesto, why did you choose to give them those policies? It still looks really weak. Where can I find the Watford Green party manifesto for 2014? Has it been published anywhere?[/p][/quote]Like usual, ask a green (Su Murray) a question about local policy and they go all quiet on you or change the subject. Never an answer. I'm sorry Su, but until the greens in Watford start to actually stand for something the electorate are going to go on rejecting them. It's no longer good enough to put "Green" on the ballot paper and expect to be elected, you need to give people a positive reason to vote for you, preferably local, to do with the elections. UKIP had a full, local, achievable manifesto. We came third in the Mayoral election, knocking the Tories into 4th place. No mean achievement. We also achieved 2nd place in 5 wards across Watford. We were serious about the election. The Greens now need to decide if they are a serious party of local government in Watford.[/p][/quote]Is the biggest quote of a quote of a quote that has appeared as a comment? Nascot
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Wed 28 May 14

TRT says...

Nascot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.
We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)
If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site. You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements. It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election. Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit? What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su? Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?
Phil, I never said anything to the W/O about 'my' manifesto. As to parking, different areas of Watford have different problems. Obviously my main concern was to focus on Callowland's problems. We had already held a consultation with local residents. Once we had the results of that, we held a further focus group meeting with the local residents. We will be taking the ideas from that forward. It's called democracy. It's also more constructive than commenting on every article on this website! If I had the one magic answer for all the parking problems in Watford, my fellow citizens would probably put a blue plaque up in my honour. Or at least buy me a coffee! Phil, if you had any understanding of local politics, it would be obvious to you what the difficulty for the Greens was in Callowland in the recent election.
Su, the WO asked every party candidate to give them a 3-line quote about their policy. You could write whatever you wanted or even quote from the Watford Green manifesto (where can I find it?). That was your 3 lines.. If you had a manifesto, why did you choose to give them those policies? It still looks really weak. Where can I find the Watford Green party manifesto for 2014? Has it been published anywhere?
Like usual, ask a green (Su Murray) a question about local policy and they go all quiet on you or change the subject. Never an answer.

I'm sorry Su, but until the greens in Watford start to actually stand for something the electorate are going to go on rejecting them.

It's no longer good enough to put "Green" on the ballot paper and expect to be elected, you need to give people a positive reason to vote for you, preferably local, to do with the elections.

UKIP had a full, local, achievable manifesto. We came third in the Mayoral election, knocking the Tories into 4th place. No mean achievement. We also achieved 2nd place in 5 wards across Watford.

We were serious about the election.

The Greens now need to decide if they are a serious party of local government in Watford.
Is the biggest quote of a quote of a quote that has appeared as a comment?
No. This is.
[quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Maybe I should come to a Watford Green meeting. Phil is right. The party didn't present its policies, didn't stand a Green mayoral candidate and it left people like myself who are concerned environmentalists with no option. No option as the lib dem which is my fallback position due to their support of PR have lied to the electorate and to their superiors. You expect some truth bending with politicians but not the out and out dirty tricks we've seen this last two years. On a personal level, I'm pro Europe. I think we have done well with the EU but since ~2004 something's been going a bit wonky. We are distinct countries with our own economies and borders. Our citizens enjoy the privilege granted to them by their own governments of free movement around the EU. And it is a privilege. Not a right. Abuse that privilege and I would expect my government to restrict or remove that. I would expect, if I was an embezzler or a fraudster or a thief, not to be allowed a work visa elsewhere without jumping through f***ing hoops and being on a short leash and at the request and grace of the host country. It's called personal responsibility. So I don't support UKIPs views on immigration or their anti EU stance. I'm also concerned that our over use of fossil fuels has left us in the position of an economy so divorced from domestic control, so dependent on foreign imports of fuel, that we can't ever hope to control inflation through monetary control. Fracking I fear we will need some of to wean us off oil and gas for the bulk of our needs. I fear we will need nuclear plants until we can build enough efficient solar, wind, wave and biomass generators. We should not be cutting back as the Tories would have us do. I can't give a clear message to anyone, because I know we have to sleep with the devil for a little while longer. The future, however, is green.[/p][/quote]We did in fact provide a manifesto to this paper but they didn't publish it. No doubt because we weren't standing a candidate in the Mayoral election. Our main reason for that was because we question the need, especially at a high salary, for a Mayor in the current circumstances. Of course that did present us with some misgivings as it left people such as yourself without an option. We did leaflet and canvass in areas where we were standing candidates. I think you may find we have a lot of common ground. And fresh input is always welcome. There are other people who have expressed an interest in joining us so you wouldn't even have to 'out' yourself as TRT! ;-)[/p][/quote]If that's true Su, then what is your policy on parking in Watford? Where is your manifesto? It's not on your web site. You told the WO website you were standing on a platform of fixing pavements and tightening up licencing in St Albans Road. Your manifesto wasn't on your website so that's all we have to go on. That's hardly comprehensive, is it? Particularly when the local council is not even responsible for pavements. It all sounds pretty amateur to me. The electorate may have thought so as well because you lost the election. Could the truth on why you never stood a candidate for Mayor be closer to the fact you couldn't muster more than 6 people willing to stand for you in 2014 and that you knew that running for Mayor would be a waste of effort not to mention a lost deposit? What would you put your demise in Watford down to Su? Nationally the party made a gain. Locally you made a loss. Something is going wrong for the greens in Watford. What's your analysis?[/p][/quote]Phil, I never said anything to the W/O about 'my' manifesto. As to parking, different areas of Watford have different problems. Obviously my main concern was to focus on Callowland's problems. We had already held a consultation with local residents. Once we had the results of that, we held a further focus group meeting with the local residents. We will be taking the ideas from that forward. It's called democracy. It's also more constructive than commenting on every article on this website! If I had the one magic answer for all the parking problems in Watford, my fellow citizens would probably put a blue plaque up in my honour. Or at least buy me a coffee! Phil, if you had any understanding of local politics, it would be obvious to you what the difficulty for the Greens was in Callowland in the recent election.[/p][/quote]Su, the WO asked every party candidate to give them a 3-line quote about their policy. You could write whatever you wanted or even quote from the Watford Green manifesto (where can I find it?). That was your 3 lines.. If you had a manifesto, why did you choose to give them those policies? It still looks really weak. Where can I find the Watford Green party manifesto for 2014? Has it been published anywhere?[/p][/quote]Like usual, ask a green (Su Murray) a question about local policy and they go all quiet on you or change the subject. Never an answer. I'm sorry Su, but until the greens in Watford start to actually stand for something the electorate are going to go on rejecting them. It's no longer good enough to put "Green" on the ballot paper and expect to be elected, you need to give people a positive reason to vote for you, preferably local, to do with the elections. UKIP had a full, local, achievable manifesto. We came third in the Mayoral election, knocking the Tories into 4th place. No mean achievement. We also achieved 2nd place in 5 wards across Watford. We were serious about the election. The Greens now need to decide if they are a serious party of local government in Watford.[/p][/quote]Is the biggest quote of a quote of a quote that has appeared as a comment?[/p][/quote]No. This is. TRT
  • Score: 1

7:44pm Wed 28 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

No, this is, and still no answer from Su Murray!
No, this is, and still no answer from Su Murray! Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

7:45pm Wed 28 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

(or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).
(or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much). Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Wed 28 May 14

TRT says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
(or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).
Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ?

Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: (or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).[/p][/quote]Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ? Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future. TRT
  • Score: -2

9:35pm Wed 28 May 14

Su Murray says...

@phil Cox

Phil,

I have other responsibilities, duties, and interests in life than spending hours on this website. I also don't feel inclined to engage in a discussion with someone who implies I am lying. As already stated, I have not spoken to anyone from the W/O for about a year. Nor were any of my fellow Green candidates asked for statements.
@phil Cox Phil, I have other responsibilities, duties, and interests in life than spending hours on this website. I also don't feel inclined to engage in a discussion with someone who implies I am lying. As already stated, I have not spoken to anyone from the W/O for about a year. Nor were any of my fellow Green candidates asked for statements. Su Murray
  • Score: -1

9:50pm Wed 28 May 14

Su Murray says...

TRT wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
(or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).
Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ?

Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.
Sorry to hear about the bust up with your friend TRT. I also had a rather heated discussion with a friend on the subject of UKIP. Luckily we didn't fall out. Was it something your friend said that caused you to think again? If so, at the risk of sounding like an agony aunt (or worse - being directive) I'd suggest telling them it was their words that made you change your mind.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: (or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).[/p][/quote]Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ? Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.[/p][/quote]Sorry to hear about the bust up with your friend TRT. I also had a rather heated discussion with a friend on the subject of UKIP. Luckily we didn't fall out. Was it something your friend said that caused you to think again? If so, at the risk of sounding like an agony aunt (or worse - being directive) I'd suggest telling them it was their words that made you change your mind. Su Murray
  • Score: -1

10:40pm Wed 28 May 14

TRT says...

Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
(or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).
Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ?

Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.
Sorry to hear about the bust up with your friend TRT. I also had a rather heated discussion with a friend on the subject of UKIP. Luckily we didn't fall out. Was it something your friend said that caused you to think again? If so, at the risk of sounding like an agony aunt (or worse - being directive) I'd suggest telling them it was their words that made you change your mind.
They reminded me of the moral obligations in voting and asked why I'd put tactical voting ahead of what I really believed in. Trouble is, what I really believe in wasn't on the menu for mayor. My friend, when riled with someone won't even give them the time of day, so I didn't get to discuss things any further.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: (or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).[/p][/quote]Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ? Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.[/p][/quote]Sorry to hear about the bust up with your friend TRT. I also had a rather heated discussion with a friend on the subject of UKIP. Luckily we didn't fall out. Was it something your friend said that caused you to think again? If so, at the risk of sounding like an agony aunt (or worse - being directive) I'd suggest telling them it was their words that made you change your mind.[/p][/quote]They reminded me of the moral obligations in voting and asked why I'd put tactical voting ahead of what I really believed in. Trouble is, what I really believe in wasn't on the menu for mayor. My friend, when riled with someone won't even give them the time of day, so I didn't get to discuss things any further. TRT
  • Score: 0

10:40pm Wed 28 May 14

TRT says...

Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
(or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).
Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ?

Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.
Sorry to hear about the bust up with your friend TRT. I also had a rather heated discussion with a friend on the subject of UKIP. Luckily we didn't fall out. Was it something your friend said that caused you to think again? If so, at the risk of sounding like an agony aunt (or worse - being directive) I'd suggest telling them it was their words that made you change your mind.
They reminded me of the moral obligations in voting and asked why I'd put tactical voting ahead of what I really believed in. Trouble is, what I really believe in wasn't on the menu for mayor. My friend, when riled with someone won't even give them the time of day, so I didn't get to discuss things any further.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: (or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).[/p][/quote]Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ? Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.[/p][/quote]Sorry to hear about the bust up with your friend TRT. I also had a rather heated discussion with a friend on the subject of UKIP. Luckily we didn't fall out. Was it something your friend said that caused you to think again? If so, at the risk of sounding like an agony aunt (or worse - being directive) I'd suggest telling them it was their words that made you change your mind.[/p][/quote]They reminded me of the moral obligations in voting and asked why I'd put tactical voting ahead of what I really believed in. Trouble is, what I really believe in wasn't on the menu for mayor. My friend, when riled with someone won't even give them the time of day, so I didn't get to discuss things any further. TRT
  • Score: 0

11:11pm Wed 28 May 14

Su Murray says...

TRT wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
(or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).
Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ?

Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.
Sorry to hear about the bust up with your friend TRT. I also had a rather heated discussion with a friend on the subject of UKIP. Luckily we didn't fall out. Was it something your friend said that caused you to think again? If so, at the risk of sounding like an agony aunt (or worse - being directive) I'd suggest telling them it was their words that made you change your mind.
They reminded me of the moral obligations in voting and asked why I'd put tactical voting ahead of what I really believed in. Trouble is, what I really believe in wasn't on the menu for mayor. My friend, when riled with someone won't even give them the time of day, so I didn't get to discuss things any further.
Oh dear - the thorny problem of choice vs preference when it comes to voting. That and the 'I'd like to vote blah but it's a wasted vote' meme. I think I've said on here before, it would be really interesting if we got a series of envelopes containing the details of each candidate and their stance on various issues, but not telling us which party they belonged to. Problem is, as with manifesto's they could easily leave out some of the less appealing aspects of their views!

Maybe a note to your friend? Though obviously you know them and maybe you feel you've just got to give them time to calm down.

I'll be having a little guilt trip in a minute on the basis we didn't stand a candidate which might have saved you from your dilemma! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: (or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).[/p][/quote]Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ? Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.[/p][/quote]Sorry to hear about the bust up with your friend TRT. I also had a rather heated discussion with a friend on the subject of UKIP. Luckily we didn't fall out. Was it something your friend said that caused you to think again? If so, at the risk of sounding like an agony aunt (or worse - being directive) I'd suggest telling them it was their words that made you change your mind.[/p][/quote]They reminded me of the moral obligations in voting and asked why I'd put tactical voting ahead of what I really believed in. Trouble is, what I really believe in wasn't on the menu for mayor. My friend, when riled with someone won't even give them the time of day, so I didn't get to discuss things any further.[/p][/quote]Oh dear - the thorny problem of choice vs preference when it comes to voting. That and the 'I'd like to vote blah but it's a wasted vote' meme. I think I've said on here before, it would be really interesting if we got a series of envelopes containing the details of each candidate and their stance on various issues, but not telling us which party they belonged to. Problem is, as with manifesto's they could easily leave out some of the less appealing aspects of their views! Maybe a note to your friend? Though obviously you know them and maybe you feel you've just got to give them time to calm down. I'll be having a little guilt trip in a minute on the basis we didn't stand a candidate which might have saved you from your dilemma! ;-) Su Murray
  • Score: 0

11:20pm Wed 28 May 14

TRT says...

Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
TRT wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
(or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).
Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ?

Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.
Sorry to hear about the bust up with your friend TRT. I also had a rather heated discussion with a friend on the subject of UKIP. Luckily we didn't fall out. Was it something your friend said that caused you to think again? If so, at the risk of sounding like an agony aunt (or worse - being directive) I'd suggest telling them it was their words that made you change your mind.
They reminded me of the moral obligations in voting and asked why I'd put tactical voting ahead of what I really believed in. Trouble is, what I really believe in wasn't on the menu for mayor. My friend, when riled with someone won't even give them the time of day, so I didn't get to discuss things any further.
Oh dear - the thorny problem of choice vs preference when it comes to voting. That and the 'I'd like to vote blah but it's a wasted vote' meme. I think I've said on here before, it would be really interesting if we got a series of envelopes containing the details of each candidate and their stance on various issues, but not telling us which party they belonged to. Problem is, as with manifesto's they could easily leave out some of the less appealing aspects of their views!

Maybe a note to your friend? Though obviously you know them and maybe you feel you've just got to give them time to calm down.

I'll be having a little guilt trip in a minute on the basis we didn't stand a candidate which might have saved you from your dilemma! ;-)
I've no idea how much it would cost to stand a mayoral candidate! But funds I know would be tight, and to be brutally honest, there's no way anyone but a LibDem is going to get in. I mean, if Mare Downhill can get reelected after the contempt she's shown the electorate over the last two or three years, there's no way anyone else could ever stand a chance.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: (or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).[/p][/quote]Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ? Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.[/p][/quote]Sorry to hear about the bust up with your friend TRT. I also had a rather heated discussion with a friend on the subject of UKIP. Luckily we didn't fall out. Was it something your friend said that caused you to think again? If so, at the risk of sounding like an agony aunt (or worse - being directive) I'd suggest telling them it was their words that made you change your mind.[/p][/quote]They reminded me of the moral obligations in voting and asked why I'd put tactical voting ahead of what I really believed in. Trouble is, what I really believe in wasn't on the menu for mayor. My friend, when riled with someone won't even give them the time of day, so I didn't get to discuss things any further.[/p][/quote]Oh dear - the thorny problem of choice vs preference when it comes to voting. That and the 'I'd like to vote blah but it's a wasted vote' meme. I think I've said on here before, it would be really interesting if we got a series of envelopes containing the details of each candidate and their stance on various issues, but not telling us which party they belonged to. Problem is, as with manifesto's they could easily leave out some of the less appealing aspects of their views! Maybe a note to your friend? Though obviously you know them and maybe you feel you've just got to give them time to calm down. I'll be having a little guilt trip in a minute on the basis we didn't stand a candidate which might have saved you from your dilemma! ;-)[/p][/quote]I've no idea how much it would cost to stand a mayoral candidate! But funds I know would be tight, and to be brutally honest, there's no way anyone but a LibDem is going to get in. I mean, if Mare Downhill can get reelected after the contempt she's shown the electorate over the last two or three years, there's no way anyone else could ever stand a chance. TRT
  • Score: 1

11:31pm Wed 28 May 14

Su Murray says...

@TRT

It's £500. That's why independents rarely stand for Mayoral elections. That and the fact they obviously won't have the party activists to canvass and leaflet households.

The political make up of Watford is interesting. As I'm sure you know, at a hustings a few days before the election, Dorothy admitted there would not be a new hospital. I wonder how much difference it would have made if that hustings had been a week earlier and therefore reported in the paper (as opposed to on line). Not a lot is my guess. Or not enough.

She also confirmed she is still considering whether to run as MP. If she decides to do so, I wonder if she'll have the courage to resign as Mayor before the election. Who would they stand in the resulting re run I wonder?
@TRT It's £500. That's why independents rarely stand for Mayoral elections. That and the fact they obviously won't have the party activists to canvass and leaflet households. The political make up of Watford is interesting. As I'm sure you know, at a hustings a few days before the election, Dorothy admitted there would not be a new hospital. I wonder how much difference it would have made if that hustings had been a week earlier and therefore reported in the paper (as opposed to on line). Not a lot is my guess. Or not enough. She also confirmed she is still considering whether to run as MP. If she decides to do so, I wonder if she'll have the courage to resign as Mayor before the election. Who would they stand in the resulting re run I wonder? Su Murray
  • Score: -1

7:06am Thu 29 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

TRT wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
(or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).
Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ?

Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.
TRT,

we wrote the Watford Local Manifesto without any input whatsoever from UKIP central, long before we caught sight of the national UKIP manifesto. It was 100% locally independently produced.

The central UKIP manifesto had no bearing on ours whatsoever. We didn't release ours earlier (except to the WO in draft form) for fear of the other parties copying our policies.

You see, in UKIP, local candidates are able to act as independents, and we therefore set out our independent Watford stall for people to see. All local ideas to address local issues.

You liked it, and I appreciate that. It is what we would have stood on and worked towards had we been elected. Had you and others voted UKIP and we were elected, that is what you would have got.

It is a shame we did not pick up enough votes to win, I believe our manifesto was the most principled of them all and instead we have ended up with Dotty for another four years.

If you want a good local government, vote for one. Not a party.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: (or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).[/p][/quote]Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ? Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.[/p][/quote]TRT, we wrote the Watford Local Manifesto without any input whatsoever from UKIP central, long before we caught sight of the national UKIP manifesto. It was 100% locally independently produced. The central UKIP manifesto had no bearing on ours whatsoever. We didn't release ours earlier (except to the WO in draft form) for fear of the other parties copying our policies. You see, in UKIP, local candidates are able to act as independents, and we therefore set out our independent Watford stall for people to see. All local ideas to address local issues. You liked it, and I appreciate that. It is what we would have stood on and worked towards had we been elected. Had you and others voted UKIP and we were elected, that is what you would have got. It is a shame we did not pick up enough votes to win, I believe our manifesto was the most principled of them all and instead we have ended up with Dotty for another four years. If you want a good local government, vote for one. Not a party. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

7:20am Thu 29 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Su Murray wrote:
@phil Cox

Phil,

I have other responsibilities, duties, and interests in life than spending hours on this website. I also don't feel inclined to engage in a discussion with someone who implies I am lying. As already stated, I have not spoken to anyone from the W/O for about a year. Nor were any of my fellow Green candidates asked for statements.
Su,

you sound just like a lazy politician with no ideas, no policies and no understanding of local politics.

The WO published policies under YOUR name Su. They must have got them from somewhere, presumably from your election agent if not you. You may have not a spoken to the WO directly but were you not consulted before things were said in your name? What an absolute shambles!

You refuse to answer questions time and again. In fact, you say you are now refusing to answer them on the basis you have better things to do than spend all your time on the WO, but then go on to produce another 3 posts over the next two hours! Hypocracy?

No wonder the voters punished you at the polls - what reasons did you give them to vote for you?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @phil Cox Phil, I have other responsibilities, duties, and interests in life than spending hours on this website. I also don't feel inclined to engage in a discussion with someone who implies I am lying. As already stated, I have not spoken to anyone from the W/O for about a year. Nor were any of my fellow Green candidates asked for statements.[/p][/quote]Su, you sound just like a lazy politician with no ideas, no policies and no understanding of local politics. The WO published policies under YOUR name Su. They must have got them from somewhere, presumably from your election agent if not you. You may have not a spoken to the WO directly but were you not consulted before things were said in your name? What an absolute shambles! You refuse to answer questions time and again. In fact, you say you are now refusing to answer them on the basis you have better things to do than spend all your time on the WO, but then go on to produce another 3 posts over the next two hours! Hypocracy? No wonder the voters punished you at the polls - what reasons did you give them to vote for you? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

8:46am Thu 29 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

TRT wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
(or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).
Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ?

Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.
TRT

I must disagree with you. UKIP is simply not a racist or xenophobic party. It is a party made up of fine upstanding people who are fed up of being lied to by politicians time and again. Finally we have stood up and are starting to do something about it. We are trying to bring a more honest politics for the people by the people. That's why I stood in the local elections.

UKIP does believe in the UK managing immigration. So does every other civilised country on the planet. Even the EU does not have open borders -have you ever wondered why that is and whether that is racist? It is not racist to want to manage immigration. UKIPs proposal is not racist, it treats all countries and people fairly.

We in UKIP do believe that money is best spent in this country and not given to the EU. Other countries outside the EU do not give £55million a day to the EU. Nor should the UK. It is our tax money and it should be spent in the interests of the UK.

Foreign Aid should be cut to what is necessary to achieve the aims of Foreign Aid. The excess should be spent in the UK on UK interests. For example new hospitals is one area that could benefit from such a policy, and Watford needs a new hospital.

Benefit and Health Tourism is not allowed in other civilised countries. It should not be allowed in the UK either.

UKIP has had a bad press. It is picked upon like no other party by all the major parties and the national press. The worst is published and the best suppressed.

None of the above policies is racist. None of this is xenophobic. None of this is wrong in principle. It is protecting the interests of the people of the UK and making sure their taxes are spent wisely.

Come to one of our meetings and find out more. Ask questions and discuss issues. I would be happy to debate the above issues with you.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: (or at least it would have been if I had included the quote, but I didn't have the heart to make people scroll down that much).[/p][/quote]Is that why you edited and shortened the full UKIP manifesto for local government when you presented it on the Watford UKIP website? Or do you not agree that "Immigration must be controlled to relieve pressure on our health, education, housing and welfare services" and that "Money should be used for local services, not the EU, foreign aid and foreign wars" and "Our housing, education, health and social services cannot cope with constantly rising numbers of people coming to live and work here." and "We must end benefit and health tourism and give priority to local people" and " £23m a day goes out in foreign aid – while jobs, services and benefits are being cut" and "...deport foreign criminals..." and "Reduce the pressure on housing by ending open-door immigration" and "Stop preferential treatment to special groups such as travellers" and "Oppose health tourism and cuts" and "Control immigration to ease the burden on local services" and "Require all visitors to show adequate health insurance at the point of entry into the UK" ? Because I'm really annoyed at you for having mentioned none of this anti-foreigner rhetoric in your manifesto and actually coming up with something sensible and appealing, locally focussed, yet still you stood under the UKIP banner. My best friend is barely speaking to me anymore because I said I wanted to vote for you on the strength of that manifesto, even though I didn't in the end. UKIP is a dirty word; it IS a party that attracts xenophobes and racists, it uses racist and xenophobic language. And now that you've associated yourself with Farage's barmy army, you'll never appeal to the Watford electorate ever, not now and not in the future.[/p][/quote]TRT I must disagree with you. UKIP is simply not a racist or xenophobic party. It is a party made up of fine upstanding people who are fed up of being lied to by politicians time and again. Finally we have stood up and are starting to do something about it. We are trying to bring a more honest politics for the people by the people. That's why I stood in the local elections. UKIP does believe in the UK managing immigration. So does every other civilised country on the planet. Even the EU does not have open borders -have you ever wondered why that is and whether that is racist? It is not racist to want to manage immigration. UKIPs proposal is not racist, it treats all countries and people fairly. We in UKIP do believe that money is best spent in this country and not given to the EU. Other countries outside the EU do not give £55million a day to the EU. Nor should the UK. It is our tax money and it should be spent in the interests of the UK. Foreign Aid should be cut to what is necessary to achieve the aims of Foreign Aid. The excess should be spent in the UK on UK interests. For example new hospitals is one area that could benefit from such a policy, and Watford needs a new hospital. Benefit and Health Tourism is not allowed in other civilised countries. It should not be allowed in the UK either. UKIP has had a bad press. It is picked upon like no other party by all the major parties and the national press. The worst is published and the best suppressed. None of the above policies is racist. None of this is xenophobic. None of this is wrong in principle. It is protecting the interests of the people of the UK and making sure their taxes are spent wisely. Come to one of our meetings and find out more. Ask questions and discuss issues. I would be happy to debate the above issues with you. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

1:12pm Thu 29 May 14

Sara says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Sara wrote: @D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, ' So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?
Keep doing what? Sorry, your post is unclear. I'm also not sure what you meant by 'feeding false information to the public'. We ran a clean campaign as any neutral who has followed the debates across the WO will attest. That cannot be said for some members from other parties who tried to twist or even invent truths to discredit UKIP. Fortunately the majority of the public across the country were not hoodwinked by the outrageous smear campaign as was shown in county elections and is now backed up by the European election results. People have been calling for years for politicians to stop lying and be straight with people. UKIP tells people the way they see it and that has resonated with those who are happy to see a fresh approach in politics. Increasingly that honesty is being rewarded at the ballot box. Over four million have voted for UKIP and here is the most amazing statistic. UKIP have come top in the nationwide poll - the first time since 1906 that a party outside the leading two has achieved that! The worrying aspect for other parties is that, like here in Watford, in reality we have only just started our campaign to win votes. Whilst they are going backwards we have so many more voters ready to come our way. Onwards and upwards.
UKIP did indeed do well in the EU elections. But then it is the purpose of your existence as a political party. And what does it really tell us when we break the figures down? Just under 10% of the electorate voted for UKIP so we can assume those people want to leave the EU Around 20% of the electorate voted for the other parties. All of which to one degree or another are broadly saying, stay in the EU but reform it. The rest of the electorate said "meh - who cares". The sad thing is, we now have just over a third of our MEPs who will take the wages and the very generous allowances, but they will rarely turn up, and when they do, they'll vote against things that would benefit members of the UK public.
Sore loser?
Is that your new signature, Phil?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: @D_Penn 'It was impossible for us to predict in advance how we would do in Watford at these elections, ' So why did the two of you keep doing it? Surely not feeding false information to the public?[/p][/quote]Keep doing what? Sorry, your post is unclear. I'm also not sure what you meant by 'feeding false information to the public'. We ran a clean campaign as any neutral who has followed the debates across the WO will attest. That cannot be said for some members from other parties who tried to twist or even invent truths to discredit UKIP. Fortunately the majority of the public across the country were not hoodwinked by the outrageous smear campaign as was shown in county elections and is now backed up by the European election results. People have been calling for years for politicians to stop lying and be straight with people. UKIP tells people the way they see it and that has resonated with those who are happy to see a fresh approach in politics. Increasingly that honesty is being rewarded at the ballot box. Over four million have voted for UKIP and here is the most amazing statistic. UKIP have come top in the nationwide poll - the first time since 1906 that a party outside the leading two has achieved that! The worrying aspect for other parties is that, like here in Watford, in reality we have only just started our campaign to win votes. Whilst they are going backwards we have so many more voters ready to come our way. Onwards and upwards.[/p][/quote]UKIP did indeed do well in the EU elections. But then it is the purpose of your existence as a political party. And what does it really tell us when we break the figures down? Just under 10% of the electorate voted for UKIP so we can assume those people want to leave the EU Around 20% of the electorate voted for the other parties. All of which to one degree or another are broadly saying, stay in the EU but reform it. The rest of the electorate said "meh - who cares". The sad thing is, we now have just over a third of our MEPs who will take the wages and the very generous allowances, but they will rarely turn up, and when they do, they'll vote against things that would benefit members of the UK public.[/p][/quote]Sore loser?[/p][/quote]Is that your new signature, Phil? Sara
  • Score: 2

1:23pm Thu 29 May 14

TRT says...

Would you agree, though, that the language used in the UKIP manifesto and in Nigel Farage's public debates and interviews is xenophobic and singles out particular races?
Would you agree, though, that the language used in the UKIP manifesto and in Nigel Farage's public debates and interviews is xenophobic and singles out particular races? TRT
  • Score: 1

7:43pm Thu 29 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

For example?
For example? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

8:23pm Thu 29 May 14

WatfordAlex says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
@phil Cox

Phil,

I have other responsibilities, duties, and interests in life than spending hours on this website. I also don't feel inclined to engage in a discussion with someone who implies I am lying. As already stated, I have not spoken to anyone from the W/O for about a year. Nor were any of my fellow Green candidates asked for statements.
Su,

you sound just like a lazy politician with no ideas, no policies and no understanding of local politics.

The WO published policies under YOUR name Su. They must have got them from somewhere, presumably from your election agent if not you. You may have not a spoken to the WO directly but were you not consulted before things were said in your name? What an absolute shambles!

You refuse to answer questions time and again. In fact, you say you are now refusing to answer them on the basis you have better things to do than spend all your time on the WO, but then go on to produce another 3 posts over the next two hours! Hypocracy?

No wonder the voters punished you at the polls - what reasons did you give them to vote for you?
Classy stuff Phil. Following the logic of you post, presumably it is your rude and aggressive attitude towards Su that explains why the voters punished you at the polls (you seem to have forgotten that UKIP lost in Watford; it wasn't UKIP that took seats in Callowland, it was Labour)!

Incidentally, criticising others for 'refusing to answer questions' is so epically hypocritical, given your performance on the thread about your hopeless manifesto, that my head is spinning!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @phil Cox Phil, I have other responsibilities, duties, and interests in life than spending hours on this website. I also don't feel inclined to engage in a discussion with someone who implies I am lying. As already stated, I have not spoken to anyone from the W/O for about a year. Nor were any of my fellow Green candidates asked for statements.[/p][/quote]Su, you sound just like a lazy politician with no ideas, no policies and no understanding of local politics. The WO published policies under YOUR name Su. They must have got them from somewhere, presumably from your election agent if not you. You may have not a spoken to the WO directly but were you not consulted before things were said in your name? What an absolute shambles! You refuse to answer questions time and again. In fact, you say you are now refusing to answer them on the basis you have better things to do than spend all your time on the WO, but then go on to produce another 3 posts over the next two hours! Hypocracy? No wonder the voters punished you at the polls - what reasons did you give them to vote for you?[/p][/quote]Classy stuff Phil. Following the logic of you post, presumably it is your rude and aggressive attitude towards Su that explains why the voters punished you at the polls (you seem to have forgotten that UKIP lost in Watford; it wasn't UKIP that took seats in Callowland, it was Labour)! Incidentally, criticising others for 'refusing to answer questions' is so epically hypocritical, given your performance on the thread about your hopeless manifesto, that my head is spinning! WatfordAlex
  • Score: 3

12:14am Fri 30 May 14

Su Murray says...

@PhilCox

Phil,

I have asked three local candidates from other parties if they were approached by the Watford Observer prior to the recent local elections. Specifically, I asked if the W/O requested details of their personal manifestos. So far, I’ve been told that no, they were not approached with that, or any other request.

It has however been pointed out to me by someone else, that under another article, you made reference to the 2012 bye election in Central. At that time I was approached by the W/O and I said that as an individual, I was concerned about the lack of community cohesion (something which in fact is further damaged by UKIP’s attitude to immigration). I said I didn’t have specific priorities because I considered I should pursue the concerns of the residents I was asking to elect me.

A few days later at a Hustings arranged by the Radlett Estate Residents Association, each candidate was initially asked to speak for 3 minutes (if I recall correctly) about their priorities. I said local residents had raised many issues with me and I listed some of them – including parking, anti social behaviour, the state of the pavements, pot holes etc. However, I wasn’t naming any of those as specific priorities because I believed my priorities should be;

1) Listening to resident’s concerns.
2) Acting on those concerns (whether personally as a Councillor, or by passing the information on to County).
3) Reporting back to residents.

You might be forgiven for not realising that, if it wasn’t for the fact that you were at that Husting and therefore heard my comments. In fact you came up and spoke to me at the end. And while we’re on the subject of ‘lazy’ politicians, I was the only candidate who was able to give an informed response to every question. Your own UKIP candidate was totally unaware of some of the concerns despite prior reports in this very paper. The other candidates were also lacking in knowledge about certain issues.

It is clear that you were deliberately trying to mislead anyone reading this thread. I stated a number of times I haven’t spoken to the W/O for about a year. You could have easily said you were referring to the bye election two years ago – but you chose instead to insinuate I was lying.

Personally, I believe that as Councillors are paid by the public they should get on with working for the public, not playing at political point scoring. That is why I do not generally ‘attack’ other candidates. After all, whether as a Councillor or as a resident trying to help in the community, I have to work with the Councillors whatever their political position. I have no desire to sour such relations by being snide, nasty, or misleading. It would appear you view matters differently.
@PhilCox Phil, I have asked three local candidates from other parties if they were approached by the Watford Observer prior to the recent local elections. Specifically, I asked if the W/O requested details of their personal manifestos. So far, I’ve been told that no, they were not approached with that, or any other request. It has however been pointed out to me by someone else, that under another article, you made reference to the 2012 bye election in Central. At that time I was approached by the W/O and I said that as an individual, I was concerned about the lack of community cohesion (something which in fact is further damaged by UKIP’s attitude to immigration). I said I didn’t have specific priorities because I considered I should pursue the concerns of the residents I was asking to elect me. A few days later at a Hustings arranged by the Radlett Estate Residents Association, each candidate was initially asked to speak for 3 minutes (if I recall correctly) about their priorities. I said local residents had raised many issues with me and I listed some of them – including parking, anti social behaviour, the state of the pavements, pot holes etc. However, I wasn’t naming any of those as specific priorities because I believed my priorities should be; 1) Listening to resident’s concerns. 2) Acting on those concerns (whether personally as a Councillor, or by passing the information on to County). 3) Reporting back to residents. You might be forgiven for not realising that, if it wasn’t for the fact that you were at that Husting and therefore heard my comments. In fact you came up and spoke to me at the end. And while we’re on the subject of ‘lazy’ politicians, I was the only candidate who was able to give an informed response to every question. Your own UKIP candidate was totally unaware of some of the concerns despite prior reports in this very paper. The other candidates were also lacking in knowledge about certain issues. It is clear that you were deliberately trying to mislead anyone reading this thread. I stated a number of times I haven’t spoken to the W/O for about a year. You could have easily said you were referring to the bye election two years ago – but you chose instead to insinuate I was lying. Personally, I believe that as Councillors are paid by the public they should get on with working for the public, not playing at political point scoring. That is why I do not generally ‘attack’ other candidates. After all, whether as a Councillor or as a resident trying to help in the community, I have to work with the Councillors whatever their political position. I have no desire to sour such relations by being snide, nasty, or misleading. It would appear you view matters differently. Su Murray
  • Score: 0

12:26am Fri 30 May 14

Su Murray says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
@phil Cox

Phil,

I have other responsibilities, duties, and interests in life than spending hours on this website. I also don't feel inclined to engage in a discussion with someone who implies I am lying. As already stated, I have not spoken to anyone from the W/O for about a year. Nor were any of my fellow Green candidates asked for statements.
Su,

you sound just like a lazy politician with no ideas, no policies and no understanding of local politics.

The WO published policies under YOUR name Su. They must have got them from somewhere, presumably from your election agent if not you. You may have not a spoken to the WO directly but were you not consulted before things were said in your name? What an absolute shambles!

You refuse to answer questions time and again. In fact, you say you are now refusing to answer them on the basis you have better things to do than spend all your time on the WO, but then go on to produce another 3 posts over the next two hours! Hypocracy?

No wonder the voters punished you at the polls - what reasons did you give them to vote for you?
Classy stuff Phil. Following the logic of you post, presumably it is your rude and aggressive attitude towards Su that explains why the voters punished you at the polls (you seem to have forgotten that UKIP lost in Watford; it wasn't UKIP that took seats in Callowland, it was Labour)!

Incidentally, criticising others for 'refusing to answer questions' is so epically hypocritical, given your performance on the thread about your hopeless manifesto, that my head is spinning!
WatfordAlex,

:PhilCox seems to have quite an aggressive attitude towards both Sara and I. I'm not sure if this is an attack on us as local political 'competition' (albeit of different parties) or merely sexism on his part. Either way, as you say, it doesn't seem to endear him to local voters.
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @phil Cox Phil, I have other responsibilities, duties, and interests in life than spending hours on this website. I also don't feel inclined to engage in a discussion with someone who implies I am lying. As already stated, I have not spoken to anyone from the W/O for about a year. Nor were any of my fellow Green candidates asked for statements.[/p][/quote]Su, you sound just like a lazy politician with no ideas, no policies and no understanding of local politics. The WO published policies under YOUR name Su. They must have got them from somewhere, presumably from your election agent if not you. You may have not a spoken to the WO directly but were you not consulted before things were said in your name? What an absolute shambles! You refuse to answer questions time and again. In fact, you say you are now refusing to answer them on the basis you have better things to do than spend all your time on the WO, but then go on to produce another 3 posts over the next two hours! Hypocracy? No wonder the voters punished you at the polls - what reasons did you give them to vote for you?[/p][/quote]Classy stuff Phil. Following the logic of you post, presumably it is your rude and aggressive attitude towards Su that explains why the voters punished you at the polls (you seem to have forgotten that UKIP lost in Watford; it wasn't UKIP that took seats in Callowland, it was Labour)! Incidentally, criticising others for 'refusing to answer questions' is so epically hypocritical, given your performance on the thread about your hopeless manifesto, that my head is spinning![/p][/quote]WatfordAlex, :PhilCox seems to have quite an aggressive attitude towards both Sara and I. I'm not sure if this is an attack on us as local political 'competition' (albeit of different parties) or merely sexism on his part. Either way, as you say, it doesn't seem to endear him to local voters. Su Murray
  • Score: -2

12:35am Fri 30 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Su,

you are mistaken. I was referring to the elections last week, not 2012.

The WO published details of every candidate and, where they had been supplied information on their policies, they published that as well. For all I know it is still on the WO site. I know yours was there, I read it and quoted from it.

So, someone from your party seems to have told them what your priorities/manifesto was. The WO are unlikely to have made that up.

If not you personally, it should have been your election agent or campaign organiser.

I find it incredible that the Greens are so disorganised that candidates like yourself do not know who is doing what and talking to the Watford Observer about what a candidate is standing for. Even more incredible you didn't have any input into a statement outlining your personal policies locally.

Can we take it that in future, in accordance with your principles outlined in your comment above, the Greens in Watford will be standing for no policies in particular but will try to find out what people want after they are elected and then, if they agree with those wishes, pursue them?

I'm not sure I would cast a vote on that basis. I prefer to have an idea of what my candidate stands for before casting a vote, not waiting until afterwards. That does seem lazy to me.

Still, at least we now know.

Just for information, I copy below Su's profile from the 2014 elections

Name: Su Murray

Watford Observer: ElectionsModule Candidate photo
Party: Watford Observer: ElectionsModule Party Logo Green Party

Profile:
Su Murray - Green Party candidate for Callowland - lives in Queens Road but formerly of Sandringham Road. Campaigning to strengthen licensing in St Albans Road, and across Watford to stop ASB, stop poor developments, replacing and fixing poor pathways.

------------

Maybe that will jog your, or someone else's, memory in the local Green party.
Su, you are mistaken. I was referring to the elections last week, not 2012. The WO published details of every candidate and, where they had been supplied information on their policies, they published that as well. For all I know it is still on the WO site. I know yours was there, I read it and quoted from it. So, someone from your party seems to have told them what your priorities/manifesto was. The WO are unlikely to have made that up. If not you personally, it should have been your election agent or campaign organiser. I find it incredible that the Greens are so disorganised that candidates like yourself do not know who is doing what and talking to the Watford Observer about what a candidate is standing for. Even more incredible you didn't have any input into a statement outlining your personal policies locally. Can we take it that in future, in accordance with your principles outlined in your comment above, the Greens in Watford will be standing for no policies in particular but will try to find out what people want after they are elected and then, if they agree with those wishes, pursue them? I'm not sure I would cast a vote on that basis. I prefer to have an idea of what my candidate stands for before casting a vote, not waiting until afterwards. That does seem lazy to me. Still, at least we now know. Just for information, I copy below Su's profile from the 2014 elections Name: Su Murray Watford Observer: ElectionsModule Candidate photo Party: Watford Observer: ElectionsModule Party Logo Green Party Profile: Su Murray - Green Party candidate for Callowland - lives in Queens Road but formerly of Sandringham Road. Campaigning to strengthen licensing in St Albans Road, and across Watford to stop ASB, stop poor developments, replacing and fixing poor pathways. ------------ Maybe that will jog your, or someone else's, memory in the local Green party. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -1

8:38am Fri 30 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Su Murray wrote:
WatfordAlex wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Su Murray wrote: @phil Cox Phil, I have other responsibilities, duties, and interests in life than spending hours on this website. I also don't feel inclined to engage in a discussion with someone who implies I am lying. As already stated, I have not spoken to anyone from the W/O for about a year. Nor were any of my fellow Green candidates asked for statements.
Su, you sound just like a lazy politician with no ideas, no policies and no understanding of local politics. The WO published policies under YOUR name Su. They must have got them from somewhere, presumably from your election agent if not you. You may have not a spoken to the WO directly but were you not consulted before things were said in your name? What an absolute shambles! You refuse to answer questions time and again. In fact, you say you are now refusing to answer them on the basis you have better things to do than spend all your time on the WO, but then go on to produce another 3 posts over the next two hours! Hypocracy? No wonder the voters punished you at the polls - what reasons did you give them to vote for you?
Classy stuff Phil. Following the logic of you post, presumably it is your rude and aggressive attitude towards Su that explains why the voters punished you at the polls (you seem to have forgotten that UKIP lost in Watford; it wasn't UKIP that took seats in Callowland, it was Labour)! Incidentally, criticising others for 'refusing to answer questions' is so epically hypocritical, given your performance on the thread about your hopeless manifesto, that my head is spinning!
WatfordAlex, :PhilCox seems to have quite an aggressive attitude towards both Sara and I. I'm not sure if this is an attack on us as local political 'competition' (albeit of different parties) or merely sexism on his part. Either way, as you say, it doesn't seem to endear him to local voters.
I'm trying to get a wannabe (Green) politician to answer a question or two. You know how hard that can be and you are certainly no exception Su.

So many excuses, so many insults and smears but so few answers. In fact, answers were there none.

You yourself said earlier on this page that you offered a Green manifesto to the WO this year. (comment made on Monday, 7:46 pm).

Quite simple Su. Where is it?

You then went on to say you don't stand for anything and would try to jump on an issues you agree with if elected. Isn't that the opposite of having a manifesto?

Now on the issue of what the WO printed about your ideas for Callowland, I'm not sure if you are trying the Nick Clegg approach of using weasel words to get off the hook, or whether you really don't have a clue about what you stood for or where it came from.

Either way, you **** yourself by your own words.

Bear in mind that unless you, as a local wannabe local politiican, are able to answer questions on policy and integrity, you are unlikely to ever be elected by the good people of Watford.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: @phil Cox Phil, I have other responsibilities, duties, and interests in life than spending hours on this website. I also don't feel inclined to engage in a discussion with someone who implies I am lying. As already stated, I have not spoken to anyone from the W/O for about a year. Nor were any of my fellow Green candidates asked for statements.[/p][/quote]Su, you sound just like a lazy politician with no ideas, no policies and no understanding of local politics. The WO published policies under YOUR name Su. They must have got them from somewhere, presumably from your election agent if not you. You may have not a spoken to the WO directly but were you not consulted before things were said in your name? What an absolute shambles! You refuse to answer questions time and again. In fact, you say you are now refusing to answer them on the basis you have better things to do than spend all your time on the WO, but then go on to produce another 3 posts over the next two hours! Hypocracy? No wonder the voters punished you at the polls - what reasons did you give them to vote for you?[/p][/quote]Classy stuff Phil. Following the logic of you post, presumably it is your rude and aggressive attitude towards Su that explains why the voters punished you at the polls (you seem to have forgotten that UKIP lost in Watford; it wasn't UKIP that took seats in Callowland, it was Labour)! Incidentally, criticising others for 'refusing to answer questions' is so epically hypocritical, given your performance on the thread about your hopeless manifesto, that my head is spinning![/p][/quote]WatfordAlex, :PhilCox seems to have quite an aggressive attitude towards both Sara and I. I'm not sure if this is an attack on us as local political 'competition' (albeit of different parties) or merely sexism on his part. Either way, as you say, it doesn't seem to endear him to local voters.[/p][/quote]I'm trying to get a wannabe (Green) politician to answer a question or two. You know how hard that can be and you are certainly no exception Su. So many excuses, so many insults and smears but so few answers. In fact, answers were there none. You yourself said earlier on this page that you offered a Green manifesto to the WO this year. (comment made on Monday, 7:46 pm). Quite simple Su. Where is it? You then went on to say you don't stand for anything and would try to jump on an issues you agree with if elected. Isn't that the opposite of having a manifesto? Now on the issue of what the WO printed about your ideas for Callowland, I'm not sure if you are trying the Nick Clegg approach of using weasel words to get off the hook, or whether you really don't have a clue about what you stood for or where it came from. Either way, you **** yourself by your own words. Bear in mind that unless you, as a local wannabe local politiican, are able to answer questions on policy and integrity, you are unlikely to ever be elected by the good people of Watford. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

8:39am Fri 30 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

dam n is the missing word
dam n is the missing word Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 0

10:54am Fri 30 May 14

D_Penn says...

@Su Murray

You wrote: "PhilCox seems to have quite an aggressive attitude towards both Sara and I. I'm not sure if this is an attack on us as local political 'competition' (albeit of different parties) or merely sexism on his part."

I see you decided it was time to play the 'sexist' card without a shred of evidence. I regret that I now place you in the same category as those who call people 'racist' without anything to back it up thinking, quite wrongly, that it is the way to win an argument.

To be honest Su, I'm disappointed. I thought you were better than that. You know full well that as soon as someone stoops to using smearing tactics, everyone knows that they have lost the argument. When they cannot win the debate they desperately try to attack the individual.

God knows, it's hard enough these days keeping people interested in politics but offhand insults attacking a person's character rather than their viewpoint turns people off quicker than anything. Please keep debates clean.
@Su Murray You wrote: "PhilCox seems to have quite an aggressive attitude towards both Sara and I. I'm not sure if this is an attack on us as local political 'competition' (albeit of different parties) or merely sexism on his part." I see you decided it was time to play the 'sexist' card without a shred of evidence. I regret that I now place you in the same category as those who call people 'racist' without anything to back it up thinking, quite wrongly, that it is the way to win an argument. To be honest Su, I'm disappointed. I thought you were better than that. You know full well that as soon as someone stoops to using smearing tactics, everyone knows that they have lost the argument. When they cannot win the debate they desperately try to attack the individual. God knows, it's hard enough these days keeping people interested in politics but offhand insults attacking a person's character rather than their viewpoint turns people off quicker than anything. Please keep debates clean. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree