Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
17 February 2011
23:2793078Today in the local rag it was annouced that D Hannant had joined the tories
joining lots of others who switch parties.
You will recall i asked this question of david some time ago which he refused to answer.
for the life of me i don't know why.
he should be proud to be standing for the tories if thats his true belief
of course over the years david has tried to convince us all of his non political standing, even at times saying he leaned towards labour views.
Clearly not the case, and again calls into question how independent the
alliance party realy is.
Since the formation of the alliance political party locally it was always rumoured of the close links with the conservative party, some were saying i was just an extension of the local tory party.
im sure alliance party posters will try to convince us otherwise, but david of course is not the first alliance cllr to stand for the tories.
all of this is not aproblem but a bit of honesty goes a long way.
if your a true blue then be proud and stand up for it
at the moment we see the alliance just as a stepping stone to the tory party
its also rumoured that another ex alliance member is to stand for the tories
Does make you wonder what the alliance party is realy all about
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
17 February 2011
23:5693085You're far too politicised, Keith. In May, people will want to know if the candidates are standing for Dover in Kent. Whoever is standing would do well to have a good set of proposals to convince people, because the public will want to vote for Dover and the Garden, not for a political party.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
18 February 2011
00:1093088The Alliance believes that the town council should be non party political as far as national parties are concerned. I see nothing wrong with a town councillor stepping down from an Alliance role and joining a national party in order to enter politics at a higher level. I have had several conversations with David over this very issue and I think he has acted with total propriety at all times.
Why should he have disclosed his intentions before his plans were confirmed? Keith, this is an example of the political stone-throwing which the electorate hate.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
18 February 2011
00:1893089peter
you have admitted you lean towards the tories and thers nowt wrong with that, and its no surprize you defend david.
everyone knows i stood for the labour party for 25 years never been with any other party, never hidden the fact.
its when you get all this secrecy that causes p;eople to think.
good luck to david
just as a matter ofinterest i think the lib dems will hold whitfield (where david is standingP)thats just my opinion, another of my forecasts
but may is here soon
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
18 February 2011
00:4093093Yes Keith I lean towards the Tories but I have never been a member of a political party and I never shall be. That gives me a certain independence which you do not enjoy. I support the candidate whom I believe will represent me best and if he /she should subsequently disappoint me I can walk away and support another.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
18 February 2011
08:0993097Peter me old chum
Like you i have that same bit of independence, i have not been a member of a political party for about 2 years
certainly you will see from my postings im critical of the labou party when the need arises.
and of course i balance the web site up when it becomes a conservative web site
so peter as i say getting back to the original posting
im all for anyone standing fo who ever they wish the more the merrier.
I may not agree with roger, sue, nigel., paulw, barryw and the other tory posters but i respect there right to post.
as i said why are the secrecy
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
18 February 2011
08:2793099I think its been long accepted that the Alliance are basically Tories without the window dressing. David H who sadly seems to have withdrawn from activity on doverforum has been featured in the Tory election leaflets for quite a long time, in that his picture appears or appeared regularly. It was easy then to join the dots and leap to what turned out to be the right conclusion.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
18 February 2011
08:3593100paulb
im interested to hear from other alliance members, there is no doubt the alliance was set up to oppose the labour party who had a free run up to then and i applaud that, even though there recruiting methods like mr webb at the time telling people to stand for the alliance against labour called into question his inpartiality.
but as time went on they no longer just opposed labour, they had clear links with the tories, which is also no bad thing, but be up front about it.
don't pretend to be independent when realy your a political party within a political party.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
18 February 2011
08:4093101As mentioned in the newspaper article David has been quite ill recently with a gall bladder problem. He has had the offending organ removed but things are still not right and he has lost a huge amount of weight since the operation. The delay in the announcement is more due to health uncertainties than a desire for secrecy and I think you should all cut him some slack until he is fully fit and able to answer back.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
18 February 2011
08:5193102The clue here Keef was and is in the written content of posters on here over the years. One member previously, who posted the most right wing stuff regularly and was more Tory than David Cameron, clearly and openly so, stood for the Alliance. But without success.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
18 February 2011
08:5593103David
Get better soon as a fellow gall bladderlress member I can only sympathise with your plight and suffering. Take care..
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
18 February 2011
09:0993107paulb
i accept your views on the alliance/tories
with regard to david h i wish him well in health
iv said my piece for now
with regard to alex posts
i agree with the non political part, but even our chris p will admit the alliance IS a registrered political party
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
18 February 2011
09:5193114Officially it is a political party but in reality is is a support organisation for independent candidates. Its policies are the policies of each individual, not a slate of policy determined collectively. In that way it is a different animal from the mainstream parties.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
18 February 2011
10:4993122You know this already but will tell you again,I will be standing in Whitfield myself for UKIP for that council seat.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
18 February 2011
10:5293124if you stand for ukip at whitfield vic, it will be a big boost for the yellow candidates.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
18 February 2011
10:5893128I put the lem/dems into last place at the last By-election and stoped the blues geting back into one of their own county seats ,and I can do the same up at Whitfield.,and might even win it.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
18 February 2011
11:1293131a bit different at whitfield vic, they are established there.
i doubt that the behaviour of the national party will put many of their supporters off.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
18 February 2011
11:1693133It is wait and see Howard on that one.I still have one Ace to play yet.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
18 February 2011
11:2393135peter
i dont share your view on the alliance Nationally registered to the national alliance political party sio lets not play games.
on the lib dems and vic in whitfield, i think because the lib dems have mounted a cam,paign that has been ongoing in whitfield with regard to the developement and the tories have been so unclear as to how many houses will go up in whitfield and if so, when. then they have damaged themselves in whitfield.
of course we now have these more muddy waters of;
1; will lib dems oppose tories or other way round due to the co olition
what kind of campaign will it be as both parties want to win the seats and have
a real chance of doing so
2; Although vic won't win in whitfield he will probably split the vote, and again
will justify losing by saying he helped another party win a seat, or kept a party
out from winning. this cant last much longer, only by winning seats will you be
seen as a credible party, and i don't see this with ukip any time soon
this is my honest opinion
and i havnt mentioned the labour party once !!!
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
18 February 2011
11:3693137I'm not sure what Vic can offer Whitfield as he is continually knocking the out of town developments.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)