Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Greens to stand against David Davis

danny la rouge said:
So, that list in full so far:

David Davis - Conservative

Eamonn Fitzpatrick - Independent

Gemma Garrett - Independent

George Georgiou - Generalist Party

Neil Glass - Independent

Hamish Howitt - Independent

David Icke - Independent

The Mad Cow Girl - Official Monster Raving Loony Party

Shan Oakes - Green Party

Jill Saward - Independent

Chris Talbot - Socialist Equality Party

(Date July 10th).
Click to expand...

4 candiates with the same first and second initial + Dave Douglass nearly stood. Our lizard overlords are slowly revealing the truth, with Icke on hand to answer questions. 9/11/7/7/Oh my aching fillings :(
 
When someone said David Icke was standing on another thread I thought they were joking. It must be the first anti-lizard-overlord platform in history :D

Glad to see the greens are standing. I'm sure they won't win but at least there will be a leftish pro-liberties alternative.
 
Oddly enough, it appears that there was a lot of internal oppositon to this candidate standing. Any members want to full us in on what it was all about?
 
My understanding is that some people were opposed to the candidacy because it was felt that a party without the financial resources/people-power of the mainstream parties should be focusing 'ruthlessly' on our target constituencies (where we actually have a chance of winning next time or the time after) - as opposed to H+H, which doesn't have a long history of Green involvement.

Matt
 
Matt S said:
My understanding is that some people were opposed to the candidacy because it was felt that a party without the financial resources/people-power of the mainstream parties should be focusing 'ruthlessly' on our target constituencies (where we actually have a chance of winning next time or the time after) - as opposed to H+H, which doesn't have a long history of Green involvement.

Matt
Click to expand...

Ta. I think it would have been madness not to stand, and if you intend to organise in the area in the future there's never going to be a better opportunity to set your stall out.
 
good. glad to see the greens going for it. i'm going to send them a tenner! you never know with that mad list of candidates maybe they might even get their first MP! (the lib dem bloggers that are pissed off their party was so quick not to stand, certainly think it's a possibility).

i hope tony benn, bob marshall-andrews and co will go up and speak in support of the green party candidate now, not david davis. could be really positive for building red/green/anti-authoritarian links.
 
if anyone wants to donate to the green campaign in H&H byelection the address for cheques is

Hull & East Riding Green Party

3 Norwood

Beverley

East Yorkshire

HU17 9ET, UK

yes it is hopeless they don't have an online donation system. i'm not a member but will be sending them some dosh!
 
Louis MacNeice said:
Who does the sentencing?
Click to expand...

The judge formally passes sentence, of course.

But depending on the jurisdiction, they may or may not decide what that sentence is.

In some places, the death penalty is mandatory for certain crimes. In others, the sentence is decided by the jury. Others may effectively be decided by the prosecutors, choosing to bring a case for first/second degree murder, etc. which will attract different penalties.

In this country, judges are expected to follow sentencing guidelines, which are already quite specific for serious crimes.

What doesn't happen in this country is the judge deciding whether or not to convict (under normal circumstances). However, if the death penalty is there, it's hardly surprising that it is sometimes used, and for that we can rarely blame the judges.
 
untethered said:
The judge formally passes sentence, of course.

But depending on the jurisdiction, they may or may not decide what that sentence is.

In some places, the death penalty is mandatory for certain crimes. In others, the sentence is decided by the jury. Others may effectively be decided by the prosecutors, choosing to bring a case for first/second degree murder, etc. which will attract different penalties.

In this country, judges are expected to follow sentencing guidelines, which are already quite specific for serious crimes.

What doesn't happen in this country is the judge deciding whether or not to convict (under normal circumstances). However, if the death penalty is there, it's hardly surprising that it is sometimes used, and for that we can rarely blame the judges.
Click to expand...

The point being that Davies wants to give judges the power to take lives; whether or not he wants to make it harder/easier or indeed compulsory for them to exercise that power isn't relevant, to the admittedly a little lurid description of his position, provided by the Green Party.

You don't want to be accused of wanting judges to have the power of life and death, then don't go around supporting the death penalty; seems fairly simple.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
Louis MacNeice said:
You don't want to be accused of wanting judges to have the power of life and death, then don't go around supporting the death penalty; seems fairly simple.
Click to expand...

I think it would be better to clarify rather than obfuscate the matter. If the complaint is that Mr Davis (note, there is no "E" in his name) supports the death penalty, perhaps they should simply say so.
 
Without NewLab, the LibDems, UKIP or the BNP, this has got Green victory written all over it.

Quixote Davis, or Grey Davis if you prefer, referred in his resignation speech to being a small piece in a much larger chess game. His move has the air of a knight's sacrifice about it. He is now very very likely to lose his by-election, as did George Lansbury in 1910. Lansbury went on to become Labour leader. Davis may well go on to become Conservative leader. He has sensed a paradigm shift in British politics, and also senses that David Cameron is no leader, let alone future Prime Minister.

The problem for Davis is in his position. 42 days without trial represents the end of habeas corpus and Magna Carta; 28, on the other hand, is justified. This position is clearly illogical. The game has a position of checkmate even before the pieces are placed on the board.

Davis hands seat to a Yorkshirewoman (Shan Oakes); first Green MP at Westminster; Davis then has the potential of either leaving politics or ending up as Conservative leader at some unspecified future point.

Perhaps the real question in all this is why Nick Clegg gave away his 36th target seat so easily. Steaming late night chats with female chiefs of pressure groups, perchance?
 
I very much doubt that a large conservative majority will transform into a greens victory. Whatever the issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hash tag
protest against cuts
Replies
1
Views
145
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
HeAthen
Bob Vylan gigs cancelled due to political interference
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
Jennaonthebeach
Jennaonthebeach
L
Oops - How did the Government not see that this was going to happen? (ID cards)
Replies
4
Views
262
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
editor
Archeological dig to go ahead at Marlborough Mound - the supposed burial place of legendary wizard Merlin
2
Replies
30
Views
994
tedsplitter
tedsplitter
_Russ_
Rock against Racism
Replies
1
Views
352
19force8
19force8
Back
Top Bottom