Dawlish Discussion

To Brenda,

How disappointingly obvious when someone disagrees with something,  they try to put a label on it: eg, you must be a Lib-Dem Wrong -Your not a gardener Wrong - You must get someone to do your garden Wrong again.

Also I am not going  into the semantics  of what is and what is not garden waste, that's another discussion. I registed my opinion as a TAXPAYER  who sees crumbling roads and infrastructure, cut backs in all areas and is not seduced

by any of the political b*****t  of any party. The undisputable FACT  is that this  is a back door tax, ( Tories mantra -we will cut taxes ??? ) which even Anne Morris the MP is trying to row back from. Some people will argue why should they pay for these services if they don't have a garden, fair point, I would then argue why sould I pay the education part as I have  no children going to school. 7000 people in the district registered  their  dissappoval of the garden tax which was ignored (granted the Lib dems have jumped on the bandwagon)  and if you  read the tory led council response in the local papers at the time you will see what they they think of local district opinion.

I don't ask anyone to vote for a particular party but am just reminding those that did regster against the TAX to use thier  franchise as they see fit.

To 1263,

Good post, I agree with your points. And my thoughts on a lack of gardening knowledge etc is linked to some of the main architects of the campaign, they were rhetorical questions. I didn't label anyone per se, just being provocative.

I apologize for using your post to do so. But I can't really say I'm sorry for be so disappointingly obvious with regard to my opposition to the Lib Dems jumping on a bandwagon.

Maybe I'm too passionate and sometimes go too far, but I find it very depressing that the only way to defeat the Tories is to tactically vote Liberal Democrat, the second and 'least worst' option in our constituency, in my opinion and given our first past the post system possibly our only option.

I don't see them as an alternative, just the same political model in a different colour tone, but then what alternatives exist?

I hope this clears the air. Having said that anyone who admits they're wrong in anyway or even offers an apology on here seems to open themselves up to further criticm and 'yellow cards'  by those who run the site, either officially or unofficially.

All the best

B

Fair play to you Brenda.

No doubt in the future I will be open to critism on my views, but  hey that is what a discussion forum and demoracy is all about, as long a its kept civil.

The only stipulation I would have in regard to some of these posts, is that,  if they are political in content, the discussion posters should say so  at the outset that thay are in some way conneced to the political machinery of a party e.g councillor, MP

canverser, etc .  Not having the background knowledge of who is who. I  go on the assumption that all responses are from "Joe public" with no hidden political agenda

Thanks 1263,

Yes I agree with about signalling the source in terms of political affiliation for example. I definitely am a member of the public and I'm certainly disllusioned with the staus quo for social and environmental reasons, economic too. And dealing with them as separate, supposedly unconnected issues really makes me despair.

I couldn't be a party member or activist, but I do have an agenda based on my values and world view, it just isn't represented in any of our mainstream parties and only partially in one of the minority parties.

But i find I am increasingly becoming vocal and guessing who contributes what in here can result in me getting in wrong.

Anyway I've enjoyed these posts, tomorrow will be an interesting day.

B

@Brenda.

'Having said that anyone who admits they're wrong in anyway or even offers an apology on here seems to open themselves up to further criticm and 'yellow cards'  by those who run the site, either officially or unofficially.'

Ummmmmmmm, I admitted I was wrong and apologised on another post but you were one who wanted to carry that on, were you not?

I didn't think you were being mailicious to Doc, but I didn't think you specifically were being preached to either. I think that's how you interpreted it and probably because like most of us you feel bewildered by what is true and what is false about climate change for example. It's not a nice prospect and being defensive is a natural reaction.

But if it is swept under the carpet and someone like Doc is passionate about it then I can forgive them. I actually found it refreshing and interesting, but I'm also a bit of a Green.

You never hear of anyone passionately articulating the benefits to of being a Conservative, Liberal Democrat, or labour voter. i don't even know if Doc is a Green, just someone who believed in environmental sustainability and understood what supports human life and all life on earth for that matter and what threatens it, even if that is us.

Isn't that just someone who is discussing what is practical and logical and ethically right?

I think you used the term bollocks and implied the need for a Doctor in jest. Didn't Doc suggest a sense of humour on prescription? However I would object to my views on the importance of environmental awareness being called bollocks

It could seem like low level banter, and I've certainly been provocative on here too. But it did seem you were referring to journalism that is designed to disprove what the scientific community has a consensus on and is widely accepted as factual. That journalism is widely regarded as bollocks as they are in the pay of those with vested interests in avoiding reducing pollution and energy use and therefore by reducing productivity which consequently undermines the bottom line; profit. money, money, money.

You see economics in its current form is pretty disastrous if you look at it from an environment protecting perspective.

You might think that my views about Soul Of Dawlish were on a par with the bollocks comment. And this is the crux of the matter I carried it on but not against you in any way. Only because the Soul Of Dawlish jumped to your defence so vocally in your absence, and exacerbated your discussion with Doc because Doc had exposed many flaws relating to the Liberal Democrats as a party and their candidates, then one of them happened to be on here - the 'Soul Of Dawlish'.

Perhaps Doc just thought you were being pedantic over who wrote the original green waste post and a bit angry at you for saying his views were bollocks on another thread.

You're post was used, manipulated so Soul Of Dawlish could attack Doc on behaviour as he knew he couldn't match him on defending the Liberal Democrats in relation to environmentalism, career politicians, proppoing up the Tories in governement, u-turns, broken promises, Younger Ross and expenses, etc.

Doc was bullied and as soon as he reffered to a bully as an idiot, Soul Of dawlish pounced. That is why Doc referred to what you had written, not becaiuse what your bollocks comment was so bad, but because idiot is no worse.

Your comment was overlooked because it was trivial to those who cared little about environmental issues or who disliked Doc, such as Soul Of Dawlish or Webmaster and a little clique who have a lot of hate for those who they label 'Green'.

Doc's comment was given a yellow card simply to discredit the person as they could not offer a counter argument to that persons exposee of liberal democrats and mainstream politics.

We are still awaiting an answer on the difference between 'idiot' and 'bollocks' and the context they were used in.

Webmaster has ceded some ground
Soul of Dawlish back-tracked when his viewpoint of Doc wasn't as popular as he first thought. He came in for some stick.

So when you quoted me above it wasn't about you, but my defense of Doc's views has been hard to follow so I can understand if you thought I was being critical of you.

Hope that brings you up to speed.

Fully up to speed - thank you.

I was going to tactically vote LibDem but as small protest at the way Doc was treated I think I'll give my vote to Green.    Thanks dawlish.com, all the bollocks served a purpose.

Good choice A Frame, I know Doc will be glad to hear that

Yes a good decision A Frame.  There's only one party that is prepared to fight for social justice, is prepared to challenge the myth of constant economic growth, places true value on the environment and our relationship with it, and is seeking real political change through a fairer system of proportional representation ..... and that is the Green party with its refreshing honest approach to these and other issues.

It's going to take time but we have to vote to bring about a change in political thinking in this country and restore some integrity into government at all levels.

I think we'd probably all vote 'Green' if they could convince that their policies are fundable.

@HuwMatthews2 - agreed.  there is a lot of work to do and the next 5 years to build a stronger base.

Agreed, they also had an opportunity to put themselves forward as a real alternative party, but played it safe in my opinion. But then there's a thin line between alienating or scaring voters and devising a vision to inspire.

I think they underestimated how difficult it was to argue on matters other than tackling austerity and the economy. But then again the party's roots are  middle class.

Still it'll be intersting to see hat happens in the next 5 years with the Greens. A change in leadership possibly.