How about these 2 for good luck?

At a fundraising event we held tonight I met 2 people who claimed to be the luckiest Tories around; everytime they move to a constituency it is won by the Conservatives from Labour.

The pair moved back from abroad into West Norfolk in 2000 - just months before Henry Bellingham re-captured the seat for Hague's Tories from Labour.

They then moved to Norwich North in 2008 - just months before Chloe Smith siezed the seat from Labour in a dramatic by-election gain.

They have then come to Norwich South in 2009 - ...

Who is reading this blog?

Apart from you, right now, obviously.

I have just got to grips with the data provided by my Stat Counter and it is very interesting; although the sort of stuff that I shouldn't look at too much for fear of becoming obsessed.

Wading through everything, it turns out that I am getting visitors from the House of Commons, European Parliament, CCHQ, UEA and - biggest group - Norwich City Council!! Maybe they are keeping an eye on me!

Labour's Ipswich Choice for Norwich Seat

If Labour shot themselves in the foot by ousting Ian Gibson, then smacked themselves over the head with a mallet with their amateruish by-election campaign, they have done some almost medically impossible with the choice of John Cook (click here for more) as their General Election candidate.

Proving that all parties have issues with selections, Cllr Cook is an Ipswich Borough Councillor who lives and works miles away and whose association with Norwich is a decade old. Now rather than being able to take the fight to MP Chloe Smith, I understand Cllr Cook has already run his campaign into a brick wall as questions about his living and political arrangements surface.

Does Cllr Cook plan to move to Norwich, in his own property, and if so ... when?

If he doesn't, this must surely show that he doesn't believe he can win and won't commit to the City.

Does Cllr Cook plan to move his family with him when he does this to make Norwich his full time home?

Again if he doesn't and simple lodges or stays with somebody then how can he really claims to stand up for local people without understanding our City or its services?

Does Cllr Cook intend to stand down from his Ipswich seat now so he can focus on the campaign ahead in Norwich?

If he doesn't then questions may be asked about how he can represent one area miles away from campaigning in another. Will Cllr Cook continue to claim allowances in Ipswich whilst seeking to be elected in Norwich?

I am not saying Cllr Cook is a bad candidate but he certainly isn't a clear clean choice. Labour will have to spend the first few weeks of this campaign sorting out those issue during which time Miss Smith (not only to let the moss grow) will be consolidating her by-election lead.

What do we think young voters care about ... and what do they really care about?

I don't usually reproduce other posts in full but this one from the Speccie about a BBC Politics Show poll is well worth reading:

The Politics Show conducted a fascinating poll into the concerns of voters aged under 20. The Recession Generation are primarily concerned with, well, the recession. Economic recovery, public spending and tax came top of their list of priorities, closely followed by health and education. It’s clear that younger voters have exactly the same concerns as the wider population, and encouragingly for the Tories, those polled prefer David Cameron to Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg by a clear margin of 8 percentage points. The Liberal Democrats attracted only 18% of voters, indicating quite how damaging their tuition fee u-turn has been.

Popular myth dictates that younger voters are consumed by tackling climate change. Intriguingly, climate change came towards the bottom of the list of pressing concerns. Has emerging scientific contention engendered a more general scepticism? Have economic realities created a sense of realism? Or has the relentless noise of Green campaigners initiated ‘green fatigue’? As the great Copenhagen shindig draws near, and ever more ludicrous soothsayings about the world ending next Tuesday are made, the political consensus seems out of touch.

When I did a meeting at the UEA last week I said that in my discussions with students, fees actually came a long way down their agenda behind the economy, jobs, crime and transport. Too often politicans, and the media, decided what they think young people ought to be ineterested in - often its the environment, drugs and international aid. This poll appears, and I realise its only one survey, to reject that suggestion and say that young people focus on the same things that other groups do. I must admit to being very surprised that climate change came so low amongst young people but it shows that the people set the agenda rather than politicans.

As for the voting intentions that didn't surprise me at all; most students I have met both in formal meetings and in the Square/Hive tell me they are as fed up with Labour as everyone else and will be voting Conservative to make sure we are rid of Brown and Clarke.

Rumbling on ...

The debate over "real life experience" rumbles on. Today after work I had a very productive hour with the Sabbs at UEA discussing student issues - from housing to student finance and back to parking at the UEA. Aftewards leaving campus I met a gentleman who not only recognised me (!) but had also read the posts below. I believe more-or-less word for word here is what he had to say about it:

"I want an MP who has recently worried about bringing up kids and how to pay their mortgage. No political party is perfect, I don't agree totally with any of you, but at least we can pick the candidate who know what life is about."

To balance up the arguement, an email I ahve recieved:

"Your attack (I, by the way, deny this is an "attack") on other candidates who don't have jobs is a nonsense. The question is, will our next MP have the right instincts when it comes to voting on going to war, tackling climate change and child poverty. Political instinct is worth more than any job you might hold for the moment."

Interesting stuff. Keep it coming.

PB's Super Six on Norwich South

There are very few people left who really believe that "only the LibDems can beat Labour here" (including very senior LibDems who say to me privately that they don't expect to win). I was speaking to Costessey residents in the last week who desperately wanted Labour out - surely a good target then for the Libs? No, they wanted a proper change and were voting Conservative. You can only be sure to get rid of Brown by voting Tory, they added.

And now PoliticalBetting.Com's Super Six Predictors have had their say; these are the best political tipsters on the site.

2 say it will be a Conservative gain; 1 for Labour, 1 Green and 1 LibDem.

Hardly scienfific and hardly authorative but nobody can say this is anything but a wide open race. People who say otherwise are deliberately misleading the voters.

What experience do Green Councillors have?

There is a very funny and mischevious letetr in today's EEN (sadly not online) which encourages Rupert Read to stand to be the new Green Leader on the basis it is only right that a philosophy lecturer can top the experience of a politics graduate who has never held a proper job (!)

That got me thinking if a party leader should have what we now fondly call "real life experience" to do the job properly. I'd like to hear what you have to say on that issue.

But a glance at the publicly available register of interests for 2009 show the following as the professions or jobs for the 13 Green Party Councillors;

Cllr Janet Bearman - no job
Cllr Tom Dylan - Employed by the Green Party
Cllr Bob Gledhill - Full Time Green Party Councillor
Cllr Adrian Holmes - Software Developer
Cllr Howard Jago - no job
Cllr Samir Jeraj - Admin support for another Green Councillor & UEA Student
Cllr Tom Llewellyn - Development Manager at Norwich Buddhist Centre
Cllr Stephen Little - Full Time Green Party Councillor (also on Norfolk County Council)
Cllr Ruth Makoff - UEA Student

Cllr Peter Offord - Tutor
Cllr Adrian Ramsay - Deputy Leader of the Green Party
Cllr Rupert Read - Lecturer at UEA
Cllr Claire Stephenson - Teacher

I wonder which of these people think has the experience to be the next leader?

Ramsay Resigns as Green Leader

I would have thought that the resignation of Adrian Ramsay as Leader of the Greens at City Hall would have made more of a splash in the media; he has, after all, led them now for many years and has taken the Greens from a rump party to the official opposition.

Adrian has made the Greens into a very acceptable organisation; his successor would well be the type of person who undoes years of work in under a day. I understand, from somebody who knows the inside of the Greens, that the party remains very much split between 2 factions - those who wish to keep the public face of the party and those who believe the ideology is what matters. We note that Cllr Rupert Read has ruled himself out of the race - Ramsay believes the next Green Leader will also be the next Leader of Norwich City Council (I'm not convinced by this) so this could matter a great deal and could, so I'm told, lead to a swift reversal of his position. If his party pleads, will Read answer that call?

X-Factor Breaking News:

Great stuff from CCHQ; I bet they've had this one on file for a while!

My Defection to the Labour Party (by Libby, aged 2)

Do you believe in "signs" ...

Imagine being a Tory Councillor and the local PPC, when you walk into your dining room to find out that your darling, sweet, gorgeous 2 years old had gotten hold of your "lucky" Conservative rosette (the one you wore winning each of the last 5 local elections) and had coloured it in using a felt-tip pen.

Then imagine - as you react calmly and lovingly to this incident - discovering she had coloured it with a red felt-tip pen.

Top to bottom red scrawled over the blue, the logo, the lot ... it is as bad as you think.

So either a sign of my impending defection to Gordon's tribe - or I have a very naughty toddler - and I know which it is!!

"Mechanical Failure" sinks blog

Thank you to the (two) people who emailed to ask if I was still alive as I had stopped blogging. I am alive and well, which is more than could be said for my laptop which apparently had "mechnical failure" (sounds nasty). However it is now fixed and service can be resumed.

Exclusive (biscuit) poll says Gordon set for landslide

Forget the real polling, tonight I have the results of a new and exclusive poll which shows Gordon Brown set to have a landslide fourth term and the LibDems almost wiped out of the Commons.

At tonight's ND Sixth Form open evening I asked visitors to eat the biscuit which represents their favourite and which thus represents the party leader they are most aligned with.

Whilst Dave's biscuit choice has a steady trickle, Clegg's biscuits remained almost entirely in place and Gordon's flew off the plate.

If Gordon is as in touch with the country on other issue as he clearly is with biscuits, I can strongly predict a fourth Labour term and maybe even a Labour Gain in South Norfolk? Who knows...

Clarke claiming more but doing less?

The expenses row has turned the spotlight onto our MPs, how much they earn, how much they claim and what work they do. So it is only right that we look closely at what our local MPs are up to. Is Charles Clarke providing value-for-money?

According to the research done by theyworkforyou.com, Mr Clarke is yet to speak in the House of Commons during 2009 and his only parliamentary contribution was in a Westminster Hall debate about the local government (unitary) review in Norfolk. In addition, Mr Clarke has not tabled a single written question and served on just one select committee - Labour's controversial East of England Committee. Mr Clarke's voting behaviour doesn't hold out to much scrutiny either, voting just 66% of times which is below average according to "publicwhip".

And all this is at a time when Mr Clarke has held company directorships, been paid to give speeches, write articles for newspapers and go on overseas fact finding trips.

During this time Mr Clarke has claimed over £160,000 - making him one of the highest claiming MPs in the House.

I have made honesty a major part of this election. I have said I will hold no other paid job than being an MP and that I will be a value-for-money MP claiming less in expenses than Mr Clarke. What's more, I will ensure I am speaking up for the people of Norwich South in the chamber and asking key questions of Ministers.

It will seem to a lot of people that this is Mr Clarke claiming more but doing less. Maybe Mr Clarke knows his time in parliament is up, but he ought to be doing what people elected him to do and stand up for the City.

I think the answer for all this is for the Prime Minister to call a General Election and give the people of Norwich South the chance to vote for a Conservative MP who will work hard them, not a stay-away Labour MP.

Statistics detailed here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/charles_clarke/norwich_south

Show Us The Money!

Press Release; and a typical Clarke hypocrisy:-

Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Norwich South, Cllr. Antony Little, has asked Gordon Brown to stop dragging his feet over a new law which requires the Government to tell us how much taxpayers’ money is spent in Norwich and in every other part of the country. In Parliament on 28 October, Labour MPs actually voted against a motion calling for more openness on public spending across Norwich.

The new law, called the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, was introduced by a Conservative MP and passed by Parliament with wide cross-community support from local and national organisations. It could help fix Britain’s broken politics – by giving local people the power to decide how their cash is spent in their area, and requiring a regular breakdown of spending by central government departments and quangos in new ‘Local Spending Reports’.

More and more taxpayers’ money is being spent by unelected quangos. A new report published on 26 October by the Taxpayers’ Alliance has revealed that quangos now spend an astonishing £90 billion a year – equivalent to £3,640 a year for every household across Norwich.

But Labour Ministers have been trying to water down the new law. They initially only wanted to publish spending by councils and NHS Primary Care Trusts – facts already in the public domain. Further information will only be “developed over time”.

Norwich South Labour MP Charles Clarke was one of those who voted against this important transparency issue.

Conservatives are calling for greater openness and accountability, and are pledging to:
• Use the Sustainable Communities Act to publish detailed Local Spending Reports including central government and quangos, and devolve more power to local communities.
• Require Norwich City Council to publish online figures for all expenditure on goods and services over £500, as is already being piloted by Windsor and Maidenhead Council.

Councillor Antony Little said: “It’s time for the Government to show us the money – and tell Norwich residents how much of their money is actually spent in our area. Gordon Brown wants to stop local people finding out that they get a raw deal from his Government, and conceal that his unelected quangocrats spend almost £4,000 a year per household in Norwich wth little or no say for local people.

“Local communities deserve a far greater say on how their money is spent. It’s time for change, and only Conservatives will open up the books and give power back to local people.”

Mystery Solved!

Remember this story (click here) about me recieving what was pretty much a letter of abuse about a Tory leaflet which featured the NHS? Well, mystery solved because the original writter has responded with evidence of the leaflet enclosed - trouble is, the offending leaflet wasn't (as I suspected) a rouge Tory effort but the latest LibDem leaflet.

Glad we got that cleared up!

Why aren't we talking about allowances?

The City Tory Group have been moving for months to get a debate on Councillors allowances and - in our view - cut them overall whilst rewarding those members who do take on extra workload. Anything which reduces the burden on taxpayers during this time of recession and cuts is vital for helping to restore public trust. I say - we are not in this for the money nor the glory (what glory?!?) so let's show this to the public.

So in the same way that I feel that Labour, the LibDems and Greens have blocked this debate at City Hall, now the Tories are doing the same at County Hall (click here for more) over the issue of allowances for Twin-hatters; those people who serve, and claim allowances, on 2 different councils. In Norwich this includes Labour's Bert Bremner and the Green Stephen Little. There are various Conservatives in the same position in the County too.

I understand the point about recieving the allowances for the work you do - double the work meaning double the allowances. In fact a LibDem Councillor wrote recently to the EDP to make this very point. However I also understand the anger that being a Councillor is the equivalent to a part-time job and that some people are building up massive allowance claims to live on because being a Councillor is their sole income. I understand some people believe that to be wrong and that Councillors need outside experience and aren't rounded people if politics is all they have. I also understand that people know that they are voting for a twin-hatter and do it with that knowledge. I also understand that having synergy between councils through twin-hatters can be a good thing. I understand that some people don't want taxpayers money to be used as an income for aspiring young politicans who just want the time to devote to a political career. It is - as you can tell - very complicated.

But the answer to these questions won't come from closing down debate. Let's talk about them, not as party animals, but as elected representatives looking to do the best for people. Shutting down debate looks shifty and as if we are happy with the status quo because some people do well out of it. And this isn't a party issue - don't believe those who tell you otherwise - because Councillors in all parties on at leats one council has voted not to talk about allowances.

The only way to address this perception and restore public trust is to have the debate; fully, honestly and in the open.

No matter which party you are in, refusing to talk about the issue won't make it go away. It just makes all politicans look that little bit more aloof than we did before.

Liz Truss & Trust?

There are 2 things I know about Liz Truss.

One is that she is the newly selected PPC for South West Norfolk, a safe Tory seat, and thus almost certainly the next MP for the constituency.

The second is that a few years back she had an affair with a then-High Flying Tory MP called Mark Field.

I know this because (a) I remember reading about it in the newspaper and (b) I googled all of the finalists for the seat when they were announced and I read about it (again).

If I knew about it ... why did the selectors and members of the South West Norfolk Conservatives not know about it? Does this really constitute a breach of trust? Was she, a highly bright and articulate young woman, really going into the selection to talk about her rather poor taste in men? Does this change the way they think she could do the job of PPC and MP?

I have the highest regard, and I really mean that, for the South West Norfolk Tories. I hope they manage to answer these questions.

Why I oppose the challenge to the Essex & Silver Rooms

City Conservatives have today joined the growing chorus of opposition to the government's shift to personal budgets which could see valuable local services, such as the Essex and Silver Rooms, closing. I thought I would say, in more detail, why this is.

The decision to close the Essex and Silver Rooms comes as an unfortunate move for Norfolk County Council, forced in part by the Westminster government telling our local government to move to a “personal budget” model which represents a dramatic change from the former block-contracts system. Though the “personal budget” for social care offers people greater freedom, it doesn’t readily allow for day centres because they cannot guarantee the income they previously received, effectively forcing their closure.

No centre can move ahead without knowing it will be funded properly. Under “personal budgets” the centres may survive but if a number of people move their funding away from them, then they will have to shut. If these services close, where will people who depend upon that specific centre then go for care? It seems to me that this shows one of the potential weaknesses of the new system. I am strongly urging Norfolk County Council to recognise the needs for these important centres to stay open, especially given the shortage of day centre places and the waiting list to attend many of them.

So ... what now?
I will be working with my colleagues on Norwich City Council – from all parties – to see what we can do to help the campaign. I know some people believe all is lost, but I feel positive we can change this decision if we all work together. If we can prove that this is a genuine cross-party campaign with the strong backing of local people then we have a chance.

Norfolk County Council have options - for a start opposing what is being forced upon us by the national government. I hope they are in a listening mood.

LibDem blunder round-up...

There's the one who thinks he is the equivalent of Jesus Christ, the one who is de-selected for some very interesting reasons and the ones who are so desperate for LibDem members they are willing to give it away for free. Oh dear!!

BNP & QT

I could add to the mass written on the blogs about the appearance of the BNP Leader on Question Time tonight, but I don't know what I could add that hasn't been said.

So I will simply direct you to Norfolk Blogger's take on it - which puts it better than I ever could.

Anyone delivering Tory leaflets without telling me?

I recieved a letter today from a constituent saying that she had read our leaflet and wanted to disagree with our policy on the NHS.

Trouble is, we haven't put out a leaflet about the NHS ... which is a bit odd.

The Next General Election in 30 Minutes

After a discussion about getting more people interested in the work of the council, we then had a debate which one member of the public who did turn up to watch the council meeting described as a "disgrace". It was interesting and I cannot deny I love the cut and thrust of what we do, especially when the council is being political-with-a-capital-P, but this person said the debate was "messy, generally thoughtless and the kind of thing that puts us [ the voter, I assume ] off." I think that was a bit far - after all the debate gave us a very clear insight into the next election.

The motion was one that highlighted positive statements about Sure Start from national politicans (even the Green Party) and suggested that we ought to back the service and refrain from unfair political attacks - such as those parties who might suggest another party wishes to scrap Sure Start because this worries people unncessarily. I don't think anyone expected what came next ...

Cllr Andrew Wiltshire moved a very good speech about the work that Sure Start did. I have to say that I was left bewildered by the response of Labour's Cllr Sue Sands who reeled off a list of clubs that her Sure Start ran citing this as the reason it ought to continue. Great idea; let's share good practice from around the City. Unfortunately Cllr Sands doesn't seem to appreciate the work of Health Visitors quite so much and doesn't see the next to expand their work or to have a multi-agency approach to what Sure Start does. Cllr Ramsay, Green Leader, gave a good speech in favour of the motion - then LibDem Cllr Lubbock (and quite why she was chosen to respond was beyond me) descided to take the motion apart line by line. She didn't appreciate me correcting her every error - including when she criticised the stated aim of Sure Start (as taken from their website). A bizarre moment of my life that one. Lesson 101 of the Council; Whenever you want to oppose a motion but can't work out a decent reason you always say it is "badly written". I'd say her speech was badly written alright. Council Leader Cllr Steve Morphew wanted to know what the Conservatives would change about Sure Start and it was laid out some specifics about changing the role of the Health Visitors, the link to early years education and the role/direction of local services. Not good enough for Cllr Morphew who demands to know more. He is given more. He doesn't like the response so screams that he wasn't given an answer. He was given an answer, he just didn't like it or agree with it. So Cllr Morphew has the words of David Cameron stricken from the motion; quite why is beyond me but never mind. The motion is still passed - yes, the Conservatives still voted for it - and I assume Labour will continue to frighten some very young and very vulnerable voters with this come election time.

I remember letters written by Steve Morphew to the people of Bowthorpe saying that if they didn't vote Labour they wouldn't get new windows in their council homes. They didn't vote Labour but they still got new windows. Maybe we can't believe everything our Council Leader says?

So why do I say that this is a marker for the next General Election? Labour say everything is fine, keep spending chaps and smile for the cameras; the Conservatives want to change and reform our services so they better serve out communities; the LibDems look bewildered; and the Greens had very little indeed to say about the issue.

So could I convince the member of the public of this? No, but they thought none of us came out well. They were annoyed that what should have been a fairly bland political moment was hijacked by Labour. Get used to it, there's plenty of months before the election and I suspect all issues will be subject to this kind of game playing.

Let the political debate begin (we just might want to warn the public first!)

Peers shouldn't face questions in the Commons

I have been following the debate over the recent moves to have more Peers as Cabinet Ministers and how the elected House of Commons hold them accountable. Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, has suggested that they ought to face MPs in the chamber of the Commons (click here for more.) I would disagree.

Firstly this wouldn't be an issue if the Prime Minister hasn't taken so many Peers to be members of his cabinet. The system works best if the government of the day is drawn from the elected members (except, of course, those positions which have to sit within the Lords, such as its own Leader) because it keeps the lines of accountability and scrutiny very clear.

Constitutionalists and historians will keenly know what this country has been through to protect the integrity of the elected chamber. The privilidge of being an MP earns you certain rights and sitting in the Commons is one of those. The Monarch isn't allowed in the chamber - echoes of 1642 and all that - and has to address the joint session of both Houses from the House of Lords. And now, in disrespect to the history and traditions of the fight for parliamentary democracy in this country we are now to allow unelected Lords to address the chamber.

So, let's review - we don't allow Monarchs to do it, we don't allow foreign Heads of State to do it and we don't allow great statesmen to do it. But now we are allowing Mandelson and Adonis to do it. Doesn't seem right so far, does it?

Isn't the solution an arrangement with Westminster Hall or some other similar venue? Accountability is very important but we ought not to throw the baby out with the bath water here.

Cameron's new intake

The Conservative intake of 2010 will look very different to all those that went before it, according to an article in tomorrow's Sunday Times (click here). I am profiled - as a Tory candidate who is also a state school teacher and a Union Representative - along with other PPCs who don't fit the Tory mould. The Sunday Times is the latest newspaper or political site to regard Norwich South as a winnable seat for the Conservatives. It's well worth a read.

Great day for the City

Chloe Smith is now - officially - the MP for Norwich North. ConHome has some great shots of the swearing in here. As the weeks have rolled on, some have forgotten what a great victory Norwich North was for the party generally and Chloe personally. A great day for the City!

Influential poll puts Tories ahead in Norwich South

The EDP and Evening News cover the story here, including the factually incorrect and rather grumpy protestations from my opponents. I am not taking any vote for granted at this election and we must prove that we are ready for, and responsible in the use of, power. There is still a lot of work to do, but this backs up what we are being told on the doorsteps that we are performing very strongly in the race to be our next MP.

Oh, yes...

A LibDem friend of mine, a former activist for their party, made a point to me about Cameron's speech.

Mr Cameron didn't mention the LibDems once during the speech.

And in setting the debate at the next election between "big government" and "small government", Cameron has essentially defined it as between Labour and Conservative. No alternative.

"Oh, yes..." I replied.

Ready to Lead

Cameron's speech was probably the best he has given as Party Leader; even beating his noteless triumph of 2007. It was sensible, measured, detailed and gave the best narrative of what our party stands for that I have heard. Cameron's attack on poverty; and the standing ovation it won; says a lot about the party and where we are going. The section about Sam and Ivan was heartfelt and decent - such a passage could have been tricky for a political leader, but Cameron's genuine and personal statement certainly hit home - especially for new fathers such as me. His sections on education, health and crime were pitch-perfect.

Cameron looked like a Prime Minister in waiting - this wasn't the tubthumping speech of past leaders and it wasn't designed to fire up activists. But in a funny way it did just that - by adopting a softer more serious delivery, Mr Cameron has shown us what he wants every Tory candidate, MP and canvassers to do on the doorstep.

This speech hasn't won the next election - I don't think we have done that yet - but it certainly sets out a clear path for us to follow and a great message for the doorstep.

Gaffes come and Gaffes go

I have been amused by the media going bananas over the gaffe in which Tory Home Affairs Spokesman Chris Grayling got the wrong end of the stick over Gen Dannatt. It was on the same day that a certain leading BBC journo called David Cameron the "Prime Minister" and a SKY equivalent said George Osbourne was the "chancellor". These things happen, and everyone gets over them - even Political reporters!

Cameron's Bank Balance = Brown's Health?

I have just finished watching Andrew Marr grill Tory boss David Cameron as the party conference opens in Manchester. Marr was, at times, rude and deliberately provocative. Good, I say, that's just the way it should be and people at the sharp end of politics deserve that sort of scrutiny. However, once again, Marr went off political issues - Cameron had been quizzed about Europe, tax, spending & welfare reform to this point - and out of the blue asked Cameron what his personal wealth was.

When Cameron went to give an overly detailed answer, Marr got impatient and asked for a total figure. The question is - why should people know this? Now, being a teacher and a Councillor I am used to the fact that pretty much the whole of my financial dealings are available to anybody who can use google to search for my pay scales. My financial disclosure at City Hall will confirm anything else that is left. I am personally happy for people to know about all of this - but I don't think the private financial details of politicians are necessarily fair game for the public. Why should David and Samantha Cameron's bank balance be a matter for public scrutiny?

Personally I wonder if this was Marr's attempt to balance out his asking last week if the Prime Minister was on medication? His question prompted a tidal wave of anger and the more general point of what is or is not acceptable to ask politicans (including the Prime Minister).

On the Brown issue I back Marr; if the Prime Minister is doing anything which may affect his ability to do the job then he should be open about it. Do we really think that Cameron's bank balance impacts on his ability to do the job? I am not so sure.

If this was Marr's attempt to balance the books between the parties then it was rather bizarre to say the least.

And the result from the Commission into the Bleeding Obvious is...

Some schools waste money, according to a report (read this). But isn't the report itself the biggest waste of money - I could have told you this for free, as indeed could most of the people who work in schools?

When will Gordon's parliamentary maths not add up?

This week another Labour PPS and now a Business Minister have quit. It seems every week another person or people are jumping out of Gordon's tent. Yet, somehow, these people must be being replaced.

Labour have 350+ MPs and just upwards of 200 peers.

Hasn't Gordon run out of people to do jobs yet? I am amazed there is anyone left to serve!

"Zzzzz" ... Conference responds to Norwich Lib Dem speech

During my mammouth watching of the LibDem conference I was lucky enough to be able to watch Eaton Councillor Ros Wright addressing the main hall about consumer policy. Her speech - devoid of any point as far as I could see - must have been so riveting that when the camera panned to 2 crowd shots during it, one showed delegates fast asleep and the other recorded a batch of delegates leaving the hall. I will leave you to make of that what you will...

In Brown and Clegg, Cameron is very lucky in the quality of his opponents

I could write a very long blog post about how awful the week has been for the LibDem Leadership, with Clegg and Cable taking the brunt of it. But CH.com has a review far better than anything I could write so please take a look.

I have been told by 2 people this week, who have watched the conference in full, that is has actively put them off voting LibDem. In almost disbelief at this, I have today made time to watch the conference ... I haven't watched a LibDem conference in any detail for some time (probably since university) and thought that as politics becomes more profession that surely it must have been better than I remembered. Erm, no, it was if anything worse ... Oh dear, a week that Clegg may want to forget.

"Lessons to be learnt" admit LibDems as Cable's tax policies fall apart

The BBC reports on a very stormy meeting of LibDem MPs and frontbenchers who collectively tear apart the shambolic tax policies announced by Treasury Spokesman Vince Cable. Apparently they say that lessons will be learnt - will the first lesson be that not everything Cable says is gospel and, despite being the most influential LibDem in the country, he cannot carry the whole party and his own disasterous leader along.

5 steps to an acceptable tax hike ... but can it actually work?

Want to raise tax? Want to avoid the unpopularity that comes with wanting to raise tax? Follow these easy steps and you won't go far wrong!!

1. Only tax the "rich"
2. Define "rich" as anybody with a "million" of something
3. Make the tax rise sound small; only do things in demonination of "1%" or "2%"
4. Say the cash is for something very important indeed - so rich people are supporting good projects
5. Completely over-value the tax rise to make people think it is a great way of raising money

The trouble is that even if you do all 5 of these, most tax plans of this ilk tend to fall apart quite easily. Unless, of course, you think people will believe anything you say and do...

Obviously St. Vince of Cable has been taking the advice but already there are concerns about it. Even some LibDems are worried about this - they are worried because the people it hits live in some of their marginal seats in the South West and also South West London, and others remember the fate of Guildford in the 2005 over the "local income tax" policy (which shared a number of the criteria 1-5 too).

However I worry more that policies like this tend not to work. This one will hit house prices and independent financial experts have already said it won't raise anywhere near the figure that Cable claims. Houses that fall into the tax band will suddenly fall just under it - that is just one way to get around it. Many more will no doubt will be worked out later.

Cable has a position in politics where he feels and acts like he's untouchable. I think this may be a policy too far and not even his soft press can cushion the blow if it all falls apart in the wind.