The Constituency of Durham North West

Oooh err Hilary did you get permision to say that?

Just saw Oor Hilary on News 24 saying that Tony will be gone by this time next year!

Story on the BBC here

Right Prescot gets two houses a salary and a car for doing nothing, well other than things with women that he is not married to.

Our MP has been sacked as Chief Whip for being a bit rubbish...

But she gets rewarded with the "CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER" role.

Oh and additional role of social exclusion minister.

Excuse me I've just spit my coffee over my monitor (Its ok I have 3).

From IcBirmingham:

And then there's Hilary Armstrong, the rottweiler of the Labour Party. As Chief Whip, she should be the Prime Minister's right hand woman - except she's become a bit of a laughing stock.

That's a problem for any member of the Government, but for a Chief Whip it's fatal. Better shoo her away.

Since the last bit of "News" from our MP.

I know I don't post much on here but I don't have staff or anything interesting to say really...

See:

http://www.nwdurhamlabour.org.uk/news/news_index.php

I make this point because as I don't read the dead tree press my only source of news from my MP and how I find out what she does for her dosh is from reading her website. Remember that she works for us not the government, Labour party.

It is not difficult to post an article to a website just to give an update, and if it is difficult on her site then I'll build her a website for free as that's what I do for a job (Well I get paid but you know what I mean) that will make it simple.

I subscribe to google news and get an alert when Hilary is mentioned, happens now and again but usually when they are either reporting how bad a job she is doing or when "Dave" points and laughs at her.

She never brings up anything in the house of commons because of her Job.

She does reply promptly to letters, but because of her job/position toes the party line.

Not posted for a while...but I can't help but laugh.

Seems that I am not the only one who is laughing stop sniggering Tony.

Thanks to Guido for the rather fetching image...

Well no great shock, Hilary is back off to London....66 majority eh that will keep you on your toes!

Turn out was down 0.5% to 58% which is a suprise in such a safe seat.

The great shock for myself is that Alan Ord the missing link man finished second with almost zero campaigning.

Also a shock is that Watts didn't lose his deposit. He polled almost 10% of the vote!

It seems that Watts took a great deal of votes from the Tories with their share dropping to 16.4% down from 20.9%.

Hilarys majority has dropped from 41.6% to 34% with a 6.8% swing of Labour voters to the Libdems. This has to be down to traditional Labour voters not being able to vote Tory as a protest vote.

I think that if Alan Ord had been given the money to campaign I think Hilary could have been in trouble, not beaten but her majority cut like next door in Durham City.

Well this has been fun, I will update this site with any further news as I find it today.

Oh here are the figures:

Hilary Armstrong Labour 21,312 53.9 -8.6
Alan Ord Liberal Democrat 7,869 19.9 +5.0
Jamie Devlin Conservative 6,463 16.4 -4.5
Watts Stelling Independent 3,865 9.8 +9.8
Majority 13,443 34.0
Turnout 39,509 58.0

2001:

Hilary Armstrong Labour 24,526 62.5%
William Clouston Conservative 8,193 20.9%
Alan Ord LibDem 5,846 14.9%
Joan Hartnell Socialist Labour 661 1.7%
Electorate 67,062; Turnout 58.5%; Majority 16,333 (41.6%)
Swing: 5.9% to Con from Lab

Thanks to Justin for the lovely graphic.

Well not just yet, but I thought I would give those nice chaps at local Labour H.Q. a reminder.

Over at Hilary's official website you get the chance to "Ask Hilary" see...

Throughout the campaign Hilary will be logging on to answer your questions online. If you are a resident in North West Durham and would like to submit a question please use the form below.

Now I submited a question to Hilary, which I got answered in person.

But I am curious as I see no sign of Hilary "logging on to answer" any questions so far.

Is this due to lack of interest in the feature or lack of interest in the campaign?

I would be interested to know if anyone has submited a question, or if someone from Labour H.Q. would like to share how many questions have been asked...

Right first off.

Read this.

Done?

Watch this.

Done?

Right then go and vote for a woman who forced sorry used politicals arguments to make other MPs to vote for the war in Iraq, will force oops ask people to vote for ID Cards (Cost to you only 50 pounds!) and all the other nasty things like the terrorism bill (I could be put under house arrest for doing this)

Or go out and vote for some one else.

Who, my recomendation is Jamie Devlin the only candidate who is really bothering.

Oh but the torries are terrorists aren't they...

Now I am no Tory for example...

Cut tax = cut spending = increase in spending from savings

To me is like

Cut pay = cut speanding = means I can buy savers bean rather than Heinz Beans.

I don't mind paying for "stuff" but anyway needed to highlight my non-Tory-ness first.

I got this excelent response to my earlier question on jobs emailed to all 3 candidates (Sorry Watts you missed out as I didn't have your email address at the time...you can email me a response if you like)

As I thought Hilary banged on about the New Deal in her reply.

Jamie does an excelent job of tearing that apart, this is long but if you want an view from the otherside give it a read.

Labour often claim that falling unemployment is a result of their policies but unemployment has been declining since 1993 and has very little to do with Labour - it is a result of the golden economic legacy they inherited from the Conservatives. In fact, since Labour introduced their much vaunted New Deal programmes in 1998, the rate of fall in unemployment has actually slowed.

Worse than this, what Labour are not so vocal about is the 1 million manufacturing jobs that have been lost since 1997, the 1 million people parked on incapacity benefit who want to work, the 1 million young people who are not in education or a job and the 2 million people who are classed as "economically inactive" who want to work but do not appear in the unemployment figures. What has Labour's welfare to work programmes done for these people?

The New Deal is one of the biggest red-herrings of Tony Blair's premiership. Its flagship programme, the New Deal for Young People (NDYP), has failed hundreds of thousands of young people looking for work. Since 1998, 1.1 million young people have been put through the programme, but only 37% have moved into sustained and unsubsidised jobs - and a sustained job is only defined as one lasting for more than 13 weeks. Nearly one third leave the programme for "unknown destinations" and the remainder return to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) or move onto other benefits.

The New Deal 25 Plus (ND25+) was introduced in 1998 and is a voluntary programme for unemployed people who had been claiming JSA for more than 2 years. In the first 3 years, more than 350,000 left the programme but only 17% found a sustained job. An enhanced programme came in which included mandatory participation, but the performance is still dismal. Over 665,000 people have now left the ND25+ 'enhanced' programme, but only 23% have gained sustained jobs. (NDYP and ND25+ Statistical Summary, December 2004).

The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) is open to all non-working lone parents and was introduced in October 1998. Given that NDLP participation is voluntary, those on the programme are a self-selecting group of some of the most willing to work lone parents. You would therefore expect the results to be impressive. However, the Government's own figures show that only 51% of people leaving the programme have so far left income support for any form of employment - the rest end up back on benefits.

Labour's New Deal has failed to help people get sustained jobs where they can build a career and save for the future. One of the architects of the New Deal, John Denham (former Home Office Minister), is now a fierce critic. In a recent speech to the Fabian society he said: "New Labour's big blind spot may be that plenty of jobs do not mean plenty of opportunities. The demonstrable lack of progress on social mobility remains a scar on the Labour Government." (May 2004)

Help needs to be concentrated on those who need it, rather than those who are likely to find work through their own efforts or general JSA rules. The large number of people facing serious barriers to employment, including the 2 million "economically inactive" people who want to work, deserve a scheme that really gives them the direct help they need. The Conservative Party will deliver radical welfare reform by allowing providers from the commercial and not-for-profit sectors to deliver specialist welfare-to-work schemes that help people into real jobs that last. We will replace the New Deal with two key welfare programmes.

"Work First" will offer a fast-track into work for long-term unemployed people. Jobseekers would be referred to independent contractors who would provide job-matching services in return for fees paid to them by government. Contractors could use the fees to provide the help they feel is best for jobseekers, not the help ministers think is best. For example, personal advisors would have the discretion to provide resources for a new suit or a short vocational training course.

"Opportunity First" will help sick and disabled people on incapacity benefit back to work. This scheme will allow specialist voluntary and commercial organisations to help sick and disabled people on incapacity benefit get back to work. For the first time, fees paid to contractors would include additional funds for medical and vocational rehabilitation for claimants. Again, financial incentives will be available for placements into sustainable jobs.

Now I am an angry young man, Iraq was two years ago and the Goverment would like it not to be an issue. But in my opinion they didn't listen to 1 million people taking to the streets of London, so this is the time when they should listen to us and this is the time when we make them listen to us.

It is not up to the Goverment to tell us the issues that are important.

The most important issue of this election in my opinion is Iraq and it is my chance to let them know I am not happy about them taking us to a war that was illegal. (Depending on how you read the goverment advice of course).

The only question I really wanted to be answered is one that I have asked Hilary over email so I decided to submit it last night. Now going on what I read on another blog I doubted the people in charge would read my question out, so I submited two others so I at least got a chance to draw attention to myself if I had to shout about Iraq at the end.

Now as I thought my question wasn't read out, so I decided to ask myself. Sadly my timing was rubbish as I opened my mouth the audience all clapped so I was drowned out...so the I word was not heard. I thought I would take a different tact and say that it was a question on the last topic "Truth" but the Chairman was having none of it and Hilary looked a tad annoyed.

Now under a bit of self-induced pressure I wandered up to ask Hilary my question.

Now this is from memory so this is just the "jist" of the conversation.

"Hello Hilary"

"Who are you, you don't sound local" (I think she thought I might be a ringer going by her tone)

"I'm John Wards"

"Where are you from" (Now I guessed the answer she was looking for wasn't "Scotland" as that was a tad obvious)

"Fir Tree"

"What are you doing down here" (Again I assumed she'd spotted I'm Scottish (Got to get up early to catch her out))

"I work in Castle Eden"

"Doing what" (I really think she thought I was a journo or something, as she was quite short with me)

"Web programming stuff" (That got her, "technical job ask no more as I won't understand")

Now I've been "grilled" I got the chance to ask my question.

"Do you feel proud that you voted for the war in Iraq, and as it is your job feel proud that you forced others to do so?"

That got her going

"You don't understand the role of a Chief Whip, I do not force people to vote."

"But the vote was a "three line whip""

"We don't force people to vote, we debate that is called politics"

"Did you not threaten Bob Marshall-Andrews QC, the Labour candidate in Medway, that cabinet ministers would not visit him in the election after he rebelled against the goverment over Iraq" (Now I have added the persons name to this as I actually said a Labour candidate)

"Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail"

"Don't worry I don't believe a word the in the Daily Mail, it was in the Independent and the Times"

At this point I think she had had enough of me, fair enough, and started speaking to someone else. She still hadn't answered my question.

Now I've done a little research on the role of the Chief Whip.

The duties of Whips include:

• keeping MPs and peers informed of forthcoming parliamentary business
• maintaining the party's voting strength by ensuring members attend important debates and support their party in parliamentary divisions
• passing on to the party leadership the opinions of backbench members

The term 'whip' also applies to the weekly circular sent out by each Chief Whip to all their MPs or peers notifying them of parliamentary business. The degree of importance is indicated by the number of times that the debate or division is underlined:

• items underlined once are considered routine and attendance is optional
• those underlined twice are more important and attendance is required unless - in the Commons - a 'pair' (a member of the Opposition who also intends to be absent from the division) has been arranged
• items underlined three times are highly important and pairing is not normally allowed.

'Three-line whips' are imposed on important occasions, such as second readings of significant Bills and motions of no confidence. Failure by MPs to attend a vote with a three-line whip is usually seen as a rebellion against the party and may eventually result in disciplinary action, such as suspension from the parliamentary party.

Now the vote in Iraq was a three line whip, so my interpretation of the role of a whip (Hilary being the Chief Whip) is to make backbenchers aware of the consequences of rebelling against the party..such things as disciplinary action, suspension, no help in getting re-elected...or possibly even a word in the ear of a young backbencher suggesting that it wouldn't be too good for his career...

No Hilary it is not your job to force members of your party to vote with the goverment when it is a 3 line whip.

Back to last night

Hilary finished her conversation and walked up to me and said:

"Yes I am proud that I voted for the war in Iraq" (I thought better of pushing the "forcing" issue)

"Even now we know the war was illegal?"

"The advice the Attorney General states that the war was legal"

"I have read the advice and I read it like he thinks without a second resolution that it would be illegal, to be honest the document can easily be read both ways and it seems he is sitting on the fence"

"I have read 100's of legal documents over the years and usually they are open to interpretation" (I concede this point)

Now onto something that was highlighted to me just before I left for the Hustings.

I took a print out of the legal advice the PM received before going to war. I asked if she had seen it. She said no but "I discussed it with Peter Goldsmith loads of times". Same as she said in todays Guardian.

On 20 March 2003, Tony Blair addressed the nation:

“Tonight, British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea. Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power …”

Oh yes Tony...

Finally, and categorically (my emphasis):

“Any force … must be a proportionate response … regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.”

Now I asked Hilary directly about this, her response was the following:

"It was not the main objective of going to war, if regime change was the sole reason for going to war then it would be illegal. But removing Saddam Hussein was always an objective of going to war"

Now stone me, I can never remember the removal of Saddam as an objective of going to war. It was always about WMDs. Thats the problem though, it was two years ago. How many times since then has Tony and his goverment said that it was an objective since then. If you say something enough for long enough it becomes fact.....it is hard to argue as you doubt it.

I got Hilary to repeat that.

"Yes the removal of Saddam was always an objective of going to war, not the only objective though"

At this point she walked off. I may have come accross a tad short with her, but thinking back she started it ;-)

I do think the goverment have got its way, Iraq is a non-issue to lots of voters. But not this one.

Well that was fun.

First off, Alan Ord did not even bother to turn up. What is the point of running, and for us voting for him if he can not even be bothered turning up to the Hustings?



I had 3 questions prepared, on Iraq, Jobs and ID Cards. I got my ID Cards question read out by the Chairman so I had to ask my Iraq question myself..more on that later as that deserves a blog on its own.

Impressions of the candidates:

Alan Ord: Missing presumed "can't be bothered"

Watts Stelling: Good local Councillor, but not sure about an MP. Came across well if a bit repetitive, personally I don't agree with his policies he seems a bit of a cross over of Tory/Labour.

Hilary Armstrong: Shes going to win and she knows it. She said that speaking to the locals makes her more nervous, but I don't know if that is a pre-made excuse for not being a very good public speaker. Lots of ums and ahs, forgetting names and quite a bit of waffling. Very much New Labour.

Jamie Devlin: Now if he was from the area he would do a lot better. Out of the 3 (Alan didn't turn up or did I mention that) he came accross the best. For a 25/26 year old his public speaking confidence was very impressive. Two complaints, I set Hilary up nicely on I.D. cards but he stole my thunder on the "choice" argument, secondly Hilary set the Goverment up nicely going on about truth and honesty and not one dig at back from him!


The audience was very pro-Hilary. At points Hilary threw fish at the crowd and the seals clapped back, if the meeting was in a less biased place it might have been better. We were in Hilary's church right accross the road from her house.

Now from my point of view most of the questions were boring, Pensions, Education and Health.

Hilary and Jamie did have words on the Health issue with Hilary accusing the Tories of counting porters in the statment that "there are more management staff than doctor and nurses" (well it was something along those lines). If I have the time I might check that one out. I did hear a shout from the crowd asking the Chairman to call order during this discussion.

Now on to my question on ID Cards. I asked the candidates what their opinion on ID Cards are and asked Hilary directly how much they would cost us.

Hilary then started her waffle, the basis of her argument was:

New Passports will have to in the future have biometric data on them (Iris, fingerprints, DNA), as will driving licences. The cost of Passports will go up to about £70, that is an increase of £28, and if you have one of these new Passports an ID Card will be in the region of £10-15. So we will take the higher end of that cost as that is usually what the goverment do.

So that is a cost to us of £43.

Now on to the "advantages" according to Hilary.

To fight terrorisim (Will get to that in a bit)
To cut crime/fraud

She doesn't see what all the fuss is about as other countries have them and they won't be compulsory for at least 6-8 years.

Now this is where I wanted an instant come back, as I could see the rather large holes in this..but the Chairman stuck to the rules sadly and let Jamie steal my thunder.

Jamie rightly pointed out that we chose to have a Passport and we chose to drive, he also raised the civil liberty argument.

Watts said he didn't have a problem with ID Cards and would like one card that is his Passport/Driving Licence/Cash Card and Swiss Army Knife (I added that last one). Watts said he has nothing to hide so the has no problem with an ID Card, now I did not raise this point with him at the time. I have nothing to hide in my house so should I just let the police/goverment just wander in when the choose, I have nothing to hide when I make a phone call should I let the goverment tap my phone? It is called privacy and I am quite protective over it.

Now I got my turn to come back at Hilary.

I brought up the choice argument again, I said I did not want to be forced to have an ID Card. She said that we won't be forced for a good few years.....comedy come back time.....with Jamie taking the lead and putting it much better than myself (God I am rubbish at speaking in public looking at the video my work mate took) we highlighted that only the terrorists would be forced to have an ID Card..much laughter etc etc. She then said that in a fast changing world that we need to put such things in place, but if we are not putting them in place for 6-8 years...we are hardly acting fast I responded....

I have to say that was fun.

The meeting was drawn to a close with the candidates being asked a question on Faith, the role of a politics and faith and telling the truth.

I really thought one of the other candidates were going to have word about truth and the liar Blair but they were soft.

The meeting was drawn to a close with out my Iraq question being asked. Not happy I attracted the Chairman's attention stating that I had a question that has not been answered. Hilary looked none too pleased and shook her head. I said it was on the last topic truth, I was told to come up and ask the question to the panel after the meeting...so I did.

That is my next blog, but my fingers hurt so I am off for a rest and a coffee...

Tonight 7.30pm at Crook Methodist Church all 4 candidates will be answering questions from the public.

I shall be popping along with a couple.

Most likely it will be the questions I have already asked...here is a little heads up for you.

For Hilary: Iraq
For Jamie: Jobs
For Alan: Did you find Crook okay.
For Watts: What, Who and Why?

My roving reporter "handily" broke down right next to this rather large Vote Labour poster

The goverment offered LG Philips a 20 million pound grant to switch to flatscreen production at its plant in Durham according to Hilary Armstrong:

Failed electronics factory LG Philips in Durham turned down a £20m grant for new technology.

The site is set to close in July with the loss of 760 jobs after the demand for tube televisions collapsed.

Now it has been revealed the firm turned down Government cash to move to flatscreen technology in 1999.

Hilary Armstrong, Labour candidate for North West Durham, said: "We offered LG Philips a grant of £15m to £20m to invest and move to flatscreen technology."

Plant manager David Coppock said the grant had been for widescreen sets which involved the same manufacturing process of cathode ray tubes. He said Durham was never chosen by the company to become a widescreen operation.

Hilarys website has also been updated.

The front page has been updated with the following:

Over £22million on new school buildings in North West Durham

Did they save that money from not giving it to LG Philips or is this private money..where companies make a profit out of running a hospital?

Also a new "news" story has been added, not sure why they make the dates up on the stories as because this story was added yesterday or today not on Sunday like the date suggests.

HILARY ARMSTRONG BACKS DRIVE TO “MAKEpovertyHISTORY”

I wonder if they could Pfi that?

It is a wonder Hilary Armstrong has time to fight for her re-election in North West Durham with all her press duties...

Hilary is in the news again today, following on from the city revival story yesterday we have some more quotes from Hilary.

Chief whip and Durham North West candidate Hilary Armstrong said: "It's not just the pretty buildings on the Quayside, although they are magnificent. It's also the determination to make sure, right throughout the city, we are giving people opportunities in their housing, in their jobs and their employment, in their education, in their skill development.

"All of those are part of the renaissance of this city."

Holly be-jebus...Jamie is getting some "high profile" support.


Ann Widdecombe was in North West Durham on Saturday have a tour of the area:

Beginning in Lanchester, Ann went on to Consett where she accompanied Jamie on a walkabout in the town centre, meeting stall holders and talking to shoppers. She then went to Stanhope and Wolsingham where she met members of the Weardale MS Society and Wolsingham Community Group.

Ann Widdecombe said:

“I thoroughly enjoyed meeting so many people in North West Durham. With countless broken promises over the last eight years, there is a genuine distrust of Labour in this area and people are willing to listen to what the Conservative Party can offer them at the General Election. If people want action to stop soaring council tax bills, get more police on the streets and see greater choice in their schools and hospitals, they should vote for Jamie Devlin on 5th May.”

Jamie Devlin said:

“I am delighted that Ann was able to visit North West Durham. Everyone we met was extremely supportive and told us how disappointed they were with Tony Blair and his Government. It is clear that the Conservative Party has a set of common sense policies that really do address the genuine concerns of people across North West Durham.”

It is good to see that the Tories are bothering to campaign, unlike Alan Ord (You think we should report him to missing persons?)

Should have taken her to the sights and sounds that is Fir Tree, we have 2 pubs and a petrol station you know...oh and a AA 5* B&B and a caravan park.

Ann might seem mad as a hatter but she is high profile and this will done no harm to Jamies campaign.

This is going to be my information page on PPC Watts Stelling, who is running in the general election in the Constituency of Durham North West.

Now as far as I can tell he is a Councillor for Leadgate in Derwentside District Council and is running again as a Councillor for that area. (fall back plan?) I also think that he is a Councillor for Durham Council.

He is also a member of the North East Assembly...not sure what that is though! Even after skiming the "What we do" page...sounds like a qunago to me.

He is also a Lab Supervisor at the University of Newcastle Centre for Environmental Change and Archaeology.

Also a quote from a reader:

"he's a councillor here in Leadgate, and if the state of the roads is anything to go by not a very good one"


I am sure he does good things, I don't know him or his record and I am only posting what I have been sent.

She is rather news worthy isn't she...

In a story about Dualing the A1 (Yippie!) Hilary sticks her oar in:

But Labour chief whip Hilary Armstrong said: "The desperation of the Tories is now reaching extraordinary proportions. They have promised new roads and road improvements across the country, none of which they have allocated any money for."

She is also quoted in a story about Students:

Labour's Durham North West candidate and chief whip Hilary Armstrong said more students in the North would be able to go to university because of the abolition of up-front fees.

She said: "It is written into legislation that the £3,000 cap will remain until 2010."

And today she is in Newcastle to launch a document highlighting the regeneration of Britain's major cities, including Newcastle and Gateshead and the wider North East, since 1997.

Spotted 2 "Vote Jamie Devlin" posters at the weekend, one on the roundabout on the A68 between Crook and Wolsingham. The second on the road to Wolsingham from the A68.

I missed Hilary Armstrong on the politics show on Sunday as I was busy doing DIY. I am not sure what she was fully talking about but I caught a clip on the news with her talking about pensions and OAPs.

The bigger news is that we have a New candidate.

Now I should have been aware of this on the 19th as thats when nominations closed but I just persumed that no one else would bother.

The candidate is called Watts Stelling and he is running as an Independant. From my initial google bashing I have found out that he is a Derwentside Councillor (Again Independant).

This is my new task, to find out at much information about him as possible. What he stands for, the reasons for running and most importantly why we should vote for him.

If anyone knows him, please get in touch.