As promised in this section I will publish my views on those subjects where political parties normally allow Members of Parliament to decide how they will vote. These are matters where there are no fixed Party positions and each Member of Parliament is free to vote how they wish. In Parliament these are called “Free Votes”.
Abortion
I believe we should retain the present position of allowing abortions to take place in certain circumstances . Because of advances in medical science I believe there is a strong case to reduce the time limit during which an abortion may be carried out. I would vote to reduce the maximum time limit from the current 24 weeks to 20 weeks.
Capital Punishment
I would vote to restore capital punishment for murder. I have of course heard and carefully considered all the arguments against capital punishment and I think that most of the objections can be overcome by allowing a jury to determine whether capital punishment would be appropriate in a particular case.
Euthanasia
I do not think there should be a law allowing euthanasia. I appreciate that it is legal in some other countries but I think that at present the law should remain as it is. The one area where I think there may need to be changes to the law is where a person may not be able to end their own life because of physical incapacity but if they were not incapacitated they would do so. I would not agree with their action but I can see that there are strong arguments for allowing someone the right to choose. This is an extremely complex subject and I would not readily vote for any changes in the existing law.
Hunting
I would vote to repeal the ban on hunting.
Organ Donation
I believe that we should retain the present system of opting-in to be an organ donor.
If you have a specific free vote issue which you would like me to publish my view on please feel free to post a comment.
I would be interested to know how you would vote for legislation that would concerning the creation of human-animal hybrids, so-called saviour siblings (children who could be created specifically for their tissues and part-organs) ?
Hi Jimm,
You raise a very interesting and difficult issue. On the one hand there is the argument that we would be playing God and we should not go down that road. There would be lots of tabloid headlines about Frankenstein babies. On the other hand I believe God has given us the skills, wisdom and knowledge to carry out these operations in order to relieve suffering and it would be wrong not to use them. There are so many different scenarios that need to be considered and I would need to research all the factors fully before coming to a final decision but I am slightly inclined to vote in favour.
I hope this helps.
Maybe each estate could have a community centre that could help both the young and the old together together. Then there would be an understanding because you are bringing the community together.
I’d like to know your views on gay rights. Should we repeal gay rights laws like the Civil Partnerships Act and the Gender Recognition Act? Do you think gay couples should be allowed to adopt?
Hi Matthew,
I do not believe anyone should be dicriminated against on any grounds whether that be because of a person’s race, colour, religion, diability, gender, sexual preferences or any other reason. I see no reason why the Acts you refer to need repeal at the present time.
I do not believe same-sex couples should be prevented from adopting. Personally, I believe a child is best brought up by a mother and a father although I accept others may think it is equally ok for a child to be brought up by two men or two women.
Hope this helps.
David
Your reply to Matthew P on 9 February, regarding the rights of gay couples to adopt is interesting and seems at odds to your own blog on 25 January 2007 in which, when standing up for the views of Roman Catholics who don’t want gay couples to be allowed to adopt, you said:
“My view is that just as there should be tolerance of the minority of people who are gay and lesbian there should be tolerance of those whose religious beliefs prevent them from placing children for adoption with same sex couples. Tolerance must be a two way practice.”
http://davidnuttall.info/2007/01/25/roman-catholics-and-gay-adoption/
Clearly it makes no sense to say that a gay couple can be both allowed and not allowed to adopt a child, so I wonder if you could explain how a policy based on your views would manifest itself – would the gay couple be allowed to adopt or should the Roman Catholics be allowed to stop them adopting?
Hi,
I think it is entirely consistent to be tolerant and believe that Roman Catholic Adoption Agencies should not be forced into doing something that for religious reasons they do not agree with.
Dont make me laugh about discrimination against the disabled. It is happening every day for the housebound disabled people. I am probably not to the only one with this problem of being labelled a ‘welfare scrounger’ due to the fact I am suffering alot from my disability.
However like other people, I am facing with the fact because I am housebound I don’t seem to have the right to have any online education or training so that I can work around my disability at home. No matter what person I ask to help me, there is always a catch 22 situation.
I admit I am not very well indeed and yes really I do need support in many ways, but in reality I seem to be in a catch 22 situation. I don’t want to be the burden on society, the only thing I can think of, is to work with a computer from home. Therefore, I am having a nightmare trying to firstly to convince people that I am genuinely not very well, but I am trying to pull my weight in some form if given a chance to do so.
The fact that the government are trying to get a ground swell of bad feeling against the disabled, by condemning the disabled for being on benefit is the same thing that Hitler did against the Jewish community in the second world war.
Yes there are those who have played the system very well however yet again the government don’t go after the right targets. The government should be making it harder for druggies and alcoholics who get extra money within their benefit to fund their activities. Yet like others I’m struggling to make ends meet and trying my best to live within the rules.
Why is it that the disabled are being treated worse than criminals for being ill? There is a kangaroo court going on at the moment with every disabled person going into the dock.
Nevermind what the government are saying, that they will support those who are ill, in reality, they don’t care as long as they can cut innocent people’s benefit off them.
While criminals are being able to challenge the government to claim benefits while these criminals are in jail for crimes that they chose to do and will receive benefits too because it is against their human rights to stop it from happening.
Well I hope the government will make the prisoners pay for thier accommodation and food while they are at prison along with the cost of all the activities they are allowed to take, after all the rest of us have to pay our bills to just to live on the breadline. Afterall by rights if a person cannot do the time, they shouldn’t do the crime!
However a criminal has more rights than myself, all I want to do is to try and work around the disability I have at home because my disability makes me unable to go out into the workplace without injuring others or myself in the process.
I have begged everyone for help in this matter, only to be ignored and treated as if I am in the way. The government starts schemes that are dependant on the Council sorting things and the Council are playing with people’s lives for political reasons. Therefore, disabled people are suffering as a result.
However I have no chance to have the basic human right to have the help to educate myself online and have the support to become self employed working online as a web designer or something so I may be useful and be able to become independent to be able to afford the basic human right of being able to fend for myself.
It feels like insult to injury, It seems unfair that criminals are allowed to assert their human rights to be able to have education that suits their needs so that they can have the chance to come out of jail with good qualifications, and help in gaining good employment with some of them coming out as solicitors. Then the criminals are going to be allowed to vote, that will mean even terrorists will have the chance to vote, when innocent people were left without enough ballot papers in the general public last election.
Yet no one will help me, the government will just cut my benefit and make it even harder to manage to live because all the profiteering that is going on right now, with all the bills going up more than inflation and just to shop for the basics, like bread and milk is a nightmare.
There is something sadly wrong with this country and i’m afraid that innocent people are always the ones to get hurt.
I was also wondering whether you agree with David Cameron’s views on sex and relationships education in schools. The Telegraph recently quoted him as saying:
“We do need good sex and relationship education. That education should teach people about equality, that we treat people the same whether they are gay or straight,” he said. “I think that is really important that we embed that in the ethos of our education.”
“Should we teach children about relationships? Yes we should.”
“Should we teach them about the importance of equality, whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual? Yes we should.”
“Should we teach them about civil partnerships being a way of same-sex couples showing commitment just as married couples show commitment? Yes we should.”
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7079542/David-Cameron-teach-children-to-treat-gay-people-equally.html)
Do you agree?
Hi Matthew,
I think children should be taught to treat everyone with respect. The family is the best place for children to be taught about relationships but I agree that schools should ensure that all children have the opportunity to be taught appropriate sex and relationship education.
Thanks
David
as the labour party has commited to giving a free vote on reducing the voting age to 16. would you give me an indication of your views on this subject.
thanks.
Hi Azhar,
I do not think children aged 16 should be allowed to vote.
Your Statement about Hunting is extremely vague. I would like to know why you would vote to repeal the hunting with dogs ban.
Today the BBC are reporting new research, published in the BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood, which indicates that there has been no overall improvement in survival rates amongst children born prior to the current 24 week limit for legal abortions in the UK over the last 15 years, despite a significant increase in the use of active resusscitation on severely pre-term neonates during the last five years covered by the study.
Does this mean you’ve changed your views on abortion as stated above?
Hi Shirley,
Thank-you for your comment. I have no plans to change my view but I will always, of course, contibue to take into account all the evidence.
Throughout this election campaign I have been convinced that the Conservatives are the party to vote for to help the UK with the economic recovery amongst other issues including the far from happy state of education. The stumbling block for me, however, is your view on the repeal of the fox hunting ban. I struggle to understand why any humane person would take any pleasure from the torture and destruction of an innocent and defenceless animal. I think you will find, David, that this archaic view on treating animals as sporting spoils will lose you many votes, including mine.
Dear James,
Thanks for your comment.
I think it is important that individuals have the freedom to choose for themselves whether or not to engage in hunting. I appreciate there are strongly held views on both sides of the debate but I feel it is important that I am open and honest about my intentions
David
James’ message mirrors exactly how I am thinking. Your declaration that you would vote to repeal the ban on hunting leaves me with a dilemma. I don’t feel able to vote for a candidate/party which would threaten the years of effort by so many people to bring about at least some protection for defenceless creatures. I strongly disagree with your view that it is up to individuals. Why do you consider it important that individuals have the freedom to choose? Sorry, David, that’s just not good enough.
We will have to agree to disagree.
As we have a local council in turmoil. Would you commit to using your powers as the local incumbent to halt their record as the ONLY local council in Britain to raise local taxes by the maximum every year since inception? (& also be the only one in danger of bankrupcy) ? Is this even possible given local government autonomy?
Reply appreciated,
Regards.
Andy
I do not agree that we have a local Council in turmoil. We have local elections today and I urge everyone to use their vote in both the General and the Local Elections
Once again David i must remind you that you are an MP and as such you should express the views of your voters and not your own. You have never mentioned, apart from on here, that you would like to see the return of a barbaric ( sport )something that i am sure would have lost you a lot of votes. I must agree with James and June but i fear it didn’t matter because your views were not widely known or canvassed at election time, shame on you.
How do you square your views on capital punishment with your religious views?
Hi,
God gave everyone a free will. No one is forced to commit murder. Under my proposal the jury would decide whether capital punishment was appropriate in any particular case of murder.
David
I totally agree, however I would extend the capital punishment for terrorism and I would also give paedophiles and serial rapists a choice either castration or capital punishment.
Any violent offender such as muggers, thugs, should be publicly flogged so they can know what it is like to be hurt, and then they would then be tagged and they would enter the program of public service program with thieves and vandals would do pubic community projects of cleaning up our country such as rivers and the graffiti and all other council projects, such as cleaning up local beauty spots that have been spoilt with litter and such.
Not only that, if someone is arrested on drunken disorder offences they should have join the public service program within their spare time for at least a month.
As for people who show this country up by going abroad and causing mayhem such has football hooligans, they should go on to this program as well for the same amount of time should they have done the offence in the UK.
Not only that they should be publicly humiliated with the title of their crime on a bright yellow boiler suit which they would have to wear at all times when they were on their duties.
Once they were finished their duties, they would go back to jail sentence.
I doubt anyone would come back for seconds.
I would also bring back discipline in schools such as caning to stop bullying because if a child doesn’t know what it is like to feel pain when they have been bad, then they don’t care what pain they inflict on others.
The police should also be given the power to be able to take the people making others lives a misery in allowing them to use the force necessary to stop thugs from making people’s lives a misery.
It would be lovely to be able to get back to being able to walk down our streets and let children play out without the fear of people being hurt. When we had the local bobby who could give a child a clip around the ear if they were being naughty, children had respect for their elders and they knew what they would get if they crossed the line.
We used to be a proud country but it looks like the people of Britain have lost their sense of pride, duty and community values, for country as a whole, it used to be that we cared about each other, and we are a laughing stock amongst other countries because the politcal and legal system.
However this country is too soft, we tend to listen to much with the ‘do gooders’ and the ‘political correct police’ to let any common sense polices come into play to clean
up our legal system and our country.
‘No one is forced to commit murder,” Then surely this must apply to your proposal for state executions too, which are after all still murder?
Your views are seriously at odds with your proclaimed Christianity. How can you be a follower of Jesus: a man of peace and forgiveness, who himself was killed by state executioners for no other reason other than the authorities didn’t like what he was saying? And support killing another human being by state execution? To say that it would be up to the jury is a poor ‘escape clause,’ you will be responsible above all others, all juries if this inhumane, uncivilized punishment is re-introduced to the UK.
You make no sense at all. I cannot see how you can truly be a Christian and hold such views. They are inconsistent and hypocritical.
On what grounds can you support the repeal on the ban on hunting? This barbaric ritual has no benefits to farmers, is not supported by the majority of civilised people and is just a means of sstisfying the bloodlust of a demented aristocracy who have nothing more constructive to do with their time. Regarding individuals having the freedom to have a choice in whether or not they can hunt, this argument does not have any substance in a civilsed society. Why not bring back public hangings or floggings, is that for later on in your agenda?
I really think we should have a big public referendum on all these issues and on other very important decisions, so that the government would have a mandate to carry out the people’s wishes.
We do need capital punishment and we do need floggings to start again.
There are too many people who are getting away with crimes with just a slap on the wrist.
It is obviously not working otherwise we wouldn’t have to spend billions of pounds keeping these criminals in jail when that money could be better spent on the NHS.
The government receives a mandate at the election. There is no need for them to give a referendum on every single manical, authoritarian measure that dribbles out of your brain spout.
David, I find it insulting that you have declared your intentions of voting in favour of repealing of the Hunt Act when you are fully aware that this is not reflective of the true public opinion on this in Bury or indeed of the population as a whole. Who exactly are you representing in Parliament? Your constituents or David Cameron and the Countryside Alliance?
By voting in favour of a repeal you are condoning bullying.
Are you aware that tenant farmers are routinely threatened with eviction if they request a hunt not to ride on their land? That they and their families live under a cloud of intimidation from the hunt and that they are often subjected to violent and criminal reprisals if they involve the press or the police? I am and many of your other constituents are also.
We’re unanimous in our belief that hunting is cruel and know that it has been proven to have no effect in controlling the size of fox populations and our views are echoed by the RSPCA, IFAW and the WWF. How can you impugn the legitimacy of their work – the work of independant animal welfare charities – and instead rely on the weak and franly biased findings of the Veterinary Association of Wildlife Management when they are strongly affiliated and financially aided by the Middle Way Group. The Middle Way Group which is inextricably linked to the Countryside Alliance. Were the Countryside Alliance not found guilty in court of intentionally misleading MP’s by exaggerating the financial impact a ban would have on rural communties? Is it not a fact that of the 560 vets representing the VAWM that the majority are equine specialists or proprietors / partners in small practises in rural hunting communities and thus profit from the hunt.
Despite pro hunt spiel, foxes are not classed as pests by DEFRA. You cannot hold up the ‘pest control argument’ when hunts deliberately encourage foxes to occupy their land. IFAW have released footage filmed by hunt monitors of employees of the Cottesmore Hunt raising and feeding cubs in an artifical earth which they later flushed with terriers. Members of the Duke Of Beaufort Hunt also admitted in court to building artificial earths and leaving animal carcasses on the Beaufort estate to encourage foxes to settle on hunt land. Again the earth was flush for a hunt.
Unlike 75% of the population, you may not care much for the welfare of foxes but you obviously care from Cici so I hope you will show her brethren some sympathy. As they stated before the Burns Inquiry, the RSPCA have never been asked to rehome a fox hound. They are destroyed when they outlive their usefulness-usually around the time they turn 5 or 6. Without pomp or ceremony they are shot, their bodies piled in bins. Ask IFAW for photos David, or google it. It’s ugly and it’s real. Terriers, used for digging out a fox that’s gone to ground, rarely receive veterinary treatment for lacerations they suffer. They parade their war wounds at shows. They call them badges. Do you think this is something to be proud of?
We don’t David and nor should you.
Remember, we will be voting again in 4 or 5 years! Speak for Bury.
Sir,
I am at a loss to see how you can reconcile your views on abortion and euthanasia. Voluntery euthanasia is often the kindest way of ending suffering. If someone is of sound mind, why is this wrong?
Abortion is an abomination. The child has no choice. I can understand it if there is danger to the childs mother, or in rape cases, but they are rare now. Most are cosmetic.
You claim to be a religoius man, unless I am wrong the established church regards abortion as a sin.
I think your constituents would like an explanation of this dichotomy, I certainly would.
I dare you to answer.
Dear Dr Paterson,
Of course I will answer!!
These are my views and I do not expect everyone or indeed anyone to believe in exactly the same views but at least I am prepared to be open and honest about these matters.
Thank-you for your comment. I am concerned that if we legalise euthansia it will be seen as the thin end of the wedge. I am persuaded by the argument that some elderly people may be put under pressure to request euthanasia if they think they are becoming a burden on their families.
As for abortion I do not think that it is realistic for abortion to be prohibited in this Country and that is why I would vote for a reduction in the number of weeks but not an outright ban.
David
Mr. Nuttall,
You accept it is morally right to end the life of unborn children without consent of the life being ended, but you believe that it is wrong to allow consenting adults to end their life. What planet do you live on??? The Conservative website – which you have directed to in the past – appears to be your only point of reference??? Have you no thoughts of your own???
Have you no morals? I believe you are a Churchwarden. What are we supposed to believe about the morals of this Church. They say the Anglican Church is the Conservative Party at Prayer. I now believe that.
I challenge you to answer this, but I expect nothing. Your views appal me.
Regards,
Tom Paterson
Dear Dr Paterson,
Of course I will answer. The answer is that these are my views and I do not expect you or anyone else to agree with them although I know from speaking to people that many people do share my views.
David
Mr Nuttall,
I expect you to delete my questions. They are probably too difficult for you to answer. BUT it won’t stop me being a nuisance, I believe in democracy – unusual in Britain – I intend to pursue our representatives and make them accountable. Whatever it takes.
Regards,
Tom Paterson
Dear Dr Paterson,
As you can see I have not deleted your questions.
David
In addition, I dont know if you are aware but your website is running on GMT, not BST.
Hopefully resolved.
Thanks
David
Mr Nuttall,
You are quite right, many people hold your views. But are they moral?? I believe not, and the official view of the Church of England is, I believe, strongly opposed to abortion. Look at their website, I did, and that confirmed my belief. Presumably you are just a populist, but why are you holding an office in a church which has fundimentally different views than your own. For votes, I suspect.
I may sound very Catholic, the reality is that I was brought up as a Scots Presbyterian, the opposite end of the religious spectrum to yourself, and we belive in the sancity of life.
Your position in the Church of England detracts from it’s credibility. It’s acceptance of you as an officer means, in my view, that it has diminished authority, if any at all.
I dare say that your views are in tune with the Conservative website, which you seem to rely on so much, but your constituents??????????????? Only 40% of those who bothered to get out of bed voted for you. Marginaly more than one in three. Not a good result, absolutely nothing to be proud of.
I had a close encounter, I almost voted for you but I didn’t because of your reliance on the “Conservative Website”.
No chance next time.
Best wishes,
Tom Paterson
Moderation??? Deletion perhaps. We will see.
Too difficult to answer Mr Nuttall????????
Dear Dr Paterson,
Forgive me but I thought I had replied to all but your rhetorical queries. Please re-ask any further queries.
Yours sincerely
David Nuttall MP
David, I’m somewhat disturbed about your desire to see more public money diverted to keeping the monarchy in the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed!
Why should nurses be getting sacked while Prince Charles gets public money to charter luxury jets to give speeches at climate change conferences? I’m not republican, but giving this family more money is right down on my list of current priorities!
Poor David,
He has to make up for us not having an MP for the last 10 years, also there is so much going on, it everyone’s head is spinning trying to keep up.
We have all got issues, that we have had on the back burner for a while and no one to collar. Everyone is worried out of their head on issues that maybe other people could help to answer, sort of like a Bury Support Forum, where we can bring councillors, housing, Bury PCT, social services, and other heads of local services, together, who maybe able to answer peoples concerns on the forum, with people engaging on real dialogue. We all know that there are going to be cutbacks, and there are real life forum meetings that people cannot get to because they have either got childcare, caring, or work commitments. This helps get the best possible feedback to officials as well as the real-life forums, which could link up together through, newsletters.
The forum itself gives people a chance to have their voices heard, and people to answer their concerns maybe at different times. There is so much that can happen with this type of thing wchis would be a good thing for the Bury People.
I really think poor David is in the hot seat.
If you need to get an interactive forum up and running and linked to here, where we can all discuss issues and get this thing going, then I would be happy to help out.
Tanya Headley
Hi
I’d be interested in how you ascertain your constituents’ views I was rather taken aback at your recent assertion in the House of Commons that “most of my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington feel that if there is not enough time during a short prison sentence properly to rehabilitate persistent offenders, rather than not send them to prison, the solution is a longer sentence?”
Can you tell us how you came to the conclusion that most of your constituents share your views on this – or, indeed, on any other matter?
Dear Mr Emblem,
Thank-you for your comment. I speak to many people and very few ever say that they think that sentences should be shorter. We must not forget that the Courts only send criminals to prison as a last resort. I believe it is very important that criminals are given every chance of rehabilitation.
Thank-you
David
The problem with this theory, is that with the government that has no money left, why should we be spending more money on dangerous criminals.
Serial Murderers, paedophiles, serial violent rapists, terrorists, are no use to our society, so why spend so much money keeping them, when a rope or either lethal injection, would be so much cheaper. What is good enough for Sadam Hussain is good enough for the scum that make other people’s lives a misery.
The money saved and room saved from keeping this type of criminal could either help to rehabilitate other less of a threat to society as a whole or it could be used to fund more police, doctors, or nurses, which makes more sense.
When money is tight, priorities should be looked at. It is about time we started listening to common sense than the ‘political correct police’ who have a stupid agenda that is ruining the fabric of our country.
If the crime was their first crime and they are truely sorry, then yes I do think that rehabilitation is fair enough.
However for serial rapists, murderer’s, terrorists, and very volient criminals, I really do think that capital punishment should be brought back. With us being strapped for cash, surely if these people were not having to be kept, we could put the money to better uses such as the NHS.
I also think the birch should be brought back for holigans, I really do think that having public humiliation and this punishment would make people think twice about the crime they are going to commit. This again would save money.
What gets me from time to time, yes I think it is important that everyone has their own personal views. However sometimes I really do think that MP’s sometimes take this a bit too far. When an MP is elected to represent their constituents, I feel sometimes that people of the constituency are not really represented on topics which are very important to them.
For instance, crime and punishment, I come across many people who do feel that justice is a complete joke for victims and system concentrates too much on rehabilitation, than actually punishing the criminal. For instance, if you get a long enough sentence, you can get enough free education, to have any trade you want on the outside, even become lawyers and solicitors themselves, which is unfair on the people who do not commit crime. There are lot of people who do wish to see the death penalty come back for murderer’s rapist, paedophiles be castrated and corporal punishment for louts.
Most people hate the EU and immigration, the governments that have been in power have constantly undermined British People by allowing economic migrants and the EU invade Britain and rip it to pieces and then rape Britain for all her resources. Yet the public have been completely gagged by the racial equality bill, that discriminates against the indigenous people, yet we cannot do anything about it. The government sends billions of pounds over to the EU who cannot balance their books and over to countries that think more of arms, than feeding their own people. Yet, in the next breath they say they haven’t any money in which to support British people. Really what should be happening, is that Parliament and the government should be looking towards looking after our own people before letting more economic migrants enter Britain or sending money abroad.
Why can we not have a referendum on these important issues at the time of the elections, then at least the MP’s would be able to work something out properly, instead of just looking out for their own personal views, which to me is wrong. You are there to be representing our views, not just your own personal views.
Hi Tanya,
I have to represent 68000 people who have a wide range of views and opinions and I try and reflect what I believe to be the general opinion. Obviously, whatever view I take there will always be thousands of people who disagree bit I am afraid that is the nature of politics!
David
Tanya,
You say that most people hate the EU & immigration, but at the last election the vast majority of the electorate voted for one of the pro-EU, pro-immigration parties (Liberal, Labour, Conservative, Plaid, Scots Nat, etc), and only a tiny minority voted for anti-EU, anti-immigration parties (BNP, UKIP, ED, etc). If people start voting for the BNP in large numbers, then the main parties might change their stance on these issues, but unless people change the way they vote, the main parties will continue to bring in more immigrants and subject Britain to more EU domination, because these policies win elections.
Yes there are businesses struggling due to the EU’s inference. We have to pay over £40 billion a year towards the EU who cannot balance their own books.
Now in the news just look at us having to bail out Southern Ireland’s banks because they are in the EU. Not only that our own banks are under threat with Santander who is a Spanish Bank, who is aggressively taking over British banks. (There used to be ‘The monopolies commission, where did they go? or was it beneficial to get rid of them so that the foreign firms can take over Britain’s companies and throwing British people out of work by taking our industry abroad). Santander have already took over the Abbey, Bradford and Bingley, The Royal Bank of Scotland, and now they have their eye on Lloyds TSB. In a bit there won’t be any ‘British’ banks, here, so they will not have to bide by ‘British’ rules. This should be looked at very carefully, however it seems to be that the successive governments of this country are all out for political gain and they do nothing to stand up for our national interests. All because the EU expects us to have more European Banks. This is probably why we are having such a bad customer service from this bank but all is well as long as they help with the next election process by donating the big three parties. So there won’t be any debate on this issue.
Then there are the economic migrants from Eastern Europe who are swamping our country, and if the government are serious with the reforms regarding the unemployed. Surely we need the jobs that are being filled by the Eastern Europeans and other economic migrants.
Even if some of the economic migrants do set up businesses, they are break the rules regarding equal opportunities which is supposed to be an European Initiative. They tend not to employ the indigenous English People, only people from their own country, however nothing is said about that, but let it be the other way around there would soon be an outcry.
Europe is swamped with bureaucracy and red tape that costs us billions each year and our rebate is always up for discussion, due to the fact they don’t like us having anything. Europe wants Britain to be divided, and our government are giving in, by dividing Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is an old saying ‘ United we stand and divided we fall.’
There are people who do find it very worrying that we are being ripped apart ready to be took over by this horrible political wing of Europe. Our Sovereignty and our way of live is constantly under threat. We should have never opened the channel tunnel,as it has been our defence for centuries. Since the opening, we have been invaded by numerous illegal immigrants, who have been encouraged by France to come over.
Meanwhile, France is supposed to help maintain secure borders for both the UK and herself. However, with our borders that are not secure, we do not know how many illegal immigrants are illegally working in the UK, that not only costs our country in tracking them down and deporting them, but this practice also costs jobs and other resources.
French workers are also to target ports, airports and the channel tunnel, whenever they have a dispute by blocking our trade, by either stopping our lorries getting through or closing the tunnel. This is against European Rules, because we are supposed to be allowed freedom to be able to complete our business journey’. Yet if we did it for any reason there would be an outcry. What about the many companies that went to the wall by the lorry strikes in France, those people where never compensated by France for their lost of their livelihood.
Believe me, people are getting fed up with foreigners getting special treatment, while our own indigenous people keep suffering. As all they have to do is refer to the ‘racist’ card, and they get what they want because the authorities are too scared to do otherwise, in case they get sued, because of their ‘human rights’ when the indigenous people get ignored as there is no one standing up for their ‘human rights.’
I am not being racial on this, but when our own indigenous people cannot afford the human basics such as being able to get married, have a nice home, children, to grow old without the worry of who is going to care for them, being able to eat healthy with meat, fish being able to be in the diet and to be able to heat our homes.
The stupid thing of this situation is that we can be self-sufficient because we do have resources and technology along with our own farmers.
We have got to realise that we do have to look into the future with our technology if we are to move forward, we do have to look landfill sites, and instead of allowing them to continue as they are, to recycle what we can. Find more efficient ways of heating our homes, without the need of Europe who charges over the odds, because we are dependent. There is a technology out there to help eg
http://www.house-energy.com/ however, we are investing billions in other countries instead of getting our infrastructure sorted. However we cannot do that because we have to allow foreign firms to tender for these projects, so our own people do not get a look in.
We have been too busy to sell our industry and our knowledge abroad,eg, textile trade, now our own people have been thrown out of work, while cheap imports line our stores. You would find it hard to find any textiles now that are made in Britain now or textile firm in Britain now.
What angers me, is that we are not learning any lessons from this we are still selling Britain short, by not investing in our own people. At every available opportunity, the government is allowing foreign companies to come over to Britain, giving them every help, and once those companies have had all the help, they bide their time and then once they have our ideas and technology they go back to their own country, throwing all the British People out of work for example ‘Rolls Royce’ cars.
Meanwhile the government is sending billions abroad for aid and Europe and keeping Trident alive, when the government are teaming up with France for our defences (which is a very bad idea) where we should have our national defence. Then something isn’t quite right. Our own people should come first and there are a lot of people within this country who do feel the same and trust me, they are getting fed up of being ignored. If the government keep ignoring our people’s concerns there racial changes in the future.
Sometimes the people of England would love to know who is standing up for the people of England. For instance it doesn’t seem fair why the people living in England have to pay for everything while the Scottish and Welsh people keep getting away with things like prescriptions etc. Why Should they get free prescriptions while the people of England have to pay? I bet we have to pay extra because they are not paying their way.
No Europe has a lot to answer for, and I hate Europe, what they couldn’t do in the wars they have had with us over the centuries, by bankrupting us economically in peace and the government will not wake up and smell the coffee until it’s too late and we are totally occupied by Europe, if we not already are.
I know what I am saying isn’t politically correct, however there are a lot of people who do think, myself included that Enoch Powell was right in his assessment of what would happen to our country.
European Union was supposed to be about trade, not political, however it will not be long now, when we will not have our own borders anymore and our country will be took over. The MP’s seem to be puppets of the EU now, with the EU taking more and more power with each new treaty they come up with, that our politicians are too eager to sign.
The only person that stood up for us was Margaret Thatcher, but unfortunately people around her got rid of her at the time.
That is why the government keep avoiding the question ‘should we stay in the EU?’ because they know the answer would be no and the gravy train that the EU, MEP’s would stop.
Well how do you know what the general opinion is, if you do not ask people directly?
VERY good point!
I have been prompted to add to this blog after this week’s EU revolt by the backbenchers with David Nuttall at the helm. He and many other Tory MPs have been espousing that they are standing up for the ‘majority of us in the UK,’ but if David Nuttall’s election votes are to go by then he and others like him do not even represent 45% of the overall population
I live in Bury North and I didn’t vote for David Nuttall, yet he presumes to know what my opinion is. Surely he should have had some local debates for people to attend and also polls taken of the local populations’ thoughts. Market research in the town centre is an ideal way to gauge alleged ‘general opinion.’ Or on-line questions, or a page in the Bury Times asking local people what they think. But non of this took place.
Being that David Nuttall gained less than 42% local votes at the last election, how can he claim to know what ‘general’ aka the majority of people think when the majority did not vote for him?
“In terms of the overall vote across Bury the Conservatives had 41.4%, Labour had 33.9% the Liberal Democrats 18.4% ( the rest is BNP and Independent ).” Just over 52% of Bury North voters did not vote for you David and that was with a low turn out, so just imagine how any others you do not represent either, by which I mean people who chose not to vote at all.
Thank you for your reply.
My main complaint remains that you should not claim that most people share your views on a subject when you can’t substantiate that opinion except by saying that you “speak to many people”.
With regard to the question of sentencing length, I think you take a rather outdated view. The biggest recent study I can find on the subject – that by the The Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University, entitled “Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: an analysis of recent research”, concludes that ”the studies reviewed do not provide a basis for inferring that increasing the severity of sentences generally is capable of enhancing deterrent effects”.
Interestingly, your own Ken Clarke appears to share this view – he was recently quoted as saying that “banging up more and more people for longer is actually making some criminals worse without protecting the public.”
You have only got to look at the countries that do support Capital and Corporal Punishment with long prison sentences for crime to see that their crime rates are much lower than ours.
In addition, some of the prisons look like 5 star accommodation, the criminal doesn’t have to pay anything for their board or their food and all the activities that the prisons have for the inmates.
The government should have a duty of care to stop criminals hurting innocent people. Yet it is the victims of crime who are not heard at all.
Until the government starts governing with some common sense policies, we will have a society that is broken.
Can you tell me how long you have known about the plan to build an industrial estate in the Green Belt in Walmersley and whether you support the idea.
Thank you.
Dear Jim,
Your comment is the first I have heard of such a proposal. I do not support building in the Green Belt.
I hope this answers your query.
David
As you know, many respected organisations such as Oxfam are promoting the idea of a “Robin Hood” tax – which was recently well received in the European Parliamnet.
Can you tell us your views on this?
Many thanks
I do not approve of a “Robin Hood” Tax. I think the problem we have is that we have too much taxation not too little.
Thank you for getting back so promptly, though I am disappointed that you have so little sympathy for an idea which could be used to reduce inequality.
I am interested to learn that you appear to be – once more – at odds with mainstream Conservative opinion (see my earlier comments on law and order). George Osborne has shown an interest in the Robin Hood approach, though I don’t think he uses that term.
I understand from one of your Conservative colleagues, Jeremy Wright MP, that the Chancellor has announced plans to place a levy (ie a new tax) on banks’ balance sheets from 1 January 2011. This will, he hopes, raise more than £2 billion, paying for the risks the banks potentially pose to the economy and resulting in a rebalancing of the burden of taxation between banking and other sectors.
Good luck david on wednesday.I hope us smokers can be liberated.to be able to go out to the pubs and clubs again and spend our money and boost the industry.most of the non-smokers are getting annoyed having to come outside so they have someone to talk to. the other thing i would like to say is that A.S.H. CANCER RESEARCH.AND THE OTHER SO-CALLED CHARITYS are just coming up with ideas about smoking .drinking too much.obesity. because they want to keep themselves in highly paid jobs. they should do real jobs where they might get their hands dirty. instead of getting money off donations and the goverment. We need to to keep the pubs and clubs alive and start employing more people.which means more income tax.gaming tax.alchohol tax.and many more taxes for the goverment
To lift the smoking ban would make a 74 year old woman we know very happy.her name is linda (squirrel). squirrel.not being her real name .but she does have a laught with the men.and we know what squarrells like.
sorry about the spelling mistakes.
Smoking Ban
David,
After previously viewing and adding comments on your website, I managed to catch the televised showing today of your Ten Minute Bill.
I’m not usually interested in the workings of the HofP but please can somebody explain the results of the voting (86 v. 141) when the verbal vote in the chamber was obviously in favour of the I’s and there appeared to be many less than 100 members in the chamber before the doors were closed?
I am biased because I own (what was) a traditional English country freehouse. Our predictions regarding loss of trade as a direct result of the Smoking Ban have all come to fruition. We are now in the process of progressing a Change Of Use and subsequent closure with our local council.
Since the local authorities now control Licensing, would it be possible for a mailshot/questionnaire to be sent to the owners of all Licensed Premises affected by your proposed change to see what the actual feeling is towards the change?
As you said, the local feeling towards the change can only be represented by a local person – who better than the Landlord that knows his own customer base?
Regards,
MT
Apologies – pressed the Send button by mistake – please accept this version!
Dear Mr Nuttall
I speak to many people and very few ever say the smoking ban in pubs is the issue they’d most like raised by their MP.
In my view the smoking ban has been a great success. I have little sympathy for those who would allow smoking in pubs on economic grounds. The end of bear bating doubtless put some people out of a job, but you wouldn’t bring that back – or WOULD YOU???
My mum and sister had a traumatic event the other day when they opened their front door to witness a pitbull that had got into their garden and ravaged a cat they had called Sooty, whom they been feeding for years.
Sooty was an elderly cat and couldn’t defend itself against the dog. My sister is frightened of these kind of dogs as well as rottweillers.
Now as we have seen over the years, pitbull type dogs have been responsible for numerous injuries, not only to other people’s pets but children and adults as well.
Pitbulls are breed for 2 purposes, first one being for fighting and the other one to protect criminals in the criminal activity.
Not only that the ‘Macho Type’ dogs are causing such havoc, not only within the animal shelter’s where people cannot keep them due to the fact that they cannot cope or control these animals.
Doberman’s Rottweillers and German Shepherd dogs were breed for guarding property and for security reasonas. These animals again being used for ‘Macho Type’ dogs that are more of a status symbol for the ‘butch’ man walking down the street, etc. Should be breed for the purpose they were breed for.
Its like breeding a poodle for hunting instead having hounds for the purpose.
Surely, there needs to be some sort of cull of the pitbull type dogs and by that there should be with the help of the public a search for these type of dogs, that have no purpose in this country, other than to carry out illegal activities with dog fighting being the most barbaric.
Second, people who have Doberman’s Rottweillers and German Sheppards should have to have a special licence from the police. Only people who are involved in security or the police should be allowed to breed these animals so the dogs are going to the people who can control these animals.
Why should the rest of decent loving dog owners end up with being victimised because of these mindless idiots?
I feel compelled to reply to this.
ALL owners of ALL types and breeds of dogs should have licenses to own a dog, to prevent misuse and abuse of these creatures.
I understand why pit bulls, staffordshire bull terriers and such like have this public image, because of the media concentrating on attacks only made by these breeds. I have been attacked by a vicious Jack Russel before- shall we cull all of those too?
I am the owner of a beautiful, mild tempered Staffordshire Bull Terrier crossed with a Pit Bull. He is the most wonderful dog I have ever encountered. But I wouldn’t dare let it run loose on purpose, or leave it alone with someone who isn’t used to this type of dog.
Any type of dog is capable of doing damage, and it is small minded to say it is only one type of dog. Yes- these dogs were bred in the past for killing bulls, but today they are owned, in most cases, by caring and loving owners, and as a result they too are calm dogs.
My point is – all dog owners should have a license to be responsible for the care of their pet. This will allow easier punishment for those owners who do misuse their pets, as well as abuse and abandon.
These dogs really are placid and wonderful pet’s if they are treated correctly and in loving homes.
These dogs can turn in a split second and once they do, there isn’t much anyone can do. Even the police struggle trying to enter a house with these type of dogs.
Yes I agree with the dog licence for all dogs, but I feel for these dogs in particular, there should be a special licence, like they would have for wild animals because not everyone is like you who does know how to handle the dog with kindness.
Although your pet may have a loving home, there is the element of ‘macho’ type men who like these animals for fighting and for criminal activities. This type of breed are a particular threat to the police when they are carrying out their duties.
There can be a delay in entering the property because the police need armed officers to help them enter the premises, because these dogs have hurt police officers in the past. This gives the criminal time to get rid of evidence such as drugs etc.
As for these dogs being loving, you have only got to look back in the archive footage of the news to find lots of incidences where children have been mauled by these dogs because the ‘macho’ man has trained the dog the dog in the wrong way so that they can look cool walking down the street with the dog pulling on the lead etc. These dogs need a certain kind of training, not the type where the ‘macho’ men use force to train these animals instead of kindness.
I would go as far as making sure that people have to obtain a special licence for breeding animals, because it is horrible how many animals are left abandoned when they are no longer wanted and the animal charities like the RSPCA have to pick up the pieces. As you have only got to go down to Manchester Dogs Home, to see the number of the ‘macho’ type of dogs that are left there who cannot be re-homed due to their temperament.
Mr Nuttall,
I would like you to justify the raising of tuition fees to a possible £9000 per year for students and the abolition of the EMA which is a great enabler for poorer students. It is often stated by Tory MPs that we shouldn’t heap debt on the next and subsequent generations: how do you justify doing exactly that to the young people – future voters – of Bury North?
I’m sure they would be interested in your justification.
This time around the I really do think that David Cameron has it wrong with abolishing the ‘Train To Gain’ program that was set up by a previous Conservative government, who was wise to realise that British People really do need more training if we are to succeed.
Education and training are the key to getting Britain back on track. We are in a technologial age and as such people really do need training in technology and better ways of doing things.
I really do think because government has opened the floodgates of allowing colleges and universities to charge what they need to do. They are taking mickey out of students by charging silly prices for their courses.
The same goes for essential software companies, who know that people need to train on those products, such as Adobe, Mircosoft, and CAD who are ripping people off with their silly prices.
How are normal people who don’t come from rich backgrounds suppose to have an equal chance. The simple fact is they can’t and this is widening the educational and social gap in Britain.
You need to tackle the fees that are charged from other angles as well cutting. You need to be asking the universities and colleges and software companies to justify their costs. If it is only to do with wages, then something needs to happen, so that the ordinary person in the street may have the same opportunity as the people from rich backgrounds.
It may just be the ordinary person who may come up with the biggest idea to manufacture that will get Britain out of the mess we are in.
i am interested in hearing your veiws upon the proposed closure of bury’s Youth Service. 2 centres and an ofice are both up for closuer(in your constituency), ther are 5 in total up for closure ans the futre of one is not clear. along with the centres many passionate youth worker jobs are also up for the chop.
i would also like your veiw on the way bury council has silenced its employees on the cuts, not allowing workers to inform young people of any consultation or what is happening. only to be able to find out 6 day before the full council meeting about the cuts, at a youth cabinet meeting. very little information was available for us at this meeting and cllr casserta was unable to answer most questions.
i am also giving you a formal invertation to come and protest with us outside Bury Town Hall on febuary 23rd 2011, with around 100 young pepole to fight for this cause.
hoping you can come to the protest and show your support to young people soon to be voters. along with a speedy reply.
i am interested in hearing your veiws upon the proposed closure of bury’s Youth Service. 2 centres and an ofice are both up for closuer(in your constituency), ther are 5 in total up for closure ans the futre of one is not clear. along with the centres many passionate youth worker jobs are also up for the chop.
i would also like your veiw on the way bury council has silenced its employees on the cuts, not allowing workers to inform young people of any consultation or what is happening. only to be able to find out 6 day before the full council meeting about the cuts, at a youth cabinet meeting. very little information was available for us at this meeting and cllr casserta was unable to answer most questions.
i am also giving you a formal invertation to come and protest with us outside Bury Town Hall on febuary 23rd 2011 at 5.15pm, with around 100 young pepole to fight for this cause.
hoping you can come to the protest and show your support to young people soon to be voters. along with a speedy reply.
Dear Connor,
Thank-you for your comment. My view is that as the Government inherited a situation where one pound out of every four pounds being spent was having to be borrowed it is essential that as a Country we start living within our means. We simply can not carry on spending money we do not have.
I think it is right that locally elected politicians decide on how to spend money locally and different Councils will reach different conclusions.
Thank-you for your invitation but I do not attend protest such as this.
David
Dear David,
(I will now treat you as you have treated me, as a mark of respect I hope your reply is much better than my response to you.)
i am sorry to say this, but you didn’t answer my question. i askes for a view on the cut to the youth service in bury, not a view on the country’s deficit and its effect on the councils budget. I am fully aware that we need to save money in these hard times. And as a young person do understand that I will be one of the hardest hit.
Please could you answer the question I asked and not use the deficit as an excuse not to comment on what is happening in your constituency. I feel patronised by your statement, as you have made me out to be, out of touch and not concerned with current affairs. I also posted an amended copy of the above post, seems you did not see this, and wanted me to look as bad as possible.
While not expecting you to attend, it does seem you don’t want to be involved in your constituency, as you did not attempt to answer my question only taking the road of blame and passing the question off.
So once again I will ask: What are your views on the cuts to the local Bury Youth Service?(information on this is on the council website)
And What is your view on staff effectively being gaged, not to discuss cuts with young people?
These are not hard questions, if Ivan Lewis MP Bury South can answer them, surely you can.
Hi Connor,
Thank-you for your comment.
Firstly let me apologise for not posting both your comment posts. I have now approved both (I thought they were the same and had just been posted in error).
Any changes to the provision of Council services including youth provision must be linked to the national economic situation whilstever Council’s like Bury are so dependent on central government grant. With regard to the Council staff I expect them to adhere to their contracts of employment. Councils officials like civil servants are expected to be political neutral. I have always found that the vast majority of Council staff do an excellent job. If the last Labour government had not planned on spending so much money they did not have then the present government would not be having to make the reductions in budget they are having to make.
David
Wow. Complacent answer David. For God’s sake – we understand the economic situation and the budget deficit but what is your opinion on the youth service cuts? Stop sitting on the fence. After all, we are your constituents and our services will be hit hard. Stop blaming the economy and share with us your views – I know you are starting to become known as a ‘rebel’ in the Westminster village but please stop regurgitating Osborne’s line.
Secondly, I have found one of your election leaflets in which it says:
“David Nuttall needs your vote tomorrow. Vote to 1) Clean up politics 2) Sort out the economy *** 3) Keep fairfield maternity open***.
This is blatant deception for votes: in your literature (http://mohammedma.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/a-reminder.jpg) you clearly state a vote for you means Fairfield will remain open. Why lie?
Hi,
With respect it is not for me to second guess the decisions taken by local Councillors. They have all the facts before them and all the competing claims for funding. If a saving is reversed in one area it means a new saving has to be found in another area. Incidentally I will keep repeating the Chancellors ‘line’ as you put it because it is the reality of the situation. We can not continue spending four pounds for every three pounds we have. Labour would be having to make reductions in spending but because they are no longer in power they do not have to make any choices.
The leaflets repeated the what the Shadow Secretary of State had said on a visit to Bury that if he became the Secretary of State the maternity department would be kept open. I still believe that the maternity department is essential. I cannot understand why the NHS in the North West think that somehow families in Bury ) and Rochdale and Rossendale) will have a better service if the excellent services we already have at Fairfield are closed down. I will continue to campaign for these services to be retained.
David
What really gets me, what is the point of having purposely built buildings up at Fairfield, when you are going to have them shut down after photo opportunties.
We had a purpose built children’s emergency unit with childrens wards. We have had purpose built building for Maternity and Women’s problems. We had Penine Unit for Dementia, Roch House for mentally ill with day unit where there were therapies, along side a host of other wards that have been messed about until the staff have gone dizzy moving beds and patients, just to keep downsizing. All the decorating and the new equipement when the old equipment went onto the landfill sites instead of being mended and brought back into use.
The Pennine Trust, is totally dizzy with the plush offices that they have had, along with all those fancy buffets they have and meals when people of importance come along, with the major clean up campaigns so that anyone that is of importance doesn’t actually see the problems behind the scene.
Figures massaged to look as if everything is alright, and we all know that percentages can actually be interpretated either way, depending on what argument you are making.
Sorry, but if I was young again, I would advise any young person to get out of this country while the going is good, because there is no hope left as we have had everything striped from the English person as we cannot even call our own country England. We have to be Britain, while the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, all have their own country.
Mr Nuttall, where an MP is elected, perhaps by a relatively small majority, on the basis of a very specific pledge – say that services at the local hospital will be maintained if he and his party are elected – and that pledge is then broken, do you think that MP should then resign and either fight a new election or make way for someone else ?
I do mean you, Mr Nuttall, you pledged “Conservatives will maintain children’s services at Fairfield” and wrote “The choice for voters in Bury North is clear: vote Labour and these services will be axed from Fairfield. Vote Conservative and if there is a Conservative government the maternity department will be kept open.”
You also wrote “”Andrew Lansley has reviewed the latest figures for the number of births across Greater Manchester and today said: ‘If I am secretary of state for health after the election, maternity and children’s services will be maintained at Fairfield and I will ensure this happens.”
Well Mr Nuttall ? You were elected, Andrew Lansley has the job he wanted, and the hospital services are being axed. Please don’t tell me it’s a local body doing the axing or that it’s a coalition government not a Conservative government, “I will ensure” is very specific and you told us this would not happen.
Don;t you think you should resign and fight a by-election after the promise you were elected on has been broken after less than a year in power ?
You should know Li, when it comes around to election time, MP’s promise us the moon and stars. Then when they get into office, they have many excuses why they cannot fulfil their promises. They are too busy, helping foreign countries, economic migrant workers and banks to think about the Indigeous People of Britain.
You have only got to look at BBC Northwest report that was aired earlier this evening
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13114964
Trafford Hospital looks like is looking towards being privatised.
The birthplace of the NHS could be privatised, according to health managers in Greater Manchester.
Trafford General Hospital treated the first ever NHS patient when the health service was inaugurated in 1948.
Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust has now confirmed that privatisation is being considered as way of dealing with the hospital’s mounting debt.
So I don’t believe the NHS or any British Institution that was created to help the poor is going to survive. It is also amazing how every new government has the ability to keep either re-drawing the political map or find a way to make sure that they keep in power. So there isn’t any hope for either the NHS or anything that will help the poor.
Our last MP sadly let us down by claiming expenses he wasn’t entitled to. Many people voted for you on the basis of hoping for an MP we could trust, and who would keep his promises, like your Conservative predecessor, Mr Burt.
Sadly those who voted for you and those like myself, who didn’t, have been let down again. You made specific promises on health provision which you have not kept. I suggest you do the honourable thing and resign.
I totally agree bjemblem, Mr Burt was a man of intrigity and it was a very sad day when he lost his seat.
Mr Burt actually cared about people who voted for him and he at least spoke up for the people of Bury.
Remember the hollow words’ The Maternity and Special Care Baby Unit would be safe’
Well it certainly looks like the NHS is in the safe hands of those sticky fingers who want to privatise everything just to make a killing in shares.
Trafford Hospital is where the NHS was born, and it is having to think about going down the route of becoming private.
At least when the MP’s do resign now, they end up with very good pensions, which is more than I can say for the rest of the general population.
Dear David,
There are a few things that need to be addressed.
1. A few years ago we were dumped in Greater Manchester (The two words don’t even go together) and this requires reversing bringing Lancashire back to it’s former glory. Many lives were lost to make Lancashire the proud county it was & with most people still is. Merseyside & Cumbria need to also be abolished.
2. We need smaller Hospitals – Bring back Bury General & lets have Bury & Rossendale working together again.
3. Take Great Britain out of the EU & back to the EEC as we voted for.
4. Make it so all Government used goods that are possible to be bought in GB are so. Money that goes out of the country is bad for us. Buy British – British is Best AND it’s Best for Britain. We deperately need our manufacturing base back or we will go bust.
5. Our servants in the local council seem, in some cases, to be paid too much. Make it so no person working for us are paid more than the PM. The PM should be the highest paid public servant in the country.
6. All of the things that are a necessity should be owned by the public. Electricity, Gas, Water, Telecomms etc should be bought back.
7. Everyone should have the option of living close enough to their work to walk too. Houses need to be built close to where people work or places of work need to be built closer to homes. A hundred years ago everyone walked which is the most green way of doing this.
8. The cost of Health & safety has a large affect on the prices of the goods we produce. Low quality goods from countries with very little or no H&S is causing problems for our businesses. I suggest we have a levy on goods imported equivalent to these H&S costs until these countries come up to our standards. I repeat – We deperately need our manufacturing base back or we will go bust.
9. Bring back Grammar Schools. I did better because I went to a Secondary School because I was top at some of the subjects which gave me more incentive. Reduce the numbers in Schools. Limit Schools to 500 pupils – 5 years- 100 per year – 4 Forms per year – 25 per class. (As it was in the School I went to). Lets have more Schools. Again within a short walk.
10. Return the forces to the numbers they had in the late 70′s. We need to defend ourselves & our friends (Such as the Falklands) Don’t say this will cost money because when the Goverment spend money it all comes back as it passes through the tax system.
Enough for now even though there is much more.
Best Regards
Les Nuttall
What happened to my post?
Sorry !
David
David,
Will you vote on Wednesday to ensure the Rupert Murdoch is not allowed to take over BSkyB whilst there are on going police investigations into the conduct of his companies ?
David,
I too am keen to know if you will vote for Murdoch. You must be aware that your constituents will be pretty disgusted if you do. It is inconceivable that Murdoch and his company can be seen as ‘fit and proper’ to take over ownership of BSkyB, and you will be judged accordingly by the people of Bury North if you vote against the motion being put by the Labour party.
Just been reading all your views, but please dont ask Mr Nuttall to comment now he is in, Will never give a straight forward answer to anything, I rang him just before election, and stressed some issues with regards to leaflet that had been delivered, he proceeding in telling me of people he had helped in Tottington area, (with what I dont know) said he would phone after elections and help with issues, that was May can you believe not heard a word from him, His only interest was ‘will you be voting for conservative’ I DID NOT, the government is round the bend, all they care about is themselves.
If the Goverment only spent money in Great Britain the national debt would not increase. All the money spent would come back to the Government through taxes.
Stop giving money away because we are now very poor due to not having a manufacturing base.
Stop buying arms from other countries and bring back all the ammunition manufacturing.
Increase the Forces to what we had around the time of the Falklands.
Don’t allow Government offices or any local councils to pass work to other countries.
Buy British because British is Best and It’s Best for Britain !!!!!!!!
The Death Penalty
Troy Davis was executed today.
He was convicted of shooting dead Mark MacPhail, who intervened in a brawl in a parking lot in Savannah, Georgia in 1989, but no physical evidence tied him to the crime and several witnesses later recanted their testimony.
Do we want to introduce this kind of justice in our country?
Bernard,
I have posted 2 replies to your very valid question. Last time I posted my views (in September), they were deleted within a week – so find my replies below and read them quickly lest they be deleted too!
Whoever moderates this comment page, please try not to let extremists have too much sway. Free speech…yes, but do you have to let Tanya Headley continue to post then publish every one of her extreme views?
Common sense please.
The U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that there are two essential human rights that every human being has: the right not to be tortured and the right not to be killed.
State sanctioned killing is MURDER, it is cold, premeditated and it debases the people who sanction it and who carry it out. Two wrongs do not make a right David. Surely your parents or school taught you that.
David Nuttall claims to be Christian, yet the killing of another person is totally against the teachings of Jesus, a man who was himself executed! The Ten Commandments state ‘Thou shalt not kill’ it does not then say ‘except under the following circumstances….’
“People are scared of crime, and they’ve been manipulated by politicians who push this button for all it’s worth. For politicians, the death penalty is a convenient symbol and an easy way to prove how tough they are on criminals and crime. It allows them to avoid tackling the complex issue of how to get to the roots of crime in our communities.” Sr Helen Prejean)
No one has the right to take the life of another person, no matter how bad or evil that other person may be. Murder is evil, I have friends who have been murdered but to seek to kill their murderer makes me as base and bad, in fact it makes me worse than the murderer.
Jesus Christ, refused to meet hate with hate and violence with violence.He told us to forgive one another, to treat others as we would have them treat us. To show mercy so that mercy will be shown us.
To quote Sr Helen Prejean who wrote the book “Dead Man Walking” and who is an advocate against state executions –
“I cannot believe in a God who metes out hurt for hurt, pain for pain, torture for torture. Nor do I believe that God invests human representatives with such power to torture and kill. The paths of history are stained with the blood of those who have fallen victim to “God’s Avengers.” Kings, popes, military generals, and heads of state have killed, claiming God’s authority and God’s blessing. I do not believe in such a God.”
I cannot and do not believe in such a God either. So how do you, David reconcile your proclaimed Christian faith and your position as a Church Warden with it?
It takes more strength of character to resist the urge to do harm and commit murder than it does to carry out such a barbaric act.
State executions DO NOT prevent murders happening. State executions are murder and those who support it and defend it as murderers.
As a self professed Christian Mr Nuttall, you must surely know that the Bible is clear on what will become of murderers.
“But people who are cowardly, unfaithful, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will find themselves in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death.” Revelation 21:8
Better we are all pro-life, pro-living, pro-supporting those who seek life and freedom and a way out of poverty and the traps that cause people to kill than end up being as bad as or worse than those who take steps to commit the initial act of violence.
“Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.. ”
Dr Martin Luther King 1958
Wake Up David, you are living in a world of darkness and anger, revenge and lovelessness, that is not the call of or the way of Jesus Christ or his followers, so either cease calling yourself a Christian or open your eyes, your heart and your mind to the call of a forgiving, loving God, who has forgiven you your sins and failings, you have a duty to forgive others theirs, no matter how bad they are.
This is not to say that punishments should not be meted out to those who cause harm, break the law or kill. We all have to live with the consequences of our actions and just and fair punishments are the way to deal with this,not killing everyone you THINK deserves it.
@ Angela
Eye for an Eye?
@ Les Nuttall
“Eye for an eye” is the most over quoted and misquoted Bible passage when trying to justify the death penalty (Leviticus 19:15). Readers of Scripture will know that the first event recorded after Adam and Eve’s fall from heaven was the murder of Abel by his brother Cain. From this event the story of sin’s contagion continues to unfold with the depiction of a rather primitive civilization in which the only policing relied upon was clan vengeance.
A cal went out for Cain to be killed in revenge for what he had done “
But the LORD said to him, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.” (Genesis 4:15)
Even God refused to allow the murder of Cain for his murdering his brother Abel as an answer to this hideous deed!
Jesus named and explicitly and rejected the law of retaliation (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth) in favour of transforming initiatives that avoid vengeance or violence and which instead confront the offender and seek the reconciliation of repentance and forgiveness. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said: “You have heard it said, `an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not set yourself in violent or revengeful resistance against an evildoer.” (Matthew 5:38)
Jesus limits revenge all the way down to zero tolerance of it. If “life for a life” is seen in any way as justifying or requiring the death penalty, then Jesus openly and directly opposes it. As God did before him in Genesis 4.
The Apostle Paul makes this evermore clear in Romans 12:19, which most New Testament scholars believe refers to Jesus’ teaching against retaliation: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, `Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Surely, it is only those who are unfamiliar with the words of Jesus who can quote “an eye for an eye” as grounds for capital punishment.
Jesus rejects the use of additional violence as a rationalisation that it will deter future violence.
When asked a question by the disciple Simon about forgiveness when Jesus is asked how many times we are to forgive. Seven times? Jesus replies “not just seven times, . . . but seventy-seven times.” Jesus tells him.
An eye for an eye is not a Christian argument or a valid argument based on Christian or Hebrew teachings for the death penalty. Jesus clearly teaches the complete opposite.
A Christian cannot therefore claim to be a Christian and openly fail to follow the teachings of Jesus and also encourage others to do the same.
“At that time the disciples approached Jesus and said, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a child over, placed it in their midst, and said, “Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!
If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.” Matthew 18
Mr Nuttall publicly claims to be Christian who is advocating the death penalty, his call for this pre-historic, uncivilized approach is against the teachings of Christ and his view is leading others astray. For an educated man, a trained lawyer, a church warden and a member of the Church of England, he is in a position of influence and he is misusing this position to promote none Christian teachings, he is causing confusion.
If Mr Nuttall was promoting the death penalty as a non Christian or an atheist, my argument would differ but he is not; he publicly claims to be a Christian. As a Christian myself, I have a duty to correct him and call on him to rethink his ‘teaching’, his promotion of a non Christian ethos. I also call upon him to either cease calling himself a Christian in public or amend his views on the death penalty and align them to the teachings of Christ.
Source for part of my reply is from: (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3861/is_200001/ai_n8889236/)
@ Angela
You seem to me to be a deep Christian – that is you believe in all that is said in the Bible.
Others are different and may only believe in the Bible as an idea & not as written law. Also different levels of belief inbetween.
I am a Christian in that I was Christened but I didn’t take Holy Communian or read the Bible every day.
As with most religious books the Bible contradicts itself a great deal. That is why I put an eye for an eye.
As for killing – What is ok?
Kill or be killed? Defending ones self, family & friends? Defending the country? Defending the law? Defending property? Defending your religion?
Then as an MP Mr Nuttall (not related in any way) has to stand back from his own beliefs & turn to the law of the land. He cannot do things just because it is Christian to do so.
I have worked in prisons & I know there are many in there that shouldn’t be but the are quite a few that should not be walking this earth.
@Les Nuttall,
What gives you the right to assume that Angela is a ‘deep Christian’ and by so doing insinuate (without any knowledge of this person) that she believes in all that is said in the Bible?
This is a sweeping statement that seems to be borne out of your own, barely hidden anger with what I read as well expressed views that are supported by facts and a decent argument.
Why hasn’t David Nuttall made any response to her? Clearly her remarks are addressed to him, not you.
@ Les Nuttall,
Your personal and very incorrect remarks about me are out of line. This blog is about David Nuttall’s beliefs and standards in public office, I am challenging his views based on his own publicly stated belief system.
My argument with Mr Nuttall is that no one can openly claim to be a Christian and not expect to be challenged on this claim over decisions they make or views they express in the public arena (where said person has chosen to place themselves).
The current law of the UK is that state execution is wrong. Did state execution deter murder in the UK before it was abolished – NO, it didn’t. So what makes Mr Nuttall or others of his line of thinking believe that it will deter people now? Studies from the USA prove that state executions do not deter murder. There is nothing to support the effectiveness of it other than removing a living being from among us. Given the corrupt state of individuals in the UK justice system many innocent people would have died had the UK continued to have state executions.
As for your claim that a MP or other public figure cannot ‘do things just because it is Christian to do so,’ David Nuttall stood for election on the fact that he was a Christian; this implied that he abides by a certain standard of living and outlook on life. He therefore has a duty to live up these standards or to fully explain his reasons for not doing so.
I would like to know how and why he justifies his stance and his reasoning for state execution when it is clearly against the teachings of the God he claims to follow and of the church he belongs to. He is quite happy to quote the Bible when it suits him, as in his recent addition to his blog about his attending the annual dinner of Bury Blind Society and then ‘co-incidentally’ stating that the reading at church today was Jesus curing the blind man.
If he can happily quote Bible and verse and compare it to his life’s experience on a daily basis then he has a duty to live by it every day, not just on days of his own choosing and not when it suits him. He’s a hypocrite.
Ever wonder if somebody might have engineered it all? Is it time to consider if your future perhaps lies with UKIP now? Sweet dreams, Grant Myers, Vice President, Cafuelarena.
Dear David Nuttall,
Two items I wish to raise with you.
1. EU debate and your proposed referenda
What are your own personal beliefs about UK membership of the EU? You are very keen to press through a UK referenda on our membership and you suggest three options for voters to chose from, but no where have I ever seen or read your own beliefs on the matter.
Are you for a complete removal of the UK from the EU or stay as we are or stay but re-negotiate the terms of membership?
What has lead you to be so focused on this EU issue in the first place?
I have noticed that there are many people who are posting on your blog but that you respond / reply to very few even though people are making very interesting remarks and observations about how they perceive you and your beliefs. Why do you not respond to more postings? I would appreciate your responding to my questions.
2. Unfair moderation of blogs
“teacherT wrote on October 2, 2011 at 10:26 am
Whoever moderates this comment page, please try not to let extremists have too much sway. Free speech…yes, but do you have to let Tanya Headley continue to post then publish every one of her extreme views?
Common sense please.”
I have read Tanya Headley’s comments and I cannot she how she can be called or labelled an extremist. She has shared her views and asked valid questions of you: many of which you have not answered.
It is wrong for anyone to label other bloggers with unproven allegations such this one.
Surely your blog is meant as open and civilised forum for debate WITH YOU – not a place for people to attack anyone who shares views that do not agree with their own.
Why don’t you respond to more postings on your own blog?
Hi Alice,
I have replied to another of your comments regarding the EU.
I do not respond to all comments simply because of lack of time. Millions could potentially post on my blog and there is only one of me and dealing with my blog is only one of lots and lots of matters I have to deal with. My blog is purely voluntary and paid for by me not the taxpayer. I allow as many comments as possible and if posters wish to debate with each other so be it. I think that the fact that I allow so many openly hostile ( to me ) comments demonstrates the openess of my approach..
David
I’ve just seen the reply that you gave me to my EU question. Thank you.
I asked why don’t you reply to more postings because there are some very interesting points being asked about your stance on a variety of issues and it would be good to know your response to them.
I think an MP blog is a good idea, but only if the MP answers more of the questions asked. I appreciate that you are busy but this blog is great way to reach a wide audience quickly with your beliefs and way of thinking..
People want to know what their MP thinks: hence my question about the EU. You do represent us so it’s natural for people to ask questions and get heated / hostile over issues that they care deeply about.
Finally, replying to a question makes a huge difference to the questioner! I am really pleased that you told me your thoughts on the EU.
In repy to Alice – 27th October.
Re; Tanya Headley & unfair moderation.
Yes, she can air her views.
Yes, she has asked questions.
Fair point.
However, I would like to point out that I DID provide answers to Ms Hedleys’ views in the same blog but,….they never seemed to have made their way to being published!
To reiterate my point regarding Ms Hedley’s comments on May 14 8:30pm – “I would bring back discipline in schools such as caning…(sic)…if a child doesn’t know what it is like to feel pain when they have been bad, then they don’t care what pain they inflict on others.”
I have been a male teacher in primary education and have been teaching fantastic children for nearly 20 years. I have never felt that inflicting pain on a child because they were ‘bad’ would do any good whatsoever. I maintain discipline without resorting to violence. If the cane were to be reinstated as she suggests, which person in the school or authority would want to be the one to ‘hit’ the child? An adult i.e. teacher (loco parentis) being required to inflict pain on a child in their care?
Provide a positive environment in schools and you won’t need any capital punishment (or even a ‘clip round the ear’). Positive, non violent behaviour starts at home and we promote great things in our schools to back this up.
I do hope that my views are not seen as too personal – I am merely replying to a specific point (capital punishment) made by our elected MP and one of our constituents.
I have no issue with anything that teacherT has written, I agree with you.
I missed this expression of ‘pain experience’ in Tanya’s blog. Clearly she has a different experience of life and has not been taught that there are other ways to correct children (which is true of many people).
Your views are fine – we are all expressing our own personal views.
Well almost all – David Nuttall has yet to respond to the capital punishment issue which has gained a good deal of chatter on his blog!
How can any Christian justify supporting such a vile and evil act?
Come along Mr Nuttall, answer the question asked of you on this issue by many people who have posted on your blog.
Expenses query:
I noticed that your last posted expenses bulletin was 11 months ago!
“Ref No 69004 – Electricity Bill Flat Jan 2011 £125.19″
11 months with no entries is a bit excessive. As you obviously felt it important to start keeping this expenses blog it’s important that it is carried on and update regularly, monthly updates are ideal.
Why can’t a member of your staff update this part of your blog on a monthly basis?
All MP’s expenses are published on the IPSA website and I have included a link to the site for ease of reference.
Since the start of the scheme IPSA have made several revisions and so many regular payments such as rent are now paid directly by them.
David
David,
You forget to put the IPSA link on the last posting, will you do that when you next log onto this blog site. Thanks
Hi Angela,
The word ‘here’ (which is the last word on the page) is a hyperlink. If you move your cursor over it and click it ( hopefully) should take you to the website.
Alternatively, the web address is: http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk
Hope this helps but if there is any problem just email me again.
Thanks
David