Norman to fight Lewes again

by Stephen Tall on October 8, 2007

Congratulations to Norman Baker on being re-selected by his local party in Lewes to contest the constituency for the Lib Dems whenever Gordon dares to go to the polls. Norman was first elected in 1997, when he defeated Tory Tim Rathbone, and was returned in 2005 with a majority of c.8,500, with more than 52% of the vote.

Full story over at the Eastbourne Herald’s website.

Enjoy reading this? Please like and share:

39 comments

Yes, well done Norman. Try not to mention Dr David Kelly, your hard disk drive, UFOs, or any other brainless stuff, and you might even get re-elected.

by Laurence Boyce on October 8, 2007 at 6:56 pm. Reply #

With due respect, Laurence, Norman could be excused if he declined your advice on how to get elected in Lewes 🙂

His record of campaigning on a whole range of issues is outstanding and I hope he continues doing so as an MP for years to come.

by Ed on October 8, 2007 at 7:15 pm. Reply #

Norma fights on in contrast to Colin Breed, (South East Cornwall) who’s been solid MP for the last ten years, and who has announced his intention to retire at the next election.

by Stephen Gilbert on October 8, 2007 at 7:20 pm. Reply #

Norman (have failing key board)

S

by Stephen Gilbert on October 8, 2007 at 7:22 pm. Reply #

What? Has he had the operation?

by Laurence Boyce on October 8, 2007 at 7:23 pm. Reply #

I can hear the stampede of PCA members on their way down the motorway to re-activate their long forgotten family ties to Cornwall… 😉

by Ed on October 8, 2007 at 7:26 pm. Reply #

Indeed, would have been interested to know what would have happenned if the election had been called.

by welshproudliberal on October 8, 2007 at 7:34 pm. Reply #

1. I think that’s rather graceless given his election and re election. the Commons could do with a few more characters like Norman.

by David Morton on October 8, 2007 at 7:34 pm. Reply #

Well, I’m sorry, but if he is as great an MP as you all say he is, then it just makes the moronic stuff all the more baffling and inexcusable.

by Laurence Boyce on October 8, 2007 at 7:45 pm. Reply #

Laurence, some people say the same thing about you. We are a liberal diverse party and despite never ever agreeing with you I’m glad we have individuals like you who will challenge conventional wisdom. If Norman stood down and a 20/30 something careerist inherited the seat would parliament be any the better for it?

by David Morton on October 8, 2007 at 8:02 pm. Reply #

Laurence, some people say the same thing about you.

What, that I’m a great MP? That might indeed be the crucial difference. I’m not standing for office.

by Laurence Boyce on October 8, 2007 at 8:15 pm. Reply #

I sense I am wasting my time arguing with you Laurence but where is the justification behind your assertion that Norman is being moronic?

His popularity in Lewes at successive elections suggests they judge him to be an excellent MP.

And surprising though it may be I have never met a voter outside of Lewes who has told me they are not voting Liberal Democrat because of Norman Baker.

It seems to me more likely that David Kelly was killed by our machismo-driven system of politics than directly by agents of the state. But if Norman feels he has evidence to support his claim then he has a right and probably a duty to publicise it.

His championing of environmental issues – such as the damage caused by Chelsea Tractors – was well ahead of the curve and he deserves a great deal of credit for that.

Parliament needs more like him.

by Ed on October 8, 2007 at 8:49 pm. Reply #

Norman to fight Lewes again.

… that’ll please all the Brighton and Hove Albion fans

by Cheltenham Robin on October 8, 2007 at 9:11 pm. Reply #

Where is the justification behind your assertion that Norman is being moronic?

I think I may have mentioned my reasons at the top of the page. No, hang on, I forgot to mention that he also thinks Robin Cook was murdered. I’ll have to let the good people of Lewes speak for themselves, but if my MP were wasting time on crackpot conspiracy theories, I would be livid.

by Laurence Boyce on October 8, 2007 at 9:35 pm. Reply #

It is amazing how many crack pot conspiracy theorists are found to be right when papers come out under the 30 (40, 75, 100) year rule.

by Duncan on October 8, 2007 at 10:59 pm. Reply #

I have no doubt this was a formality. Norman Baker is ideologically precisely where the Lib Dems should be.

by Geoffrey Payne on October 8, 2007 at 11:02 pm. Reply #

Norman Baker is one of Parliament’s stars. A truly courageous man, a beacon of light.

Norman set out to prove that Dr David Kelly was murdered, and he has succeeded.

I wonder how much Laurence actually knows about UFOs? Oh, sorry. I forgot. UFOS simply cannot exist. So no amount of evidence is capable of proving that they do.

But then, Laurence is moronic enough to believe the Freemasons and the Police Federation and their stooges when they say Hanratty was guilty.

Oh. And Laurence clearly believes in bilocation (a man can appear in Dorney Reach and Rhyl at the very same moment).

by Angus Huck on October 9, 2007 at 9:28 am. Reply #

Norman set out to prove that Dr David Kelly was murdered, and he has succeeded.

Has he succeeded? I heard that he had all the evidence assembled on his computer before the hard disk was mysteriously wiped by secret sevices. Which is a bit like saying that the dog ate my homework.

by Laurence Boyce on October 9, 2007 at 2:49 pm. Reply #

All of it is in the public domain.

by Angus Huck on October 9, 2007 at 3:38 pm. Reply #

Crickey, I never knew that! You’d think that Dr Kelly’s wife might be kicking up a bit of a fuss by now. I guess she must have been in on the plot from the start.

by Laurence Boyce on October 9, 2007 at 6:08 pm. Reply #

I guess Laurence believes all the blood Dr Kelly lost (sorry, didn’t lose)turned up at a seance.

If you want to believe in Father Christmas, Laurence, far be it from me to disillusion you.

by Angus Huck on October 10, 2007 at 9:12 am. Reply #

I reckon Dr Kelly knew too much about Diana.

by Laurence Boyce on October 10, 2007 at 9:55 am. Reply #

Laurence, when it comes to sneering at conspiracy theories (a favourite Guardianista pastime), you have an aversion to engaging with FACTS.

So, first you wave in front of us the marginally relevant attitude of Dr Kelly’s widow, then when that doesn’t chase me out of the playground, you offer an ad hominem quip about Diana (try to tar anyone who takes a specific conpiracy theory seriously with the wildest theory going).

But I do understand your desire to steer clear of data, Laurence. When I challenged your assertion that Hanratty was guilty, you admitted that you didn’t have a clue what you were talking about.

Dr Kelly ingested insufficient painkillers and lost insufficient drugs to die. Moreover, he disclosed no obvious signs of being suicidal, and indeed told friends that he planned to return to Iraq shortly.

by Angus Huck on October 10, 2007 at 10:07 am. Reply #

. . . though where the Knights Templar and the third secret of Fatima fit into all of this still isn’t clear . . .

by Laurence Boyce on October 10, 2007 at 10:23 am. Reply #

I think you have explained your position admirably, Laurence.

by Angus Huck on October 10, 2007 at 10:43 am. Reply #

I should have said: “lost insufficient BLOOD”.

by Angus Huck on October 10, 2007 at 11:00 am. Reply #

Laurence has been on the sauce again, clearly!

by Dafs on October 10, 2007 at 12:01 pm. Reply #

Oh, bless you, Lawrence, that when we have an MP who’s a genuine Liberal, has an impeccably green record, and is so brilliantly hardworking and effective in challenging the government that even the Daily Mail praises him (and how many green Liberals have ever managed that?), you’re still on hand to be the lone voice in the wilderness saying why everyone else is wrong.

Presumably you think that Norman’s so popular must be some sort of conspiracy 😉

by Alex Wilcock on October 10, 2007 at 3:12 pm. Reply #

Er, I meant, “Presumably you think that Norman being so popular must be some sort of conspiracy ;-)”

And I’ve not even been on the sauce, except the chocolate sauce…

by Alex Wilcock on October 10, 2007 at 3:15 pm. Reply #

I haven’t touched a drop today, though it won’t be long now. Look, I’ll apologise for mentioning UFOs. I can see now that the carbon emissions from such a craft would be horrendous, and Norman is absolutely right to be concerned. But I really can’t accept that the secret services had anything to do with the death of Dr Kelly. It was far more likely to be aliens, in my view.

by Laurence Boyce on October 10, 2007 at 4:01 pm. Reply #

Laurence, your denial of the reality of UFOs (or the possibility of the reality of UFOs) doesn’t stop you from knowing how the propulsion system works!

by Angus Huck on October 10, 2007 at 4:16 pm. Reply #

Who else has warned of Polegate’s High Street going into terminal decline?
Long may Norman remain as MP!

by Manfarang on October 10, 2007 at 6:01 pm. Reply #

And rebuild the railway from Uckfield to Lewes!

by Manfarang on October 10, 2007 at 6:06 pm. Reply #

The railway??? Surely you mean the inter-galactic warp-drive super-highway?

by Laurence Boyce on October 10, 2007 at 11:48 pm. Reply #

I mean the Wealden Line Campaign.
Check it out on the information super-highway at
http://home.clara.net.wealdenline

by Manfarang on October 11, 2007 at 3:46 am. Reply #

Opps!
http://home.clara.net/wealdenline

by Manfarang on October 11, 2007 at 3:50 am. Reply #

That link is broken. I blame dark forces.

by Laurence Boyce on October 11, 2007 at 3:52 am. Reply #

Hey, terrific website! “This site is best viewed at a resolution of 600 x 800 with Internet Explorer.” Yes, but what hardware? What operating system? What internet provider? And ought I to bash myself over the head with a large shovel before going any further?

by Laurence Boyce on October 11, 2007 at 4:05 am. Reply #

So complain to your MP about it.

by Manfarang on October 11, 2007 at 5:55 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment

Required.

Required. Not published.

If you have one.