Thirty-four per cent

Tom Harris MP Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:18:44 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Turnout in Haltemprice and Howden was a measly 34 per cent, less than half of what it was at the general election.

No doubt DD’s apologists will claim that this is all the Labour Party’s fault for not standing a candidate (shame on us for not jumping when DD clicks his fingers!). But no amount of spin or argument can disguise the fact that the Haltemprice and Howden by-election has been a colossal waste of time, effort and money.

More importantly, it has had not the slightest impact on public support for (or opposition to) the policy of 42 days detention.

Visit Tom's blog. 






tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Thirty-four per cent | 23 comments (23 topical)

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#1)

by fluffymike on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:52:49 AM GMT

Although having personally dismissed this farce as a simple ego-trip for DD, I actually think he's done a lot better than many people including myself expected.

34% isn't at all shambolic for a bye-election - especially given that two of the three main parties didn't contest it, and his 17k votes is a pretty impressive endorsement under the circumstances.

What it doesn't do though - as you have pointed out - is have the remotest effect on the issue of 42 days.

The main winnders last night were the English Democrats and possibly the biggest losers were the Greens who must have hoped for more than 1700 in such a clear run - and the ex-Tory bloke who probably thought he'd be taken seriously and obviouly wasn't.


Re: Thirty-four per cent (#2)

by red flagger on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:22:11 AM GMT

My biggest concern is that over 500 people voted for the NF... not huge, I know, but even so. Did they get their deposit back?


Re: Thirty-four per cent (#3)

by fluffymike on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:32:41 AM GMT

nowhere near to saving their deposit thnk fk


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#4)

by jkitleft on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 12:15:26 PM GMT

I wanted Jill Saward to win. She conveyed a message of positive liberty, against David Davis' negative liberty. When I heard that she said that the criminal justice system focused too much upon the criminal, I thought she wasn't aware that sentences are now longer than they've ever been (well, they would be if it wasn't for the overcrowding). Instead, she said that the criminal justice system should also concentrate on how they help the victim afterwards.


Re: Thirty-four per cent (#5)

by Prbo on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 01:42:39 PM GMT

Tom, why didn't Labour put up a candidate?


Re: Thirty-four per cent (#6)

by fluffymike on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM GMT

Pr why don't you ask a new question that isn't totally boring?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#7)

by redwedge on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:29:41 PM GMT

Sorry Tom - but 34% is not a disaster (although it is not brilliant either).  In fact the lowest ever turnout in a by election, was Hilary Benn's victory in Leeds Central back om 2000 (?).  The turnout on that occasion was 19%...


Re: Thirty-four per cent (#8)

by redwedge on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:33:49 PM GMT

Also Prbo - I am glad that the Labour Party did not put up a candidate for this by-election.  This was a waste of £80,000 of tax payers money.  Parliament is where such issues should be debated.  This makes a mockery of our democracy if politicians resign on every issue they fall out on. 

To be honest I might have had more respect for David Davis if he resigned on an issue of vital importance such as the invasion of Iraq.

Let's not forget, this whole issue is about disagreement with the Conservative Party leadership - if they want to fall out with each other over policy, then I am more than happy to sit back and watch them get on with it!


Re: Thirty-four per cent (#9)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:19:07 AM GMT

£80,000 of taxpayers' money is nothing for such an important issue when our liberty is under its greatest threat since WWII.

www.prisonplanet.com


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#10)

by fluffymike on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:14:25 AM GMT

so why is 6 weeks so vastly different to 4 weeks?

what is it about the extra 2 weeks tha prompts indignatioon and references to magna carta that weren't seen to be relevant at 4 weeks?????


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#12)

by RedRooster on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:42:53 PM GMT

Oh come on now, I'm sure there is some obscure European treaty that threatened our liberty more than this.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#15)

by jkitleft on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:27:41 PM GMT

lol, I try not to pay any attention to a site which promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#16)

by fluffymike on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:00:41 PM GMT

I used to take that view... until I read a book about the official report - which is so contradictory and blatantly wrong I now treat everything about 11/9 with equal suspicion...

Whether it's the US govt or Michael Meacher - they are equally open to question...


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#17)

by jkitleft on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 04:15:55 PM GMT

In one way, the UK and the US were behind it. Yes it was to do with foreign policy, but the foreign policy of the 40's and 50's. Roosevelt said to the Saudis that they wanted their oil, but they would ask no questions about who controlled it.

In exchange for oil then, we stifled democracy, We overthrew democratically elected politicians in Iran and elsewhere. Their Jeffersons and Paines were to be gone for generations. Now, the only political oppositions to quite conservative regimes, are Islamofascits organisations. This is true in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan etc.

Make no mistake, the jihadists who commit these acts sincerely believe in their ideologies of misogyny and homophobia. The best way to break up these ideologies is by democracy. And we can achieve it in several ways. One is by establishing energy independence, and the other is to empower Muslim women.

Until we are independent in terms of energy, we won't confront Saudi Arabia. As Thomas Friedman tells us, it is because "a junkie never tells the truth to their dealer".

Irshad Manji, who is seeking to reform Islam, says that we should offer micro-loans to Muslim women in other countries, and in Bangladesh have had a 98% pay back rate.

We have other domestic ways of tackling Islamic fundamentalism. We need to end state sponsered multiculturalism, of ideology schools, more commonly known as 'faith' schools, or of racially targeted community centres etc. We also need a liberal Muslim organisation, primarily to represent women, which should be the Uk equivalent of the French organisation, Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither whores nor submissives). We should get some prominent moderate muslim women like Baronnes Uddin, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Saira Khan to lead it.

If we do this, we can rid the world of this quasi-racist myth that "other people" don't want our "imperialist notion" of democracy. This isn't what we've seen in Afghanistan and Kurdistan, or East Timor. Burma hasn't had a proper democracy for long. But do we doubt that the people want Aung San Suu Kyi as their PM. Notice how masses of Iraqi women marched upon the streets when the ruling council threatened to introduce Sharia law in 2003.

The problem is we haven't actually given them democracy. The World Bank controls them. It controls their economic policy, and imposed flat taxes, and mass privatisation, which has lead to mass unemployment and shocking services.

So, if we want to imprint democracy upon Iraq, we should withhold all funds from the World Bank until they reform, and promise not to violate the sovereignty of any country. Then we should negotiate a peace agreement whereby oil is shared proportionally between Kurdish Sunnis, Sunnis and Shias. Then organise a referendum for the Iraqi people about whether we should leave.

In Afghanistan, a peace solution would help cut crime over here. We are fighting one legitemate war, and one illigitemate war. Instead of destroying opium crops, we should buy their crops and use it for heroin prescription over here to cut crime at a stroke.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#13)

by CitizenAndreas on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:19:45 PM GMT

our liberty is under its greatest threat since WWII.

What a complete crock.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#14)

by fluffymike on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:24:13 PM GMT

LOL - at least they've updated it from Magna Carta now!


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#18)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:18:02 PM GMT

our liberty is under its greatest threat since WWII.

"What a complete crock."

That's your argument is it?

Suggest you stop reading the tabloid trash and research what's really going on.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#19)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 08:28:38 PM GMT

Please watch 'Terrorstorm' on Google Video.

It documents state-sponsored terrorism, like 9/11.

Watch it and then deny it if you can!


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#20)

by jkitleft on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:51:50 PM GMT

Loose Change and others have found anomalies in the official story, which should be investigated.

But what about the phone calls from the planes? Oh Colin Powell was impersonating everyone? Please.

Watch 9/11 debunked.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#21)

by jkitleft on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:00:36 PM GMT

Oh, and when conspiracies exist, they are pretty quickly uncovered.

Bush and his cronies can't get the lights on in Baghdad, they can't police Iraq. They can't get food to New Orleans. I just don't think they have what it takes to pull of four major terrorist attacks.

When there are 'scandals', like Des Browne not stopping soldiers from giving interviews, they are found out within days. The conspiracy becomes too big: Major international companies, the Department of State, the US Cabinet, the DoD etc. Someone would have talked.

Surely the collapse of WTC7 would be like the Watergate robbery? The smoking gun if you will. Someone would have covered it in the mainstream media if it was genuine. Genuine conspiracies are always uncovered, that is why the chain of events started by Nixon's bombing of Kampuchea, and then the robbery at the Watergate were uncovered. You think the media would hold back on a story like this? Or is it because they're all Jews? Almost every conspiracy theory is based on some prejudice about the Jews. Thousands of people were supposedly involved of this conspiracy. Surely they would have been paid money to talk?

The people behind this conspiracy seem to think the government is competent, think the media cares about privacy, and that businessman like losing money.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#23)

by FreedomAndTruth on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:53:01 AM GMT

"Oh Colin Powell was impersonating everyone? Please"

I've not heard that one after hundreds of hours of study.

Some have suggested that telephone calls from the planes were faked.

Anyway, Bush is a dummy and of course he didn't organise 9/11, that was others in the US Administration. You have to understand the pyramidal structure of power: there is a tiny elite at the very top and we are holding them up with our taxes and labour. In return they use us as cannon-fodder and guinea pigs.

MPs are useful idiots as the Soviets used to say and no offence meant on my part, but they have little power because the top of the pyramid gets its orders down to their peons in parliament.

Again, no offence intended, but the world's elites have no time for MPs or the rest of us.

They have created for us a left-right paradigm to give us the impression that we have choice.

Not satisfied with owning most of the world, it's not enough for them - they want at least 80% of us dead.

This is why they promote the religion of environmentalism. They want people to think, as in the words of Dr Pianka of the University of Texas Pianka that: “We're no better than bacteria!”

Pianka is calling for 90% of the world's people to be murdered by, e.g. airborne Ebola.

He receives standing ovations for doing so. You can read about one of his talks here.

I have no prejudice as far as Jews are concerned as they are God's people, although Mossad seems to get involved in a lot more than they should, incl., some say, the false flag terror attacks of 11th September 2001.

As for businessmen losing money, a lot of money was made for those nearer the top of the pyramid after 9/11.

The leaseholder of the Twin Towers, Larry Silverstein got a packet from his insurers. Millions were made on the stock market. Billions have been made by Cheney's friends in the arms industry and the no bid contacts awarded to US companies for rebuilding Iraq.

As for "Genuine conspiracies are always uncovered."

a) They can take a long time and

b) We don't always know what is a conspiracy and what isn't.

The majority believes Diana was murdered, but it still hasn't been proven.

As for a big one like 9/11, the key is compartmentalisation, so that only a few people need to know what's really going on.

On 9/11 drills were taking place at the exact locations at the same time as the real attacks. This is so that the perpetrators can more easily operate, so other people taking part in the drill will think the terrorists are just part of the drill as well.

Do you know that the exact same happened on 7/7 in London - a drill carried out for London Transport by Visor Consultants at the same stations at the same time as the real bombings?

Watch the Head of Visor on ITN explaining the weird 'coincidence'.

He said the same on 5 Live.

And like the SAS rigorously selects the right candidates, so do other agencies who find people who will do anything for money.

It's easy to pull off terrorist attacks and blame them on your enemy when you have psychology experts and sociopaths at your command, not to mention most of the media who will do as they are told as they are owned by the same few people and the gullibility of the public who have been trained to worship mother earth and hate themselves for breathing.

Teenagers are killing themselves because they have been trained to not believe in God and their own worth in the great scheme of things, but instead believe Pianka that “We're no better than bacteria!”

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Thirty-four per cent (#11)

by NB on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM GMT

Tom: can you really be comfortable with people like Bob Geldof publicly campaigning for a Tory candidate against Labour Government policy?


Re: Thirty-four per cent (#22)

by Free Radical on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:16:16 PM GMT

Although the media did not pay that much attention to the substance of the campaign (they don't pay a great deal of attention to the substance of anything), David Davis' action has had the benefit of consolidating the Tory position against the 42 days legislation.

Furthermore, since we did not include the 42 days proposals in our manifesto, there is something of a moral victory for Davis in securing his own mandate from the electorate of Haltemprice and Howden to oppose the legislation and other incursions on civil liberties.

But, the good news is that the intervention of Baroness Manningham-Buller, in speaking against the 42 days legislation in the Lords last week, has almost certainly delivered the fatal blow to the measure.


Thirty-four per cent | 23 comments (23 topical)