Oh dear, the Conservatives in the South West seem to be in a bit of a mess. Not only do they have one Parliamentary candidate campaigning for a bypass that another of their Parliamentary candidates is opposing, but they are also telling different stories about what David Cameron’s position is.
The bypass in question is the proposed Kingskerswell bypass for the A380.
In the Torbay corner, Marcus Wood, who says on his blog:
The Bypass is an absolute essential plank in South Devons economic plans and simply has to be built.
and he says on his site that David Cameron is fully behind the bypass:
CAMERON: WE’LL BUILD THE BYPASS
Over now to Anne-Marie Morris in the Newton Abbott* corner, who says on her blog:
This bypass is not the answer.
And when pressed by the local paper about this difference of view, this is what happened:
Mrs Morris maintained Mr Cameron’s comments had been misinterpreted.
All rather unseemly, don’t you think?
* Newton Abbott is effectively the successor to Liberal Democrat MP Richard Younger-Ross’s Teignbridge constituency under the new Parliamentary boundaries coming into force at the next general election.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
17 Comments
I don’t think it’s unseemly at all. In fact, it’s entirely refreshing to see that someone wanting to represent a constituency should, shock horror, try to represent the view of a constituency. This idea that there should be agreement on a very specific local issue is, frankly, bizarre.
A short section of non dual carriagway in an otherwise dual carriageway road is usually bad news for local residents
Mr Cameron’s ability to be both for and against the bypass is an unseemly display of political contortion.
I agree with Dizzy.
Let’s not dig too deep a hole over this one.
There are times when issues like this are going to split all parties at local levels.
Mr Cheltenham:- I do not think Labour or the Conservatives would ignore Ming Campbell supporting a bypass in one seat and then opposing the same bypass next door.
I do not think we should give Mr Cameron that charity either.
Unless you can think of a reasonable explanation for Mr Cameron both for and against the bypass?
“I do not think Labour or the Conservatives would ignore Ming Campbell supporting a bypass in one seat and then opposing the same bypass next door.”
Nice straw man. I guess you didn’t actually read either the post or the links. Or perhaps you did and you’re just reading comprehension is low? I don’t know.
If you actually read what Mark himself posted you discover that this is one PPC attributing Cameron’s support for a bypass, and Cameron saying a Tory Government “could get it done” (not ‘would’). And then. on the other hand, we have another PPC who simply says Cameron;s remarks have been misinterpreted. There is no contrary quote from Cameron as your straw man analogy with Ming Campbell tries to build up.
“I do not think we should give Mr Cameron that charity either.
Unless you can think of a reasonable explanation for Mr Cameron both for and against the bypass?”
How about this? Cameron didn’t say he was for and against it.
Or perhaps you did and you’re just reading comprehension is low?
Oh the irony!
Weird. I’m in the reasonably unusual position of agreeing completely with Marcus Wood, a situation I’m unused to.
I even agree with him about his analysis of the Kingskerswell campaign group, which is even more unusual, for him to have looked at a political situation and actually got it right? Ouch.
OTOH; Dizzy? Do you not think both his sites are FUGLY? Poke him in the direction of someone that can actually design templates? Oh, and get him to do the Blogger domain mapping trick as well. I would, but, y’know, I’m a little biased against him. But those templates are an embarrassment to the Bay.
Don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone in S. Devon opposing the bypass, and most Kingskerwell residents I know look forward to getting their village back.
But MatGB, Marcus Wood has given the Kingskerswell Alliance the propaganda coup it’s always wanted; Marcus said on his blog that the answer to solving the Torbay housing crisis is to develop Kingskerswell! He wrote: “The answer to me is obvious. The Kingskerswell bypass, if given the go-ahead, will throw up parcels of unviable agricultural land all round it which could easily provide the escape-valve for pressure for building land; in addition to the brownfield sites we already know about”. Now 85% of Kingskerswell residents will go along with the bypass with varying degrees of enthusiasm, however a majority would oppose a major housing development of the village, by linking the bypass to housing Marcus has unwittingly aided the Alliance.
Torbay’s evening newspaper was in no doubt DC was in favour. Herald Express 21st Aril: Conservative leader David Cameron has lent his support to the campaign for the Kingskerswell bypass.
On his first visit to South Devon, he said the long-awaited and controversial bypass was a way of beating polluting traffic jams and declared a Tory government under his leadership ‘could get it done’.
Dizzy – these are the exact words from Marcus Wood’s site: “CAMERON: WE’LL BUILD THE BYPASS”. He’s quite clear that he believes Cameron backs the bypass, just as his colleague thinks that’s not what Cameron’s view is.
And that’s rather the point – two Tory candidates, in adjancent seats, each claiming Cameron is saying something different.
I know almost nothing about Kingskerswell. It may well need a bypass. I simply don’t know.
What I do know is the Tories are promoting themselves as an environmentally friendly party when in fact they are in the financial pockets of the very people who are doing most to destroy it (oil companies, house builders, road builders, etc).
What they really mean is a lot of rich people live in environmentally attractive locations, such as villages, and historic urban quarters, which road builders and house builders might ruin if planning controls were releaxed.
But the Tory Party’s true beliefs eventually peek through the facade. Yes, Redwood wants to build more roads, and houses in villages! What a mistake on Cameron’s part to allow an obstinate, unreconstructed, laissez-faire capitalist to write party policy! Redwood couldn’t care less about Cameron’s PR ploys, or about the environment. As a traditional free market Tory, big business always comes first.
I suspect that John Gummer, whose concern for the environment is perfectly genuine, will find himself marginalised even further. As was the hapless David Willetts when he told the truth about selective grammar schools (one his supporters didn’t want to hear).
I think bypasses sometimes have to be built. David Rendel took a lot of flak from the green brigade over his support for the Newbury Bypass, let’s not forget. And I wouldn’t mind a bypass round Bournemouth. Ringwood Forest is a hideous Forestry Commission conifer plantation with no environmental benefit whatsoever.
“And that’s rather the point – two Tory candidates, in adjancent seats, each claiming Cameron is saying something different.”
Mark I don’t disagree with that bit, what I disagree with is to say Cameron is saying different things when he isn’t. If there were two quote fair enough but there aren;t, and yes the site is fugly
This is no straw man, Dizzy. If this was the LibDems tying themselves in knots, Tory bloggers would be banging big drums saying that LibDems try to be everything to everyone. This is instead two Tory PPCs caught red-handed. They are either misleading people, or they are incompetent PPCs unable to speak with their neighbouring colleagues.
LibDem PPCs in Bloggshire wouldn’t be allowed to get away with this confusion!!!
It’s one thing promoting a public debate or having a view in order to get elected and represent local people on that issue, but it is quite another trying to win support by supporting both sides of a two-sided argument – not only is it shambolic and duplicitous, but it is also airing internal splits to the world.
…and now we have disingenuous attempts to spin away this Tory fraud as anything but incoherent, when in reality they are spinning themselves out of control.
Cameron’s competence is being called into question!
No 15
I can recall Sue Slipman at an NUS Conference claim to be both a Zionist and a supporter of the PLO in the course of a single speech.
Now what does one make of THAT?
Hmmm Angus, that’s a contentious position if ever, but not necessarily mutually exclusive – not that I’m public defender #1. I think it could be both potentially amusing and compellingly illuminating at once or simply shocking to discover how she reconciled her position, as it’s obviously not playing to either audience simultaneously or seperately.
You do have a habit of dragging up examples for the (seemingly) sole purpose of confounding others, as though you wish to prove some unstated point, like you are superior or something.
Perhaps you might like to make yourself clear on this.
By the same token are you agreeing with the point and saying Ms Slipman is also incompetent, or was she simple mistaken and you are refuting the point?