The Walkingshaw Interviews : comments [Matthew's Journal]

> Andrew was more aggresive to him, which was good to hear;

Why so? FWIW, from what I've got through the door, the Tories look to have the most sensible manifesto for the local area, and actually includes some sensible proposals - Anne Campbell seems basically useless at doing anything except agreeing with Labour, and the LibDems (whose candidate's name I forget) seemed awfully vague. OK, nationally, all three parties are fairly useless, but Ian seems, from his publicity at least, to actually be a fairly reasonable candidate.

[parent entry] [link] [reply]

Read between the lines. He's a Tory central-office parachuted-in tea-boy with no investment in representing the people of Cambridge except in so far as it advances his career. Compare with the city-resident sitting MP, the city-resident former council leader, the city-resident Green and Respect candidates etc.

[link] [parent] [reply]

If that makes him promise and implement sensible policies, he could be Satan himself and I'd vote for him; I'd much rather have a bastard that works than a hero that doesn't. I'd certainly much rather have an MP chosen on the basis of their likelihood to win the next election than one chosen on the basis of their postcode - to my mind, it's largely a silly distinction anyway; there's much more difference in lifestyle between the kind of person who stands as a party MP and, say, me, than there is between myself and any of the CovGoths, who live 100 miles away - I'd much rather have

mrph representing me than Jeffrey Archer ...

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think I agree with you for MPs but I was annoyed to see how few of the candidates for the London assembly lived in my area. As I see it the only thing the London Assembly does that affects me is travel and so I felt the candidate I voted for should experience transport in my area.

[link] [parent] [reply]