Labour wins Northwich by-election double

Northwich Guardian: New Cheshire West and Chester councillor Sam Naylor. New Cheshire West and Chester councillor Sam Naylor.

A FIGUREHEAD of the community is looking forward to a new role representing the people of Winnington and Castle in Chester.

Hartford man Sam Naylor, chairman of Northwich Rugby Club and organiser of the annual Northwich Festival, is a new councillor on Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWAC).

Clr Naylor, standing for the Labour party, won the by-election for the Castle and Winnington ward on Thursday following the resignation of Amy Mercer- Bailey.

He won the town centre ward with 525 votes while Jim Sinar, standing for the Conservative party, won 418 votes.

Amos Wright, from UKIP, won 307 votes while Alice Chapman, from the Liberal Democrat party, won 80 votes.

The turn out was just 19.2 per cent.

Clr Naylor, a former police officer, said: “One of the most disappointing things about local politics is that it’s always a low turn out, particularly in by-elections.

“You get a much higher turn out when it coincides with a general election.

“When speaking to people on the doorstep the number that say ‘nah, I don’t vote, I’ve never voted’.

“I think politicians are one of the most distrusted and hated people and it’s how to address that, I don’t know.”

This is part of the reason why Clr Naylor decided to put himself forward for the seat.

“One of the reasons I stood in the first place was frustration for a long time in the local community because of decisions made at CWAC and years of frustration dealing with local government while pursuing issues like Moss Farm,” he said.

“I’m going to see it from a completely different perspective now.

“I’m looking forward to representing the people of Winnington and Castle.”

Labour candidate Martyn Delaney also won a by-election in Chester’s Boughton ward held on Thursday.

The political composition of CWAC is now 42 Conservative members, 32 Labour and one Liberal Democrat.

A by-election for Northwich Town Council’s Bridge ward, also prompted by the resignation of Amy Mercer-Bailey, was won by Labour candidate Stephen Kryger with 439 votes.

Jim Sinar, from the Conservative party, won 242 votes and Alice Chapman, from the Liberal Democrats, won 96 votes.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:21pm Fri 11 Jul 14

sally6945 says...

I was only aware of the by election because of Facebook. As I had not received a polling card or leaflets and couldn't find any info.on line about any aspect of the election etc I did not know whether I was in the area to vote . Although Airthur Neil sent a message by the time IN checked Facebook it was too late plus I had no way of knowing whether it was usual polling station . I live in Winnington which seems to be the Bermuda triangle as far as amenities are concerned. No buses along Moss Road so easier to shop online than taxi or drive into Northwich. When I could walk to Castle I tripped on a paving stone .The year I got my bus pass although the bus stop was still there the few buses which had been available to take me to Barnton for Drs and back into town or across the Pippins to Weaverham had all ceased so all those years of bus pass has not cost the county anything! So all the money saved could perhaps be used to look more closely at bus routes?!Good luck with that Mr Naylor .
I was only aware of the by election because of Facebook. As I had not received a polling card or leaflets and couldn't find any info.on line about any aspect of the election etc I did not know whether I was in the area to vote . Although Airthur Neil sent a message by the time IN checked Facebook it was too late plus I had no way of knowing whether it was usual polling station . I live in Winnington which seems to be the Bermuda triangle as far as amenities are concerned. No buses along Moss Road so easier to shop online than taxi or drive into Northwich. When I could walk to Castle I tripped on a paving stone .The year I got my bus pass although the bus stop was still there the few buses which had been available to take me to Barnton for Drs and back into town or across the Pippins to Weaverham had all ceased so all those years of bus pass has not cost the county anything! So all the money saved could perhaps be used to look more closely at bus routes?!Good luck with that Mr Naylor . sally6945
  • Score: -7

11:19pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Northwich Resident says...

Sally

1. Took less than 10 secs on google to find all the election details http://www.cheshirew
estandchester.gov.uk
/your_council/voting
_and_elections/notic
e_of_elections.aspx

2. If you can't be bothered to register to vote, then you won't get a voting card (assuming you are in the ward).

3. Plenty of leaflets were delivered by all parties standing.

3. Agree Winnington is completely ignored by Town Council and CWAC. Hopefully Sam will do more for the area than the invisible Mercer-Bailey ever did.
Sally 1. Took less than 10 secs on google to find all the election details http://www.cheshirew estandchester.gov.uk /your_council/voting _and_elections/notic e_of_elections.aspx 2. If you can't be bothered to register to vote, then you won't get a voting card (assuming you are in the ward). 3. Plenty of leaflets were delivered by all parties standing. 3. Agree Winnington is completely ignored by Town Council and CWAC. Hopefully Sam will do more for the area than the invisible Mercer-Bailey ever did. Northwich Resident
  • Score: 3

11:24pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Northwich Lover says...

Sounds like he just wants to help the rugby club!
Sounds like he just wants to help the rugby club! Northwich Lover
  • Score: -3

9:52am Sat 12 Jul 14

Anonamatty says...

Northwich Lover wrote:
Sounds like he just wants to help the rugby club!
Isn't this the fella that wanted his rugby club to take over moss farm and have the profits too?

That'll please the tax payers!
[quote][p][bold]Northwich Lover[/bold] wrote: Sounds like he just wants to help the rugby club![/p][/quote]Isn't this the fella that wanted his rugby club to take over moss farm and have the profits too? That'll please the tax payers! Anonamatty
  • Score: 4

2:15pm Sat 12 Jul 14

WHS says...

I think the comments attacking Mr. Naylor's motives are totally out of order. But what really worries me is that in a town with no problems worth talking about over immigration 307 people felt it was right to vote for UKIP which is simply the well spoken branch of the BNP.
WHS.
I think the comments attacking Mr. Naylor's motives are totally out of order. But what really worries me is that in a town with no problems worth talking about over immigration 307 people felt it was right to vote for UKIP which is simply the well spoken branch of the BNP. WHS. WHS
  • Score: 4

4:12pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Kit Kat Koo says...

By calling UKIP the 'well spoken branch of the BNP' obviously tells me you haven't looked at UKIP and it's voters, over 20% of the electorate voted for UKIP and not just on issues over immigration, many voted as UKIP don't 'whip' their elected officials, we now have a Labour Cllr who will toe the party line and put his parties interests first, at this moment the people in the ward lose their democratic voice, their interests come second behind those of the party.
By calling UKIP the 'well spoken branch of the BNP' obviously tells me you haven't looked at UKIP and it's voters, over 20% of the electorate voted for UKIP and not just on issues over immigration, many voted as UKIP don't 'whip' their elected officials, we now have a Labour Cllr who will toe the party line and put his parties interests first, at this moment the people in the ward lose their democratic voice, their interests come second behind those of the party. Kit Kat Koo
  • Score: -5

6:13pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Northwich Lover says...

I think everyone who voted should be respected however they voted. As for motives I've not heard anyone mention Moss Farm as an issue.... Until now
I think everyone who voted should be respected however they voted. As for motives I've not heard anyone mention Moss Farm as an issue.... Until now Northwich Lover
  • Score: -5

10:29pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Bickmeister says...

WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter.

BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is:
1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages
2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act
3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs
WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter. BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is: 1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages 2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act 3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs Bickmeister
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Sat 12 Jul 14

hectorplain says...

I make a point of never trusting anyone who's eyes are too close together.

Or indeed if I have no way of determining the distance between the eyes.

Roy Orbison always wore dark glasses, there is always an exception to every rule.
I make a point of never trusting anyone who's eyes are too close together. Or indeed if I have no way of determining the distance between the eyes. Roy Orbison always wore dark glasses, there is always an exception to every rule. hectorplain
  • Score: 2

10:42pm Sat 12 Jul 14

hectorplain says...

If you look very closely you can just about see the eyes, do they look shifty to you?

Me niether.
If you look very closely you can just about see the eyes, do they look shifty to you? Me niether. hectorplain
  • Score: 2

10:45pm Sat 12 Jul 14

hectorplain says...

Always check for tilted (none-flush) paving stones when walking to Castle.

Taxis are so expensive these days, I always shop on line.
Always check for tilted (none-flush) paving stones when walking to Castle. Taxis are so expensive these days, I always shop on line. hectorplain
  • Score: 5

1:24pm Sun 13 Jul 14

sylvia2036 says...

Doesn't anyone find it appalling that only 19.2% of the voting population turned out for this. Personally, I feel that voting should be compulsory as if you don't vote you shouldn't complain as so many do.
Doesn't anyone find it appalling that only 19.2% of the voting population turned out for this. Personally, I feel that voting should be compulsory as if you don't vote you shouldn't complain as so many do. sylvia2036
  • Score: 3

4:29pm Sun 13 Jul 14

L Byrne says...

Bickmeister wrote:
WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter.

BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is:
1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages
2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act
3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs
Bickmeister
Your point linking Labour with 'mass immigration' is misleading and, as often the case with UKIP propaganda, not supported by the facts.

A little research will show that at various times since the Second World War, both Labour and Tory governments have encouraged higher levels of immigration to meet the needs of the UK economy. There is the famous case of Enoch Powell, when he was Minister of Health, bringing in large numbers of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS going. (Of course, that was when the Tories actually cared about the NHS.)

The link with immigrants 'destroying working class jobs and wages' is just ridiculous. I don't think there were many immigrants involved in Maggie Thatcher's employment wrecking assaults on manufacturing industry in the 70s or on the trade unions so that they could not protect workers wages and conditions.

Based on anecdotal evidence, my guess would be that second and third generation immigrants with their entrepreneurial spirit often start businesses that create more jobs their indigenous counterparts.

Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Naylor on his win.

As has been said, the low turnout is a real worry. In my opinion it is partially due to the fact that our local MP, Graham Evans, has gone AWOL since his election. He pops up now and then to open a pub or in a charity event but is never prepared to talk about serious political issues such as his support for the dismemberment of the NHS which is currently happening contrary to what his party said before the last election. No wonder people are saying 'Why should I bother voting?'
[quote][p][bold]Bickmeister[/bold] wrote: WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter. BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is: 1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages 2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act 3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs[/p][/quote]Bickmeister Your point linking Labour with 'mass immigration' is misleading and, as often the case with UKIP propaganda, not supported by the facts. A little research will show that at various times since the Second World War, both Labour and Tory governments have encouraged higher levels of immigration to meet the needs of the UK economy. There is the famous case of Enoch Powell, when he was Minister of Health, bringing in large numbers of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS going. (Of course, that was when the Tories actually cared about the NHS.) The link with immigrants 'destroying working class jobs and wages' is just ridiculous. I don't think there were many immigrants involved in Maggie Thatcher's employment wrecking assaults on manufacturing industry in the 70s or on the trade unions so that they could not protect workers wages and conditions. Based on anecdotal evidence, my guess would be that second and third generation immigrants with their entrepreneurial spirit often start businesses that create more jobs their indigenous counterparts. Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Naylor on his win. As has been said, the low turnout is a real worry. In my opinion it is partially due to the fact that our local MP, Graham Evans, has gone AWOL since his election. He pops up now and then to open a pub or in a charity event but is never prepared to talk about serious political issues such as his support for the dismemberment of the NHS which is currently happening contrary to what his party said before the last election. No wonder people are saying 'Why should I bother voting?' L Byrne
  • Score: -1

7:38pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Northwich Lover says...

The real issue is low pay and more should be said about it. It suits the Tories to blame immigration whilst we as taxpayers subsidise employers. Easily the big issue swept under the carpet.
The real issue is low pay and more should be said about it. It suits the Tories to blame immigration whilst we as taxpayers subsidise employers. Easily the big issue swept under the carpet. Northwich Lover
  • Score: 4

10:54pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Bickmeister says...

L Byrne - even Labour senior ministers from the last Labour government have admitted that Labour allowed a rate of immigration unprecedented in our recent history, at a time when almost a million 16-24 olds were out of work.

The low turnout is also due to the voters' contempt & disillusionment with LibLabCon: MP's expenses, lobbying fees, seeing the likes of the Kinnock's & Blair's (so called socialists) making millions
L Byrne - even Labour senior ministers from the last Labour government have admitted that Labour allowed a rate of immigration unprecedented in our recent history, at a time when almost a million 16-24 olds were out of work. The low turnout is also due to the voters' contempt & disillusionment with LibLabCon: MP's expenses, lobbying fees, seeing the likes of the Kinnock's & Blair's (so called socialists) making millions Bickmeister
  • Score: 3

11:31pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Kit Kat Koo says...

L Byrne wrote:
Bickmeister wrote:
WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter.

BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is:
1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages
2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act
3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs
Bickmeister
Your point linking Labour with 'mass immigration' is misleading and, as often the case with UKIP propaganda, not supported by the facts.

A little research will show that at various times since the Second World War, both Labour and Tory governments have encouraged higher levels of immigration to meet the needs of the UK economy. There is the famous case of Enoch Powell, when he was Minister of Health, bringing in large numbers of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS going. (Of course, that was when the Tories actually cared about the NHS.)

The link with immigrants 'destroying working class jobs and wages' is just ridiculous. I don't think there were many immigrants involved in Maggie Thatcher's employment wrecking assaults on manufacturing industry in the 70s or on the trade unions so that they could not protect workers wages and conditions.

Based on anecdotal evidence, my guess would be that second and third generation immigrants with their entrepreneurial spirit often start businesses that create more jobs their indigenous counterparts.

Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Naylor on his win.

As has been said, the low turnout is a real worry. In my opinion it is partially due to the fact that our local MP, Graham Evans, has gone AWOL since his election. He pops up now and then to open a pub or in a charity event but is never prepared to talk about serious political issues such as his support for the dismemberment of the NHS which is currently happening contrary to what his party said before the last election. No wonder people are saying 'Why should I bother voting?'
You raise some interesting points.

Governments, whether Tory or Labour as you mention have embraced immigration, which is good, it actually is the UKIP message, we need immigration, we simply want to have control over quality and the numbers. UKIP are PRO immigration, UKIP are PRO Europe, but not this EU political model.

We are now part of a union that allows free movement of people, given that opportunity, peoples from poor Countries in Eastern Europe will move in one direction, so yes, Bickmeister is correct to say that jobs are taken and wages are driven down.

Your wider point regarding work ethic of 1st, 2nd and third generation migrants is one issue I do know about.
My Friend Monchob Ali is finding it hard to get motivated young Bangladeshis to work the hours in his restaurants, we used to call it the British disease, it seems to be infectious. How we solve this problem is beyond me.
[quote][p][bold]L Byrne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bickmeister[/bold] wrote: WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter. BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is: 1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages 2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act 3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs[/p][/quote]Bickmeister Your point linking Labour with 'mass immigration' is misleading and, as often the case with UKIP propaganda, not supported by the facts. A little research will show that at various times since the Second World War, both Labour and Tory governments have encouraged higher levels of immigration to meet the needs of the UK economy. There is the famous case of Enoch Powell, when he was Minister of Health, bringing in large numbers of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS going. (Of course, that was when the Tories actually cared about the NHS.) The link with immigrants 'destroying working class jobs and wages' is just ridiculous. I don't think there were many immigrants involved in Maggie Thatcher's employment wrecking assaults on manufacturing industry in the 70s or on the trade unions so that they could not protect workers wages and conditions. Based on anecdotal evidence, my guess would be that second and third generation immigrants with their entrepreneurial spirit often start businesses that create more jobs their indigenous counterparts. Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Naylor on his win. As has been said, the low turnout is a real worry. In my opinion it is partially due to the fact that our local MP, Graham Evans, has gone AWOL since his election. He pops up now and then to open a pub or in a charity event but is never prepared to talk about serious political issues such as his support for the dismemberment of the NHS which is currently happening contrary to what his party said before the last election. No wonder people are saying 'Why should I bother voting?'[/p][/quote]You raise some interesting points. Governments, whether Tory or Labour as you mention have embraced immigration, which is good, it actually is the UKIP message, we need immigration, we simply want to have control over quality and the numbers. UKIP are PRO immigration, UKIP are PRO Europe, but not this EU political model. We are now part of a union that allows free movement of people, given that opportunity, peoples from poor Countries in Eastern Europe will move in one direction, so yes, Bickmeister is correct to say that jobs are taken and wages are driven down. Your wider point regarding work ethic of 1st, 2nd and third generation migrants is one issue I do know about. My Friend Monchob Ali is finding it hard to get motivated young Bangladeshis to work the hours in his restaurants, we used to call it the British disease, it seems to be infectious. How we solve this problem is beyond me. Kit Kat Koo
  • Score: 4

11:53pm Sun 13 Jul 14

L Byrne says...

Bickmeister wrote:
L Byrne - even Labour senior ministers from the last Labour government have admitted that Labour allowed a rate of immigration unprecedented in our recent history, at a time when almost a million 16-24 olds were out of work.

The low turnout is also due to the voters' contempt & disillusionment with LibLabCon: MP's expenses, lobbying fees, seeing the likes of the Kinnock's & Blair's (so called socialists) making millions
Bickmeister

The reason for the high number of immigrants during the Labour Government , up to the bankers financial crash, was due to record levels of economic growth and activity. So Labour hasn't any need to 'admit ' anything. People will travel a long way to find a job and for a better life for their families, as my relatives in Australia will tell you.

I agree with your point about voters' apathy although, with the history of UKIP members of the European Parliament , I am surprised that you mentioned MP's expenses. The words 'kettle', 'pot' and 'black' come to mind.
[quote][p][bold]Bickmeister[/bold] wrote: L Byrne - even Labour senior ministers from the last Labour government have admitted that Labour allowed a rate of immigration unprecedented in our recent history, at a time when almost a million 16-24 olds were out of work. The low turnout is also due to the voters' contempt & disillusionment with LibLabCon: MP's expenses, lobbying fees, seeing the likes of the Kinnock's & Blair's (so called socialists) making millions[/p][/quote]Bickmeister The reason for the high number of immigrants during the Labour Government , up to the bankers financial crash, was due to record levels of economic growth and activity. So Labour hasn't any need to 'admit ' anything. People will travel a long way to find a job and for a better life for their families, as my relatives in Australia will tell you. I agree with your point about voters' apathy although, with the history of UKIP members of the European Parliament , I am surprised that you mentioned MP's expenses. The words 'kettle', 'pot' and 'black' come to mind. L Byrne
  • Score: 0

12:08am Mon 14 Jul 14

Anonamatty says...

hectorplain wrote:
If you look very closely you can just about see the eyes, do they look shifty to you?

Me niether.
Please Hectorplain, just go away.You are pointless.
[quote][p][bold]hectorplain[/bold] wrote: If you look very closely you can just about see the eyes, do they look shifty to you? Me niether.[/p][/quote]Please Hectorplain, just go away.You are pointless. Anonamatty
  • Score: 5

1:13pm Mon 14 Jul 14

MrT1976 says...

Anonamatty wrote:
hectorplain wrote:
If you look very closely you can just about see the eyes, do they look shifty to you?

Me niether.
Please Hectorplain, just go away.You are pointless.
Hallelujah!
[quote][p][bold]Anonamatty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hectorplain[/bold] wrote: If you look very closely you can just about see the eyes, do they look shifty to you? Me niether.[/p][/quote]Please Hectorplain, just go away.You are pointless.[/p][/quote]Hallelujah! MrT1976
  • Score: -1

5:34pm Mon 14 Jul 14

L Byrne says...

Bickmeister

Thanks for an interesting discussion which I will not prolong.

Just one last point about what you call immigration from ' the poor countries of Eastern Europe. ' This problem is a transitory one because of a temporary imbalance between the poorer countries in the EU, the recent joiners, compared to the older and better original members. Over time the level of prosperity and employment opportunities in the poorer ones will catch up to a large extent and the incentive to emigrate will reduce. This has already happened in Poland, for example, and many Poles have returned home. Most people want to live their lives in the country where they were born. In previous decades this development occurred in countries around the Mediterranean and the Republic of Ireland and is one of the driving forces underlying the whole EU concept.

Ultimately, we all benefit and people in poorer countries get a fairer share of what is available. They also become customers for the goods and services that we produce. 'Enlightened self interest' I think it is called but the fundamentalist anti EU fanatics and their allies in the press do not want to talk about it.

Worth keeping in mind.

End of sermon.

Well done, again to Mr Naylor.
Bickmeister Thanks for an interesting discussion which I will not prolong. Just one last point about what you call immigration from ' the poor countries of Eastern Europe. ' This problem is a transitory one because of a temporary imbalance between the poorer countries in the EU, the recent joiners, compared to the older and better original members. Over time the level of prosperity and employment opportunities in the poorer ones will catch up to a large extent and the incentive to emigrate will reduce. This has already happened in Poland, for example, and many Poles have returned home. Most people want to live their lives in the country where they were born. In previous decades this development occurred in countries around the Mediterranean and the Republic of Ireland and is one of the driving forces underlying the whole EU concept. Ultimately, we all benefit and people in poorer countries get a fairer share of what is available. They also become customers for the goods and services that we produce. 'Enlightened self interest' I think it is called but the fundamentalist anti EU fanatics and their allies in the press do not want to talk about it. Worth keeping in mind. End of sermon. Well done, again to Mr Naylor. L Byrne
  • Score: -2

7:06pm Mon 14 Jul 14

hectorplain says...

Kit Kat Koo wrote:
L Byrne wrote:
Bickmeister wrote:
WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter.

BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is:
1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages
2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act
3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs
Bickmeister
Your point linking Labour with 'mass immigration' is misleading and, as often the case with UKIP propaganda, not supported by the facts.

A little research will show that at various times since the Second World War, both Labour and Tory governments have encouraged higher levels of immigration to meet the needs of the UK economy. There is the famous case of Enoch Powell, when he was Minister of Health, bringing in large numbers of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS going. (Of course, that was when the Tories actually cared about the NHS.)

The link with immigrants 'destroying working class jobs and wages' is just ridiculous. I don't think there were many immigrants involved in Maggie Thatcher's employment wrecking assaults on manufacturing industry in the 70s or on the trade unions so that they could not protect workers wages and conditions.

Based on anecdotal evidence, my guess would be that second and third generation immigrants with their entrepreneurial spirit often start businesses that create more jobs their indigenous counterparts.

Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Naylor on his win.

As has been said, the low turnout is a real worry. In my opinion it is partially due to the fact that our local MP, Graham Evans, has gone AWOL since his election. He pops up now and then to open a pub or in a charity event but is never prepared to talk about serious political issues such as his support for the dismemberment of the NHS which is currently happening contrary to what his party said before the last election. No wonder people are saying 'Why should I bother voting?'
You raise some interesting points.

Governments, whether Tory or Labour as you mention have embraced immigration, which is good, it actually is the UKIP message, we need immigration, we simply want to have control over quality and the numbers. UKIP are PRO immigration, UKIP are PRO Europe, but not this EU political model.

We are now part of a union that allows free movement of people, given that opportunity, peoples from poor Countries in Eastern Europe will move in one direction, so yes, Bickmeister is correct to say that jobs are taken and wages are driven down.

Your wider point regarding work ethic of 1st, 2nd and third generation migrants is one issue I do know about.
My Friend Monchob Ali is finding it hard to get motivated young Bangladeshis to work the hours in his restaurants, we used to call it the British disease, it seems to be infectious. How we solve this problem is beyond me.
Whilst I can see all points made here I still thin k that this would be an ecumenical matter.
[quote][p][bold]Kit Kat Koo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]L Byrne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bickmeister[/bold] wrote: WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter. BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is: 1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages 2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act 3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs[/p][/quote]Bickmeister Your point linking Labour with 'mass immigration' is misleading and, as often the case with UKIP propaganda, not supported by the facts. A little research will show that at various times since the Second World War, both Labour and Tory governments have encouraged higher levels of immigration to meet the needs of the UK economy. There is the famous case of Enoch Powell, when he was Minister of Health, bringing in large numbers of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS going. (Of course, that was when the Tories actually cared about the NHS.) The link with immigrants 'destroying working class jobs and wages' is just ridiculous. I don't think there were many immigrants involved in Maggie Thatcher's employment wrecking assaults on manufacturing industry in the 70s or on the trade unions so that they could not protect workers wages and conditions. Based on anecdotal evidence, my guess would be that second and third generation immigrants with their entrepreneurial spirit often start businesses that create more jobs their indigenous counterparts. Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Naylor on his win. As has been said, the low turnout is a real worry. In my opinion it is partially due to the fact that our local MP, Graham Evans, has gone AWOL since his election. He pops up now and then to open a pub or in a charity event but is never prepared to talk about serious political issues such as his support for the dismemberment of the NHS which is currently happening contrary to what his party said before the last election. No wonder people are saying 'Why should I bother voting?'[/p][/quote]You raise some interesting points. Governments, whether Tory or Labour as you mention have embraced immigration, which is good, it actually is the UKIP message, we need immigration, we simply want to have control over quality and the numbers. UKIP are PRO immigration, UKIP are PRO Europe, but not this EU political model. We are now part of a union that allows free movement of people, given that opportunity, peoples from poor Countries in Eastern Europe will move in one direction, so yes, Bickmeister is correct to say that jobs are taken and wages are driven down. Your wider point regarding work ethic of 1st, 2nd and third generation migrants is one issue I do know about. My Friend Monchob Ali is finding it hard to get motivated young Bangladeshis to work the hours in his restaurants, we used to call it the British disease, it seems to be infectious. How we solve this problem is beyond me.[/p][/quote]Whilst I can see all points made here I still thin k that this would be an ecumenical matter. hectorplain
  • Score: 2

7:06pm Mon 14 Jul 14

hectorplain says...

Kit Kat Koo wrote:
L Byrne wrote:
Bickmeister wrote:
WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter.

BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is:
1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages
2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act
3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs
Bickmeister
Your point linking Labour with 'mass immigration' is misleading and, as often the case with UKIP propaganda, not supported by the facts.

A little research will show that at various times since the Second World War, both Labour and Tory governments have encouraged higher levels of immigration to meet the needs of the UK economy. There is the famous case of Enoch Powell, when he was Minister of Health, bringing in large numbers of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS going. (Of course, that was when the Tories actually cared about the NHS.)

The link with immigrants 'destroying working class jobs and wages' is just ridiculous. I don't think there were many immigrants involved in Maggie Thatcher's employment wrecking assaults on manufacturing industry in the 70s or on the trade unions so that they could not protect workers wages and conditions.

Based on anecdotal evidence, my guess would be that second and third generation immigrants with their entrepreneurial spirit often start businesses that create more jobs their indigenous counterparts.

Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Naylor on his win.

As has been said, the low turnout is a real worry. In my opinion it is partially due to the fact that our local MP, Graham Evans, has gone AWOL since his election. He pops up now and then to open a pub or in a charity event but is never prepared to talk about serious political issues such as his support for the dismemberment of the NHS which is currently happening contrary to what his party said before the last election. No wonder people are saying 'Why should I bother voting?'
You raise some interesting points.

Governments, whether Tory or Labour as you mention have embraced immigration, which is good, it actually is the UKIP message, we need immigration, we simply want to have control over quality and the numbers. UKIP are PRO immigration, UKIP are PRO Europe, but not this EU political model.

We are now part of a union that allows free movement of people, given that opportunity, peoples from poor Countries in Eastern Europe will move in one direction, so yes, Bickmeister is correct to say that jobs are taken and wages are driven down.

Your wider point regarding work ethic of 1st, 2nd and third generation migrants is one issue I do know about.
My Friend Monchob Ali is finding it hard to get motivated young Bangladeshis to work the hours in his restaurants, we used to call it the British disease, it seems to be infectious. How we solve this problem is beyond me.
Whilst I can see all points made here I still thin k that this would be an ecumenical matter.
[quote][p][bold]Kit Kat Koo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]L Byrne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bickmeister[/bold] wrote: WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter. BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is: 1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages 2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act 3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs[/p][/quote]Bickmeister Your point linking Labour with 'mass immigration' is misleading and, as often the case with UKIP propaganda, not supported by the facts. A little research will show that at various times since the Second World War, both Labour and Tory governments have encouraged higher levels of immigration to meet the needs of the UK economy. There is the famous case of Enoch Powell, when he was Minister of Health, bringing in large numbers of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS going. (Of course, that was when the Tories actually cared about the NHS.) The link with immigrants 'destroying working class jobs and wages' is just ridiculous. I don't think there were many immigrants involved in Maggie Thatcher's employment wrecking assaults on manufacturing industry in the 70s or on the trade unions so that they could not protect workers wages and conditions. Based on anecdotal evidence, my guess would be that second and third generation immigrants with their entrepreneurial spirit often start businesses that create more jobs their indigenous counterparts. Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Naylor on his win. As has been said, the low turnout is a real worry. In my opinion it is partially due to the fact that our local MP, Graham Evans, has gone AWOL since his election. He pops up now and then to open a pub or in a charity event but is never prepared to talk about serious political issues such as his support for the dismemberment of the NHS which is currently happening contrary to what his party said before the last election. No wonder people are saying 'Why should I bother voting?'[/p][/quote]You raise some interesting points. Governments, whether Tory or Labour as you mention have embraced immigration, which is good, it actually is the UKIP message, we need immigration, we simply want to have control over quality and the numbers. UKIP are PRO immigration, UKIP are PRO Europe, but not this EU political model. We are now part of a union that allows free movement of people, given that opportunity, peoples from poor Countries in Eastern Europe will move in one direction, so yes, Bickmeister is correct to say that jobs are taken and wages are driven down. Your wider point regarding work ethic of 1st, 2nd and third generation migrants is one issue I do know about. My Friend Monchob Ali is finding it hard to get motivated young Bangladeshis to work the hours in his restaurants, we used to call it the British disease, it seems to be infectious. How we solve this problem is beyond me.[/p][/quote]Whilst I can see all points made here I still thin k that this would be an ecumenical matter. hectorplain
  • Score: 2

7:08pm Mon 14 Jul 14

hectorplain says...

We must never overlook the importance of Wallerscote and the Pippins.
We must never overlook the importance of Wallerscote and the Pippins. hectorplain
  • Score: 6

9:49pm Mon 14 Jul 14

hectorplain says...

Anonamatty wrote:
Northwich Lover wrote:
Sounds like he just wants to help the rugby club!
Isn't this the fella that wanted his rugby club to take over moss farm and have the profits too?

That'll please the tax payers!
Sam Naylor's libel lawyers must be sharpening their blades as we speak.
[quote][p][bold]Anonamatty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Northwich Lover[/bold] wrote: Sounds like he just wants to help the rugby club![/p][/quote]Isn't this the fella that wanted his rugby club to take over moss farm and have the profits too? That'll please the tax payers![/p][/quote]Sam Naylor's libel lawyers must be sharpening their blades as we speak. hectorplain
  • Score: 3

9:52pm Mon 14 Jul 14

L Byrne says...

L Byrne wrote:
Bickmeister

Thanks for an interesting discussion which I will not prolong.

Just one last point about what you call immigration from ' the poor countries of Eastern Europe. ' This problem is a transitory one because of a temporary imbalance between the poorer countries in the EU, the recent joiners, compared to the older and better original members. Over time the level of prosperity and employment opportunities in the poorer ones will catch up to a large extent and the incentive to emigrate will reduce. This has already happened in Poland, for example, and many Poles have returned home. Most people want to live their lives in the country where they were born. In previous decades this development occurred in countries around the Mediterranean and the Republic of Ireland and is one of the driving forces underlying the whole EU concept.

Ultimately, we all benefit and people in poorer countries get a fairer share of what is available. They also become customers for the goods and services that we produce. 'Enlightened self interest' I think it is called but the fundamentalist anti EU fanatics and their allies in the press do not want to talk about it.

Worth keeping in mind.

End of sermon.

Well done, again to Mr Naylor.
Correction, apologies.

In the third sentence, please add 'off' after 'better' to read 'better off'.
[quote][p][bold]L Byrne[/bold] wrote: Bickmeister Thanks for an interesting discussion which I will not prolong. Just one last point about what you call immigration from ' the poor countries of Eastern Europe. ' This problem is a transitory one because of a temporary imbalance between the poorer countries in the EU, the recent joiners, compared to the older and better original members. Over time the level of prosperity and employment opportunities in the poorer ones will catch up to a large extent and the incentive to emigrate will reduce. This has already happened in Poland, for example, and many Poles have returned home. Most people want to live their lives in the country where they were born. In previous decades this development occurred in countries around the Mediterranean and the Republic of Ireland and is one of the driving forces underlying the whole EU concept. Ultimately, we all benefit and people in poorer countries get a fairer share of what is available. They also become customers for the goods and services that we produce. 'Enlightened self interest' I think it is called but the fundamentalist anti EU fanatics and their allies in the press do not want to talk about it. Worth keeping in mind. End of sermon. Well done, again to Mr Naylor.[/p][/quote]Correction, apologies. In the third sentence, please add 'off' after 'better' to read 'better off'. L Byrne
  • Score: 1

11:29pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Kit Kat Koo says...

Well, I have just looked at the results and those from the previous election within this ward.

The headline should surely read.

'Labour haemorrhage 13% of their votes'

All of which went to UKIP, along with 6% of the Tory vote.

Gone is the myth that UKIP are all Tories.

If UKIP hold onto 23% of the vote within this ward next year we will see one of the two seats turning purple.
Well, I have just looked at the results and those from the previous election within this ward. The headline should surely read. 'Labour haemorrhage 13% of their votes' All of which went to UKIP, along with 6% of the Tory vote. Gone is the myth that UKIP are all Tories. If UKIP hold onto 23% of the vote within this ward next year we will see one of the two seats turning purple. Kit Kat Koo
  • Score: 2

4:17pm Tue 15 Jul 14

techadmin says...

hectorplain:
Put a sock in it mate!!!
hectorplain: Put a sock in it mate!!! techadmin
  • Score: -1

11:24pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Anonamatty says...

hectorplain wrote:
Anonamatty wrote:
Northwich Lover wrote:
Sounds like he just wants to help the rugby club!
Isn't this the fella that wanted his rugby club to take over moss farm and have the profits too?

That'll please the tax payers!
Sam Naylor's libel lawyers must be sharpening their blades as we speak.
Erm, why?
[quote][p][bold]hectorplain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anonamatty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Northwich Lover[/bold] wrote: Sounds like he just wants to help the rugby club![/p][/quote]Isn't this the fella that wanted his rugby club to take over moss farm and have the profits too? That'll please the tax payers![/p][/quote]Sam Naylor's libel lawyers must be sharpening their blades as we speak.[/p][/quote]Erm, why? Anonamatty
  • Score: 0

11:26pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Anonamatty says...

techadmin wrote:
hectorplain:
Put a sock in it mate!!!
Well said techadmin, this user is a buffoon!

Get your libel lawyers on that hector plain.
[quote][p][bold]techadmin[/bold] wrote: hectorplain: Put a sock in it mate!!![/p][/quote]Well said techadmin, this user is a buffoon! Get your libel lawyers on that hector plain. Anonamatty
  • Score: -1

9:31pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Ruckit says...

He only wanted to get on the council to help Northwich rugby club take over Moss Farm for their own gains. He's been pestering the town council for years!
He only wanted to get on the council to help Northwich rugby club take over Moss Farm for their own gains. He's been pestering the town council for years! Ruckit
  • Score: 2

3:50pm Fri 18 Jul 14

hectorplain says...

Kit Kat Koo wrote:
L Byrne wrote:
Bickmeister wrote:
WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter.

BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is:
1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages
2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act
3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs
Bickmeister
Your point linking Labour with 'mass immigration' is misleading and, as often the case with UKIP propaganda, not supported by the facts.

A little research will show that at various times since the Second World War, both Labour and Tory governments have encouraged higher levels of immigration to meet the needs of the UK economy. There is the famous case of Enoch Powell, when he was Minister of Health, bringing in large numbers of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS going. (Of course, that was when the Tories actually cared about the NHS.)

The link with immigrants 'destroying working class jobs and wages' is just ridiculous. I don't think there were many immigrants involved in Maggie Thatcher's employment wrecking assaults on manufacturing industry in the 70s or on the trade unions so that they could not protect workers wages and conditions.

Based on anecdotal evidence, my guess would be that second and third generation immigrants with their entrepreneurial spirit often start businesses that create more jobs their indigenous counterparts.

Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Naylor on his win.

As has been said, the low turnout is a real worry. In my opinion it is partially due to the fact that our local MP, Graham Evans, has gone AWOL since his election. He pops up now and then to open a pub or in a charity event but is never prepared to talk about serious political issues such as his support for the dismemberment of the NHS which is currently happening contrary to what his party said before the last election. No wonder people are saying 'Why should I bother voting?'
You raise some interesting points.

Governments, whether Tory or Labour as you mention have embraced immigration, which is good, it actually is the UKIP message, we need immigration, we simply want to have control over quality and the numbers. UKIP are PRO immigration, UKIP are PRO Europe, but not this EU political model.

We are now part of a union that allows free movement of people, given that opportunity, peoples from poor Countries in Eastern Europe will move in one direction, so yes, Bickmeister is correct to say that jobs are taken and wages are driven down.

Your wider point regarding work ethic of 1st, 2nd and third generation migrants is one issue I do know about.
My Friend Monchob Ali is finding it hard to get motivated young Bangladeshis to work the hours in his restaurants, we used to call it the British disease, it seems to be infectious. How we solve this problem is beyond me.
Yes I agree entirely, good point well made.
[quote][p][bold]Kit Kat Koo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]L Byrne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bickmeister[/bold] wrote: WHS: your comment and smear of UKIP is both predictable & pathetic. You clearly don't know what UKIP's policies are. I think it's a fair bet that you're a Labour supporter. BTW the reason UKIP received so many votes from a standing start (with a local branch just over a year old) is: 1. Voters know Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages 2. Labour is behind any cost of living crisis: they wrecked the economy, drove up debts, increased taxes, destroyed private pensions and drove up energy costs via Ed Miliband's ridiculous Climate Change Act 3. Labour took us to war on a false prospectus, resulting in our servicemen & women losing their lives & limbs[/p][/quote]Bickmeister Your point linking Labour with 'mass immigration' is misleading and, as often the case with UKIP propaganda, not supported by the facts. A little research will show that at various times since the Second World War, both Labour and Tory governments have encouraged higher levels of immigration to meet the needs of the UK economy. There is the famous case of Enoch Powell, when he was Minister of Health, bringing in large numbers of nurses and doctors to keep the NHS going. (Of course, that was when the Tories actually cared about the NHS.) The link with immigrants 'destroying working class jobs and wages' is just ridiculous. I don't think there were many immigrants involved in Maggie Thatcher's employment wrecking assaults on manufacturing industry in the 70s or on the trade unions so that they could not protect workers wages and conditions. Based on anecdotal evidence, my guess would be that second and third generation immigrants with their entrepreneurial spirit often start businesses that create more jobs their indigenous counterparts. Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Naylor on his win. As has been said, the low turnout is a real worry. In my opinion it is partially due to the fact that our local MP, Graham Evans, has gone AWOL since his election. He pops up now and then to open a pub or in a charity event but is never prepared to talk about serious political issues such as his support for the dismemberment of the NHS which is currently happening contrary to what his party said before the last election. No wonder people are saying 'Why should I bother voting?'[/p][/quote]You raise some interesting points. Governments, whether Tory or Labour as you mention have embraced immigration, which is good, it actually is the UKIP message, we need immigration, we simply want to have control over quality and the numbers. UKIP are PRO immigration, UKIP are PRO Europe, but not this EU political model. We are now part of a union that allows free movement of people, given that opportunity, peoples from poor Countries in Eastern Europe will move in one direction, so yes, Bickmeister is correct to say that jobs are taken and wages are driven down. Your wider point regarding work ethic of 1st, 2nd and third generation migrants is one issue I do know about. My Friend Monchob Ali is finding it hard to get motivated young Bangladeshis to work the hours in his restaurants, we used to call it the British disease, it seems to be infectious. How we solve this problem is beyond me.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree entirely, good point well made. hectorplain
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree