May 3rd, 2005


userinfo senji
2005/05/03 22:31:00 - Flyer Review: Andrew Dickson (Lib)
Large Flyer: Outside, Inside
Small Flyer: Front, Back

I was going to moan about all being quiet on the Lib front, but </a></b></a>atreic was kind enough to supply me with one of the Small Flyers and one of the Large ones popped through the Rivendellian door today. Andrew Dickson is the person whose party I want to vote for – possibly not the best reason to vote for someone, but the one I suspect I'll end up using.

The small flyer is almost a placeholder flyer. The picture on the front tells me "Andrew Dickson would like you to think that he's a family man, but unfortunately he doesn't have a family, so here is a picture of him with his dogs". On the back we have a list of campaign promises presented in a slightly emotive fashion, however they really are only a set of bullet points. Whilst you might entirely plausibly be able to fund 10,000 more police (has anyone noticed how all the parties are pimping police?) by scrapping Labour's silly ID card scheme they give no indication of how they plan to produce Cleaner transport & Cleaner energy. And whatever happened to One penny on income tax, it appears we have Only one Tax Increase now – and I'm not sure that one increase will actually produce enough funds for what they suggest. And of course, here we have the LD's LIT claim; quite how Dickson and Lansley manage to fit a difference of over £1000 between average and typical, particularly since I suspect both families (if they live in Cambridge) are only paying about £1000 in Council Tax currently in a year… can we have some independently verifiable figures please people? Oh, it's too late now.

The Large flyer has the, by now traditional, claim that voting Labour only lets the Tory in. This is, of course, really irritating since in practice (as you can tell if you look at their graph which has a commendable lack of zero truncation) the LDs and Labour are about neck and neck. If all the LD and Lab voters voted for one or the other then they'd beat the Tory, but simple sniping like this isn't going to work.

On the back we have a similar bio to the one on the small flyer, with the same photo, but we also discover that Andrew does actually have a family – I must have been wrong about that…. We also find one of those faux-handwriting letters. Personally I think they make you look like a prat, but they seem to be all the rage this millennium. You can tell he's targetting a Tory constituency as well, and he's a bit sneaky in the way he associates the Liberal Democrats with the Liberal Party – an association that may be historically valid, but is a lot more dubious politically.

Right, on to the inside. Ooo, here we have a little box for each of the promises we had on the smaller flyer. Actually, no we don't, it's just a similar list. Oh, well. Now, what was I quibbling about above? Policemen: they appear to want to cut paperwork – nice idea, lets see you do it. Support for alternative fuels is hardly a detailed policy for Cleaner Transport. The tax increase only gets a sneaky mention under Free personal care when you need it and No tuition fees, no top-up fees. The Local Income Tax box points out that there are potential efficiencies in centralising the collection of that with the current Income Tax, but fails to note that this could easily lead to it just becoming another sneak method of funding National Government (like the 11th penny in NI). And someone should point out that merely not having to pay fees doesn't make University affordable for every student….

To a great extent I have to commend these flyer for saying a lot of Stuff. What they fail to do though is provide any backing for the Stuff – a criticism that I could have leveled at Lansley's Flyers if they'd said more than they do. On the other hand I still feel that I'm voting for the Party not the Man, and this irks me.
Current Mood: [mood icon] irritated
Current Music: Eurythmics – Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of These)
Entry Tags: atreic, flyer review, politics

< | 6 glosses | comment | > )

userinfo king_of_wrong
[userpic]
2005/05/03 23:10:37
I'm not sure that one increase will actually produce enough funds for what they suggest

Depends how much they increase it by, really... but 73p on basic rate doesn't really have the same cachet as "One Penny".
reply | thread )
userinfo vyvyan
[userpic]
2005/05/04 00:20:11
we have the LD's LIT claim; quite how Dickson and Lansley manage to fit a difference of over £1000 between average and typical, particularly since I suspect both families (if they live in Cambridge) are only paying about £1000 in Council Tax currently in a year… can we have some independently verifiable figures please people?

Although I'm not in S. Cambridgeshire, and don't claim to be part of either an average or typical household, I feel inclined to point out that it is quite possible to save Dickson's quoted figure with LIT, given Cambridge Council tax values. According to the LD's axethetax website, our household would make an 80% saving under LIT compared with council tax (much more than £450). And we're not that far down the national household income distribution, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' calculation.
reply | thread )
userinfo phoenixandy
[userpic]
2005/05/04 07:06:26
We've had flyers through the door from everyone, both for the Parliamentary, and Council elections, but we've only had 1 candidate actually knock on the door - the LibDem Council candidate.

This is hardly a shock given that the Lab & Tory council candidates actually live in other areas. In other Parliamentary constituencies, even. Heck, the Tory guy even lives south of the river. Funnily enough, that makes me even less inclined to vote for someone else. Add to that, Emma (the LD candidate in question), is obviously working really hard for this election. Besides the time she knocked on our door, we've seen her go by a couple of other times, and has been getting involved in community stuff for about as long as we've lived here, along with being the fact that she's the editor of the local LibDem newsletter.

All in all, even if we hadn't been planning to vote that way anyway, there's no way we'd be voting for anyone else. Certainly, in this case, we are voting for the person, and not the party. Yay!
reply | thread )
userinfo womble2
[userpic]
2005/05/04 13:00:39
I didn't feel like waiting for those huge images to load, but I can tell you the originals for the Lib Dem "handwritten" letters in the city are genuinely handwritten - though sometimes by people with neater writing than the candidate!
reply | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2005/05/04 13:35:20

It looks very regular to my eye, particularly note the three identical 't's in committted. I guess a human could produce that sort of regularity, but it doesn't look like it.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo womble2
[userpic]
2005/05/04 14:39:15
Oh, that's obviously a handwriting font, from the redundant joiners at the ends of words.
reply | parent | thread )

< | 6 glosses | comment | > )

Flyer Review: Andrew Dickson (Lib) - Squaring the circle...

> log in
> recent entries
> fiends
> archive
> toothywiki page
> profile
> new entry
> recent comments


> go to top