<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Vote Tory &#8211; we are not reactionary in the slightest</title>
	<atom:link href="http://guyberes.com/2008/04/01/vote-tory-we-are-not-reactionary-in-the-slightest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://guyberes.com/2008/04/01/vote-tory-we-are-not-reactionary-in-the-slightest/</link>
	<description>On Sunday ring road supermarket. No killing moths or putting boiling water on the ants.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:10:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Guy</title>
		<link>http://guyberes.com/2008/04/01/vote-tory-we-are-not-reactionary-in-the-slightest/comment-page-1/#comment-312</link>
		<dc:creator>Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:56:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://guyberes.com/2008/04/01/vote-tory-we-are-not-reactionary-in-the-slightest/#comment-312</guid>
		<description>Hi Kit, welcome. 

In the current electoral context, I guess what I would be more interested in seeing in a newsletter of this sort is what the Conservatives would do if they win the mayoral race on May 1. And as I mention I think your survey questions are a touch on the loaded side. Of course I do have some affiliation so I guess you wouldn&#039;t have lost my vote either way, but I suspect I am not the only one who thought the same thing.

Firstly in relation to the congestion charge. While from what I gather it is true that the increased charge will impact some models that one wouldn&#039;t actually expect without delving into it, I am not sure the newsletter really sheds much light on this, besides raising the £25 figure as a means of scaring people about it. I dare say most families will not be impacted. Including a direct link to a website where residents could find out if they would have to pay the extra charge, for example, would have been excellent.

The item about Heathrow is probably a fair cop - I had taken the newsletter as a straight out mayoral race election mail out and assumed you were taking a sideways dig at Labour. I suppose you were in a convoluted way, but I&#039;m happy to give you the benefit of the doubt there. 

If you are talking authoritarian policies, a better policy for testing the waters with in a survey might be the Brown Government&#039;s draconian &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&amp;sid=awxmK.XlLm1Q&amp;refer=uk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;detention legislation&lt;/A&gt;, which for my money is a step too far. The question on microchips in bins I thought was a bit cheeky, as was the council tax inspectors one. I am sure there are some conditions that need to be satisfied before council tax inspectors can just barge into someone&#039;s home, but you haven&#039;t of course mentioned those.

Anyhow, kudos to you for dropping in and defending yourself. Good luck in the election.

P.S. Get a blog - an excellent way for you to interact with your constituents and discuss issues with them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Kit, welcome. </p>
<p>In the current electoral context, I guess what I would be more interested in seeing in a newsletter of this sort is what the Conservatives would do if they win the mayoral race on May 1. And as I mention I think your survey questions are a touch on the loaded side. Of course I do have some affiliation so I guess you wouldn&#8217;t have lost my vote either way, but I suspect I am not the only one who thought the same thing.</p>
<p>Firstly in relation to the congestion charge. While from what I gather it is true that the increased charge will impact some models that one wouldn&#8217;t actually expect without delving into it, I am not sure the newsletter really sheds much light on this, besides raising the £25 figure as a means of scaring people about it. I dare say most families will not be impacted. Including a direct link to a website where residents could find out if they would have to pay the extra charge, for example, would have been excellent.</p>
<p>The item about Heathrow is probably a fair cop &#8211; I had taken the newsletter as a straight out mayoral race election mail out and assumed you were taking a sideways dig at Labour. I suppose you were in a convoluted way, but I&#8217;m happy to give you the benefit of the doubt there. </p>
<p>If you are talking authoritarian policies, a better policy for testing the waters with in a survey might be the Brown Government&#8217;s draconian <a HREF="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&amp;sid=awxmK.XlLm1Q&amp;refer=uk" rel="nofollow">detention legislation</a>, which for my money is a step too far. The question on microchips in bins I thought was a bit cheeky, as was the council tax inspectors one. I am sure there are some conditions that need to be satisfied before council tax inspectors can just barge into someone&#8217;s home, but you haven&#8217;t of course mentioned those.</p>
<p>Anyhow, kudos to you for dropping in and defending yourself. Good luck in the election.</p>
<p>P.S. Get a blog &#8211; an excellent way for you to interact with your constituents and discuss issues with them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kit Malthouse</title>
		<link>http://guyberes.com/2008/04/01/vote-tory-we-are-not-reactionary-in-the-slightest/comment-page-1/#comment-311</link>
		<dc:creator>Kit Malthouse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://guyberes.com/2008/04/01/vote-tory-we-are-not-reactionary-in-the-slightest/#comment-311</guid>
		<description>Guy, the joy of google alerts has led me to your site and comment about my newsletter - please don&#039;t take offence, but I rather feel you aren&#039;t being very fair to me in your analysis of my publication.

The piece about the £25 charge is designed to alert people to two things 1. that Ken has said he will bring in this charge, which he has and 2. that it doesn&#039;t just cover 4x4&#039;s as you seem to think. Many people with ordinary family cars will fall foul of the charge and I felt they ought to know.

The item about Heathrow doesn&#039;t mention Ken at all - it is an appeal to people to respond to the government consultation on expansion of the airport with the addition of the third runway - something which will have a profound effect on West London.

The survey question you object to was specifically designed to test people&#039;s appetite for the increasingly authoritarian regime under which we live. I guess I was trying to highlight this too, and for that I make no apology.

Overall though you seem to think that despite me being a Conservative candidate, I shouldn&#039;t have an agenda - which seems a rather odd stance from someone who in his own biog confesses to being a member of the Australian Labor Party.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Guy, the joy of google alerts has led me to your site and comment about my newsletter &#8211; please don&#8217;t take offence, but I rather feel you aren&#8217;t being very fair to me in your analysis of my publication.</p>
<p>The piece about the £25 charge is designed to alert people to two things 1. that Ken has said he will bring in this charge, which he has and 2. that it doesn&#8217;t just cover 4&#215;4&#8217;s as you seem to think. Many people with ordinary family cars will fall foul of the charge and I felt they ought to know.</p>
<p>The item about Heathrow doesn&#8217;t mention Ken at all &#8211; it is an appeal to people to respond to the government consultation on expansion of the airport with the addition of the third runway &#8211; something which will have a profound effect on West London.</p>
<p>The survey question you object to was specifically designed to test people&#8217;s appetite for the increasingly authoritarian regime under which we live. I guess I was trying to highlight this too, and for that I make no apology.</p>
<p>Overall though you seem to think that despite me being a Conservative candidate, I shouldn&#8217;t have an agenda &#8211; which seems a rather odd stance from someone who in his own biog confesses to being a member of the Australian Labor Party.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

