posted by
bugshaw at 05:20pm on 02/05/2012
The candidate literature is strangely unbalanced. On the front of one flyer they tell us all about why not to vote for the other guys, because of x,y,z big central government actions (cuts! fees! privatising one's grandparents! etc). But on the back, where it says why to vote for this candidate, it's all local issues - fixed a bollard, arranged cycle parking and fought for improved bus timetables. They broke the NHS! I mended a pavement! I can see why they do it but it does feel off-balance.
(no subject)
(S)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
The options for tomorrow are fairly grim: as well as the three main parties (nay, nay, and thrice nay) we've got the Greens and their happy plans to kill off half the world's population to save the planet, and the "Alliance for Green Socialism", which I think is a bunch of Trotskyists who split off from Respect.
Time to dust off Michael J Mouse, methinks.
(no subject)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/23/sudan.climatechange
(no subject)
(no subject)
I've been reliably told the LDs have basically not bothered to target Arbury/Castle because the Labour candidate is 'a nice guy', and they want to target Kings Hedges/Romsey and other places where presumably there's a demand for LD leaflets with bar graphs...