In an extraordinary leaflet delivered to residents in Brent today, Brent Central Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather really insults the intelligence of the people of Brent.
The leaflet in newspaper format is produced by the Liberal Democrats and is called Brent News. The imprint is barely visible. On the front page of the leaflet, the main story attacks Mayor of London Boris Johnson for the proposed Police Station closures at Harlesden and Willesden. This is despite the fact that Sarah Teather voted to cut police numbers LINK
In addition, it is claimed that “Brent News is fully behind Sarah’s campaign to save our stations”. Wait a minute….. a Sarah Teather publication is behind Sarah Teather’s campaign????
Does Sarah Teather think that people in Brent are stupid and would think this is a Brent non-party political neutral publication?
The Liberal Democrat published ‘Brent News’ also claims to have an exclusive interview with Sarah Teather MP.
This is from the same party that produced this LINK
Expect more gutter politics leaflets from the Brent Liberal Democrats over the next two years as they aim to hold on to their seats over the next two years.
Following my blogpost here LINK – covered by the brilliant Political Scrapbook website here LINK the issue of the Brent Central Liberal Democrats political communications during Lib Dem Alison Hopkin’s Dollis Hill Ward by-election campaign has been raised to the Leader of the House of Commons Sir George Young.
In a Parliamentary debate, Angela Eagle MP said:
May I wish everyone a happy international women’s day and welcome the debate later today, for which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel)? Does the Leader of the House agree that the Justice Secretary should clear his diary to attend it? The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will halve the number of women entitled to legal aid in domestic violence cases. The Opposition have set out proposals to reduce the legal aid bill without penalising the most vulnerable. Will the Leader of the House explain how the Government’s proposals are fair?
One person who does not think it fair is the junior Education Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who spends her day voting for Government cuts and then goes delivering leaflets in the evening asking, “Who can you trust to stop the cuts?” The answer is clearly not the Liberal Democrats. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on Government communications to the electorate to enable her to explain herself?
This was picked up by a number of MPs on Twitter who highlighted the level of Lib Dem hypocrisy on the social networking site:
This is a Lib Dem leaflet from Sarah Teather's seat - meanwhile she's merrily voting for every savage cut in sight http://t.co/Nd6X1xK8
People should be aware of the political scheming that goes behind a Government offer for a freeze in Council Tax.
Basically, what the Government agrees to do for one year is subsidise a Council Tax rise. Therefore, although it appears as if Council Tax has been frozen, when that subsidy is no longer there the year after, there will be what appears what looks like a Council Tax rise.
In addition, if a Council finds itself needing to increase Council Tax the year after, there will be an automatic double increase in Council Tax, when in reality all that has happened is a single increase from the year previous added to the removal of a Central Government subsidy to freeze Council Tax.
Councils that wish to freeze Council Tax are therefore much better off if they do so in their own accord and not take up the national Government’s offer of subsidising their Council Tax rise.
This Thursday, I will be voting No in the referendum vote to change the way we elect our MPs.
I don’t see why people who voted for a candidate who came bottom in a contest should have equal footing with the votes of people who voted for the top two candidates. The principle of one person one vote, does not exist with AV.
AV signals a shift from favouring most popular candidate to favouring the least unpopular. MPs will not reveal their true beliefs and convictions as they would be scared that 50% of people in their constituency will not support them anymore.
Many find it hypocritical that the Labour Party and Conservative Party both use elements of AV to elect their leaders but the Tories and many from Labour are not supporting this system to elect MPs. However, using this system to elect your Party leader where voting is a vote among colleagues and there is a broad agreement with ideology between all candidates up for selection, and selecting an MP where people up for election have radically varying ideologies is completely different.
To put it simply, I have no worries whatsoever that someone who voted Diane Abbott in the Labour leadership contest in 2010 had equal value to people who voted Ed Miliband or David Miliband. But I have an issue when it comes to electing MPs and people who voted for the British National Party having their vote eventually counting for equal value with people who voted for either of the top two candidates.
I also disagree that AV will end safe seats for life. I believe that it will get end some seats being safe, but I also believe that it will create some safe seats. For example, if we take the results of Brent Central at the last election which you can see here (LINK), under AV, Brent Central is likely to be a safe Lib Dem seat once Tory votes are redistributed rather than a hotly contested marginal where MPs can genuinely be held to account.
I agree that there is a case to change from First Past the Post, but AV is the wrong change. I feel there are more proportional systems out there, like the one we use to elect our London Assembly which keeps the constituency MP to voter link on a First Past The Post basis, but also has a strong element of Proportional Representation with a top up list vote.
I could go on, but I hope this Thursday, you will all go out and join me in voting No to AV.
Glenda Jackson, Labour Member of Parliament for Hampstead & Kilburn, slammed local government cuts as an attempt to destroy the welfare state through the back door.
Glenda said:“ Councils provide many of the frontline services we all rely on, and protect some of the most vulnerable in our community. The latest cuts to their budgets are of such a scale, they have no choice but to stop providing some services altogether.
Up and down the country, Councils of all political colours are having to make cuts and increase charges to balance the books, and as usual it will be the most vulnerable – children and the elderly; the disabled and mentally ill – who will suffer most. These cuts are an attack on our community.”
Claims by government ministers that local government cuts are designed to reduce waste have also been rejected as a smokescreen by Ms Jackson.
“Ministers are playing a blame game, trying to argue these cuts are about executive pay or backroom efficiency, but the sums don’t add up.”
The Borough of Brent which forms part of my constituency faces cuts of £37million next year alone. They could fire every senior manager in the Council and only save a fraction of that amount. It’s obvious these cuts are about dismantling the welfare state.
Ministers should stop trying to mislead the public, and come clean
Tonight is the vote where a whole generation will learn the fate of their future. Whether they will be consigned with levels of unamiginable debt.
Despite daily protests outside her Willesden Green office, we are yet to hear a word from our Brent Central MP on how she will vote tonight. The Coalition Government Minister was one of those who signed the NUS pledge (not to be confused with a promise of course) that she would personally vote against any rise in tuition fees.
She has remained tight lipped even until today on the issue with the people of Brent having no idea what her thoughts are on the issue or how she will vote. Sky News tried to get an answer from her yesterday with no success (LINK).
All we’ve had so far is four word expletives (LINK).
I think this is a good thing as it means there is still hope. People in Brent will just have to wait in hope tonight to see if our local MP honours her pledge or if she sells out and condemns a generation of young people to a lifetime of debt.
Our MP Sarah Teather was critical of everyone but herself when this development was being pushed forward by Barnet Council and Mayor of London Boris Johnson seemed in favour of it.
Lets look at the facts. Labour Secretary of State John Denham called in the developed and it was put on hold. A few months later Sarah Teather and Eric Pickles are Government Ministers and the Development gets the go ahead. All of a sudden Sarah Teather is silent on the issue.