Why? As selection for Northampton South approaches I am confused and concerned that very few of those people applying for the seat actually come from Northampton, there are prospective candidates from London and as far away as Birmingham and Swansea. It seems that many 'politicians' will apply for any seat going, without any local knowledge, commitment or proven local activism, just to become a prospective parliamentary candidate! Not to mention those that apply whilst already having responsibilities in their own locality, personally I do not see how you can be an effective candidate AND fulfil commitments already made to the electorate in another constituency.
I would be asking questions such as, are you prepared to resign your commitments to concentrate on Northampton South, are you prepared to move to represent the electorate and most importantly why are you prepared to abandon those people who have put their faith in you to represent them?
I have always firmly believed that anyone who wishes to stand for election should live in the constituency (and if standing locally should preferably live in the ward! Although I do accept that this is not always possible.), have local knowledge and proven local commitment. This is the least the electorate deserve from their representatives, and tthe sooner 'politicians' recognise this the better it will be for all of us!
Sunday 14 September 2008
Wednesday 10 September 2008
The papers again!!
Sometimes there are gems within the papers! The Guardian this week is running a series on the 'New Tories', one bit particularly caught my eye, regarding Health Visitors! apparently the Conservative Party are going to ensure that all new mothers receive regular visits from Health Visitors! My problem with this is not that all new mothers shouldn't receive support, but where exactly are a) these health visitors going to come from and b) where is the money going to come from to enable them to do their jobs effectively?
I have had 5 children, only two of whom survived infancy, Emma had multiple disabilities and was what is termed a neo-natal death, Sam and Eleanor were both victims of SIDS, when my youngest child was born the support of my health visitor was essential to me, but these were not minimal visits, these were daily visits for six months and further to that bi-weekly visits until Russell was 2. The majority of these visits were not funded by the NHS but by the CONI (Care Of Next Infant) Programme (based in Sheffield, details available from FSIDS) and I am very aware of how expensive it was and that if a sympathetic, empathic health visitor had not been available I would probably not have recieved this support.
How the Tories can carry on making these conflicting promises of both Tax Cuts and Improved Services is beyond me, I only have an O-Level in economics, but even I can do the math! Oh sorry, they are now the 'New Tories', where have I heard that before....
I have had 5 children, only two of whom survived infancy, Emma had multiple disabilities and was what is termed a neo-natal death, Sam and Eleanor were both victims of SIDS, when my youngest child was born the support of my health visitor was essential to me, but these were not minimal visits, these were daily visits for six months and further to that bi-weekly visits until Russell was 2. The majority of these visits were not funded by the NHS but by the CONI (Care Of Next Infant) Programme (based in Sheffield, details available from FSIDS) and I am very aware of how expensive it was and that if a sympathetic, empathic health visitor had not been available I would probably not have recieved this support.
How the Tories can carry on making these conflicting promises of both Tax Cuts and Improved Services is beyond me, I only have an O-Level in economics, but even I can do the math! Oh sorry, they are now the 'New Tories', where have I heard that before....
Tuesday 2 September 2008
In the papers....
Over the past few weeks there have been some interesting little snippets regarding this government so called 'nanny' approach towards encouraging people to eat more healthily. The Tories stated not so long ago that they will be removing the red/amber/green labelling from food products that indicate how healthy certain products are as they are patronising to the consumer. Yesterdays Guardian covered a report that said that (due to the downturn) many of the supermarket offers are on unhealthy, high sugar, high fat, high salt pre-packaged food.
What intrigues me about this is why this is due to the 'downturn', and why no-one has put forward the notion that actually one of the main reasons convenience foods have gained in popularity over the past 20 years or so is because women, particularly, are increasingly time-poor. Not to mention advertising campaigns aimed at young children specifically, making it very hard for parents to resist the demands for branded products! Many more of us work, whether part-time or full time, shopping is something that is done during the lunch hour or after work and parenting tasks (such as reading with/to, helping with homework or simply playing) are relegated to the evening. Not to mention washing, cleaning, etc etc.
Overconsumption has increasingly been a problem within western societies, which in turn has led to an increase in health problems related to obesity both in adults and children. It is unecessary and if labelling products and banning advertising for unhealthy products is part of the answer so be it. This is not 'nannying' this is a responsible government and spurious arguments about 'consumer choice' etc really don't do it for me.
What intrigues me about this is why this is due to the 'downturn', and why no-one has put forward the notion that actually one of the main reasons convenience foods have gained in popularity over the past 20 years or so is because women, particularly, are increasingly time-poor. Not to mention advertising campaigns aimed at young children specifically, making it very hard for parents to resist the demands for branded products! Many more of us work, whether part-time or full time, shopping is something that is done during the lunch hour or after work and parenting tasks (such as reading with/to, helping with homework or simply playing) are relegated to the evening. Not to mention washing, cleaning, etc etc.
Overconsumption has increasingly been a problem within western societies, which in turn has led to an increase in health problems related to obesity both in adults and children. It is unecessary and if labelling products and banning advertising for unhealthy products is part of the answer so be it. This is not 'nannying' this is a responsible government and spurious arguments about 'consumer choice' etc really don't do it for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
