SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors Adult Learning Lewisham


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (6): « First [1] 2 3 4 5 Next > Last »
General election forum
Author Message
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #1
08-04-2010 10:03 AM

Churches Together in Sydenham and Forest Hill are organizing a 'general election forum' for the Lewisham West and Penge constituency. Candidates from the Conservative, Green, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have agreed to take part. It will be held at 7.30 pm on Thursday 29 April at Living Springs International Church, Zoe House, 8-10 Devonshire Road, London SE23 3TJ (on the South Circular Road, just round the corner from Forest Hill station). There are more details on our website, which also has a facility for submitting questions in advance. Everyone will be welcome.

Find all posts by this user Reply
shzl400


Posts: 729
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #2
08-04-2010 05:32 PM

See which party's policies match your opinions - try this for a bit of fun...

http://www.votematch.org.uk/

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #3
08-04-2010 06:35 PM

Sounds interesting and I will definitely try to attend.

No one has yet started a thread on the election on this site but perhaps thats a result of general dismay at recent events and concern about politics in general.

As an aside, there does seem to be a local competition for the biggest and most brash party signage- there is a particularly large sign up in the garden of a private house on Honor Oak Road near the junction of Westwood Park, which I understand has nearly caused cars to crash as some drivers thought it was an emergency stop sign and have braked suddenly. I also understand that it breaches planning legislation due its size and that the Council are ordering its removal. Interesting stuff.

Find all posts by this user Reply
rbmartin


Posts: 795
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #4
08-04-2010 10:41 PM

I saw the banner today while riding on the Paradise 4 bus today. I admire the houseowner's loyalty to the LD's, but it's way too big.

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #5
09-04-2010 08:51 AM

The email link on http://www.ctsfh.org.uk for people who want to submit questions to the forum is down at the moment. We hope to have it restored soon.

Find all posts by this user Reply
shzl400


Posts: 729
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #6
09-04-2010 07:26 PM

Don't forget, it's not just the MP's job up for grabs, it's also Lewisham's mayor and all the local councillors.

Here's the sorry selection for your consideration...

For mayor:
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...wisham.pdf

For Forest Hill ward:
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...stHill.pdf

Also note that the recent boundary changes for Lewisham West shift the balance of votes since the last election, in favour of the Tories and the Lib Dems, but worse for Labour:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-...standpenge

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #7
09-04-2010 07:55 PM

My reading of the link suggests the opposite- in favour of Labour; is that what you meant or am I reading the wrong report?

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,197
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #8
09-04-2010 08:21 PM

ukpollingreport Wrote:
Actual 2005 result:
Labour: 16611 (52%)
Liberal Democrat: 6679 (20.9%)
Conservative: 6396 (20%)
Green: 1464 (4.6%)
UKIP: 773 (2.4%)
Majority: 9932 (31.1%)

Notional 2005 Results: (estimates based on boundary changes)
Labour: 18105 (46.4%)
Conservative: 9341 (23.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 9261 (23.7%)
Other: 2307 (5.9%)
Majority: 8764 (22.5%)


So the new constituency is stronger for the Conservatives (who move into 2nd place), and for the the Lib Dems who would gain 3%. Labour lose out by the boundary change but, as stated on the site "the seat remains strong for Labour", 22.5% majority generally being regarded as a safe seat.

But as with all elections, it would be a shame to regard it as a completely forgone conclusion. It would be nice to think that there is some point in taking part in the democratic process, however 'safe' the seat may be.

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #9
09-04-2010 08:22 PM

Quote:
The email link on http://www.ctsfh.org.uk for people who want to submit questions to the forum is down at the moment


It's now up again.

Find all posts by this user Reply
sandy


Posts: 189
Joined: Oct 2006
Post: #10
09-04-2010 10:33 PM

Why 'sorry selection', shzl400?

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,197
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #11
09-04-2010 11:14 PM

Further to my previous post, there are other (more authoritative and independent) version of the notional result for 2005.

The BBC shows the notional percentages for 2005 in 'Lewisham West & Penge' as follows:
Labour 46.3%
Lib Dems 27.1%
Conservatives 21.6%
Others 5%

Clearly the big difference here is the second place position and the size of the Labour majority. This analysis benefit Lib Dems most but still leaves the Conservatives stronger than the actual result in 2005 in Lewisham West.

Ah, the fun of statistics Blink

Find all posts by this user Reply
Tim Lund


Posts: 255
Joined: Apr 2008
Post: #12
10-04-2010 07:59 AM

Thanks for that Michael. With due acknowledgements, I'll be putting this on the Sydenham Town Forum as well.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,197
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #13
11-04-2010 04:07 PM

I couldn't see the offending poster on Honor Oak Park, unless it was the rather subtle 'no right turn' sign at the top of Manor Mount. Wink

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #14
12-04-2010 08:38 PM

I didn't see it yesterday so assume it had either been taken down by planning enforcement or a vehicle had crashed into it. Heaven knows it was big enough to do considerable damage to one.:Bored

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,197
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #15
12-04-2010 09:25 PM

In the interests of balance I should point out that on my way home today I noticed there is also a 'no left turn' sign at the top of Manor Mount.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #16
12-04-2010 09:38 PM

But are we sure that this is 'balance' not indecision'.
Or perhaps waiting to see which direction everyone else is going in and following the masses?

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #17
28-04-2010 07:16 PM

Don't forget the election forum tomorrow night - see my original post. Still time to submit questions through our website. You can also write questions down on the night, before the forum starts, although obviously candidates will have time only to answer only a limited number.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Perryman


Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #18
29-04-2010 02:35 PM

Quote:
perhaps waiting to see which direction everyone else is going in and following the masses?


People like to support the winning team. In the US, the states used to vote and elect on different days, but this was stopped as most people were voting for whoever was in the lead.

My instinct would be to vote for whoever was losing, to cheer them up a bit!

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,197
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #19
29-04-2010 10:17 PM

I was a little disappointed that my question about trains was not selected by the bishop of Woolwich for debate this evening. I was also disappointed that the church felt the need for prayers at the start of the meeting. I do not feel that this is appropriate or respectful for the members of the audience who did not intend to attend a prayer meeting.

The first question asked, which did not seem to come from the audience but from the bishop, was about belief in the 'Christian God'. The candidates were told that they did not need to answer the question (you have the right to remain silent...), but I feel that this is a highly inapproriate way to judge politicians. Are we expected to believe that a Sikh, Jew, Athiest or person of other belief would be a less good candidate simply because we do not share their faith? It would be a real shame if this country started voting on religious lines like in Northern Ireland or America.

In fairness to the churches the website does state that "We hope the forum will provide an opportunity to hear candidates' views on the moral dimensions of their parties' policies. It should also be possible to raise questions .... which should be of particular concern to Christians ...". Clearly this meeting was not primarily meant for me and other non-Christians. But I only have myself to blame as I did not read the detail on the website, I thought that we would be discussing local political issues rather than questions of belief in God. Personally I prefer not to muddle the two issues.

I hope that when the next general election is called that the Forest Hill Society will organise a hustings meeting where the questions are not skewed towards the religious convictions of the hosts.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #20
29-04-2010 10:40 PM

Agreed, but was there anything interesting revealed about policy, etc?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (6): « First [1] 2 3 4 5 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields