The Western Isles Liberal Democrats have this year taken the decision that they will not be defacing the lamp posts and street furniture of the Western Isles with political propaganda and call on the other political parties to follow suit.
All the main parties have regularly put up propaganda at election time – mostly without authority. Councils sometimes a blind eye if parties promise to remove them although such pledges are often forgotten and council resources have had to be used to restore street furniture to normal.
The reasons for this stance are:
- There is an obvious environmental consequence in terms of the rubbish and litter caused by these posters, during and after the election.
- Many people have negatively commented on the visual pollution caused by the posters.
- In recent times there has been a continued escalation of posters of political parties having been vandalised by opponents.
- Given recent results are they in any way effective when viewed against points 1,2 and 3?
- Lampposts can’t vote and given the digital age we live in surely there are more effective ways of promoting our campaigns which don’t intrude on or annoy others.
Western Isles Liberal Democrats
PS – This is not an April Fool
One can only wonder what on earth the Western Isles Lib Dems are playing at. All over the country this party campaigns on local and grassroots issues. One can see this time and time again in leaflets and other material issued by the Lib Dems. This bunch do not and, in fact, argue that candidates in this election should not speak about Scottish or local issues. Why ever not? I thought freedom of speech should be encouraged by political parties most days of the week, 52 weeks of the year, 12 months of the calendar.
No. This bunch aren’t just April fools. They’re fools in January, February, March… Why on earth are they going against their own party’s practices?
I was in Limerick in Ireland and they banned electioneering posters. It lowers the tone of a town and can get out of hand and the activists are very self centred and usually leave it to others to clear up.
well done the liberal-Democrats. this is a great move which all parties should agree to. It would also be one in the eye for the arrogant gugastone.
Arrogant, Mr Macrae?
I would have thought that adjective applied to those who try to suspend, limit and constrain democratic debate. My aims are rather limited compared to that.
Typical slacking Liberals – that kind of thing wouldn’t have happened in my day when we formed the SNP – we knew the importance of emblems and signs. We took our lead from our friends in Germany at the time. But I’m relieved to see today’s SNP taking up what we started in the 1940’s.
You need have no fear that your dream of a one party state is dead Arthur. Witness the resolution passed at the SNP conference last Sunday forbidding any dissent amongs the members, promising instant expulsion for any miscreant who dares question the party line. That, combined with a state guardian, or snooper, for every child in Scotland, controlling the state broadcaster, a state newspaper- The National- and it adds up to a modern day situation which would swell your fascist heart with pride.
It fills the rest of us with a sense of foreboding and fear.
I hope your modern day followers are defeated re soundly at the ballot box, something you and your ilk would soon get rid of, given half the chance.
I was delighted viewing from afar the application of a firm smack of dictatorship(benevolent mind) Wee Nicola does our memory proud. No SNP candidate shall ever contradict or criticise the PARTY. Excellent. She’s done well on that front with the Scottish Assembly committees as well. Cos it ain’t a PARLIAMENT until we gain our freedom…..must dash trying to post a telegram to my old allies in Berlin…. this email nonsense wasn’t around in early 1940’s……
Gugastone your continual misrepresentation of what was originally stated by Mr Ferguson does you no credit and doesnt become any more accurate with repetition. It’s a fairly large leap from saying that it would make more sense for the candidates to focus on the issues that they have some control over if elected (what Mr Ferguson said) to Lib Dems in the Western Isles saying candidates should not speak about Scottish or local issues (your interpretation). I’m sure you can see the subtle difference, and even if you cant its hardly a “freedom of speech” issue, no one is actively trying to stop anyone from saying anything as far as I can see.
As for the non-postering issue, personally I’d like to see it banned altogether on the basis that its messy, an eyesore and surely serves no useful purpose in 2015 other than to waste peoples time in an elaborate game of one-upmanship on most of the main streets in the town. If past elections are anything to go by I look forward to the 127 different posters erected 10 feet apart on every lamp post all the way from the airport to Engies. In the era of instant communications, internet, social media and online outlets such as this one are we really saying that this eyesore is still a relevant method of campaigning and influencing the electorate?
Is that what he said, Mr Finch? Surely candidates are free to focus on what they wish without being constrained or directed by statements from other parties. (If they so desire, they can even talk about prospective moon-landings. Not saying it’s going to get them votes but they are free to do so if they wish.) Their statements are also utterly contrary to those issued by Lib Dem candidates elsewhere who regularly talk about Scottish, local or grassroots issues. This seems to me sensible politics. Democracy is ill-served by simply allowing people to speak and think on issues in five year cycles. Surely people, including candidates, should be encouraged to speak out on issues that concern them at any time – and not constricted, deterred or dictated to as Mr Ferguson appears to be doing in his missives.
Why are Mr Ferguson and his friends behaving so differently from their Lib Dem colleagues elsewhere? Do Messrs Alexander, Kennedy, Carmichael, Thurso and co know they’re out and continually contradicting them? Are they really being true to liberal, democratic beliefs by acting in this way?
I’m certainly not speaking for Mr Ferguson nor would I wish to but surely if as you say candidates should be free to talk about whatever they wish then he is free to say that relevant issues should be focused on? If moon landings is an acceptable subject then I’d have thought explaining which issues are devolved and non-devolved is equally pertinent?
I’m fairly certain that no one is trying to shut down debate. Candidates will talk about whatever they wish. However it is far easier to find an issue to be a disgrace or an outrage when you are safe in the knowledge that you wont be able to do anything about it, than it is to talk about the topics that you will actually have to act upon if elected.
The chat here at work is that it’s all to do with the Liberals having no money and all they are only willing to commit to is funding a deposit which they know they will lose. Also a lot of chat about the island Liberal Democrats voting tactically – and I’m delighted where these votes are headed…..!
I note Mr Finch is still singing from the Lib Dem song-sheet and avoiding any response to my question as to why Mr Ferguson is whistling an entirely different tune from the other candidates from that party who are all making statements about devolved issues as well as Westminster ones.
Surely this is even more appropriate when both the MP and MSP for the constituency represent the same party. Does he only think Parliamentary representatives should be accountable when they’re singing for your vote? I think most real Liberal Democrats are of the view they should be held to account at any time!
Im not a Lib Dem, I have no song sheet to sing from. I am not answering your question as to what tune Mr Ferguson is whistling because I am not Mr Ferguson and you would be better placed asking him that.
I agree with you 100% that the MP should be held to account at any time not just at election time. What you seem to be ignoring is (and this is the point i have been making all along) they can only be held to account on the matters that they have control over. So while they can comment on anything if they so wish and I’m sure Mr Ferguson at no point said they shouldn’t, they of course should be focusing on the matters for which they will be responsible if/when elected. Once again i see no attempt to shut down discussion simply an observation that it would make more sense to channel it in the right direction. Thats all. No big deal.
I can only repeat that I find it strange that when you talk about freedom of speech you seem to take such issue with Mr Ferguson exercising his right to just that and calling for discussions on the issues that belong to Westminster. He is saying what he thinks. Isn’t that what you want?
Again, i feel that is not unreasonable. People are not all totally switched on to political matters. I’m certainly no expert (i’m sure you will agree wholeheartedly!!!!) and i think is would be a shame if people had their voting choice changed or influenced based on a candidate speaking out on a matter that it turns out he has no say on when elected. To my mind that was the only point that Mr Ferguson was trying to make and i simply agreed with the sentiment. Any more detail on the matter should be best directed to the man himself i feel.
I love the way Mr Finch defines the right to free speech here. He thinks it permissible for politicians to ask others to limit and constrain their right to free speech.
A bit ironic, ain’t it? Especially as Mr Ferguson’s Lib Dem colleagues are not exactly practising what he preaches – either on political posters or anything else.