Sunday, March 16, 2008

Philippa Fighting For Social Justice

Philippa Stroud, the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Sutton & Cheam has worked closely with the Conservative councillors over the last year, adding a good brain, relevant experience and an extensive address book to our work. I hope we have been able to reciprocate.

Philippa will play a key role in any future Conservative Government through her work as Director at the Centre for Social Justice, a thinktank founded by former Conservative leader, Iain Duncan-Smith. The CSJ produced a doorstep of a report, Breakthrough Britain with 190 recommendations to follow up the interim report Breakdown Britain which highlighted social problems arising from social breakdown in the UK over the last few years. It looks at such areas as worklessness, debt, addiction and families. Gordon Brown has since adopted 16 recommendations as his own and David Cameron has incorporated 27 into his policy development.

We all know that the economy, public services and foreign policy are vital areas for any government. They tend to be easier to understand, attracting simple headlines and short-term solutions. Areas such as family breakdown are far harder to tackle. Many people I meet, shrug their shoulders and say that society is not what it was in years gone by without really stopping to think why and how we can effect change. It is good that someone is and has the drive and influence to see results.

Philippa appeared on Newsnight at the end of February on the eve of Gordon Brown's announcement about Welfare Reform. Paxman didn't need to ask her the same question more than once, never mind fourteen times as she handled herself very well as you can see in the clip above.


Anonymous said...

hey - there is actually a chance here to get an MP in Sutton and Cheam with some REAL influence in Westminster!!!

Simply being an MP doesn't guarantee influence. Even as an MP, influence depends on your competence, whether your party is a player or a spectator, how you are perceived in your party and the government and whether you are talking sense and making a contribution. Four ticks out of four here for Mrs Stroud.

Talking to, persuading and lobbying of senior MPs and Ministers are essential - and the basis and PREREQUISITE of any work or speeches done in the chamber being successful.

But to do this they must take you seriously and take your call.

Through Philippa Stroud's work for the Centre for Social Justice she IS obviously taken seriously. Evidence is on the CSJ website - look at Brown Watch and Cameron Watch.

A voice for Sutton and Cheam that will be heard but also LISTENED TO!

About time!!!

Anonymous said...! Philippa Stroud shouting for Sutton and Cheam? With an agenda to keep "Post Offices Open", when she can't even see the real reason for their closing. She, and the Tories can't admit that they are closing because of an EU directive. Because the Tories haven't the balls to admit that (it was a Tory that took us in in 1973 - grocer Heath I beleive), that they, and they alone are to blame for the state that we are in now. And what is Philippa going to say next? Will she replicate the Cameron/Osborne/Hague line that we can only "share the proceeds of future growth (! debatable) between tax cuts and public spending").

None of the present Tories, both locally and nationally have the balls to admit that Labour have painted them into a corner. They may be ahead in the polls, but a majority of people this evening (Sunday) that were polled (1,000) say they want tax cuts and the Tories offer them nothing.

So what is Philippa Stroud's take on that? Is she going to offer the "hard-pressed" according to Cllr Scully and the local Tories, tax-cuts, or are we to swallow the national line, that tax-cuts are not affordable? Even Philipp Hammond (a would be tory chancellor) had to admit tonight that tax-cuts are not on the agenda for at least 4 years.

So much for Tory guts.

Anonymous said...

.........oh and Paul - who was it Paxo had to ask the same question 14 times? Why none other than Michael Howard MP - the former Tory leader - who dodged the question FOURTEEN TIMES.


Unknown said...


Your point is? The Michael Howard interview was 11 years ago. I would be surprised if a representative of UKIP has been asked 14 questions by a Newsnight interviewer over that period.

Now, I know that you are too politically experienced to show up UKIP as a one-trick pony by posting an anti-european comment about post offices in a thread about social breakdown, so maybe you can reveal your thoughts on the matter to hand having laid the ground work in your previous posts here.

Scullduggery Watch said...

...then there is Councillor Paul Scully who has been asked countless times to offer his version of events regarding his role in the Sutton Conservative's "Night of the long knives" which resulted in him overthrowing Eleanor Pinfold, yet Scully has NEVER answered the question.

Then there is the matter of Councillor Pickles' immigration comments being labelled as "inflammatory" by Conservative Councillor Scully but then those same comments were later echoed by the Conservative leader David Cameron. Scully originally criticised Councillor Pickles' comments but did not offer the same scathing response to Cameron despite the Cameron quote on immigration being virtually identical to the ones made by Sutton's UKIP Councillor. Scully opted to stay mute on this subject despite being asked a great number of times whether he would retract his criticism of Pickles or alternatively offer equal condemnation to David Cameron.

So, whilst Philipa Stroud did not need to be asked a 'Newsnight' question more than once...

...that still leaves the following conundrum: How many times therefore must Councillor Paul Scully be asked a question before HE gives an answer?

Anonymous said...

Paul - my point is this. As I've said before, it's no good Philippa, you or me or anyone banging on about "post office closures". There is nothing anybody can do about it as it is an EU directive. You know that as well as me, and it is disingenuous of politicans of all parties to pretend otherwise. At least in UKIP we are trying to expose the real reason rather than trying to make political capital from it. Secondly, as you so rightly say, the general public are by and large pretty hard-pressed financially these days. BUT if the Tories could only grasp the nettle for tax-cuts it would give people something to hope for. Our policies aligned to leaving the EU (our central core policy as you are aware) would allow for that. I don't know what your experience of America and american politics is, but during the current financial calamaties affecting the world and it's markets, the yanks are going ahead and cutting taxes immediately, whereas we aren't. Sure inflation is a problem at the moment, and probably will get worse 6-12 months out, but it's a small price to pay (on a temporary basis) for re-stimulating an economy that's falling apart. Years ago Margaret Thatcher (remember her?), who I believe was knifed by her own party in a similar vein to what happened locally last year, would not have tolerated it. During her reign taxes were regularly cut, and that's what people look for now. It's no good Osborne crowing about being a "tax-cutting party", and then Hammond saying "we can't cut taxes for at least 4 years".

No wonder the general public are sick to the back teeth of politics and politicians. All I'm saying is why don't your party grasp the nettle? I would like to proffer I won't be the only defection before the next 2 years are through.

Anonymous said...

I am in favour of tax cuts. But tax cuts have to be fully costed, which is why the Conservative shadow chancellor Mr Osborne is quite right not to make feckless promises. Remember under Labour we have seen about 100 tax increases, including stealth taxes.

Mr Brown has been the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a decade (and arguably still is). Yes, the last decade has seen growth in the UK's economy, significant growth in fact, but Labour during the 'good times' didn't have the simple foresight to put money away. Why, after a decade of record levels of growth, does the UK have such high levels of borrowing?

Labour has squandered the proceeds of growth through its spending frenzy in the public sector, whilst also pushing up taxes to support that increasingly unwieldy addiction to high levels of public spending, and a deepening national debt.

To take Councillor Pickles’ point with regards to America, it should be noted that the American economy is in a better position to cut taxes than we are. Successive administrations haven’t squandered the proceeds of economic growth in quite the way Mr Brown and his administration has. The two situations really aren’t comparable.

The Tory mantra of 'sharing the proceeds of growth' between cuts in taxation and investment is, in my view, wise. And if we are to look to Margaret Thatcher for inspiration I think she would concur with this.

Lady Thatcher was a believer in economic stability to facilitate tax cuts.

It is very easy for a minor party with no real prospect of power to trot out promises of uncosted tax cuts because they'll never be called upon to deliver those promises. It smacks of lazy ill-informed politics, I have to say.

Anonymous said...

Well Michael, I agree with the thrust of your argument here, but I must say that the US has a far bigger budget deficit than we do, in real and percentage terms.

I've always said that "I didn't leave the Conservatives, they left me", and if you speak to people who have defected say to parties like UKIP they will say the same.

Remember, people were saying things about the Lib-Dems years ago that you said about "minor parties with no real prospect of power......". UKIP have markedly improved their membership both locally and nationally over the past 12 months, and the general public are sick and fed up with not being granted a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

How about the Tories really grasp the nettle and promise in their manifesto a final referendum on either in or out of the EU? What have we to lose? There's a big commonwealth to embrace out there which won't be costing us £2bn per WEEK to facilitate. My "attacks" here aren't personal in any way, they are political. I just wish the Conservative party could wake up and smell the coffee somewhat.

Unknown said...


Firstly this is a thread about social policy not post offices. Secondly, it is not true that the only reason that post offices are closing is as a result of subsidies. It has been reported today that many branches closing down are being pushed into a corner by the Post Office so that they are unable to offer similar services from competitors even though the Post Office are walking away from them. Initiatives from Essex County Council and others where they are seeking to take over Post Offices may be effective if they can demonstrate that they can reform their business to set them free within a short space of time.

Tax cuts are a real bone of contention but it is not realistic to band around unacheivable figures when the state of the economy at the time of a future election is uncertain. I was as surprised by Philip Hammond's comments as you were since we need flexibility as well as discipline.

I think you will find that Geoffrey Howe increased taxes early on in the Thatcher years to address specific problems. After proper reforms, Nigel Lawson in particular was able to reduce taxes substantially.

With regard to Scullduggery Watch, it is faintly ridiculous that each time you don't like a retort, you retreat into an anonymous personal polemic. Two questions have been asked, I'll try to give you two easy to understand straight answers.

I did not overthrow Eleanor Pinfold. She resigned on health grounds although it was true that a majority of councillors were not happy with the direction of the group. To make the assertion that one person controlled the feelings and the actions of that many councillors is simply blinkered and incorrect.

David Cameron has never echoed the words of David Pickles. Cameron has spoke about tackling the immigration issue by facing the challenges of a growing population. You can see a copy of one of his speeches at On the other hand David Pickles talked about the country bursting at the seams, and the countryside being raped as a result of immigration. I have always maintained that immigration is a significant issue that needs urgent action. However, we need to be responsible in our language and accurate in our arguments. Putting shortfalls of housing solely down to immigration is as inflammatory as it is incorrect. It is a contributing factor in many areas. The UK has one of the highest divorce rates in the Western world and unmarried parents are five times more likely to separate than married couples. Therefore it stands to reason that family breakdown necessitates two homes (that's homes, not houses for the pedants amongst us) in each of these cases instead of one. There were 148,141 divorces in 2006 and only 167,000 new houses built that year. Maybe I am missing something (I'm sure it will be swiftly pointed out) but this clearly demonstrates that family breakdown is the biggest single contributor to our housing problem.

So we come full circle to Philippa's work at the CSJ and her Newsnight interview...

Anonymous said...

Well Paul - I must say that is a full answer alright, but not quite right on the facts. Geoffrey Howe actually increased INTEREST RATES to squeeze inflation out of the economy - I know, I worked in the City at the time and people were aghast at 17% interest rates. "Social Justice" to me isn't being goody-goody and all prevailing about issues. It's about getting down to the guts of them, and one way to empower the "poor" as those who have vested interests in them, is to give them tax cuts. The trouble with the Tory party of 2008 is that it is full of Etonites who think they know best. I'm afraid Paul there is too much of a class system within the party, that is very noticeable I'm afraid in certain parts of Sutton & Cheam. It's the guy on the street who wants action and a vote for the Conservatives will just prolong the agony.

Unknown said...


Taxes rose by 1.8% pa between 79-83. The emphasis changed from direct taxes to indirect taxes therefore headline income tax was reduced in this period.

The interest rate increased from 12% to 17% to combat inflation as you say.

I think we are closer in agreement that it might seem. I would favour tax cuts as soon as possible but do not want to promise something that is undeliverable in the short term. This is why I was surprised at the Hammond comment as that timescale is very different. I would also support a flatter simpler tax system, though I believe that a true flat tax would be near-impossible to deliver. Social Justice is not about being goody-goody but is about tackling difficult issues alongside the economy and other areas. How many times has someone said to you on the doorstep "children don't respect their elders/ teachers/ policemen anymore" and other such questions. The baby boomers had children who have become parents with a very different outlook in a very different world to their forebears. Progressive education, easy credit, drugs and high divorce and teenage pregnancy rates have contributed to this change. This is not something that can be tackled with a red pen in a single budget. However, we know that it will not be tackled by a politically correct approach either. This is where the CSJ fits in looking at policy areas that
many Conservatives leave to others, allowing the Labour party to portray us as uncaring towards the vulnerable. We know this is not true, with many Conservative supporters involving themselves in charities and voluntary groups. It is this 'third sector' that the CSJ believes can deliver change; not the government in a Labour centralised way.

Scullduggery Watch said...

Asked if he was happy with the levels of immigration over the past decade, Mr Cameron replied: "I think it's been too high."

He said: "There are benefits from immigration and I want Britain to capture the benefits from that immigration."

But he said asylum levels were very high in the early years of the Labour Government and that, more recently, immigration settlement numbers had been similarly high.

"We have put too great a burden on public services and I think it needs to be better controlled," he said.

-Sourced from the Daily Mail, August 2007

Pretty much word for word what Pickles said in his letter to the Sutton Guardian that provoked you into calling his comments "inflammatory", eh Paul?

Pickles also said that housing and infrastructure could not meet the levels of demand currently placed on it by a burgeoning populous with it's number being swelled by unregulated levels of immigrants. So both the Pickles and Cameron statements would appear to tally quite closely.

Why is it many politicians simply cannot tell the truth? If you did not agree with Cameron then why not simply say, or would such honesty prevent promotion in your ambitious eyes, Councillor Scully?

Most of us see controlled immigration as a positive thing (I certainly do) but it is of course a system which needs a regimented format similar to the one used in New Zealand and Australia, the latter's ex-pat community have proved to be an enormous success both in the country's social vibrancy and in terms of it's buoyant economy.

I do believe that this was the point that Pickles was attempting to make...

Scullduggery Watch said...

'Paul Scullduggery' Watch part II:
(Scully's excuse being akin to that of Basil Faulty: "It's the law of England, nothing to do with me" Etc.)

"I did not overthrow Eleanor Pinfold. She resigned on health grounds although it was true that a majority of councillors were not happy with the direction of the group. To make the assertion that one person controlled the feelings and the actions of that many councillors is simply blinkered and incorrect."

This was Paul Scully's woeful effort at attempting to give, quote: "...easy to understand straight answers..." yet Paul was once again being economical with the truth.

To suggest that the Tory group revolted against Eleanor Pinfold without Paul Scully's controlling events behind the scenes is absurd as it is insulting to the voters of his constituency and the readers of this blog.

The voters should be under no illusions that Paul Scully was already 'sounding out' the other potential conspirators in the weeks leading up to the 'vote of no confidence' that was orchestrated by Scully, Shields & Co. WITHOUT Eleanor having any inkling as to what was about to happen.

Scully would have you all believe that he was the innocent chap who stood idley by and was as suprised as anyone when he was suddenly hailed as the Tory "people's champion"!

What utter rot! Well, some of us know differently...

There was a Sunday dinner held at another conspirator's home a few days before Eleanor's final meeting as shadow opposition leader. At this dinner all present discussed how to overthrow Eleanor. There was also discussion of who would hold what positions, who would be promoted to which job and what deals would be done with the Lib Dems (re: Councillor wages, another election pledge reneged upon!) once the coup d'etat was over.

Once the meeting was underway Eleanor was given no indication as to what Scullduggery Paul had in store for his soon to be former leader. Until that is it came to "Any further business?"

It was then that the councillor who has profited most from Eleanor's overthrowing finally took over the position with the local Tory shadow group that he most coveted.

Eleanor quit on health grounds? This is absolute nonsense from Scully as I have bumped into Eleanor in Cheam and have been assured by her in person that she intended on continuing at least until her year's tenure was complete (a couple of months down the line). However, the bloodlust and craving for power got too much for Paul it seems and he ensured she was usurped in the most undignified of fashions.

I also understand that a number of people, serving councillors some of them, were indeed disgusted by such actions (especially seeing as Eleanor had been suffering with such poor health, she could also have been gracefully swept aside in due course when her tenure was up for democratic renewal two months later without alienating certain sections of the Tory group) but due to the current balance of control in the Sutton & Carshalton Conservatives residing with the sociopathic powermongers it presently does it would seem that the more dominant contingent got it's own way...

Hence a loyal, hard-working Tory leader with a proven track record of success and of working damn hard for her residents and the rest of the Borough (especially those using the Social Services) has been knifed in the back and abandoned by her party when she needed them most.

This is what it means to be in the modern day Conservatives! Paul Scully won't tell you all the truth for he has been the chief instigator and the manipulator who has profited most handsomely.

Trebles all round then!

Scullduggery Watch said...



(Scully doesn't want you to know all this so rest assured that I, "Scullduggery Watch", has dutifully fed the Tory Moles and dispatched the little starnosed men in velvet jackets over to Benhill Avenue's Banana Republic HQ to hold a glass to the wall. That place has more leaks than a colander so once the Tory Commissars have reached their verdict I will of course post a news bulletin here! If Scully doesn't block my IP address first that is...)

Anonymous said...

Fantastic precis of events.
You must either have the Eleanorgate tapes or you must have been there.
No other options for your detailed description...unless its fantasy of course!!!!
All this anger must be eating you up inside.
Look to the future not to the past.
Eleanor i gather wanted to restore Sutton back to the Idyll of the 1950,s.
Lyons tea houses on every corner.
Macfisheries back in the High Street and the rekindling of shops in the style of Arkwrights "Open all hours"
We move on.The clock can not be turned back.
Wake up and smell the Roses.


Unknown said...

Scullduggery Watch

As is per your usual nocturnal style, you have taken a few nuggets and jumped to some speculative conclusions.

The only thing in common with Cameron's speech and Pickles' letter is that they agree that unchecked immigration is a problem; something I also agree with. They are in no way word for word. Indeed it is the language that I take issue to.

Suggesting that a group of conspirators divided up jobs between them and discussed any "deals" with the LibDems is simply incorrect. I have already stated that a number of councillors were unhappy with the direction of the group at the time.

You deny that Eleanor quit on health grounds and then comment on her poor health in the next paragraph. This is a matter of record with Eleanor informing all 54 councillors after a meeting of the Full Council. I did not become leader until sometime after this as there is the small matter of democracy to take into account first which ensures that one person cannot dominate a process in the way you suggest.

I don't mind you having your say and disagreeing with me. What does concern me is that you have simmered away for a whole five hours on this blog earlier this morning and will then only accept your truth gathered together through chinese whispers and a whole cellar of salt.

Scullduggery Watch said...

Five hours? Factually incorrect as not even two hours elapsed between the time of the first and last post (4:16am to 5:45am) but ok, this can be forgiven as selective amnesia is endemic in the Sutton Tories when it comes to numerical issues, after all Councillor Shields has recently been bemoaning the wage increases of public servants whilst ensuring that he got an extra £6k bunce over the odds in spite of the Tories pre-election pledges...

Hypocrisy? You betcha! Contradiction is alive and well in the Sutton Conservative group.

The pressure of me revealing the truth to a wider audience must be getting to Scully as Aardfart has been dragged out of mothballs to issue another pointless diatribe. Good to hear you squeak again though, Aard!

...and Paul, whilst Eleanor did suffer for poor health it did not mean she was about to leave office straight away- your faithful dagger put paid to those sentiments however when it 'accidentally' ended up between Pinfold's shoulder blades. Hence the reason you ducked this question so many times right here on this blog before offering a weakly-worded justification which conveniently omitted your role in the coup d'etat.

Take the sentiments of Cameron I posted above and then consider the Pickles letter of a year ago:

"The letter from Bob Steel of the green party last week, was, in my opinion, anything but green. To say that we need to massively build because of a "housing shortage" is shy of the truth. The main reason we have a "housing shortage" is because of uncontrolled mass immigration, mainly emanating from the EU. A number of years ago Margaret Thatcher instigated the "right to buy" policy, one of which I am very proud to have been part of because it gave people a sense of purpose and a stake in our society.Because we have no control of our borders this is something we can do nothing about. This is also putting intolerable pressure on our public services, with schools, surgeries etc., full up. Also it's not very 'green' to recommend raping what is left of our precious countryside"

-David Pickles, 2007

Pretty much word for word what Cameron said then, Paul? I fail to see what is so very inflammatory about such a letter especially when it's sentiments were echoed a few month's later by the Conservative party's national leader. The Tories complained bitterly about John Prescott's old office drawing up plans to tarmac over vast swathes of the South East of England which Pickles refered to when he mentioned the "rape of the countryside".

Anyway, more pressing matters are at hand. TICK TOCK, eh Paul? What does one wear to an execution...

p.s. Dear Scully...Please let us know right here on this blog whether you feel Eleanor should be booted from the Conservative Party later this evening?

We know that you have been actively pulling strings to have the threat to your office that is Eleanor vanquished forthwith but I would just like to see you admit that you desperately want to see the back of her, right here on your own blog!

Unknown said...

Mr Watch

A cursory inspection will show that the two comments on immigration are about as similar as Christian Ronaldo and John Terry just because they are both footballers.

I'll tell you what, you ask me the last question under your own name and I'll give you my own answer.

Scullduggery Watch said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

So Numbskull
What we have established is that you were at Benhill last night.
Democracy not your cup of tea then.
You are a bit like a child who doesnt get his own way and then starts to throw his toys out of the pram.
The Conservatives will now start to move on from this and will whatever you think start to move forward.
If you dont want any truck with that there are obviously other outlets for your politics and rants.
Farewell Numbskull and those from 10000BC.
You will be missed!!!!


Anonymous said...

Well I wasn't at the meeting last night for obvious reasons, but I'm sad to learn that Eleanor has been thrown out of the party. I presume that is locally and nationally?

For what it's worth, I found her a decent leader, a decent person and someone who would eventually have led (us) to success. I didn't like the way she was deposed, I didn't like the way no support was given to her afterwards, and I think there are certain individuals in the party who should hang their heads in shame for her treatment. Having said all that, it does seem that it was done with a vote, and no-one can argue with that if it was the genuine majority opinion.

Unknown said...

The above comment has been deleted on the grounds that it may affect any further action taken by Eleanor Pinfold as a result of a meeting of the Conservative Association, where her membership was terminated after a secret ballot.

The matter was considered by a meeting of the Executive committee of the Association which comprises of officers and elected members of ward branches.

The Adjudication Panel decision which led to Eleanor's disqualification and the subsequent by-election in Cheam included the finding that some comments sent to an officer of the Council showed evidence of racial prejudice. The Association takes any allegation of racism and discrimination seriously and took their decision accordingly. Eleanor has the right of appeal to the Conservative Party Board.

It is only proper to be consistent on this matter and so I will remove any further comments that stray onto the subject of this meeting. I hope that you will respect this in order to avoid turning this into a moderated forum.

Scullduggery Watch said...

"I hope that you will respect this in order to avoid turning this into a moderated forum."

Well, the deletion of my posts proved that it already is. Yet more evidence of Scully's dictatorial style of leadership. No doubt Scully will have the editor of the Sutton Guardian tied up and chucked in the boot of Shield's car if he ever gets bad press from them! God help us if they win control of the Sutton Council...

Scully is simply attempting to suppress bad news in the interests of his own political gain, a tactic used many times by the Blairite spin doctors during BLiar's ten year tenure in the PM's office.

Maybe the name "Paul Stasi" would be more fitting for the 'Dear Leader' of the Sutton Tories. There is certainly something of Erich Mielke about his leadership style.

"What we have established is that you were at Benhill last night. Democracy not your cup of tea then."
Well, Aardfart is certainly too intelligent for me. He must be the brains of Sutton's New Tory elite. Yet Aardfart is too bovine to understand that the term "democracy" has a very hollow ring to it when you suppress freedom of speech by deleting posts on a political blog.

Or does Paul Scully believe that democracy is best served by gagging the thoughts and analysis of others? I understand that it is an effective but autocratic technique used in Pyongyang to this very day.

For the record, this poster has no direct affiliation to Eleanor Pinfold other than knowing of the woman and liking her. My posts are not made at her request, nor do they necessarily contain her views or opinions. This therefore will not prejudice any potential legal action by any side in this debate.

"I don't mind you having your say and disagreeing with me."
-Paul Scully, 19th March 2008

So in light of the above statement, which is barely 24 hours old, would Paul Scully care to put his money where his mouth is and leave these posts on his blog for the benefit of "Democracy"?

Or is this really a blog which should come with the warning: "We welcome freedom of speech (Just watch what you say)"?

Unknown said...

It is with great regret that for the first time in two years, I have turned on comment moderation. This is not to stifle real debate which I have also welcomed but to stop one dominant voice adversely influencing any appeal that might be lodged by the person that S. Watch Esq. purports to support.

The deleted posts contains alleged details and allegations of a closed meeting that will work against any future process. Therefore scullduggery watch can offer the support to Eleanor Pinfold that he continues to state that she has lacked from colleagues or he can continue to publish information that is designed to bring the party into disrepute which the Party Board may consider to be detrimental to any argument against an appeal.

With freedom of speech comes responsibility and perhaps unwittingly, the deleted posts are breaching that with unintended consequences for Eleanor. She has been through a difficult time and, despite any differences, I am not prepared for a thoughtless series of comments to bring further problems.

Anonymous said...

Aardvark - I must take issue with one of your earlier posts. So what is wrong with wanting to "recreate the 1950's". What was wrong with those years? A Macfisheries on every corner, Lyons Corner houses. You do, of course, talk utter nonsense at times. In the 1950's old ladies could walk the streets at night, we wern't crowded out with uncontrolled and unlimited immigration, there was a sense of shame if an unmarried woman became pregnant, instead of the profanity of today's morals' (there aren't any in reality). You seem to be one of the "modern" Conservatives -saying anything for a vote. And you shout "democracy" to Scullduggery Watch - whom I think is doing a reasonable job exposing this thread for the untruthfullness it contains - when I read from the post above that "moderation" has now kicked in.

You really are a disgusting individual who wants his cake and eats it (perhaps your cake eating habits give us a clue to your true identity).

I look forward to the most bitter battle in local political history if (a) the tories have the guts to select you to fight Belmont, and (b) you have the guts to accept. At least then you won't hide under a cloak of a pseudonym.

Anonymous said...

Must be a good bottle of wine your drinking there David.
Are you sure it hasnt got antifreeze in it?
Takes one to know one as they say.
Happy Easter.

Ard Bunny

Unknown said...


Go back and read my earlier comment on 17th March about people who speak about the good times gone by. Your last post fits this bill. Again we come full circle to the original thread of the post. I'm not sure that leaving the EU or even controlling immigration could reduce teenage pregnancies. However sensible policies tackling social breakdown could.

Anonymous said...

Ah, but Paul, isn't Philipa completely against abortion? That way you get rid of the problem of teenage pregnancie at a stoke, don't you?

Or am I being rather naiev'e in thinking that only the Tories hold the key to the answer of our current problems, due to their very passionate stance on them.?

Anonymous said...

I think that Mrs Stroud's CSJ does excellent work. It seems to tackle the issues of today.

Anonymous said...

This Scully chap wants to pass himself off as the new Polly Toynbee. Yet if I recall he was quoted back in 2005 as saying to one of the Sutton activists at Benhill Avenue to only put the Conservative literature through the doors of the nicer looking houses in one of the local wards. This bloke obviously felt that the Tories didn't need to stoop to the same level as the council tennants and lower working classes back then, nor make them feel like their vote was important to the Conservatives. If I was a voter in Carshalton Central then I would steer well clear of re-electing hypocrite Scully at the ballot box. It seems a bit quiet on this thread since the New Tory Thought Police tried to silence everyone! LOL!

Unknown said...


Yet another cowardly personal attack with absolutely no basis in fact from someone who doesn't have the courage of their convictions to post under their name (nor the imagination to make one up!)

Your recollection of 2005 is at best simply incorrect. Why on earth would I tell anyone to do such a thing since it has no basis in commonsense or even effective campaigning? Which ward are you referring to? Who did I say this to?

You have really moved into the realms of fantasy here. But I guess whilst you are paying me such attention you can't be pulling the wings off any butterflies:)

Scullduggery Watch said...

I couldn't care less if his other pastimes include burning ants with a magnifying glass- this Anon chap has made a very good point as he wasn't the only one who heard such elitist sentiments from Scully.

One would have assumed that those on lower incomes were as worthy of their local politician's concern and respect regardless of whichever political entity the said local politician was a member of.

Yet another reason why Scully's claim to support the CSJ smacks of blatant electioneering.