It's fashionable to have a go at Hazel Blears, but I have always been reluctant to join that particular lynch mob, as you know. I won't go quite as far as to chant "Save the Chipmunk", but I did have a smidgin of sympathy for her when I read The Sun this morning. The banner headline on the front page was ONLY HERE FOR THE BLEARS. The story surrounds an illegal immigrant who had been volunteering on Hazel's campaign. The Sun found out she was due to be deported and Hazel summarily despatched her from her campaign. She said "I had never met this woman until she walked in off the street and offered to stuff a few envelopes."
I find that entirely believeable. All parties welcome any sort of waif and stray who comes in off the street and volunteers to help a campaign. They're seen as manna from heaven. I can't believe anyone's first thought would be "we'd better check this person's immigration status."
The Sun quotes Hazel's majority as 7,495, whereas it is actually more than 11,000. The Conservative and LibDem vote is more or less equally split. If she is to be ousted, all will depend on whether the Tory candidate Matthew Sephton can persuade LibDems to vote tactically, or likewise the LibDems' Norman Owen.
16 comments:
Iain, I don't know if you saw the post at the-sauce.org suggesting the Sun's political editor Tom Newton-Dunn might have to turn to his father William on advice about how to defect to the Lib Dems? Cheers, Brendan: http://atthesauce.blogspot.com/2010/04/yellow-belly-sun-politics-supremo-might.html
Whether when this ghastly war is over any of the real culprits will be held to account is doubtful. I'd put The Bun just behind the Daily Mail - but only just. Murdoch and his mafia gang do seem rattled at the moment and the presumption that they had that their media power would guarantee success for Dave looks daily less likely. A lot rides on it for News International – the possible headline that “The Sun fails to swing it for Cameron” is damaging enough. There are plenty of reason for hoping for Cameron’s useless campaign will end in humiliation – but the fact that the Murdoch press might just think again about this type of foul tabloid bilge is certainly one of them…
“...whether the Tory candidate Matthew Sephton can persuade LibDems to vote tactically, or likewise the LibDems' Norman Owen.”
Aah. Recognition of reality. How refreshing.
The Sun is right for once.
Hazel Blears' majority at the 2005 General Election was 7,945.
It was 11,012 at the 2001 General Election.
No, The Sun is not right. The notional majority for this election is 11,009 because of redrawn boundaries since 2005.
I find that entirely believeable. All parties welcome any sort of waif and stray who comes in off the street and volunteers to help a campaign. They're seen as manna from heaven. I can't believe anyone's first thought would be "we'd better check this person's immigration status."
That would depend on what immigration and employment law actually says.
Anyone here know?
This website I found using google suggests the lass shouldn't have been volunteering. She's not claiming asylum. She's not a refugee. She's not student any more and hasn't got a visa.
It will be interesting to see what effect the UKIP vote has in this constituency.
I attended the University of Salford Debating Society Candidates Debate on Tuesday. Hazel had to drop out at the last minute due to unforeseen circumstances. Matthew Sephton was very impressive, eloquent and concise. Much in contrast to the other windbags on the panel.
However, whilst I was handing out flyers for the event I was harangued for a good while in a local pub when it was thought this event was a Tory one. When talking to my local friends I also find hostility towards the Tory's. I would be surprised if he was elected. Which is a shame, I have met Matthew a couple of times now and think he would be an excellent MP.
not sure how you can have a notional majority of 11 009
as this is guess work at best perhaps better to round it down to about 11 000 - sounds more realistic.
'I can't believe anyone's first thought would be "we'd better check this person's immigration status." '
Unless of course you happen to be Hazel Blears, who has had a torrid time with the media of late and knows that they are looking for any opportunity to go for her.
But then again, she's the professional politician, so what do we know...
"Murdoch and his mafia"
Paddy, if brains were taxed you'd get a rebate.
Mr Wild - what paddy forgets to mention is that The Guardian has come out for the LibDems (its probable the Indy will do the same - and they are owned by the KGB).
The Times also has come out for the Conservatives. There is no need for any Newspaper proprietor to get worked up over the result - they are just doing what their opinions tell them.
Meantime Labour are polling 23 - 24. Whose fault is that?
Didn't I read somewhere that immigrants could gain credits towards their staying by doing political activities?
You didn't say you were talking about 'notional' majorities (i.e. guesswork).
According to Conservative Home, her notional majority is 10,707. I suppose their guess is as good as anyone's
Is this the same Hazel Blears who supports ID cards? Any sympathy is misplaced.
No fate would be too nasty for that woman.
"There is no limit to immigration as long as there are fields to build on"
spoken to Jon Gaunt on Talksport July 2008.
Gave permission for a football stadium to be built on the South Downs. An area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which was designated a National Park shortly afterwards.
Quite frankly I hope she dies screaming, the tacky little vote-whore.
Post a Comment