A quick reminder of why we've a Tory MP in Hastings:

a quick reminder of why we've a tory mp in Hastings:


IDIOCY!

Rudd, Amber	Con	20468	41%
Foster, Michael	Lab	18475	37.01%
Perry, Nick	Lib Dem	7825	15.68%

Our system of FPTP is corrupt and whoever you vote for, the establishment wins. (PR? no thanks, says Amber - http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/policy.php?id=1084)

Meanwhile, we're criticised if we vote 'tactically', although if voting, in some seats, and with our fundamentally undemocratic variant on democracy, for the party you _most support_ guarantees the one you _least support_ gets in. If you think about it, we have a _duty_, in this farce of a 'democracy' to, sometimes, vote tactically.

Tactic #1 for me, first and always (without PR on the post-war German model), will be 'do what keeps the _tory's_ OUT'. So, whilst with PR, I might vote for a Green, say, with our system (and not living in Brighton), I instead (in Hastings) am duty bound to vote Labour despite my qualms.

The transference of votes to the Lib Dems in the last general election seems to me a misplaced luxury that ensured a Tory win (nationally, and here in Hastings).

There were many reasons for dis-satisfaction with Labour, but those I spoke to who 'protested' by denying their usual support and voting Lib Dem, or stating home, gave reasons that stand up to little analysis: they ranged from

'don't like the war' (nor do I, but all the main parties supported it), through 

'Labour led us into a recession' (a global one, so not avoidable, and that they handled [marginally] better than the Tories are [predictably]), to 

 

'sleaze' (ah, sleaze... remember the days when MPs could make millions selling military contracts to their own companies? when Thatcher could embezzle millions to buy a spy sat system to help her mate Ronnie without Parliament being informed? when Tory's could sell Westminster cemeteries, held in trust for the people, for a penny and sell council homes cheap to buy votes? the leading govt party could take massive contributions from dodgy dealers like Asil Nadir [oops! that one hasn't changed, cf Wafic Said]? and, ahem, in 1980 cabinet minutes... "There was some reason to suspect abuse of the (expenses) system by certain MPS. This gave rise to a grave risk of serious public scandal" - much of the above dubious dealing was made either illegal or transparent under Blair's Labour govt, most cleaned up radically as a result, the tory golden-egg-layer was slain, the right-wing press was rolled out to punish Labour over every minor infraction [and rightly sue a few idiots who hadn't got the message and tried to keep up the bad work])...

All leaving only 3 'cogent' 'reasons' for trad Lab voters to put it elsewhere this time:

1] 'bored with Labour' (what can you politely say to that as an excuse for landing us with tories) 

 

2] thought that we were a democracy so that voting Lib might give the third party a proper go (ie: no understanding of FPTP, etc... see link http://www.bluegreenearth.us/archive/reviews/2001-2/devo.html) and 

 

 3] erm, stupid enough to believe the media (well, no wonder Lab lost).

and yet another reason we don't want one!

From HAC (Hastings Against the Cuts)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/hastings.fightback/353165804722495/
[and Gaby Hill https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=814204209 & Ian Wright https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000731034665]

It would be a good idea to write to your local paper, telling them that your MP voted for the bill so that this is on record for their constituency. They should be held accountable. The editor in chief for both the Bexhill and the Hastings Observer, as well as Battle and Rye is Keith Ridley and you can email your letter to him at mail:keith.ridley@sussexnewspapers.co.uk. Keep it short, no more than 400 words.

(From www.goingtowork.org.uk :) Please write your own email to have the most impact, but here are some points you might find useful:

1. The Bill did not feature in either governing party manifesto, or in the Coalition Agreement. In fact, the Prime Minister himself promised the NHS was safe in his hands before the election, saying categorically there would be no “top down reorganisation of the NHS”.


2. The government’s “Listening Exercise” was a sham, and the legitimate concerns of the majority of the public, and the vast majority of health experts, were blatantly ignored.


3. The minor amendments accepted by the government have done nothing to alter the nature of the Bill, which can only damage the quality of healthcare for ordinary people around the UK, by breaking up the NHS as we know it, reducing accountability and raising administrative costs, allowing private patients to jump the queue for care while NHS patients face growing waiting lists, and intensifying postcode lotteries for treatment.

Going To Work
www.goingtowork.org.uk
https://www.facebook.com/GoingToWork
Please contact your MP now about this debate, asking them to represent you as a constituent and vote against the Health and Social Care Bill.

http://www.goingtowork.org.uk/nhs-bill-clears-parliament-help-hold-mps-to-account/
http://www.goingtowork.org.uk/how-mps-voted-on-the-health-and-social-care-bill/
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2012-03-13&number=489&display=allvotes
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120313/debtext/120313-0001.htm#12031360000001