Cranfield Residents: Object Now!
Posted Wednesday, 16 April 2014 at 13:18
The plan to install six wind turbines near the villages of Cranfield, Marston, Brogborough and Lidlington has now been filed and it is vital that residents object, here, now.
I’m convinced that in fifty years time our grandchildren will look at these turbines and laugh at our foolishness in allowing such monsters of inefficiency to blight their landscape.
My objections to the forcing of wind turbines on communities I represent are legion, but it comes down to the principle that the benefits gained are dwarfed by the distress caused. These things cause serious disturbances in their local areas.
Many kinds of background noise are filtered out by the brain but that is not the case with turbines. The non-repetitive nature of the noise, due to changes in the strength of the wind, means that people can’t ‘zone out’ the noise in the same way. It is constantly present.
Studies are ongoing into the potential dangers this causes to the health of people living nearby, but having a horror film soundtrack playing in the background of your life is hardly conducive to relaxation and wellbeing!
The location of the turbines has been determined not by finding the most efficient place for them to catch prevailing winds but entirely for the convenience of the landowners. They are being placed around the edge of a former landfill site so that the company can maximise revenue from land that they cannot otherwise use.
What is so frustrating about this case is that local people thought they had reclaimed the landscape after the closure of the landfill site. It is fantastic to see dog walkers and cyclists and parents with young children out enjoying such a great area, especially now that Spring has arrived.
If communities want to host a wind farm nearby then of course they should be allowed to do so. But given the lack of such willing victims I believe the government should be focused on investing in new nuclear technology, complemented by some renewables such as solar and off-shore wind.
At a recent public meeting I was pleased to attend it was clear that the community in Cranfield and the surrounding villages is almost unanimous in saying that they do not want these turbines near their homes. I support this entirely, having stood at the last election on a manifesto committed to the localism agenda.
Everyone who objects to this planning proposal for six turbines needs to lodge their objections before the end of the consultation. After that point it will be too late. Visit this website as soon as you can to register your objections to this ludicrous plan.
Posted Monday, 14 April 2014 at 16:10
What a Week
Posted Sunday, 13 April 2014 at 15:10
Last week I launched my first book, The Four Streets. What a week that was. I loved this review by Mark Hennesy of the Irish Times who described the book as ‘Angela’s Ashes in a scouse accent’.
Ann Trenneman of the Times got inside my head with this interview. She is so good at her job as a journalist, it's scary. I have thrown journalists out of my home. Literally. I have disinvited a book and theatre critic to my book launch without a flinch and if you had ever told me a journalist would make me cry, I would have laughed in your face. She made me cry and I swear, I didn’t even see her try.
She began the article with the fact that she had found herself reading The Four Streets in a cold bath at 11.30 at night and that isn’t something she does for work.
And I also loved the way Iain Dale, LBC broadcaster and blogger extraordinaire, in a manner both fair and accurate, summed up the appalling behavior of the Daily Telegraph journalists who wrote six negative articles in seven days. Iain provided evidence that the Telegraph rejected the original review they had commissioned by Cristina Odone. Based on her lovely Twitter comments, it looked very promising. They chose instead to hurriedly commission a review from an elderly, bearded (yes, it was a man) ex Opus Dei member who is rumored to be Latin scholar. As one of the characters in the book is a child-abusing priest, you can guess what his review was like and only wonder why.
Here is what Iain had to say;
It’s a pity that the Telegraph has seemingly renewed its vendetta against Nadine Dorries. It had commissioned columnist Cristina Odone to interview Nadine Dorries about her debut novel THE FOUR STREETS. Odone duly read the book and could hardly contain her enthusiasm for it, tweeting at 6.09pm on Monday: “Just read The Four Streets – Fab first novel by Nadine Dorries. Catholic Liverpool, irish immigrants & black secrets behind net curtains.”
Fourteen minutes later she reinforced the point, tweeting: “Well done @NadineDorriesMP on your debut novel The Four Streets – a funny and sometimes shocking saga set in Catholic Liverpool.” How very strange then that the following morning instead of publishing Odone’s no doubt very positive interview, they published a damning review by their Head of Stuffiness, Christopher Howse. You just need to look at his photo to know the kind of review he would write of a novel by a female politician. And then you need to take into account Howse used to be a member of Opus Dei. I doubt he took kindly to the storyline of the Catholic Priest abusing a young girl. True to form he gave it a one star review and called it the worst novel he’d read in ten years. Well, he would, wouldn’t he?
Clearly he’d been given a brief, and the reason? I’m told it was because Nadine had the temerity to give two interviews – on GMTV and my LBC show on Tuesday morning – in which she uttered views on MPs’ expenses which weren’t to the Telegraph’s liking. Readers may remember her criticism of the Telegraph, and the Barclay Brothers, over the original MPs’ expenses scandal. Nadine then upped the ante and withdrew an invitation to the Telegraph’s ‘Head of Bitchery’, Tim Walker (who writes their Mandrake diary column, as well as being an excellent theatre critic), to her booklaunch that evening. He responded in kind with a series of tweets which sought to denigrate both Nadine and her beleaguered publicist.
Yesterday morning he went even further in a vitriolic attack on her. To be honest he showed himself up. Nadine wasn’t taking any of it and accused him of lying. When he was caught out denying Cristina Odone had ever been commissioned to write any piece for the Telegraph Nadine posted a tweet from Odone confirming she had indeed been asked to do just that. “Telegraph asked to interview Nadine – I read the book, couldn’t put it down and told her so.” At that point Walker retired in a huff, tweeting: “Speaking purely for myself, I am bored to tears of this particular honourable member.” I am sure the feeling was mutual.
On Tuesday evening I trotted off to the InterContinental Hotel which seems to have become THE place to hold book launches in Westminster, where Nadine was hosting the launch of her book. Well, she was supposed to be. I’ve never been at a booklaunch where the author didn’t turn up until nearly an hour after it started and then made a speech which can’t have been more than about 14 words long. The shortest in recent political memory, I’d have thought. But then again, Nadine does like to do things differently. And that’s why many of us love her.
I was asked the old chestnut, ‘where do you find the time’, over and over. No male MP who writes a book is ever asked that question and the answer is very simple, my girls left home. I replaced the time I would have spent cooking, cleaning, shopping and ironing, with writing and I know which I enjoy the most. My constituency has and always will come first. My writing is a hobby. A hobby which makes me happy and I think I am a much better MP for it.
Despite how vicious many journalists have been, the 'normal' people over at Lovereading.co.uk and Goodreads.com have left lovely reviews. I am delighted to see that the book, despite having only been officially launched for five days (pre orders delivered the week before) is now at No 6 in the Kindle fiction saga listing.
I now understand why Goodreads and Lovereading exist. The genuine unbiased reader now has a platform, which is more convincing and informed than that of a journalist. This is the age of the Internet and power to the people!
The Need for Expenses Reform
Posted Friday, 11 April 2014 at 09:41
The events of the past week have brought parliamentary expenses back into the public spotlight, reigniting immense public anger and sparking many calls that ‘they still just don’t get it’. This is a hangover from the justified public revulsion left from the first expenses scandal back in 2009.
What should be done as soon as possible now, and what should have been done five years ago, is to abolish all MPs’ expenses. Simple grants can be made for travel and accommodation (if needed). Otherwise, all staff should be paid via a central fund and all office costs should be provided by the House of Commons stationary fund. Neither of which should be described as expenses.
There would be no meals, no furniture, no subsidised bars and in fact no extras at all. The system would be open, transparent and free from abuse.
But that should only be one part of the reform. Parallel to expenses reform, we should instigate a proper right of recall so that MPs believed to have done wrong will have to face their electors immediately, not after the passage of time when a general election rolls around.
Manifesto commitments on both these points would, I’m sure, resonate with the public in May 2015, and the new parliament formed after that election would have the new rules implemented from the beginning.
This would go a long way to proving to a cynical public that MPs do now ‘get it’, that we understand the legitimate public anger and have reformed the system to protect taxpayers’ money.
Here is a clip of me discussing expenses reform on ITV News this week.
BBC Daily Politics
Posted Thursday, 10 April 2014 at 14:41
BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show
Posted Wednesday, 9 April 2014 at 18:11
Talking about my debut novel, The Four Streets
Posted Tuesday, 1 April 2014 at 12:06
The Budget and Mid-Bedfordshire
Posted Monday, 31 March 2014 at 11:15
There has been so much written in response to the Budget that I was going to confine my supportive remarks to the shorter medium of twitter. Needless to say, I am incredibly happy that from April 2015 in Mid-Bedfordshire 43,063 people will receive a significant tax cut while 441 people will be taken out of income tax altogether.
But I am perhaps most pleased about the changes to pension rules, which will reward and trust older people who have saved throughout their working lives. It is an extension of the Conservative principle that people are better placed to decide how to spend their own money than the government. In my opinion there is no such thing as a government that spends our money well.
Annuities will remain a staple of retirement provision for many, but not necessarily for everyone and there is no reason that people should be mandated to buy one. It was very sad, therefore, to see the few opponents of the reforms actually saying that ‘people cannot be trusted to spend their own money’.
This reminded me of a similar debate we had earlier in the parliament when a colleague introduced a Private Members Bill that would provide benefit payments on special cards that could not be used to buy alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or gambling.
I felt then, as now, that this would be an outrageous restriction on the freedom of people who, just because they may be unemployed, are not automatically declared irresponsible and worthy of condescension by government.
I think all political parties should try to demonstrate consistency with their principles. You cannot declare that benefit recipients are being patronised when they are told how to spend their money but support the view that retirees cannot be trusted with their own savings.
Politicians of any party either believe that government telling people how to spend their money is patronising, inefficient and unnecessary or they don’t. They cannot change their position on a whim when different groups are affected.
The amounts are different but the principle is the same, we must trust people with their own money to provide for themselves in retirement according to personal wishes and circumstances.
I have been touched to weekend to speak to a widowed constituent with a terminal illness who believes she may have two years at the most to live. She was thrilled at the news that she will be able to access her pension fund and provide herself with some short term comfort and a few treats, other than the measly £74 per month annuity her pension pot will provide. She wants to visit her father’s grave in Normandy and has a genuine bucket list that, prior to this budget, would not have been achievable. And for that I am both grateful and proud.
Reform of the License Fee
Posted Thursday, 27 March 2014 at 09:30
I was pleased to add my name to the successful amendment in the Deregulation Bill to decriminalise non-payment of the television license fee and to add support to my colleague, Andrew Bridgen, who has led the campaign in Parliament.
In this day and age, a tax on the ownership of a television is a completely outdated concept that totally fails to take into account changes in the media environment over the past fifty years. Added to this are the enormous changes in how media is consumed that have taken place in just the last decade.
The BBC as an organisation has become too big, too badly designed and consistently badly managed. Over-promoted television producers, it turns out, cannot run a large organisation efficiently or effectively. Who would have guessed?
The BBC is an organisation that suppressed women by promoting only men and nurtured a climate of bullying in the workplace, as revealed by Select Committee reports. BBC managers deliberately concealed the antics of a paedophile and sex offender, practice blatant political bias and I have lost count of the number of times their journalists have misrepresented events.
Fresh revelations have highlighted all that is wrong about this bloated organisation. On the one hand they are persecuting single parents and the elderly who have found themselves unable to pay the license fee, while on the other hand BBC executives conspire to cover up a culture of sexual abuse.
While I think the BBC’s ‘national treasure’ status has been overblown (not least by their own spinning), I do enjoy a great deal of their output and I know the same is true for almost all my constituents. I do not see that this needs to change.
The non-payment of utility bills is a civil matter and nobody claims that water, electricity or gas will fail to be delivered because of the minority of people who will not or cannot pay their bills. The BBC is attempting to justify enforcement procedures using this excuse to hound people through the courts and all the way to jail.
The model of the BBC, which is in effect state run television, is outdated in this modern world of media and communication. Such a structure of payment and aggressive persecution would be more in keeping in a soviet style country.
It would appear that there is no politician in any party brave enough to take on the BBC for fear of retribution and punishment via its political reporting - in the same way as is practiced by newspapers against individual politicians who dare to challenge or criticise them.
Therefore, what has been achieved means the people can now take charge. When it comes to the BBC, it is time for people to take power where politicians have consistently failed.
Introducing my debut novel, The Four Streets
Posted Tuesday, 25 March 2014 at 21:49
My take on the Eton Mess
Posted Tuesday, 18 March 2014 at 10:33
There has been an unfortunate emphasis over the last few days regarding the pervasive dominance of Eton educated men in Parliament. This, unfortunately, detracts from the main issue. The problem is in the numbers public/privately educated from all schools that dominate at all levels in society, particularly amongst the high-earning professions.
I find depressing the reports that Michael Gove has been 'given a new one' for speaking out. If MPs in Parliament cannot speak out in fear of losing their whip or having a strip torn off by the party leadership, what is the point of being an MP?
To speak out against the dominance of public/private school educated people at all levels in society, and for the return of equality and fairness for all, is exactly what we MPs should be doing. This dominance has to stop and yet in all political parties, and especially as a result of the introduction of a body like IPSA, the situation can only get worse as Parliament becomes a place for the rich and favoured.
Recently I gave a speech at a public school on this issue, one I have used a number of times since. You might think that following my posh boys comment, a public school would not be the most obvious place for me to deliver this speech. It was in fact absolutely the place to take a message of the importance of diversity and equality of opportunity in the global race.
Here is a copy of the speech:
I’d like to begin by saying thank you for having me here this afternoon. I was a parent of two daughters at Ampleforth and I know the school very well. I have a deep admiration for the work done here and for the ethos that is instilled in the young people that pass through this school. I always think, wherever you are in the world, you can always tell when you meet someone who has been to Ampleforth. The manners of the young people who have been to this school set them apart from any other school but most especially the other public schools. I shall come back to that a bit later.
Given what I have just said about Ampleforth, I understand that my comments early last year about the behaviour of certain ‘arrogant posh boys’ may have dismayed people at the school who felt I was painting with too broad a brush. I therefore want to explain why I said those things and what made me use the language that I did. Those remarks have since been portrayed as an off-the-cuff response to passing events. Various people found it useful to suggest that I did not really mean what I said. Well, let me tell you here today, I was talking about a very troubling and significant trend present in the higher strata at many levels in this country that is working against social mobility, stifling meritocracy and reducing the effectiveness of our ability to compete on the world stage.
I was, therefore, not merely expressing a mild irritation, as some would have you believe, but voicing my analysis of a fault at the heart of all political parties in Westminster and the ability of those politicians to represent citizens in the Global Race. If we are facing competition from a growing number of active, aggressive foreign economies we need to have our society and economy working at their peak of effectiveness, yet we are crippling them by stifling internal competition in our workforce to ensure that we always have the best possible person for the job.
Public schools are at their best when they are helping children compete. Competition of all kinds is healthy for an individual’s body and mind. Learning to take loss on the chin with no reduction of enthusiasm is one of the great lessons in life that needs to be taken in as early as possible. Competition within a marketplace is the best way to generate wealth, employment and stimulate innovation. Yet this is not the situation currently in the UK. Competition has given way to an iniquitous form of inefficiency we would decry in the developing world as corruption. I am talking about the suppression of the advancement of state education children who are dominated at all levels where earnings are high, by the public/private sector.
We have a situation in this country whereby all three of the main party leaders owe their positions, to a greater or lesser degree, to their family connections. Ed Miliband is the son of a Marxist intellectual whose name propelled both his children into influential positions within the socialist movement, culminating in their appointment as Special Advisers to Blair and Brown. Nick Clegg’s father secured for him an internship at an investment bank that allowed him to make his personal fortune before deciding to turn his hand to politics. My own party leader, David Cameron, was granted his first opportunity in the Conservative Research Department following a mysterious phone call from a senior adviser at Buckingham Palace. A similar story can be told about many MPs throughout Parliament in all parties, the city banks and journalism, including the bastions of the leftist establishment the Guardian and the BBC. Both the previous and new Chair of the BBC trust, both privately educated and over fifty percent of the new BBC intake each year, ditto. This is not the result of healthy competition but of its quiet removal from British life in the past twenty years.
When I was first elected to Parliament my party was toying with the idea of using all-women shortlist to boost the number of women at Westminster. I was always appalled at this idea. The Labour Party uses this technique often and I wonder how the women elected this way can cope with not knowing that they were not the best person for the job, only the best woman. The implicit suggestion, that women are incapable of competing with men for the position I now hold, Member of Parliament, is abhorrent. Why should it be any different in any other walk of life? Why should anybody want a position knowing that they could only obtain it by keeping other competitors out of the race? This is the situation that we now face in our most important industries and it is a situation that is actively encouraged by some schools that have adopted a short-term view of what education should mean.
The lack of diversity has not only reduced the ability of our economy to compete, but by unfairly promoting those not worthy while restraining those who are it creates conflict in society. The old divisions we thought we had removed for good in the meritocratic post-war years when the class system seemed to be breaking down are in fact still with us. We once again have a situation with them and us, a stark division between the rulers and the ruled.
Would the same opportunity for a grocer’s daughter from Grantham rise to become Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister exist today? Looking at the party leaders we have I am not sure she would. She simply did not have the friends in high places, required to progress today.
Here, there is a saying for those of you who move up to Newcastle and become university students, as did my own. SHAC. Senior House Ampleforth College.
In fact, parliament is very much the same. One remove from the old public school model. The fags, the organisation of supporting teams, the friends of friends from the main schools and Oxford.
In 2013, that’s depressing, isn’t it?
It was all very well for Tony Blair’s government to pretend that we live in a classless society when an economic boom meant that living standards were rising for all. When they were talking about ‘sharing the proceeds of growth’ in those heady days before 2008, nobody minded that George Osborne and David Cameron came from immensely privileged backgrounds. However the Brown crash and subsequent recession, followed by dramatic reductions in government spending, meant that the public began to look askance at the two millionaires imposing cuts. Cuts, no matter how necessary, have to be carried out in a way that is fair and sensitive to the people they affect the most. Empathy and understanding of situations less fortunate than your own are the vital characteristics for successfully carrying through such a difficult task. This is what I felt was lacking in government policy at the time and that is why I felt I had to speak out.
I doubt he was aware of the irony when the multi-millionaire Miliband used my comments to attack David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions.
The perception of privilege was real and needed challenging. That was what I sought to address and I believe we have seen real change since then as a gradual realisation has come over the leadership that they simply could not govern with the same metropolitan social liberalism as before. I firmly believe that social liberalism is primarily an indulgence of the wealthy. The people who can afford to enjoy liberalism whilst protecting their own children from the societal influences of such by sending them to the most expensive schools. In addition to the majority of the British public being far from social liberals, they also aren’t stupid. They know that each family struggles financially whilst we send a billion of our hard earned cash to Europe each year.
I shall give an example of how this change in the Coalition has emerged, demonstrating a policy shift showing how the presentation of policy has switched to demonstrate their positive effect on so called ‘ordinary working people’. Even that phrase, which I think has terribly patronising undertones, has become part of the standard political lexicon.
So let’s examine the political about turn on fuel duty. For decades now fuel duty has been seen as a way of reducing the distance people drive, punishing car users for their damage of the environment and attempting to push people onto forms of public transport. This has been based on the standard assumption held by people who live almost their entire lives in big cities that the use of a car is a luxury, not a necessity and that public transport can easily take the strain. In my constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire, like in many others across the country, both of these assumptions are so obviously, jaw-droppingly wrong that it would take only a few seconds to understand that for many people a car is vital if you want to get to work, pick up the children or access any form of public services such as healthcare.
Public transport is virtually non-existent for many of my constituents who live in small villages spread out across a large rural area. Buses do run, but perhaps once a day into the nearest town. Year on year the fuel duty escalator, used most enthusiastically by Gordon Brown as Chancellor, has added an ever heavier financial burden to people who had no other option by to pay and pay and pay. Even after the coalition took power it was over a year and after enormous political pressure from his own backbenchers before George Osborne scrapped the escalator and froze the duty. He still maintained that the pressure of the deficit meant that he couldn’t actually cut fuel duty. The move was still a victory for MPs like me who could go back to our constituents and point to a solid achievement that meant they had more money in their wallets at the end of the month because of something we had done in Westminster.
In a small way and as part of a wider collective effort by MPs and others dismayed by the direction of the early part of the Coalition government, my comments about ‘arrogant posh boys’ have served as part of an education that David Cameron at Eton and George Osborne at St Pauls missed the first time around.
I believe that the roots of those missteps in the first two years of the coalition, culminating in the omnishambles budget, can be traced back directly to public schools that focus not on what makes a pupil a good and able person, but rather on who they are, who their parents are and who they know. I find it particularly interesting that my party leadership, with their educational backgrounds, are so adamantly opposed to the return of selective grammar schools. The slide back to rule by a privileged elite comes after almost fifty years of the post-war era in which working class children from poor backgrounds were to be found throughout the commanding heights of industry, politics and almost every field of life. The famous ‘northern chemist’ driving forward British innovation was a fantastic asset to the country that has been lost in the appalling drop in social mobility that followed from the abandonment of Grammar Schools in favour of comprehensives. I am in no doubt that if the grammar school system had remained and if Labour had not scrapped the assisted places scheme, there would be state educated children from poor backgrounds at all layers within society, rather than what we have today, which is almost extinction. Within the unfortunate educational framework left by the blinkered removal of the most effective driver of social mobility, grammar schools, Ampleforth stands out.
There is an important difference that I see in Ampleforth pupils I meet at the school or elsewhere in life. Let’s not pretend that pupils here are not privileged, but crucially they are not just privileged. They are blessed with an understanding of others that comes from following the teachings of St Benedict. Kindness and empathy mean that you are able to listen to and understand other points of view rather than riding roughshod over anything or anybody that happens to stand in your way. It is the moral aspect of education that has long been absent from many state schools and has possibly never existed in most of the country’s top private schools.
This blessing that has bestowed upon you and those that have gone to the school before you creates a responsibility. You must strive to succeed, to compete harder and better than your peers in whatever field you choose to enter, yet that success must not come at the expense of society but in cooperation with it.
Ampleforth pupils are not simply privileged but blessed Key difference between Ampleforth and many other public schools: who they are makes them, rather than what they are e.g. kind, empathetic, able to listen to other points of view.
This creates a responsibility. Success must not come at the expense of society but in cooperation with it. Uphold the values of Ampleforth long after you leave school because you will be the ambassadors.
[Check against delivery]
How they try to skewer an MP!
Posted Monday, 17 March 2014 at 14:59
If you want to know how a political journalist tries to skewer an MP, read on through the email chain below.
Observe the snake-like twists and turns, the jumping from one accusation to the next hoping to catch you out.
The fact is, when you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear...
The journalist is from the Daily Telegraph, his emails are in red, my responses in black and the final email from the constituency agent is in green.
I understand that you spoke last week at a fund-raising event for the Conservative association at Hampstead & Kilburn in a private house and that a local journalist was in attendance.
We understand that you were asked if you still advocated a deal with Ukip and that you replied: "Too late."
Any comment at all that you would care to make on this would be appreciated. We plan to run a story about it in the paper tomorrow.
Best and thanks, Tim
Sure, I was one of the first MPs to advocate that we should try to find seats where MPs and UKIP could stand together on a joint ticket which would have been particular beneficial to Eurosceptic MPs in marginal seats. This was well documented both on television and in the national press. The idea was rejected by the party and it is now too late as such an arrangement would take time and discussion as well as agreement on behalf of both parties. We are only just over a year from the general election. It is indeed too late.
Thanks Nadine. 'Too late' was understood to mean by the lady who told us about it that it was 'too late' to turn around the Conservatives' fortunes too...
Can you clarify that you do believe the party will win the general election?
Oh, sorry, yes,of course! I very clearly stated that it was too late to make a pact with UKIP, that the time and moment had been a year ago and that it had now gone. There was no chance now, weeks before the Euros and once they were over we were into the general election campaign. I then went on to explain how to neutralise the UKIP threat in that constituency, by making sure everyone knew that the only way to guarantee a say on our entry to the EU was to emphasise that we were the only party offering a guarantee of a referendum in 2017.
I spoke on the day Ed Miliband ruled out Labour offering a referendum and told them he had given us a great gift and they should make sure every house in every street knew that he didn't trust people with a referendum.
If anything, I told them that we had all to play for - highest employment ever since records began, economic recovery etc. I'm not sure we will win with a massive majority now that boundary changes didn't go through, but it think we could certainly push through on the basis that people cannot trust labour with the economy.
Our informant took the view the talk you gave was generally quite downbeat - I take on board that your 'too late' was a reference to the moment passing with Ukip, but I gather you went on to talk about Stewart Jackson's unhappy relationship with his local councillors.
Well that was in direct response to a question about Peterborough and how I thought that even an MP who didn't have a massive majority and not the most conservative of councils could win easily with a handsome majority
Do you think you were 'downbeat'? I gather you also said you joined Weight Watchers in order to find out what women in your constituency were thinking.
Blimey! Is nothing sacred in the Conservative family anymore!!
No, I was very upbeat and have asked the Agent, David, who organised the event to email you and confirm that, which he has said he is doing.
We had a good laugh, it was the very opposite of downbeat.
I am joining weight watchers because I need to lose weight and I said that I had joined one which was held in a constituents house on a new housing estate and as well as losing weight, it was a great way of keeping grounded and hearing what the women in my patch had to say.
Again, it was in the 'How to beat Labour and connect with voters' part of my speech.
Blimey, if you need to lose weight, then we all do!
Best and thanks, Tim
Tim, I am emailing you as I am the Agent to Hampstead & Kilburn Conservatives who organised Nadine Dorries visit to our constituency.
As the guests all left feeling upbeat after Nadine had spoken I was suprised to hear that the Ham & High journalist has told you that Nadine said that we could not win the next General Election.
She came and delivered an upbeat speech about how we could win the next General Election. The references to being 'too late' was in regards to the now historical suggestion that UKIP be approached to form a electoral coalition with us.
In regards to references about Peterborough Nadine stressed that Stuart Jackson was confident about his chances as he has a great incumbency record and will be returned with an increased majority.
I hope that this clarifies the situation.
My Recent Posts
Posted Wednesday, 16 April 2014 at 13:18
Posted Monday, 14 April 2014 at 16:10
Posted Sunday, 13 April 2014 at 15:10
Posted Friday, 11 April 2014 at 09:41
Posted Thursday, 10 April 2014 at 14:41
Posted Wednesday, 9 April 2014 at 18:11
Posted Tuesday, 1 April 2014 at 12:06
Posted Monday, 31 March 2014 at 11:15