Little's Log

Anyone who has ever canvassed for a candidate at election time (no matter which party) will know this feeling ...

2012-01-03T23:41:00.001Z

To elect, or not to elect ...

2012-01-01T20:36:00.004Z

These days elections do seen rather popular. We elect our MPs, our Councillors and soon our Police Commissioners. If Mr Clegg gets his way, we'll also have the chance to elect the members of the House of Lords. We vote for the directors of my building society. We voted in the parent governor elections at the kids school.

So, why don't we have an elected Conservative Chairman? If the Golf Club can get round to having an election for their Presidents, doesn't it seem odd that the political party in government has a complete democratic void at its top?

This morning, ConHome ran a story about Baroness Warsi (click here) having a bit of a go about the LibDems and asking them ever so nicely to stop "slagging off" the coalition. Indeed, a while ago I wrote about the potential for the Tory Chairman to have more of a leadership role in a coalition (click here). I urged that whilst the LibDems have a President and a Deputy Leader who both sit outside of government and can articulate the views of the their party members, that luxury is not afforded to the Tories whose Chairman sits in the cabinet.

Now putting aside the absurdity of the Tory Chairman sitting in a coalition cabinet whilst the LibDem equivalent does not, is there not a real chance to tie up these two ends?

More democracy and a chance for the conservative voice to be heard through a "fighting Chairman". If we directly elected our chairmam, he or she could sit outside of the government and be a real media / party figure. If the LibDems can stand on the sidelines and hastle the coalition over some issues, why can't the Tories have somebody who articulates our views like this?

Of course, it'll never happen. It really would be Cameron voting for Christmas. God knows who he'll end up with! (Although with some certainty it wouldn't be Warsi). But that is the problem with democracy - the people (in this case, the membership - the people who stuff envelopes, pay subscriptions and deliver leaflets) will decide and they don't always produce "the right result." However it would give people a reason to re-join the party and make members, many of whom feel disengeged by the party leadership and CCHQ. It would be a painless way of allowing the member to vent some of their frustrations. Who should it be? I don't know - but I am sure others will have ideas.

So if there isn't one already, I want to start the "elect our Chairman" campaign. It may only ever have one member ....

My 12 Predictions for 2012

2011-12-31T15:12:00.002Z

This time last year I set myself 3 personal goals - to lose weight (achieved, 2½ stone down), fix my teeth (achieved) and get trendy new glasses (failed). I never thought for a moment I'd be a father again, or that my career would be taking off, or that I would be writing for a magazine. Maybe these predictions will be more spot-on:

1. There won't be a General Election, Cameron and Clegg will both be in place but Ed Miliband will either be gone or fatally wounded.

2. Norwich City will stay in the premiership in a mid-table position.

3. The cabinet will lose a number of Secretary of State - Cable, Warsi, Gillan and Huhne will all be gone by next New Years Eve.

4. Online services will lead to a renaissance of hard-copy photographs.

5. The GOP will take control of the Senate but Obama will be back - just - defeating Romney in the Presidential election.

6. The French and German governments will take a hammering at the polls

7. At least 1 country will leave the Euro.

8. The Conservatives will finish the year behind in the opinion polls, but by less than 5%

9. The House of Lords still won't be reformed.

10. Labour will take outright control of the City Council, by virtue of the collapse of the Green vote

11. Norfolk County Council Tories will be bouyed by at least one more defection and/or by-election win

12. The Evening News will be free.

2011 Predictions - in full

2011-12-31T15:05:00.002Z

Well, here we go again. After writing nothing for months (resolution: pay more attention to things), I thought we'd start again by looking at my wise predictions for the year gone past:

1. A major national shop will unexpectedly open a branch in Norwich.
Right - and wrong. Looking back I couldn't have possible got this oen wrong, but there are a multitude to choose from!

2. City will face a nailbiting effort for promotion via the qualifiers and will ultiamtely win through.
I am very pleased that this was wrong - we got promotion via a slightly more exciting route!

3. The AV referendum will be lost, by 8%
Again, right and wrong. AV was crushed by the British public, but the loss was a massive 2:1 against rather than the 54-46 I predicted!

4. The economy will show strong signs of growth by December
Define "strong". LOL. OK, wrong!

5. Labour will take double digit poll leads during the year but by the end the Tories will be back within striking distance
Again, right and wrong. For most of the year Labour have had substantial leads, including soem in double digits. However, far from being "in striking distance", the Independent newspapers poll-of-polls shows Cameron's Tories back in the lead by 39-38%.

6. Labour will pick up seats in 2011 but not in large numbers and only the kind of wards the Tories were shocked to have won in 2007. No breakthrough.
Again, right and wrong. Labour did well in these elections but at the expense of the LibDems. The Tories ended up being net up seats.

7. Ed Miliband will still not be secure as Labour Leader but all 3 party leaders will show negative poll numbers and Clegg will be in the most serious trouble
Absolutely spot on here I think.

8. Most newspapers online will be behind the paywall
Couldn't be more wrong!

9. The invisible primary in the US will cut the number of realistic GOP hopefuls down to 4 - Huckabee, Palin, Romney and a surprise figure that perhaps we hadn't even considered in 2010.
Ha ha, wrong - Romney's still there but Palin and Huckabee are both out. I guess Cain, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann and Gingrich may count for this last bit!

10. "Skype me" will be the new "Facebook me"
Hmmm ...

OFSTED Alert

2011-09-19T21:46:00.001+01:00

Posting non-existent.

OFSTED imminent.

Forms to fill in etc.

Back soon.

Miliband's turn for PMQs howler

2011-09-14T20:48:00.004+01:00

I have been quick to criticise the Prime Minister on three occassions when I felt his attitude and language at the dispatch box have not been fitting for parliament - such as his remarks towards Tory MP Nadine Dorries last week.

Today the prize for PMQs blunder goes to Labour Leader Ed Miliband with his bizarre remarks about George Osborne "lashing himself to the mast ... not for the first time perhaps." That purile sexual innuendo might be OK between friends at a party but being shot across the Commons it isn't. Harriet Harman looked shocked, Ed Balls didn't know where to look. I think it was a genuine quip rather than a pre-prepared line. It doesn't make you cool, Ed, or win you any prizes for humour. You are not one of the lads. You are meant to be Leader of the Opposition. Start acting like it.

As for PMQs itself, clearly David Cameron wasn't on top form but luckily his opponent was (as usual) worse. Ed Miliband really must get a grip with his PMQs performances.

Can't a "third way" on elected police commissioners be found?

2011-09-13T21:17:00.004+01:00

The EDP has a rather understated story that Norfolk County Council will oppose government moves to introduce an elected police commissioner for the county. I say understated, because at first I couldn't believe they missed the chance to plaster "Tory splits" or "Coalition Collision Course" all over the front page, but then I realised that the council were merely backing the EDP stance on the issue and they might not want to frighten their new found buddies.

Anyway, the usually very sound Cllr Ian Mackie - a good man who will one day make an excellent County Council Leader - uses the chance to sound off about his own party's plans. Unfortunately though, I believe my old friend has it wrong on three counts.

Firstly he says that we have a "high profile" Chair of the Police Authority in Stephen Bett. I am sure he is high profile - in the council chamber. But on the streets of Norwich, or rural Norfolk for that matter, outside in our communities I suspect very very few people know who he is. I am involved in politics and even I had to google him to make sure I got the right name. When the EDP did us all a service by publishing the pictures of the members of the police authority, I could name just 2 of them - my old ward colleague Paul Wells and Green Councillor Phil Hardy - and I suspect I was 2 names ahead of 99% of the county. I urge our elected County Councillors to understand that to them these people may be "high profile" but to the rest of us they are not. The members of that police authority collect handsome allowances for their positions and the county council enjoys, as they would, the status and responsibility that brings to them. Good news for the people of Bowthorpe or Thorpe Hamlet - where Wells and Hardy represent - but how should I hold the police accountable? Difficult to say. And who gave those 2 no doubt superb public servants that role in the first place? Or any of them for that matter? People doing their shopping today in Norwich Market I doubt could tell me, either.

Then Cllr Mackie urges the government to let Norfolk decide who we wish our police to be run. Quite right. But nobody asked us about the current settup either. I didn't get to choose how my police are run, nor did I get to vote for my County Council reps on the Police Authority. So why are there no plans for referenda asking the people of Norfolk which system we wish to use? We could combine it with another poll to keep costs down, perhaps, but I do object to people using as an arguement against change that localism is vital (which it is) without asking local people if they want change.

And lastly there is the wonderful news that Norfolk is the safest county in England - good news that is I am sure in no small part down to the work of people like Cllrs Wells, Hardy and Mackie. But it shouldn't be the case that just because we are a low-crime area that I as a taxpayer - or to be more precise a police precept payer - have no control over how that money is spent or what the policing priorities are. The police do a vital job but they spend public money. Schools and hospitals have boards where the public have their directly elected members, why not the police? Actually, just because something is working doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to hold that something to account.

You may read this and think I am madly in favour of police commissioners. I am not. I am in favour of democracy, accountability and open public services. I believe that like schools, the police authority should be much more open in its work. I don't want to vote for a County Councillor who then votes for another County Councillor to sit on this body. Nobody then feeds back to me, not my County Councillor or even the ones on the body itself.

Come on Norfolk, we can do better. Don't oppose this because you like the cosy relationship between the police authority and the County Council. Why not have accountability? Why not attack government plans using a plan of your own to improve the relationship between the police authority and the people of Norfolk rather than just clinging to the EDP's statist status quo ideals?

As I say, I am not wildly up for elected commissioners but they are, in my view, a darn site better than what we have at the moment. But I am surprised nobody can think of a better solution than both of them, to what is a very real democractic deficit at the heart of our public services.

Norfolk Boundary Review: "Coalition Stitch-Up"?

2011-09-12T18:09:00.003+01:00

On my way home from work tonight I met one of Norwich Labour's hardest workers, standing on the street corner visably fuming. Little did I know that the Boundary Review had been leaked and if Guido is correct then Labour have a lot to worry about. My angry socialist friend went off on one about a "coalition stitch-up" which sees all the Tory and LibDem held seats get safer and thus more difficult for Labour to gain. Here in Norwich South there are no changes whatsoever, but Labour's view is that no matter where the boundaries took him Simon Wright is a (political) dead-man walking.

Not so long ago Labour held 3 seats in Norfolk - Norwich N, Norwich S and Yarmouth - with an outside chance of NW Norfolk in a very good year (e.g. 1997). In that year they also got very close to taking SW Norfolk it should be remembered but never actually achieved it.

And now what? With Great Yarmouth taking in the staunchly Conservative areas around the southern tip of North Norfolk, Tory MP Brandon Lewis will have even more blue-backing rural areas to "overwhelm" the Labour folk of GY. In addition, those changes would make North Norfolk safer for LibDem Norman Lamb - and even more so when the strongly LibDem (at General Elections, anyway) area around Fakenham are put back in the seat. That leaves just Norwich North where Chloe Smith will see her majority soar as she takes safe Tory territories of Drayton and Taverham back into her patch.

Despite changes, the new "Kings Lynn" seat is still well out of reach for Labour and "South Norfolk", "Broadland & Dereham" and "Thetford & Swaffham" equally so.

So for Labour their best case scenario of a Norfolk with 3 winnable seats is shot to pieces - just 1 (Norwich S) remains.

My Labour friend seethed and sweated. He believed that this is all a stitch-up to guarantee coalition seats in the county and deny Labour representation. Labour, I am told, will fight this all the way. He argued that Norfolk will have 8 safe seats and 1 marginal and so politics could become very boring indeed in the future.

We'll see. But this Boundary decision, I sense, is far from over.

Cameron, Gove, the Free School (a door and a microphone...)

2011-09-09T19:16:00.007+01:00

Up until around 9.30pm last night I had little idea I would be spending time today with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Education, a large chunk of the political media and their entourage at the new Free School in Norwich, where I am a Governor.

The Free School here has always been low key and quiet. It has great support from people in all 3 major parties, has quietly worked on the project behind the scenes and hasn't exploded into the pages of the national papers in spats with unions, celebrities or the local population. In fact, quite the opposite, the Free School has been welcomed by the City. Certainly, being 4 times oversubscribed suggested so.

So today to find the world and their wife camped on the doorstep was quite a surprise. The shocked looking children were more than a little surprised themselves, I am sure (in fact, twice, I was asked if I was the Prime Miniser...)

I am used to the media hunting in packs but what surprised me in the build up to the speech, which has led the bulletins on the news for much of the day, was the number of Number 10 folk and the security services that buzz around the PM. His every move, every footstep, every encounter and every chair he sits on is perfectly worked out and choreorgraphed. The Number 10 handlers are quite brutal with the press - I suppose they have to be - and the press in return seemed to me to be decent and willing to play along. The audience was made up of the press huddle plus figures from the local educational community; actually quite a risk for the PM as the public Q&A afterwards could - but didn't - turn tricky.

I was in charge of a door. Ohhhh, yes. I was instructed that when I saw somebody who resembled the Prime Minister I was to open a door for him and the school principal, Tania Sidney-Roberts. The door only opened one way so without me, a nonplussed looking PM would be left standing looking in at the classroom. What a responsibility! I was even told to open the door well before Cameron reached me, for to open the door outwards when the PM was too close *may* result in me striking, nay assassinating, the British Prime Minister. The instructions were so tight and so precise, I wondered if I was up for this herculean task.

As it happens, my door opening was quite the remarkable success and I feel that everything that followed was as a direct result. In fact, should Mr Cameron go onto success in the 2015 General Election, people may trace it back to this education speech which he gave, unharmed from being smacked in the face by a door.

As the PM spoke to the teachers and saw the school ICT Cloud in operation I whisked off to see the great-and-the-good (local MPs, Headteachers, etc etc) and also Secretary of State Michael Gove. I am, as regular readers will know, a massive - MASSIVE - Gove fan. As a teacher and as a voter, I find him impressive, lucid and intellectually on top of his brief. Being able to tell him parts of the story of the Free School was a very enjoyable conversation.

But hang on, dear blog readers, just as I thought I could settle down in the second row to watch the PM speak, another shock. The Number 10 handlers felt that following my triumph with the door, I was to be promoted to holding a microphone. Luckily, unlike a certain former PM, I had the sense to check it was off before gossiping with colleagues. Anyway, should the mic at the podeum fail, I was the backup plan!! What joy; though luckily no such disaster occurred. Then when the question session started I was to leap to my feet and offer the mic to those asking the posers to the PM. I was, if I may say, like a cat. The first question was asked by my own Headteacher, Brian Conway at Notre Dame, and I think my passing of a mic looked more like a "lunge" and I nearly smacked him on the head with the furry end. Now that would have been embarrassing. Luckily Brian - clearly a semi-pro himself - grabbed the mic and settled me on my feet. If I had of crushed Nick Robinson beneath my 16 stone frame I would never have forgiven myself, although parts of the Westminster Village may have nominated me for a CBE.

It's odd how the easiest of jobs seem incredible tense when the Prime Minister is watching and waiting for you and where the menial nature of the task is outweighed by the cringe factor should you get it wrong. Its not as if I haven't done press conferences, met David Cameron before, or been on the TV live. Just today I had the image in my head of things going wrong and was desperately trying to stop them actually happening.

Anyway, Cameron's delivery was - as always - extremely good. He is very impressive in real life; even the Labourites in the audienc said so. The speech wasn't too long and easy for the audience to engage with. Most importantly his messages of academic rigour, freedom for schools and the like were all spot on. He had new ideas to announce. The speech wasn't too detailed; I'm not sure it was meant to be. It felt more like the start of a debate than anything else. For example if you cut benefits from homes where kids truant, what would you do the parents of truants who aren't on benefits? It is slightly strange to watch a speech from 6 foot away where somebody is usuing the autocues. The new transparent ones look great on TV but up close it always looks as if the speech maker is looking into the middle distance rather than at the audience. With so many nodding heads around me, Mr Cameron might have got great faith for his ideas by looking down at us!

Michael Gove is a very warm person I find - he always remembers who I am ("a great man in so many ways," he flattered me with ... I am sure he says that to everyone he meets) and can instantly recall when you last met and what you spoke about. With Mr Cameron - and this is not a criticism because we have met about 4 times and he probably meets a hundred or more people a day - he is more about listening to your story and what you have to say on issues.

On education I find myself in 99.9% agree with this government; something not all policy areas achieve. The PM and Mr Gove were kind and generous about the Free School and were genuinely impressed with it all. They left with great knowledge that the policy, here in Norwich, was working well.

So as you settle down to watch the PM on TV tonight, think of those small moments, with doors and mics, that make great speeches what they are.

Meet the Chairman? Don't think so.

2011-09-09T18:33:00.002+01:00

It was great to see the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education coming to the Norwich South constituency today. Even more so as the number of high flying government ministers, or leading Conservatives, that visit Norwich are rather few in number.

Take a look at this map, helpfully provided by the Tory Party which shows where the co-chairs of the Party have visited recently. Lots of visits in London and the South East (to be expected) but also a lot in the Midlands and the North West. Northern Ireland has been blessed, as have a few locations in Scotland and even in far-flung Cornwall. But anyone else notice the massive gap anywhere? They seem to get to Essex and stop. Nothing in Norfolk, Suffolk or Cambs. In fact it looks like we'd have to travel to Northamptonshire to see the Party Chairman.

I have spoken before about my concerns about the way the Chairmen are running the party. By choosing to stay away from the East of England - an absolute true-blue Conservative heartland awash with members - is a bizarre decision that will hardly make the party faithful feel appreciated.

NASUWT: Strike Action "that time is now near"

2011-09-07T21:54:00.002+01:00

I have today recieved a letter from Ms Chris Keates, General Secretary of the NASUWT, which in parts almost reads as quite balanced. But Ms Keates blows it at the end, urging members to do something about workload, pay, pensions and conditions of service, budget cuts, pupil indiscipline and job security.

The letter complains that "the Coalition Government, on taking office, claimed, and continues to do so, that schools routinely fail children and young people, teaching standards are poor, sacking teachers is too difficult and the teacher's contract lacks flexibility."

In a final flourish, Ms Keates warns that "members have already indicated a willingness to take appropriate national industrial action" and that "that time is now near".

I wonder what the general public makes of the NASUWT and people like Ms Keates? Ms Keates who draws a near £140,000 renumeration package and who ignores her members on twitter and will not return our phone calls.

Academy Status

2011-09-07T21:45:00.003+01:00

Notre Dame High School, where I work in Surrey Street, has announced that its Governing Body is consulting on conversion to Academy Status. If you have any views you can email them to academyconsultation@notredamehigh.norfolk.sch.uk or visit www.ndhs.org.uk for updates.

Cameron vs. Dorries

2011-09-07T20:31:00.001+01:00

I have just caught up with a rather flat PMQs in which the most bizarre sight was that of David Cameron slapping down a backbench Tory MP, Bedfordshire's Nadine Dorries.

I have blogged before that I sometimes feel Mr Cameron isn't very parliamentary; his now semi-regular slips aren't "offensive" (as some claim) or "sexist" (calm down, dear) but don't represent a very statesmanlike approach to the House of Commons.

Today, Mr Cameron I feel did overstep the mark and stuck a toe into some very murky waters. Dorries asked the PM a typically straight forward question on LibDem influence over Free Schools, NHS and abortion laws and asked him to tell DPM Nick Clegg who the boss is. That question probably summarised the way a lot of Conservative MPs, activists and members feel. David Cameron - to be fair on him trying to speak over a loud House of Commons - then suggested Ms Dorries was "frustrated". The look on his face suggested he didn't take Dorries, her question or her concern very seriously. Unable to say anymore, he then said he'd give up on it and sat down. Mr Cameron made little to no attempt to answer her question and chose to smirk rather than engage.

Where does this end - does the PM get to choose which questions he answers or doesn't? Even if he isn't very clear or detailed in the answer, he ought to give one. To not do so shows very little respect for an elected MP.

What makes it worse is that David Cameron is bigger than this. He never has any trouble dealing with Labour Leader Ed Miliband so why he feels the need to treat a backbench Tory MP at the lowest rung of the parliamentary ladder so brutally and with such discourtesy is beyond me.

We Need A "Fighting Chairman"

2011-08-21T19:27:00.003+01:00

The job of being Conservative Party Chairman has, traditionally, been quite a unique one in British politics. The role is both political and administrative and tends to be split into 2 - the internal focus of party organisation, making campaign HQ work effectivly and firing up to troops (a job Eric Pickles did so very well) and the external one of going out onto the airwaves and beating the hell out of the opposition (a job Norman Tebbit did so very well).

So when, after the election, David Cameron appointed Sayeeda Warsi to the job I thought the new Prime Minister would have thought long and hard about this appointment. Warsi was clearly, I thought, the woman for the job - so impressive was she, that Mr Cameron had to get her into government via the appointed House of Lords rather than election to the House of Commons. At the time I remember some grumbling, from the old guard, about her getting the job because she is a female Muslim, but I had to dismiss these arguments. As if the Prime Minister, especially one whose task was made more difficult by holding a coalition together, would make an appointment on such spurious grounds.

The recent riots in Britain have, though, given me cause to think again. You see, in ordinary times the Prime Minister would balance his role in government with being the Leader of his Party. The problem Mr Cameron has is the nature of coalition government. I am sure he wants to do and say a lot of things that he just cannot do because somewhere a "senior" LibDem (and I am yet to hea of one of the media who doesn't have that label) would go ballistic. I am sure, call me niave if you wish, that Mr Cameron is much, much tougher on justice policy, human rights, EU integration and foreign policy than he could ever say in public. A coalition government is a classic balancing act in that respect and I am sure many LibDems feel the same about Mr Clegg.

So here is where I would expect the Tory Chairman to step in, and say all the things that our members and supporters want to hear (and, I warrant, a majority of the country). Where was our Chairman going from studio to studio, radio mic to daytime sofa, giving those no-nonsense tough talking interviews? Nowhere; almost invisible. The few media appearances she did make were, frankly, poor. That's why it was Michael Gove who - the PM aside - made all the running and gave the party faithful something to go door-to-door with. What stopped Baroness Warsi? Where was she and what was she doing?

When we have a Tory Leader who cannot be, and say, all that he wishes it is paramount we have a "Fighting Chairman" who goes out there and punches for us.

Now I know what my critics would say - Baroness Warsi is also a member of the government and a member of the cabinet. Her (almost) LibDem equivalents, President Tim Farron MP and Deputy Leader Simon Hughes MP, both sit outside of the government.

So I have a suggestion to make.

Use the undoubted talents of Baroness Warsi elsehwere in the government and give us our "Fighting Chairman". Then, remove the holder of the Tory Chairmanship from the cabinet to give them the freedom to speak (or shout) up for us without the constraints of collective responsibility.

Because when the Conservative Leader cannot lead the Conservatives above all else, the Chairman should.

NASUWT Update I

2011-08-21T12:13:00.003+01:00

I have had a fair few comments, emails, tweets and calls from fellow NASUWT members also requesting information on the massive payout given to our General Secretary. I hope she does more than just putting deeply inaccurate and flawed information into union magazines.

Anyway I have now send Ms Keates around half a dozen tweets asking for a conversation or a chance to communication about her renumeration package - but no reply (yet). What is she, or her spokespeople at NASUWT, so afriad of?

NASUWT Watch: The Union Fat-Cats

2011-08-19T11:35:00.002+01:00

According to my Union magazine, the General Secretary of the NASUWT Christine Keates has a salary package worth touching-on £140,000 per year. I wonder who in the educational profession earns anywhere near that? That is a package not far off the Secretary of State himself.

As a sub-paying member I phoned the NASUWT HQ to ask them if anybody would like to justify that sort of wage. I was put on hold for a few minutes, before being told nobody was available to speak to me. I then asked to speak to Ms Keates herself; after all, she ought to know why she is paid so much. I was told that she was away - or busy, they weren't quite sure which - and they would pass on a message.

This was 2 days ago and still nobody has returned my call.

Can I suggest that the Union movement might have slightly more public support and credibility if its leaders weren't such obvious fat-cats themselves? Why shouldn't union leaders take, for example, the average salary of their members - I'm sure that would get support amongst the public and ordinary union members. As I'm overly-generous why not offer them the average plus 25%?

I look forward to Ms Keates calling me back; and in the meantime I may just look into other ways of advancing this cause.

The Public & PMQs

2011-08-17T14:13:00.003+01:00

"The Public don't like it, and I don't like it."

Well, that's the usual refrain of Commons Speaker John Bercow as things get a little loud at Prime Minister's Question Time. I have spoken before (here) about the fact that I like it when PMQs gets lively and think that the pressure, or otherwise, put on MPs in a good thing.

I cannot remember a week when Speaker Bercow hasn't stopped the flow of an arguement, and even on some occassions silence our Prime Minister, to repeat his charge that the public doesn't like the noise and bustle of the questioning. I know that Speaker Bercow was elected on a reforming platform and much that he has done I personally approve of, such as increased use of Urgent Questions, but his attitude and behaviour at PMQs does worry me. And what worries me more is that he uses "the public" as a method backing up his own views.

At the end of my previous post, I asked the question "who are these public that tell Speaker Bercow they want a santised PMQs" and it has played on my mind ever since. So I ended up putting in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking the Speaker exactly how many memebrs of the public have complained about the behaviour of MPs at PMQs.

After all, to change the whole tone of PMQs must suggest massive public fury; members of the public firing off angry letters and emails to vent their fury that MPs should ask reasonable questions in reasonable ways and recieve them in utter silence. They demand, these public, that the Speaker acts as a teacher would, insisting on decorum and threatening any MP, including the Prime Minister and both frontbenches with detention unless they play ball. He should even pick out a few and make jibes at them in order to control the commons.

So my FOI request asked how many pieces of communication (letter, phone call or email) the Speaker had recieved complaining about behaviour at PMQs. Go on, take a guess.

Well the answer may surprise you. The Speakers office only hold communications for sixth months, but in the half year until 22 July there were ...

... ready for it ...

... 36 ...

... yes, thirty six.

36 members of the public have complained about the standard of behaviour at PMQs in six months.

I am amazed that our bossy, overbearing Speaker has the cheek to call forth public opinion on this matter when less than half of one percent of one average constituency in the UK has registered a complaint.

That's fewer people than complain about your average Eastenders storyline and even fewer than most e-petitions, no matter how obscure the topic, gather.

And how many people have written to complain about the Speaker's constant interruption? Well apparently they are working on that figure for me as I blog. I am sure it'll be less than 36 but it shows how few people really, actually care enough about an issue to take up pen, keyboard or telephone and do something about it.

So let's hear slightly less about how the public dislike the format of PMQs, Mr Speaker, because at best the public haven't spoken yet on the issue.

If you have a spare tenner, put it on Michael Gove to be the next Conservative Leader ...

2011-08-10T12:59:00.002+01:00

Michael Gove is an absolute master of his Education brief, his media performances over the riots this morning were very good indeed and I have just caught up with his absolute mauling of Labour's Harriet Harman here:

If you have a spare tenner, a flutter on Mr Gove might not be a bad idea. A few years transforming our education system, Gove would make an excellent Home Secretary and then who knows - the next Leader of the Conservative Party?

Pickles 1 - Shameless Labour Councils 0

2011-08-05T11:50:00.003+01:00

Eric Pickles has done what Eric Pickles does best today.

He has put information in the public domain that has 2 points to it - most importantly he is opening up the books of local government and shwoing tax payers exactly what they are (or aren't) getting for their money. But this has the added bonus side-effect of humiliating some councils (generally Labour run, but Tory ones too) who aren't doing their job properly.

Imagine this scenario. You are a large Labour-run authority interested not in the best for your local people but in your own re-election locally and in damaging the national coalition as much as possible. Along come those dastardly cuts (you know, the ones that take us way-way-back to 2007 levels) and you see an opportunity. Cut massively, slash services, impact as much as you can. Then blame the government and sit back as the votes roll in for Labour at the next local election and, hopefully, the next General Election. This is exactly what is happening up and down the land.

The trouble is that these councils have other choices before they start making deep cuts in local services. And today Eric Pickles shines the light on the assets those council have and urge them to think about using them before cutting. If I lived in one of those large Labour-run authorities I would be rightly angry that they were cutting, say, rubbish collection whilst owning an airport/football club/cinemas/golf courses (delete as appropriate).

Now I totally accept that many of these assets will actually be investments; we can't sell off the family-silver if, in fact, the family silver is generating income for the council (especially above that which could be obtained via other methods like banks, and a lot safer!). Councils locally, such as Breckland, I understand draw a decent income from their asset-investment and use this money to hold down council tax. Mr Pickles would approve I am sure. But frankly any asset which has been consistently either breaking even or making a loss needs to go.

And there is one last question - should councils own this stuff in the first place? If the asset doesn't produce an income (like a golf course can) and isn't in the community interest (as some football clubs can be), then why own it? And if possible could the poitn of the asset be achieved in some other way?

This is a complex issue which needs to be taken case-by-case. But the brilliance of the Communities Secretary (I am a self-confessed Pickles fan) is that in one sweep he has destroyed the arguement in the public eye about the need for deep and painful cuts at local level in certain places.

In the same way I don't believe Norwich City Council should cut one iota of service before "political assistants" (council employees paid to work for party political councillors) are removed or the salaries of top staff is cut, I wouldn't accept any cut whilst a council asset portfolio hasn't been publicly examined.

Take a look at any message board today - the standard comment is "I can't believe my council have cut X whilst they own a Y!!!". Another round to Mr Pickles, me thinks.

I urge everyone to get online, see what their council owns and start asking questions about it!

Death Penalty: For The Avoidance of Doubt

2011-08-04T16:47:00.003+01:00

No.

Ever.

However ... what it does raise is an interesting discussion regarding indirect democracy.

As I often ask my A Level students; if democracy is a good thing, what happens when MPs and the public collide on an issue such as - the death penalty? A few years ago a very bright young student called it "pick 'n mix democracy"; the public get to choose which issues it ought to have primacy over (death penalty, Europe, single currency, immigration to name a few) and which issues it delegates to parliament (everything else you don't find on the letters page of the Daily Mail, he quipped.) But we don't have a "pick 'n' mix democracy", we just have a parliamentary democracy, I said.

Ah, my padawan learner replied, and there-in lies the issue. Under "pick 'n' mix democracy" the pubic get the choose what they decide about, under "parliamentary democracy" the MPs do. I was reminded of this conversation when the AV Referendum was announced - the classic example. We, the people, don't get to decide on the death penalty (which a lot of people care about about) but do get to decide on AV (which very very very few people care about).

Discuss.

(Oh, and I say this as somebody absolutely and totally opposed - to both the death penalty and AV).

The People's Jury: Guilty or Not Guilty?

2011-08-02T20:21:00.003+01:00

In his excellent piece for the Telegraph (here) blogger Graeme Archer does a grand job of knocking down the rather, ahem, inetresting idea in the Guardian (where else?) that a randomly selected "jury" of 1,000 Britons ought to hold court on some of the big issues facing the public.

Putitng aside Archer's point about this unelected clique telling our elected parliament what to do and think (I am rather fond of the idea of parliamentary sovereignty and voting at election time to make my voice heard) the idea is doomed because it almost certainly won't get the protagonists what they want.

By dangling 3 big issues - MPs expenses, the banking crisis and phone hacking - in front of the public, all issues where the public take issue with "vested interests" and "big businesses" - they make the idea sound attractive. But consider this. Britain is - wait for it - a conservative (small "c") country. For the vast majority of the last century or so, we have had Conservative, Conservaive-led or Conservative-dominated National governments. There is, as we are now finding out, a big conservative element to the LibDems and also to the Labour Party too. We have had precious few radical socialist, or even just socialist, governments and the only time recently when Labour have "won big" is when they shifted to the right (i.e. to where the people of Britain are). Sorry Guardian readers, however few of you there are left, it is true. Go to a council estate anywhere in the country, where you might expect Labour support to be strongest. Ask them about Europe, or immigration, or taxation levels and see what they say; I distinctly remember one voter last time in the heart of Lakeham lecturing me about the evils of Europe, too many immigrants, tax too high etc etc and - you guessed it - he would still be voting Labour. Even Labour folk have a conservative element to them.

So if you take 1,000 random Britons you wouldn't get the spread I think The Guardian expect. And instead of asking them about MPs expenses, as Archer suggests, you put other issues in front of them, you might not get the answer you expect either.

So I lay this challenge to The Guardian, The People's Jury and its fans. With some polls putting support for a return to the death penalty at over 70%, would you be happy for the first idea for discussion to be the death penalty?

Dontcha just love indrect democracy - when it suits you, eh, Guardian readers? ;-)

Bizarre Thought of the Day

2011-07-22T11:57:00.001+01:00

If my maths and calendar are correct, as of today I have now spent more of my life as a member of the Conservative Party than not being a member of the Conservative Party.

Make of that what you will.

WARNING: This post has nothing to do with Rupert Murdoch but is about something else important

2011-07-19T20:34:00.003+01:00

I thought you may like to consider an issue that doesn’t involve phone hacking but does impact on millions of families across the country – the issue of paternity pay.

One of the things that has impressed me about this government is the way in which Mr Cameron pledged to make his government the “most family friendly” in Europe. He spoke about general wellbeing being as important as economic wellbeing. I think Nick Clegg doing the school run is a great example to Dads all over the country. And yet in one very important respect I feel the government is failing badly.

I have two children and a third due in November. I work as a High School teacher and earn a decent salary – over the national average but certainly now what you would call “rich”. I understand politicians like to call us a “hard working family” and that Mr Miliband would suggest I am the “squeezed middle.” I want to be there to support my wife after she has our baby, and this support is increasingly important given that the other children need love, support, packed lunches and getting to school! My employers at my school are amazingly good to me when I need to perform parental duties but they are tied by local government paternity leave packages.

That package gives me one week – 5 days – at full pay. It then offers a second week but at a fixed lower rate of standard “SMP”. This lower rate is around £128 per week, which is very much lower than my normal weekly wage. I would, therefore, be taking a massive financial hit in order to be able to spend an extra few days with my new baby and to support my wife. I am being asked to choose between the money and my family. Unfortunately the way that the economy is, I have to choose going back to work to keep the money coming in. So within 7 days of the trauma and exhaustion of giving birth, my wife is being expected to juggle 2 kids, a new born baby and everything that comes with you. Of all all people, the one who must understand this is the Prime Minister.

However it isn’t just the lack of support for new fathers that I have a problem with. There is, in my view, a further more worrying injustice. As the rate of SMP is fixed, the more you earn the bigger the drop you will take to be at home with your family and so the greater the problem is. Don’t get me wrong – I believe rich, poor or anywhere in-between, a new father should be there for their new family member. But for the very rich taking the time off isn’t a financial worry because they are, by virtue, very rich. And for the poor paid the SMP is closer to their actual weekly income. For those people, like me, in the middle we are being priced out of spending time with our families.

It is in many ways the same as my opposition to tuition fees - fees don't affect the rich (because they are rich), don't affect the poor (because they don't pay) but do affect those of us in the middle. As usual.

If you could leave a solution in the comments that would be great - but before you are tempted into telling me I ought to be grateful for being on a teachers wage, I would ask you ... at what salary do you consider people rich?

There IS no life after Cameron

2011-07-18T19:02:00.002+01:00

As the hackgate story claims scalp after scalp, Iain Dale wonders if the crisis will lap up against the feet at Number Ten, whilst pb.com speculates on who might be next if the PM is hit by that theoretical political bus.

I have no idea how far the investiagtions will go or what the outcome will be, but I am willing to bet at any odds that the PM will survive. And for 2 very good reasons.

Firstly there is absolutely nobody to replace him - there is, literally, no life after Cameron. Johnson isn't in the Commons, Osborne is not loved by the public and the election of Hunt would be too ironic given the circumstances. Hague? Doubtful. Even my own beloved Gove - along with Lansley - would be controversial given their reforming zeal in parliament has made them enemies. Some suggest David Davis, but he has languished too long on the backbenches to have a realistic powerbase. Theresa May is being "bigged up" by some and true she has made great strides at the home office but her leadership metal has yet to be tested. It therefore leaves Hague, but Hague would always be the caretaker leader and the public, coalition, party and parliament would know it. We've got this coalition because the nation needs stabilty and having a caretaker PM wouldn't deliver that. Until there is "another", Cameron is safe.

But also a second reason. The personal glue that holds this coalition together is Cameron and Clegg. Could any other leader hold this government together in the way that Cameron has? I very much doubt it. A lurch to the right - say under Fox - would destroy the coaltiion quickly and many of the other candidates would see a slower but equally painful death. The fact is that Cameron IS the coalition and without Cameron there is NO coalition. My view is simple - if Cameron falls, we are back into General Election territory within six months and that election would be without the smaller Commons and boundary changes the Tories crave.

As I say, I am not sure where the hackgate situation is going, but Cameron is going nowhere. The party needs him, the coalition needs him and, given the current polling (the Tories took the lead again tonight) the country still needs him.

Don't worry about the money, Iain ...

2011-07-08T15:58:00.001+01:00

Iain Dale writes passionately about the financial perils of being a parliamentary candidate and he is right to do so. No matter how correct he is, I fear his warnings will fall on deaf ears as the issue of political recruitment is one where “the powers that be” make all the right noises without actually having any answers to it and, in some cases, making it more difficult for folk to get involved in politics.

David Cameron once said that he wanted a British Parliament that looked more like the people it represented. The public anger towards politicians is about more than just expenses and betrayed promises; I believe strongly that part of the issue is the kind of people that end up becoming MPs. More and more of our “representatives” are young, professional politicians. The MPs of old had the route through Oxbridge and then via Daddy’s firm; the new breed of politicians are the think tankers, the well connected, the party goers and those with the disposable income and location to put themselves at the centre of the action. Go out on the High Street near you and see how many people that pass you who look, sound or act like the average parliamentary candidate.

It isn’t just those without money , Iain. It’s those who live too far from London to attend the right parties. Those who have demanding jobs and cannot take weeks off to camp out at by-elections. Those who have family commitments which mean you can’t dump the kids and dash off to conferences here there and everywhere. Those who aren’t asked to pose for tattler or write for the Spectator. We have a new generation of those “born to be MPs”.

Forget “diversity” as you know it. Where are the MPs who were once firefighters? What about the computer programmers or the restaurant owners? Where are the teachers on the Tory side or the business leaders in the Labour ranks?

Answer me this.

Michael is an ambulance driver. He isn’t well paid and lives, with his wife and 3 kids, in a northern town. He works a full-time, usually 6 days a week, and takes pride in caring for his family and his young children in particular.

Is Michael the kind of guy we want to stand for parliament? If we do, what do you think his chances of getting selected and elected are?

Tom is a graduate from central London who earns a decent wage in a job that gives him flexi time and plenty of holidays. He is single and has no kids. He attends all of the party events and conference. Using this he knows the right people and has the time and effort to put into the leg work. Is Tom the kind of guy we want to stand for parliament? If we do, what do you think are his chances of getting selected and elected are?

If we want a representative parliament we need Michael and Tom in parliament. The trouble is that the system is so stacked against one of those candidates it isn’t just money we ought to be concerned about.

The cash rich have an advantage, yes, but so too do the time rich and the contact rich. And what do the party machines plan to do about this? Don’t hold your breath for anything to change too soon ... but we do need a national debate about how we support a more diverse group of people to stand for parliament and serve as our MPs.

PMQs Pleaser

2011-06-29T23:39:00.002+01:00

I am a bit of traditionalist and a fan of PMQs. Some days, like today, are so manic I cannot watch it until nearly midnight but I watch it weekly during the parliamentary term. And every week Speaker Bercow, a man whom I admire for many of his reforms, rises up to tell MPs that the public doesn't like the way they conduct themselves and they ought to reign it in.

Well I wanted to say that, as a member of the public, I do like a robust and loud PMQs. It puts the PM under pressure and a good job too.

What really devalues PMQs is the shameless whips-handout style questions from both sides of the House and if Speaker Bercow wanted to improve the session he could tackle that first, closely followed by the MPs who read out lng winded questions designed only to get themselves in the local rag.

In a political world where most people view MPs as careerist clones, why would we want to do away with the one bit of the week that gives the Commons character and life?

Who are these "public" that tell Speaker Bercow they want a sanitised PMQs, because I'm not one of them!

The Shales Plan is Good

2011-06-27T20:56:00.002+01:00

I didn't know Christopher Shales but what I have read about him since his death suggest to me he is a decent, kind and community minded man who will be much missed, by his family and friends but also by the Prime Minister and our party.

Mr Shales is clearly a man who understands the Conservative Party and, most importantly, understands the way our members work. On the day of his death, Mr Shales plan to rejuvenate party membership was splashed in the Sunday Mail. The thing is, when you get beyond the tabloid-esque headlines (although, to be frank, he is correct on many of those too), the Shales Plan is rather good. A blogger, Guido, has obtained the report and done a service by linking to it in full. Anybody with an interest in strengthening the Conservatives would do well to read this.

You see, it is a good, objective & fundamentally sound report. Its conclusions are broadly correct (although James Forsyth, who got the scoop for the Mail, adds a few more helpful suggestions such as being able to actually influence policy formation or candidate selection as a member).

At the last General Election, a year ago, over half of the people who worked on my campaign were not (repeat, NOT) members of the Norwich South Conservative Association. And we are not just talking about the scores of friends, relatives and colleagues who stepped up to help me either. We had tellers on polling day, leafleters, canvassers and poster sites from people who "just wanted to do their bit" and help either me personally or the party as a whole. These people are not politics heavy (to quote Mr Shales) but very much politics light. They do not wish to be memebrs of the Party - heavens forbid. Take one lady from Lakenham who contacted us about three weeks from polling day. She delivered over 250 leaflets to her area every week until the poll, around 1000 in total. She did 4 hours of telling on polling day. She displayed a Tory sign, with pride. Or another, a resident from Town Close whom I had helped during my time on the council. She would deliver the 100 houses in her road (which she did on no less than 6 occassions during the actual camapign) and invited me to one of her groups to meet other like-minded people. Both of these women I have tried to sign up as party members. Both steadfastly refuse. Not beceause they are not Conservatives; both has an interest in seeing me elected as our MP and a Tory government but neither wanted to get involved with an aossictaion they saw as elderly, boring or (as Shales said) always after their money. I don't see those characteristics in NSCA. I love the association and the events we put on and the people who attend them are a good cross section of Norwich. But until we offer the likes of "Lakenham woman" or "Town Close Mum" a good reason to join, they'll never find that out.

Now the crux here is that NSCA will never be able to offer what WOCA can. We don't have access to streams of cabinet ministers or senior MPs. There are few country pads to host PMQ parties in. But we do need to offer them something; an experience or return for their members just beyond securing an ideology. Yes that will include control over candidate selection (at all levels, including for MEPs) and it will include a real imput on policy. But it should also include excellent events, shared over groups of associations, areas or regions, and a quality memebrship magazine for example.

When I think of the other groups of which I am a member - the National Trust, National Childbirth Trust (NCT) or NASUWT for example - I expect more in return for my cash than just knowing I am supporting that group.

We know more about increasing membership here in Norwich than most; in one year we have put on more than 150 new members and last year we increased faster than Mr Cameron's own constituency. We have done it by listening to members and changing the way we work. Beit monthly newsletters (asked for and got) or a distinction between "political" and "social" events (asked for and got) we have responded to what members say. This year the AGM of Norwich South Conservatives was standing room only and we had so many attend the room was actually uncomfortable! We had 15 new members of our Executive Committee sign up to help out with the work of running the show. How many associations, from any party, can boast that?

So come on powers-that-be, take a long hard look at the Shales Plan. He's onto something and the best thing we could do is take him seriously.

My Worry About House of Lords Reform

2011-06-25T16:51:00.004+01:00

I am democrat and I instinctively support elections for the House of Lords, on the basic principle that those who legislate for us ought to be directly accountable to us, the voters. However, the speech of Baroness Betty Boothroyd has awoken a deep fear in me about these reforms.

Currently the big criticism is that appointments to the House of Lords is down to patronage of the Prime Minister and Party Leaders. That has to be wrong. But under the new system, Baroness Boothroyd warns agains the only winners being 300 of the party favourites as dictated by the political parties. She is right; switching patronage from Leaders to Parties is no improvement at all.

There are things I like about the Lords - its independence of mind, ability to be calmer and more rational than the Commons and the way its members do not fear the whips (something I think Mark Pritchard MP would also appreciate). If the new House of Lords (or Senate) dismantles those things then it may be a reform too far as far as I am concerned.

It isn't that I fear elections - I want more elections - but a revising chamber run by the party machiens and whips won't be much of a revising chamber at all.

Disability and the Minimum Wage

2011-06-18T13:56:00.001+01:00

I am sure that Tory MP Phillip Davies didn't quite expect the firestorm he received when talking about the best way of getting disabled people back into work. However in amongst the fury I am not sure I have understood his proposal.

Is Shipley MP Davies suggesting that in a job interview between 2 equally qualified candidates where somebody is disabled and somebody not disabled, that the job will go the able bodied employee and so the only way to make disabled people more employable is to give them the chance to offer to work for less?

If so, could less qualified people offer to work for less too? What about carers? Or working mums? After all, they sometimes find it difficult to find employment. What about people in Wakefield and Watford negotiating different rates because of different costs of living?

If they did do this you may as well scrap the minimum wage altogether because you'd end up with people under-cutting each other on wages to get jobs and where the labour of one person in one area is worth less than the same job being done by a different person in a different area.

But I suppose we do this anyway - we hold the minimum wage down for young people to help make them more employable.

So shouldn't we have some consistency on this issue? If we want one, a "national" minimum wage should mean just that. If we want "flexibility" it ought to be for more people than just the young.

At the moment I fear we're muddled on the Minimum Wage.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Facing Both Ways On Targets

2011-06-16T21:33:00.003+01:00

Having spent one post saying why Michael Gove is the best thing to happen to education since whiteboard markers meant you didn't get chalk lines on your dark blue suits, I feel duty bound to point out one tiny erreur in today's announcements.

Before I start let me lay out my 2 guiding principles on this - setting targets is centralising, pointless, New Labour nonsense. And providing a better education for our pupils is always a good thing.

Today's EDP let on a frontpage splash that Norfolk Heads are fuming about the standard at which a school is considered to be failing is going to be risen from a 35% A*-C pass rate to a 50% one. In the article, a couple of the Heads move into very political territory accusing Mr Gove of all sorts of things. They are needless to say wrong. As one Head said in the story, even this new tougher target would mean that at a school deemed not failing, half the pupils would leave school without the core skills, things like English and Maths. Are we really saying that we are happy with a system where half of children are not passing the accepted standards? Of course not. Geeting barely a third of kids through their GCSEs is simply not good enough. And there isn't a Head or a teacher I know that thinks it is. If you aspire for the teaching & learning in your school to be better, then you don't just aim for 35.01% pass rate, you aim for every pupil who can pass to pass. I hope that along with this targets comes reform and support for schools who don't reach it. If it does then it isn't a bad thing. A non-teaching friend of mine today said, "so you mean half of kids can effectively fail and at the moment that isn't something we are really worried about? We only panic when 2 out of 3 fail?". When put like that ...

... but on the other hand the thing which is going to make education better isn't the target. New Labour had targets for all sorts of things, most of which were missed. I would suggest to Mr Gove that he ought to up the target still - 60%, 84%, 97% - heck, 100%!! Because that is what we want. All pupils being ready for the world outside of school. Not stuff full on "soft" subjects and a few "equivalents" here and there. Every pupil with good GCSE results; and oddly enough I think that really is the laudable aim of Mr Gove and the government team. But it isn't going to happen.

The public comments on the EDP story tore into the Heads for their lack of ambition. And herein I think is where Mr Gove has got it wrong. Giving a general target for all schools is wrong. There should be challenging targets set for each individual school that looks at CVA, intake, the curriculum they are taught and progress being made. Why should a school that moves from 29% to 34% (thus missing the current target) be considered worse than one that goes from 75% to 74%? CVA is a far better form of measurement than raw scores anyway. We measure all the times in school - we assess like crazy; AfL here, KS2 to KS4 there and yet we cannot find a way of differentiating the targets that we have? And if the school meets those targets, year on year, they should have more freedoms. If they do not, then they get support.

So please Mr Gove. We all want our schools to be better and under you they will be. But give each school a specific, dare I say differentiated, target and judge them against that rather than some faux national standard.

Put it this way, if I stood up in front of my mixed ability Year 10 History class and demanded a minimum C grade target for all pupis, irrespective of ability would that be a good thing? On one hand yes because it is ambitious, but on the other it is doomed to failure and may even alienate the kids who know they cannot achieve that. That is the problem and why I end up facing both ways on targets.

Academy Status

2011-06-16T21:18:00.004+01:00

I have a deep dark secret. Shhhh ... I shall whisper it. Come closer. No - that's too close.

(I used to be a member of the NUT).

No I am not saying it again. I am ashamed of that today because of the increasingly bizarre and hysterical reactions they are having to absolutely everything Michael Gove and the coalition government does. In Gove, plus his Ministerial team which includes Nick Gibb and Sarah Teather, I think we have one of the strongest and most professional education teams in the Commons for many years. Only Morris inspired confidence in me, as a teacher, like Gove does. OK he's not perfect - close, but not perfect - but he is leading the biggest and most overdue revolution in education since the 1960s. So clearly, when we are talking about better teaching and improved standards the NUT needs to absolutely freak out.

Take today's announcement about failing primary schools becoming academies (I may come onto the targets for schools later). Good stuff Mr Gove. I have just watched the Head of City Academy Norwich (CAN) on SkyNews saying how the extra investment, the change in ethos and the control over curriculum has taken the school up from rock bottom. I have taught 2 pupils from CAN who come to Notre Dame for lessons. Both have been incredibly bright, motivated and hard working. They thirst for discipline and challenge. So much they travelled across the City to get it somewhere else. Now they say Academy status has turned the school around and is making a real difference to their education, and to their lives. In the old days, these aspirational kids may have travelled afar to go to "better" schools. Now they are happy, settled & achieveing well in their local school - local academy.

So if Academy Status can turn around the old Earlham High - and Heartsease, and Costessey - why should it not turn around our most challenging Primary Schools. With freedom, and the right leadership, these schools can improve too. A few years back if you stood up and said that Earlham High was in the middle of the league tables you would have been laughed out of the City. Now its a reality.

Of course, our friends - brothers - in the NUT declare this is a dangerous experiment. Yes NUT, so dangerous that hundreds of schools are having their standards raised and so experimental its been around for years from the Blair government onwards. I wonder if there is ANY change in education policy that the NUT wouldn't oppose. Their scaremongoring, desperate attitude is so out of touch with the NUT members on the ground that I know.

When people ask if the Unions have a mandate to strike, I don't ask if they have achieved a certain percent in a ballot. I ask if the Union leadership looks and thinks like its membership. On this, and so many other issues, I dearly hope not.

So come on Primary Heads, where is your aspiration? This is a great challenge. We know you want to improve the education of your pupils so grab academy status with both hands and engage with the change. Look at what it has done for schools around you. No more moaning about government dictats. This is education in our hands as professionals.

If Academy Status has worked for secondary it can work for primary schools too. We need a generation of Heads who are ready for that.

Prime Minister: U-Turn If You Want To

2011-06-09T21:42:00.004+01:00

I am about to break a cardinal rule of politics; I am in favour of U-Turns.

Yes, you should read that again, because its true.

I am in favour of U-Turns. Or, as I like to put it, I am in favour of government's admitting they don't always know best, don't have all the solutions, will get somethings wrong, will have to listen, will have to adapt and change proposals and won't always push and barge things through because they know best and you don't.

Of course, British politics adhors a U-turn. We like "first past the post" because it - usually - gives us strong and stable government with a majority in parliament to put through the manifesto on which they were elected. So in the real world of politics, once you have your Commons majority and the people (well, 40% of them) love you, then you can implement what you like.

But, when suddenly we are left hung, what then happens? Well I think u-turns are a natural - and almost progressive - side effect of a hung parliament. No longer can the government use the whips to ram stuff through parliament no matter what people say. They have to build a coalition from amongst their own MPs; satisfy the Simon Hughes of this world and also those on the Tory right such as Cash, Jenkins and Redwood. They are much more fragile and therefore people power and the press will have a much bigger say on what the government does.

So when you see the left-wing press (the Mirror in particular) and opposition MPs gloating about the U-turns, I would ask what they would like instead. Would Miliband, Balls, Harman - or Toynbee or Maguire - really prefer the NHS bill in its original form, or the sale of the forests to go ahead? They see the political chance to hit the government without realising they are getting more of what they want - so the U-turn must be a good thing. Aren't these proposals betetr after the u-turn than they were before (well, if you from the left)? More grown-up politics, perhaps?

I like the idea that a government puts forward an idea, gets feedback and then changes its mind (or not) depending on what happens. Dare I say, a "listening government".

So yes, I do like u-turns. And I hope that a future majority Conservative government keep that way of working as it is one of the best features of government.

And p.s. To those who say the government should have it right first time, every time. Name me a government of any political hue, anywhere in the world, at any point in history, that has done this. Cameron isn't perfect and people will respect those who got it wrong, put their hands up, admit it, apologise, move on and learn fromt it.

Archbishop Fail

2011-06-09T17:44:00.003+01:00

We expect in this country, quite rightly, that everybody ought to have their say. If Joanna Lumbly is an expert on Gurkha rights, the Prince of Wales can speak forth on architecture and Piers Morgan is allowed to tweet, then pretty much anybody can have a view on anything. With the exception of the Monarch, it is a positive thing. But you have to ask how far some people, the Archbishop of Canterbury being one of them, should be allowed to go.

The Church have a duty to provide moral leadership for its followers. I would expect Dr Williams to have views on issues, maybe as diverse as tackling poverty in Africa to the use of contraception for teenagers. As a Christian, I am interested in what he has to say. But moral leadership is where it ought to stop. And writing a political blast at the whole government, from the safety of his desk via the New Statesman is a cowardly, wrong & dangerous act. Over the top, you are thinking? Well, no.

Firstly whatever happens Dr Williams has to work with this government. I believe he'll have to work with Mr Cameron as Prime Minister for potentially 2 or 3 terms of government. Downing Street, who knew nothing of the attack (and it was an attack) will be rightly weary of the Archbishop after this. And with current debates about the continued representation of the Church of England in the Lords this is perhaps not the right time to be stepping on government toes.

But the more dangerous part was the attack on the democratic legitimacy of the government itself. Now you could argue that we have an elected legislature and not an elected government anyway in this country so all governments are "unelected". Or you could argue that if you add together the votes of the Conservatives and LibDems you finally have a team with over 50% support. The Archbishop himself is not in a position himself to be throwing stones about who is elected and who is not (although if he advocates more democracy that's a good thing and I look forward to a directly-elected Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops giving up their seats in the Lords). The coalition agreement is the best mishmash we have given the parliamentary maths. It is 75% of the LibDem manifesto and 60% of the Tory one. What is the alternative, Dr Williams, are we to assume you want to force another general election perhaps?

And what now for Dr Williams? Well clearly this is a church vs government issue. And I look forward to Dr Williams himself accepting that with the right to speak out comes the right to accountability. All politicians carp - Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband have been in the position of simply opposing everything, but sooner or later you have to come up with your own proposals. Eventually the electorate says "we know what you are against but what are you for?". The same is true of all who seek to have their say. I don't deny, for one minute, the right of extremists such as Ms Lucas or Mr Griffin to have their say. But even the most bonkers of British politicians - yes, even the Communist Party of Great Britain - have their own blueprint for how the country ought to be run. And Dr Williams is no exception. So you are against the government, Archbishop, so what are you for? Don't give me the soft-soap platitudes of freedom, equality, tackling poverty etc - if you want to see these things, how will you achieve them?

Come on Dr Williams, do you think tax is currently too low? How will we get a better health care system? What should we do to stop so much drug dependency? Do you have any ideas to help cut crime?

I defend your right to speak out Sir, but when you do, expect people to ask you questions in return. And if you choose to speak out about politics, expect political questions in return. You have taken a very dangerous path, Dr Williams, and as a supporter of both the church and the government, it worries me about how this will now turn out.

Blog Gone!

2011-05-21T22:04:00.002+01:00

It's been a few months since the last entry on this blog and the reason for that is that I had really lost interest in it (honest, if nothing else) and switched mainly to Twitter. Over the years, this blog dates back to 2003, I have had a lot of fun writing it and using it as a tool to communicate with people. However clearly it is now defunct. When I mentioned that I was deleting it, a few people urged me simply to mothball it should I decide to come back to it in the future.

It is hard to write regular, fresh, interesting & original content for blogs and I salute those who can. Also given work and the family I often couldn't even blog about breaking political or world event anyway and - hey - who wants to read my views after the event?

I have decided to take a "major step down from politics" and because of this it wouldn't necessitate the hours given to do the blog.

Who knows; I don't rule it out in the future but with big challenges at work, a third baby on the way and my priorities pointing very much in other directions I shall leave politics to those who are better suited to it than I am.

To those who have been regular readers and contributors - thank you & keep in touch via twitter (@antonylittle)

End of.

What the Shoemaker Pub site doesn't need right now ... is a mobile phone mast

2011-02-07T17:30:00.003Z

More on this story on South Norwich News and the Norwich Conservatives site, but it strikes me as mad that after all the work that the community and Conservative councillors did getting the site to be ready for house building, a 50ft phone mast is considered to be suitable right outside their windows.

I genuinely hope that Labour, who last time there was a controversial mast application in Bowthorpe abstained on the final vote (much to anger of the community), come off the fence and get involved in our campaign this time.

Who should be more worried?

2011-01-30T16:54:00.003Z

Over on politicalbetting.com they are asking who should be more worried about the latest bouts of polls about the leaders of the three main parties (click here for the full thread).

All 3 leaders have gone up but Cameron (up 2) less than Clegg (up 6) and Miliband (up 4). Should the PM be concerned about this?

Maybe not as much as you might think; the details show that 95% of Tory voters think that Mr Cameron is doing well; compared to 79% of LibDems voters for Clegg and, most worryingly of all, just 72% of Labour voters for Miliband. Any leader needs to be at 90% plus for his or her own supporters, really.

What is also noteworthy is the cross-over between the LibDems and the Tories; 71% of LibDems feels that Cameron is doing well and 68% of Tories think the same of Nick Clegg.

So where does that leave us? God knows, but it shows that if you pay too much attention to the polls it can make your head hurt and leave you more confused than where you started!

Norwich Conservatives Launch New Website

2011-01-29T10:29:00.002Z

It's been a while in the making but we're quite proud - take a look here. Any suggestions welcome!

Britain's Debt Hits A Trillion

2011-01-18T22:49:00.003Z

Take a few moments to look at this website which gives details about the debt problem Britain has today. If it doesn't scare you, it should. Because today Britain rolled over the Trillion pound mark. As the website says, this debt is real and it needs to be paid back. This debt is not any different from the credit cards that we all have; eventually it catches up with you.

And if anybody ever tells you that the austerity measures are not necessary or urgent, just pop back and see how much our debt is at that time.

Labour: Deficit Deniers

2011-01-16T21:14:00.003Z

On the Andrew Marr show Ed Miliband was asked…

“Do you accept that before the crisis happened, actually Labour was spending too much?”

“No I don’t.”

(Thanks to Guido)

Is Ed my "William"?

2011-01-16T20:46:00.003Z

I cannot stand Ed Miliband. There, I've said it. I cannot find anything personally or politically "likeable" about this (yet). I cannot even stand to watch him on TV; he is so useless as Leader of the Opposition it is actually quite worrying for democracy. I don't know quite why; certainly I dislike his re-writing of history, his blanket opposition to all cuts without saying what Labour would have done and the way in which we was elected by the Unions. But its more; there's something about him. He simply isn't Prime Minister material. And to that end I say "carry on, Ed".

No surprise, you might say, because I am a Conservative and I am sure that the Labour Leader doesn't want my kind thoughts or warm words. True enough. But tonight I began to wonder if this is how people saw William Hague, or even IDS and Howard. I liked Mr Hague enormously; but door after door in the 2001 campaign people expressed concern about him, asking if he was Prime Ministerial material. I couldn't see what the voters saw.

Tonight (yes, in the dark) I was out delivering leaflets in a pretty solid Labour voting area of the City and met a man, sat on his steps having a cigarette - impressively without a coat on. When I introduced myself and gave him the leaflet we chatted for a few minutes. He said to me "I can't see Ed Miliband ever being Prime Minister." Those exact words. And suddenly this blog post was born.

The last few days have seen Labour supporters waving and cheering getting very excited about Ed; his poll rating have edged up too. But maybe they don't see what the electorate does, in the same way I couldn't see it about William Hague.

And to round it off, the Oldham by-election made me think of the Uxbridge by-election. Both contests happened shortly after the general election, in seats where the former governing party had a three figures majority turned into a 3,000+ majority. The Tories went from 724 to 3766 in Uxbridge whilst Labour went from 103 to 3558 in Oldham East. The Tories hailed this result as their comback; so did Labour. The Tories went on to another election drubbing next time ... I'll let you fill in the rest.

Political LOL

2011-01-16T20:35:00.005Z

From politicalbetting.com a few days ago; how true ..

Get The Basics Right

2011-01-09T16:14:00.002Z

The absolute howler made this morning by Shadow Chancellor Alan Johnson, who failed to be able to name the rate of employers NI contributions, for me is an absolute clanger and will end up ranking alongside Clegg's misfire over the value of the state pension for political error making.

You can watch the clip here (4 minutes in!)

When politicians take up their jobs, be it as a Minister, Shadow Minister or even just an MP there are always basics you need covering. I think it was Tony Blair who was always kept up to date with the story lines on Eastenders and Corrie should anybody ask. A very senior Conservative once told me he was always briefed on the price of milk or a gallon of petrol (and the like) before doing a political interview; being caught out on stuff like that makes you loo out-of-touch. Today made Johnson look economically illiterate.

I had my own "version" of this at the General Election. One resident asked me to direct him from his house to Strangers Hall by foot as my test of local knowledge. He wouldn't vote for anybody who couldn't do it. I got it right, including the short cuts because you were walking rather than driving. I still wonder if the others did and who he voted for? Radio Norwich did a similar quiz about the constituency, including naming the destinations of various bus routes, where various shops are and local events; I got them all correct and then fell down on naming the singers in Girls Aloud ...

And the next Mayor of London is ...

2011-01-06T22:37:00.004Z

... not Jenny Jones of the Green Party.

Gawd bless those Greens; I do like them - personally that is. Many of the Greens I know are fine people. However today's announcement by their London Mayoral hopeful Jenny Jones does make you wonder for their collective political sanity.

Ms Jones wants to raise the congestion charge to £50 per day and extend it out to the M25.

No, you didn't read that wrongly. Look again. Nope, still bonkers.

Now, we know that Ms Jones has form; when I was at UEA I was amazed when I heard her in a public meeting say that the solution to traffic was to rip up the roads and go back to dirt tracks. But this does hit a new level of idiocy. A lot of people in Norwich who commute to London will be very worried by this policy.

It will cripple anybody who wants to live in the Home Counties and work in London, stifle business, be almost impossible to collect and hit the poorest the hardest. I assume people within the M25 would be allowed to drive for free (because if not it would cost them £50 to get off their drives or out of their roads) and so house prices just within the zone would soar. It actually beggars belief that any candidate for high office, who claim to be a grown up serious political party would suggest this. The likes of Adrian Ramsay and Claire Stephenson must have their heads in their hands tonight, weeping ...

Although, it would give me an excuse to visit my parents less often ... so not all bad then! ;-)

Brown Trouser Time At Cowley Street

2011-01-06T22:32:00.002Z

The Sun YouGov poll tonight has the LibDems down to a new low of just 7 percent - seven percent.

If this goes on and the party holds together then they have much, much bigger balls than I ever gave them credit for.

Gerry Rafferty Dies

2011-01-05T21:27:00.004Z

After the shock of losing Pete Postlethwaite, another star in his 60s passes away - Gerry Rafferty. This has to be his greatest hit and, in my humble opinion, one of the best songs of all time so a fitting tribute would be a mere 4 minutes spent on "Baker Street".

UPDATE: BBC Reports that author Dick-King Smith has passed away too.

Best Post Ever (and possibly the best idea for a new voting system too!)

2011-01-05T20:34:00.003Z

Amazingly good from the ever brilliant politicalbetting.com:

Here’s a suggestion for a fairer voting system. Everyone gets 6 votes. They can either split them 3-2-1 for their favoured parties, 2-2-2 if they’re not too bothered, 4-2-0 or even 6-0-0 if they feel really strongly. People who can’t add up to 6 are disenfranchised and the outcome reflects the strength of people’s feelings as well as its direction. It would be a bit like ’spending’ the green plastic charity tokens that you get in Waitrose. I would have voted 5-1 Tory-LibDem. (”Toss the bums a dime” as the great man sang.) by History Boy January 5th, 2011 at 20:21

New Young Political Blog

2011-01-04T21:07:00.001Z

Always keen to showcase talent rather in excess of my own take a look at this blog produced by Josh Hannan; a Year 11 pupil from my school and certainly a young man with a bright future (and maybe in politics if he wants it).

I'd certainly say Josh is more representative of the views of young people than certain morons throwing fire extinguishers from rooftops. It's well worth a read.

Why are there so many Tesco's in Norwich?

2011-01-02T21:11:00.004Z

... the answer is simple; because people shop in them.

More from the EN here.

EXCLUSIVE: Former Tory Candidate in lavish New Year Party at £500,000 London Pad

2011-01-02T20:37:00.004Z

Well, that headline is about as ridiculous as this story in the Mail on Sunday which seems to suggest that MPs shouldn't hold parties or go on holiday (let alone - wait for it - at New Year). I think the political team at the MoS may be having a "d'oh" moment when they look back at this. Not only are the claims rather loose (for example the Speaker's Party cost just £22 per head) but are we really saying that Ministers, MPs or other public figures shouldn't have fun and do things that the rest of us are doing or at least want to do? I know not everyone can afford to go skiing or stay in a Villa; but I suppose people wealthier than I am do things that cost more than I can do.

And for the record, the headline refers to my parents place in Uxbridge and a small family get-together at which we sub-divided a marked-down Tesco scotch egg into eight. Sadly, the whole of that sentence is factual.

Into 2011 ...

2011-01-01T16:31:00.003Z

Happy New Year to all. We are having a lovely time and have had lots of chances to catch up with family and friends, many of whom we have not seen for a long time. I hope you all have a wonderful day and the resolutions are coming along.

p.s. Boris - whoever did those fireworks in London deserves a payrise and possibly an OBE.

p.p.s. No Sir Brucie??? Makes you wonder what the qualifications are these days ...

Looking Forward to 2011

2010-12-29T20:49:00.003Z

Well, nobody can say that 2011 wasn't an exciting rollercoaster of a year. And we are looking forward to even more next year. The election campaign feels like it was either yesterday or years ago now. And six months on from losing my seat, I can hardly remember working on the council. The kids are growing up, far too fast, and I am really enjoying being a full time teacher again.

So, a few predictions for this year:

1. A major national shop will unexpectedly open a branch in Norwich.

2. City will face a nailbiting effort for promotion via the qualifiers and will ultiamtely win through.

3. The AV referendum will be lost, by 8%

4. The economy will show strong signs of growth by December

5. Labour will take double digit poll leads during the year but by the end the Tories will be back within striking distance

6. Labour will pick up seats in 2011 but not in large numbers and only the kind of wards the Tories were shocked to have won in 2007. No breakthrough.

7. Ed Miliband will still no be secure as Labour Leader but all 3 party leaders will show negative poll numbers and Clegg will be in the most serious trouble

8. Most newspapers online will be behind the paywall

9. The invisible primary in the US will cut the number of realistic GOP hopefuls down to 4 - Huckabee, Palin, Romney and a surprise figure that perhaps we hadn't even considered in 2010.

10. "Skype me" will be the new "Facebook me"

Happy New Year Everybody!

Predictions for 2010: How Did I Do?

2010-12-23T18:58:00.003Z

Making bold predictions for the year ahead is always a risky thing to do; but a good laugh to look back on what you thought might be the case. So here are mine taken from the dying days of 2009 ...

1. Norwich City will be promoted to the Championship, and it will be through one of the automatic places - Spot on; full marks with this one.

2. David Cameron will be Prime Minister with an overall Conservative majority and will do so with a swing and a parliamentary result that defies all predictions and re-ignites the debate over voting reform. His new cabinet will look strikingly like his Shadow Cabinet; Gove, Fox, Lansley, Osbourne, Grayling and Hague will all keep their positions in government. The bigger shake-up will be at the middle and junior ranks. Chloe Smith will become a government minister. Well, a more mixed bag here; what a laugh! Cameron is indeed PM and there is indeed a debate over the voting system but without the use of an overall majority. I felt we'd win by around 20 on 36-37% and this ignite the demand for reform. Now we have a coalition and an AV referendum. The cabinet does look similar and everybody except Grayling have taken their Shadow Portfolio into government. I said Smith would be a Minister - and she's a whip. Overall not bad going.

3. Gordon Brown will not be Leader of the Opposition come next New Years Eve; he will quit in the hours that follow the General Election and in the next few weeks he will also stand down as an MP prompting the first by-election of the new parliament. David Milliband, Alan Johnson and Harriet Harman will be the candidates for the new Leader; Cruddas will be out of parliament and Jack Straw will not win enough support. Harman will win. Brown did quit, though days rather than hours after the polls but this is because of the bizarre coalition negotiations! I was wrong that he'd quit as an MP but he has been widely slammed for lack of attention to that job. I'm still not convinced he'll be there come the eve of the 2015 election. The first by-election was caused in Oldham by a pretty ancient ruling from an election court. On the Labour Leadership, like most others I guess, I never saw Red Ed as even a challenger. Straw didn't stand (neither did Harman or Johnson). Not very good there, Little!

4. Nick Clegg will, despite a poor overall result (the LibDems will lose seats), cling on as LibDem Leader pointing to some spectacular gains from Labour as his defining moment. Their gains will not include any in Norfolk or Suffolk. Almost correct; with one minor slip! Clegg did get a poor result and they did lose seats. He is still leader and their most spectacular gains (like Redcar and Burnley) were from Labour. There was, of course, one gain in Norfolk and Suffolk ...

5. The overwhelming majority of newspaper websites will be "pay-to-view" by the end of the year. Again, I was a bit early with this one - the Murdoch empire (which which I am not at war with) are switching other with more to follow. I think this may be proved to be correct come 2011.

6. The Queen will still be monarch with no signs of being otherwise, but Prince Charles will prompt a political controversy with the new government. The Queen is still there, Charles has kept silent on the government and I missed the tiny issue of a royal engagement.

7. Local Government Reorganisation in Norfolk will come to nothing, but nobody will take any political responsibility despite the massive cost involved. Spot on in all respects, but I never predicted it would by the High Court that did the deed, or the by-elections that would follow.

8. Diplomas will stay despite the new government's radical education policy. Correct! Gove has proved to be a radical Education Secretary so far and Diploma's are still with us.

9. Matt Smith will prove a more popular Doctor Who than David Tennant, to the surprise of pretty much everybody. This may depend on who you ask but I think this is correct!

10. The new MP for Norwich South will be ... that chap, oooohhhh, whats-his-name, thingey ... ;-)

I will have think long and hard about my 2011 predictions; but the one that got away is the most interesting. On my planned blog post instead of the one about Doctor Who I had included Steve Morphew to have quit as Labour Leader at City Council ... which would have both been correct and made me look like Mystic Meg!

How has Cable defied political gravity?

2010-12-21T19:10:00.002Z

I am a loyal Conservative; very loyal, in fact, and I support the work of David Cameron specifically as Prime Minister and the Tory-led coalition generally. They are a much better government than Labour could ever have formed. However, tonight, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have made a big mistake and even loyal Conservatives have to say this.

This morning, the Cable story (I thought) was a light hearted pre-Christmas story about a puffed up LibDem in government; let's remind ourselves that Mr Cable said if he ever quit, or was forced from government, that he had the nuclear option of bringing down the administration. Tough talking (and in my view, wholly wrong, but never mind).

By this evening he has had a chance to prove himself to be correct. If any other Minister, let alone a Tory one, had done what Cable did then they would be out. The PM could have re-shuffled him, he could have quit or even been sacked. But he hasn't been - how? Do they really fear losing Vince Cable that much, or as some have suggested had they just not wanted to give into media pressure? Many are speculating that Cable fought his corner well and clung on because neither Clegg nor Cameron want a lightening-rod for the anti-coalition voices on the government side of the House.

So what now? Well, a lot depends on tomorrow's headlines ... the media will go for this, the commentators are working as a pack tonight, Labour scent blood and at the very best we have a weakened and even lame-duck Business Secretary.

Some Conservatives are lining up behind Vince tonight, but I feel that I have to say how much I believe this decision to be wrong and could potentially yet backfire on the whole government. I am not alone; Twitter is alight too, with loyal Conservatives saying the same thing.

Cable has defied political gravity today, but my feeling is that to save one man, the whole government is damaged.

So, what's the evidence that the Tories are on a go-slow in Old & Sad?

2010-12-20T18:34:00.002Z

In my last post on this subject I have repeated a now oft-mentioned point that the Tories may not be taking this by-election in Oldham seriously. Seriously? We have a great candidate, lives in the constituency, local links all over the place and came within 2,400 votes of winning 7 months ago. It's a tough time to fight an election, especially given the time of the year and the weather. But ConHome have confirmed that cabinet ministers are ready to take the fight to the seat, the PM has committed to going there, I have been asked to help a few times (even given the distance), direct mail is flying out and the call centers are in operation.

OK, OK, I know that often we are not the fastest movers in by-election terms; I remember turning up in Norwich North in the first week or so to find myself pretty much alone amongst a pile of leaflets and look how that turned out!

But given the circumstances, how much more could we expect or do in this seat? Just where is the evidence that this isn't a go-er for us?

Would AV help solve Cameron's Old & Sad dilema?

2010-12-19T17:01:00.003Z

Let me start this blog post back to front. I was chatting to a long standing member of the Conservatives here in Norwich South about the political situation and the conversation turned, as I suppose is inevitable, to the AV referendum. I explained that having flirted with AV I was now on the No side of the camp and would vote and campaign against the change. To my surprise, given this Tory member was in his 70s and very big-C conservative in his views, he said that he would in fact be voting Yes. I had to ask, why? Well, it's our best chance of winning in Norwich South he countered. Go on, I said ... His reasoning went like this. The Conservatives here lose a certain amount of support every election because there hasn't been a clear challenger to Labour and the LibDems have always pushed, and pushed, and pushed, the tactical vote message of "only the LibDems can beat Labour here" to the point where a lot of Conservative voters in places like Eaton, Thorpe Hamlet and Town Close do actually choose to support the yellow even though they are blue. If, my colleague said, they could vote Conservative 1 (which would be their actual choice) and then LibDem 2 (their tactical choice) then that would stop them having to vote LibDem X. And he is confident that if people in Norwich South actually voted the way they believed in as opposed to the way that the LibDem leaflets instructed them to, then the Tories would come second and it would in fact be LibDem votes that would be re-distributed in our favour. Image, he said, those Eaton Tory voters could now happily vote Tory 1 LibDem 2 in the knowledge they won't accidentally let Labour in. Hmmm, I said, I will have to think on that one. I mentioned this to a LibDem friend of mine and she agreed; AV could actually damage the LibDems in Norwich who get elected in large part on the tactical vote.

Anyway what does this have to do with the Oldham East by-election. Well the Tory grassroots are apparently up in arms that the Prime Minister seems happy for a LibDem to win, even though the Tory candidate is not far behind in a three-horse race (the results for Oldham East and Norwich South are very similar).

Although CCHQ kicking this into the long grass is unthinkable, I know what Mr Cameron must be imagining. What if Labour sneak back in and get another MP because the Tories win an extra 500 votes and the LibDem miss out by a small margin? For what its worth, given the state of the voluntary party and the reaction on websites like ConHome, I think CCHQ will have to fight hard in order o satisfy the lust of the membership for a good hard electoral battle.

This links back to my first point; CCHQ and the Prime Minister's life would be much easier if this by-election were fought under AV where we could happily throw the kitchen sink at a Con 1 vote (and hopefully win) but be satisfied with Con 1 LibDem 2.

I wonder, in fact, if Oldham East might make some Tories re-think their opposition to AV ... and maybe make some Labour members rethink their support?

The Unthinkable

2010-12-18T20:45:00.002Z

When a friend text to say that the unthinkable had happened I had no idea what he meant. Then I was directed to this.

Absolutely nothing so far has made me miss being at City Hall, but the thought of not being in those Group Leaders Meetings now has made me very depressed indeed. What fun!

For Cllrs. Morphew, Stephenson & Wiltshire I have a deep sense of Schadenfreude.

The Government Can't Lose The Fees Vote ... Can They?

2010-12-08T16:11:00.002Z

As the media scramble from one MPs declaration of voting intention to another, it is worth putting the whole issue the fees voting into the context of the whole House of 650 members. The winning post - assuming no abstentions would be 326, so the whips on both sides will no doubt be working out how to get to that figure.

Presumably the Speaker and his team will not vote; knocking out John Bercow (Buckingham), Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley), Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) and Dawn Primarolo (Bristol) from the vote. In addition, the 5 Sinn Fein MPs will no vote either. In addition there is one vacancy in Oldham East & Saddleworth. Which leaves us dealing with Coalition strength of 362 and a total opposition strength of 278; so the anti-fees MPs would have to solidify all of their own MPs and overcome an 84 vote lead (which is, essentially, switching 43 MPs).

Are the opposition united on this? It is difficult to imagine many or any of them not voting against the government; Labour sense an opportunity here and have even drafted in Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy) to vote. If any Labour MPs did agree with the policy I suspect they were lept on froma great height a long time ago. It also looks very likely that the DUP, SNP, Plaid and SDLP will all fall into line too. Alliance MP Naomi Long (Belfast N), Green MP Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavillion) and the three Independents (Lady Hermon, North Down; Dennis McShane, Rotherham & Eric Illsley, Barnsley Central) all look solid too. So short of illness or some other disaster (snow?) it should be a united front from the opposition; 278 in the bag.

Despite his own claims, it looks like David Davis (Haltemprice) will not be a rebellion of one; so far Illford's Lee Scott, New Forest's Julian Lewis and Shipley's Phillip Davies have said they will vote no too. In addition, Bob Blackman (Harrow E) and former teacher Andrew Percy (Brigg & Goole) may yet vote no too. Six Tories in total; bringing the vote numbers to 356 to 284.

And then the question is which LibDems will break ranks and vote no and which might abstain (even an abstention impacts the total votes). Today Tim Farron (Wesmoreland & Lonsdale), LibDem President, has come out against. In addition to Tim, we have on record former Leaders Ming Campbell and Charles Kennedy. Plus Mike Hancock (Portsmouth), Julian Huppert (Cambridge), John Leech (Manchester), Ian Swales (Redcar), John Pugh (Southport), Bob Russell (Colchester), Mark Williams (Bristol), Simon Wright (Norwich S), Roger Williams (Brecon), Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) & Greg Mulholland (Leeds). Total, so far, of 13. Before abstentions that leaves the vote 343 to 297; a government majority of 46.

So it is going to take one massive earthquake; even if all the non-government LibDem MPs vote against, and even the PPSs, it would still take a mass Tory rebellion to bring this down.

I admire anybody who is willing to take to the streets for what they believe in (as long as it is non-violence), but for all the excitement that student leaders and the media are trying to whip up about the vote I cannot see a way, at this moment, that the government can lose. That may all change but with 24 hours to go, the fees vote looks a lot less exiting than we are lead to believe.

Morphew quits as City Council Leader

2010-12-06T19:33:00.003Z

I had known for some time that Steve Morphew - who, like him or loath him, has put his heart and soul into Norwich politics for a long time time now - was planning to step down. I like Steve a lot; he's a decent guy, easy to do business with and has the City stamped through his heart. We've clashed, a lot, in the council chamber and he is a great advocate for the Labour cause and for Norwich. Ultimately he is wrong (on nearly everything, naturally) but credit where it is due - he dragged the City back from the financial abyss left the LibDems and has run a hung council with remarkable stability. In the end, Morphew could have quit over a number of issues - the Connaught collapse, the million pound unitary fiasco, Greyhound Opening ... but in a funny way I am glad he has gone in his own way and in his own time. I always praise genuine public service, and Steve Morphew has been one of the City's fine public servants. Like Brian Watkins before him, public life in the City will be poorer when he has gone.

My gripe, if I am allowed one, is that Cllr Morphew will lead Labour into the 2011 City poll and then a new leader will be elected afterwards. This means that when people vote they will not know who will be the next Labour Leader or, potentially, the next City Council Leader. This seems unfair on local people and not very democratic. So I am urging Steve to step down earlier to allow Labour a leader by the time of the poll. I think local people deserve that.

So good luck Steve; enjoy life with the family and actually trying to earn a living. Being City Council Leader is a full time job on a part-time salary and we all appreciate the sacrifices you make in public office (none more so than those of us who have done it). Enjoy the (brief) retirement, and then - who knows ...?

Putting the "fun" into Politics

2010-12-06T19:26:00.003Z

For a time there, some people might have thought that politics was boring. But the last election, and the government since has made political argument central to our lives again ...

Crash - 20 newly elected Tory and Labour MPs announce they are to vote No on the AV referendum (here)

Bang - Former Tory Shadow Home Secretary David Davis says he'll oppose the government's tuition fees rise (here)

Wallop - Scottish LibDem MP quits the government, then he doesn't, then Radio 4 admit they've been conned by a Georgie builder (here)

As they would say in China, we live in interesting times. Of these the most significant could be Mr Davis and his opposition to fees. Will we see more Tories follow suit now? And if so, and I am not sure of the parliamentary maths here, does that put pressure on LibDems to vote in favour to ensure the bill passes?

The Stupidity of the TopShop Campaigners

2010-12-05T10:19:00.002Z

I could go on for hours here about why yesterday's TopShop protesters were, but why re-invent the wheel - Dizzy has done so brilliantly here. I just look forward to Ms Toynbee's efforts with other companies, perhaps some closer to home, to get them to pay their tax dues. In particular one campaigner, when interviewed, said that education could be free if companies such as TopShop paid their tax ... hmmm, clearly not a student of maths or economics then.

Over to Dizzy ...
I hear that yesterday, some "campaigners" managed to cause a high street clothes store to close (Topshop) and all because they think the store, or more rightly the guy that runs the store is not paying enough income tax because his wife lives in Monaco (no doubt in a tiny house which cost a fortune*) and quite legally gets a dividend.

It's an odd one to me, because legally speaking it isn't true at all, and more specifically, the targeting of the store completely negates the amount of taxation revenue such stores generate for the Government through things like, corporation tax, income tax for staff, employers NI contributions; employees NI contribution; Council Tax; energy levies; VAT on sales; VAT on energy; VAT on fuel; Fuel duty in distribution etc etc.

The irony of protesting about "missing tax revenue", which results in a major high street store having to close its door and thus not generate tax revenue is delicious though, don't you think?

In a sense, the protests are not really some evidence of a mass radicalisation of people looking for tax fairness, but rather evidence that the young people who demand free education lack the self-awareness to spot the rank hypocrisy of their own actions.

There is a small part of me that wants them to carry on and be even more successful, just so at the end of it all it can be shown that by causing these stores to close they reduced the tax receipts to Government by more than they claim is owed. Now wouldn't that be really fucking funny?

Oh yes, one last though. Have none of them noticed that the Arcadia group stores all trade online as well? You might be able to cause the doors to close by blockading them, but unless you're going to break the law by a Denial of Service Attack on their sites, you're probably not going to stop them trading.

Ed Miliband: Drowning, not Waving

2010-12-01T19:45:00.003Z

Due to "unforeseen circumstances" I was able to watch PMQs live this week; and what an eye opener it was too. Whilst a lot of the media will focus on Cameron's ad-lib "son of Brown" line; which literally crushed poor Ed Miliband; I thought the line which summed up this performance was "drowning, not waving." When Mr Cameron said this of the Leader of the Opposition, he nicely summed up how I was feeling. Miliband led all 6 of his questions on the economy but my problem wasn't his choice of subject or even the poor delivery - but that I couldn't understand the point he was making. It was a bizarre mixture of accusation about dithering, complacency and Cameron's economic literacy. There was no thread to his questioning, no build up and, ultimately, no point to them. I though when watching; "ah, he's got a killer sixth question", but no such question came. Tory MPs left in buoyant mood, Labour MPs looked crestfallen. Apaprently you can get good odds on the man Private Eye has christened "Milibean" not leading Labour into the 2015 election. Just sayin'.

Could Coalition be the end of Collective Responsibility?

2010-12-01T19:36:00.004Z

The sight of LibDem squirming over the tuition fees vote has not been a pleasant sight. First Vince Cable, and now Nick Clegg, have been been done over by the media and (to a lesser extent) by Labour MPs over their apparent discomfort over what to do in the lobbies. In particular the sight of Mr Cable not voting for a piece of legislation that he co-wrote and will be piloting through the Commons is bizarre to say the least.

Some LibDems are, of course, being more straight forward and honest. Jon Leech, one of Manchester's LibDem MPs, has announced he will oppose the move as has Cardiff LibDem MP Jenny Willmot. The difference is, I suppose, that Ms Willmot is a PPS and thus technically covered by collective responsibility - the idea that all Minister must back the government in a vote or resign their position. PPSs quitting is nothing new and many will simply be recycled in a few months time, so why is Ms Willmot holding on like this?

Regulars will know that I am not a fan of collective responsibility on the whole. If the legislation is yours (a la Cable) then yes, you must be duty bound to vote for it. But why can't our politics to be grown up enough for somebody to say that they disagree with X policy but still want to remain part of the government because they back the other 99% of the programme? If we know this in advance, why shouldn't MPs do the adult thing? Will be see David Lidington and Cheryl Gillan quit the government over High Speed Rail links that threaten their constituencies? I hope not; they should be free to speak and vote against that part of the government programme but work had to deliver the rest of it.

Controversial, maybe, but might the coalition agreement weaken the doctrine of collective responsibility? I hope so.

UPDATE; a friend points out the CR seems to be a problem for this government only, the previous lot used to regularly, for example, campaign against hospital closures in their areas without quitting the government that imposed them

Simon Wright needs a new election agent

2010-11-18T22:15:00.002Z

I mean, would you allow this to be on your website ...

Simon Wright.

Status: None.

Exactly.

Look East: I'm not one to complain ...

2010-11-18T22:12:00.003Z

I am not the kind of guy who whinges about the media - as they say, like a sailor moaning about the sea - but tonight's headlines on Look East are quite remarkable.

Home Secretary told she's living in cloud cuckoo land over impact of police cuts
and
The VAT Rise: How will this impact upon our region's industries?

Fair and balanced? Hardly; how about ...

Government brings country back from brink of bankruptcy
and
Stability returned to region as Labour's massive deficit is finally tackled

I await tomorrow's fair and balanced bulletin with interest ...

Still think nobody should take responsibility for this ...?

2010-11-11T19:43:00.001Z

Aaron Porter must quit over protest fiasco

2010-11-11T19:26:00.004Z

A day later and still nobody has taken responsibility for the disastrous events during the NUS March. The waste of public money, police time and attack on the civil liberties of those who worked around Millbank is unacceptable in today's society.

I don't think there is any point in going on who did this; the NUS blame some variant of militants whilst various good sources have now pinpointed students, NUS members and members of the NUS Exec as being involved. The fact is that it happened; but were either side prepared?

The police certainly weren't and I trust that Boris or a Home Office Minister are having very severe words with the Met for their handling. But when this event was being planned, did the NUS have a plan to deal with violence. They certainly should have foreseen this and done something about it. Mr Aaron Porter, Labour's NUS President, is responsible for the movement - the buck stops at the top. Did Mr Porter plan for there to be violence? If not, why not? And if he did why the plans totally unable to cope with the situation.

I am afraid that Mr Porter must also explain the bizarre poor choice of branding for this event - with stuff like this:
no wonder it attracted the thugish element we saw yesterday. You have to take responsibility for your deeds, yes, but so too for your words. I doubt Mr Porter has the honour to accept his part in this. He is putting his short-lived political career above the student fees movement because it would have far more credibility with the public if he put his hands up and apologized. And if Mr Porter will not do this, then his Executive Committee should force him too. And if they won't then the onus is back on ordinary members up and down the country to have their say ...

Chaos at the HMRC?

2010-11-09T19:29:00.002Z

I have today received my new tax code which, given the ridiculous problem where I was landed with a £2,000 tax bill only to have it written off after a week of complaining, I have great suspicions about.

I would urge everybody to look at this week's Panorma (click here for the iplayer version) which details the apparent chaos within the HMRC. My advice? Check everything, enquire if in doubt and follow everything through.

Apparently, we're all the taxman now.

Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election: First Dodgy Bar Chart Spotted!

2010-11-08T22:46:00.004Z

... and I am thrilled to say that the LibDems have given us our first dodgy bar chart of the new "dodgy bar chart season" (i.e. a parliamentary by-election). Even though we haven't even got a date for the Oldham seat vacated by former Labour MP Phil Wollas, this gem has appeared on their website. Notice how the Conservatives don't even get a bar? Wow! They must be so far behind they don't even warrant the extra graphic or ink on the page. Surely those honest souls at the LibDems aren't trying to cover something up are they ...

Phil Woolas	Labour	14,186	31.9	-10.7
Elwyn Watkins	Liberal Democrat	14,083	31.6	-0.5
Kashif Ali	Conservative	11,773	26.4	+8.7

Gosh. Would you believe it - a three way marginal seat where the Tory vote rose considerably and the LibDem vote went down in 2010! I would never have been able to tell that from the bar chart ... thank goodness for Google. I'm sure the LibDems wouldn't want to mislead people either, so no doubt this little error will be cleared up soon ...

Come on LibDems, this election is being held in the interest of clean and fair elections. Maybe your campaign ought to reflect that too?

LibDem PPC defects to Labour (but just make sure you get his age right)

2010-11-08T22:26:00.002Z

There is a, frankly, hilarious debate going on at LDV at the moment (see here) regarding the news that a 2010 PPC (somebody who failed to become an MP but who was a flag bearer for the party) has quit to join Labour. He did this because of the way he feels about the coalition.

However the LibDems have fought back - taking the Independent newspaper, who carried the story, to task for ... erm, getting his age wrong. Talk about missing the point; this kind of diversionary tactic may work in LibDem Blog World but they'd do better talking about the politics and the motives of the defection rather than the minute details of the newspaper story.

Anyhow, as regular readers will know I am not a big fan of defections; I think anyone who jumps straight from party-to-other-party will find it difficult in their new home and impossible to settle back in their old one. And usually there is some back story to them. Individual defections tend to be meaningless, and as I never tire of saying - you need to look at the pattern and flow of defections. If this was one of a string of PPCs, councillors, activists etc defecting then you have a problem ...

Ridiculous Claims Pt. 133

2010-11-07T21:40:00.002Z

Most people in politics really dislike LibDem campaigning tactics; and of all of them, the way that they claim to be able to win in every ward, division, council or constituency in the country irrespective of the previous results, is the biggest irritant. Bar charts being flung here and there - if you stats don't prove your point, use a dodgy scale that will or even in some cases use stats from a completely different area!

But now I think the mantle for bonkers claims of electoral success should be handed onto the Green Party. With their massive tally of ... erm ... 1 MP they are now predicting big gains in the Scottish Parliament including winning seats in every region (see here). Most people in the country aren't even bothered by the Greens but here in Norwich we've had years upon years of idiotic claims of them about to make an historic breakthrough (that never happen). Be it the parliamentary seat or the local council, there is no claim too big for them to make.

IDS vs AoC

2010-11-07T21:21:00.004Z

I read with some concern about the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is "leading" the opposition to new plans to make benefits claimants to do work. I strongly support the right of the clergy to speak out on political issues, but this interventions (more here from the BBC) tells us a number of things.

Firstly that the Labour Leadership are very wary of jumping in with both feet first. I should imagine that Ed Miliband's team are doing some very fast and very serious polling on this. My feeling is that they leap too fast on Housing Benefit and got caught on the wrong side of the debate - backing high-claiming benefit claimants over "hard working families" - and won't do that again. Maybe the lack of Labour opposition may have led the BBC to blow the comments of Dr Williams out of all proportion?

Secondly it is very brave of the Church to take on this sort of issue. I would imagine - though stand ready to apologise if polls suggest otherwise - that this policy will be popular indeed. The vast majority of people, rightly or wrongly, don't want people to be idle on benefit. It is very dangerous for the church to be seen as the organisation backing the right of people to do nothing whilst claiming public money.

Now I am not for a moment saying all benefit claimants are lazy scroungers; for me this plan isn't about making people work for the sake of it but giving people a reason to get up, some pride in their day and getting into a routine for work. These have to be good things. When you are out of work you need all the support you can get; this is one very good way of the government supporting people.

I am worried that by making these remarks, Dr Williams sets himself up against Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith; and that IDS is going to win, hands down.

I doubt Dr Williams wants to increase the disconnect between the church and the people - so please, and I blog as a christian, think very carefully before making these remarks.

Simon Wright : Not A Single Voter Switched Over Unitary Decision

2010-10-26T23:50:00.002+01:00

I am having some time to catch up with the Local Government Bill going through the House of Commons which ends the defunct Norwich City Unitary plans. Indeed the ending of those plans gave me the time to watch it ... but never mind ... moving on!

During the debate, Norwich MP Simon Wright (whom to his credit along with Great Yarmouth's Brandon Lewis and Broadland's Keith Simpson turned up to the debate) was asked by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw if he thinks he would have won his seat had he admitted to being anti-Unitary before the election.

Simon Wright's great weakness if the widespread perception that he flip-flops. For something before the election (e.g. Unitary) and against afterwards. Or against something before the elections (increased fees, VAT rises, old folks facilities) and for them afterwards. So this was quite a tricky question when you are dealing with a 310 vote wafer thin majority.

No, he said, not a single vote switched as a result of unitary.

Rubbish, I say.

I met plenty of voters who moved to my campaign on the basis I was the only anti-Unitary candidate (including 2 of Mr Wright's near-neighbours who work for Norfolk County Council and had voted LibDem in the past). I didn't keep a count but the issue was raised time and again and I was always honest about where I stood (no point in doing otherwise - my views are easily googleable).

I don't know if 310 people or more switched to the LibDems on the basis of his then-held-views but I can say it was a campaign issue and it did cause people to alter their voting habits.

A Better Way; a Plan or just a Slogan?

2010-10-26T22:53:00.002+01:00

One of the great ignored aspect of the CSR (why, I hear you cry---) was the launch of a new online tool by Labour to help them with their policy making.

At Prime Ministers Question Time, Mr Cameron enjoyed a good win which included a line I think we'll hear again and again - that Labour can't criticise unless they have an alternative plan for the economy. So, what is Mr Miliband's plan? Seeing as the last plan was rejected by the British people at the ballot box, he is pleading with the voters for their ideas. The brilliant www.yourbetterway.com is a way of crowd sourcing the CSR.

Now, it doesn't help that Labour's example of a better way is the awful bland line of "My better way is to make sure that an ordinary family like mine gets treated fairly." Errr ... what? We need to make cuts, even Labour admit that. The argument is about who, where and when. If the Chancellor rose and came out with this sort of line, he'd have been rightly laughed out of the chamber.

Labour want 20% reductions in spending - so the question is, for every coalition cut they oppose, what else would they cut or what tax would they raise to compensate for this?

The stuff written on the website is a list of things people don't like about the CSR. Now, that's fine - the public don't have to come up with the detailed answers themselves, but for Labour to try and spin this website as an crowd-sources alternative CSR is beyond parody. I only read the submissions from in and around Norwich but it seems a lot of people don't like a lot of the cuts. OK then, Labour, what else is it to be? You wanted to make 20% cuts - let's hear them.

Where are they? What cuts are you going to make? What taxes will you raise?

It is easy to list things you oppose - much harder to have a credible economic policy and plan for government. The website is a campaign tool; a slogan; and let's not pretend it's anything more.

The (Necessary) Dark Arts?

2010-10-26T22:44:00.002+01:00

The Whips divide opinion in British politics, usually depending on which side of the fence you sit on. Those on the frontbenches think they are vital to allowing the machinery of government work; they offer a necessary stability to the uncertain world of the legislature and provide the oil required to make the machine work. For some on the backbenches they represent the "old politics", whom wish for there to be no dissent, stifle freedom of speech and clamp down on the honest plain speaking that out politics, so distrusted by the public, needs.

Whatever side you sit on, this article from former Tory MP Paul Goodman on ConservativeHome.Com, with the current government Chief Whip is outstanding and really helps us to understand who the whips are and what they do.

If the electoral system is up for debate, and the number and size of constituencies, why should the fusion of the legislature and the executive not be up for debate too? Because therein lies the real debate over the dark arts of the whips.

It just doesn't look very good ...

2010-10-10T09:11:00.002+01:00

The Mirror were, loyal to HMV "Red Ed", on the lookout for stories for the whole of the Tory Conference and used some pretty low, bordering on illegal, tactics to get them. They need not have bothered - this revelation about a Tory Council Leader using a £500-a-night hotel on the taxpayers when he lives just 4 miles away from the ICC in Birmingham (and has a chauffeur anyway) - trumps anything they may have about young Tories falling over, vomiting or having a crush on David Cameron.

Read the article here for all the details, but I would say this. I absolutely agree with Cllr. Whitby that getting through security was often long winded and could delay you anywhere up to a half hour. I agree that if somebody, like a cabinet minister, wanted to see you it meant there and then and could often be into the small hours of the morning. But ... there is absolutely no excuse for this because it just doesn't look very good to the taxpaying public. Spending this amount of money, no matter what the offset costs are, make politicians (of whatever party) look very much out of touch. Whatever the excuses he may have, think of it this way - the political class are about to make some very tough decisions that will leave people out of jobs, financially struggling, cutting benefits and the like - they don't want to see their elected representatives in posh hotels whilst they finalise those decisions.

And anyway, I doubt Uncle Eric would approve ...

Conference: Then & Now

2010-10-09T12:21:00.002+01:00

One of the BBC Reporters I was speaking to during the conference made the observation that everybody ought to go to at least 1 party conference at least once, just to experience it. He's absolutely right; it is an experience like no other and I would urge people, especially those who are not political to give it a go. This was my first conference in ten years; the last time I went we were in the doldrums of opposition and with things unlikely to get any better. Here are my thoughts on what has changed, got better or worse and stayed the same in the 10 years I was missing from conference.

The Conference Facilities: I have to say I was very impressed with Birmingham; an easy drive from Norwich and the ICC/Hyatt were simple to find and get to. The only problem we had was finding our way to the hotel after the police cut off most of the major roads! The ICC itself was an excellent facility and the staff were very friendly and helpful. My one big criticism in the main hall itself; it was very small and meant that we were unable to get into some of the major speeches including George Osborne's. However, if I were a cynic (heaven forbid) I would say that the excellent facilities have therefore diminished the role of the conference hall itself - there is so much else to see and do that the speeches almost got in the way!

The Platform Speeches: I have watched a few back on iplayer and BBC Parliament and you get a very different sense of a speech in the hall itself. I didn't think, for example, Eric Pickles came across half as well on TV as he did in the hall. Michael Gove was, for me, the darling of the conference and the whole session on public services was very well put together. We have a lot of excellent speakers in the cabinet and government. My one problem, though, was the stage managed element of this. We were asked to put forward questions and make submissions but the number of opportunities was very limited and even when I went to do this well in advance, all the slots had been taken. Such a shame that wasn't more an opportunity for the membership to "own" the conference hall itself.

The Fringe: And so that led to the best bit of the conference, the amazing fringe meetings. There were hundreds to choose from, very diverse topics and well put on. I did a full day, every day - from breakfast meetings to lunch time, early evening and then night time fringes. The debate was free-flowing and, actually, very respectful of people's opinions. At one fringe, I spoke to defend the principle of mixed ability teaching after a half dozen others spoke up for setting and streaming in schools. I expected to be savaged, but not.

The Lobbyists / Media: One thing which has changed massively is the number of lobbyists and media present now we are in government. Many of them dominated fringe meetings to spread their cause or deliver a message. I'm OK with this, but not if it drowns out the members having their say. One fringe I went to had lobbyist, after lobbyist, after lobbyist, speaking. A massive industry has been sparked in the last 10 years. One estimate I received is that only a third of people there were actually Tory members / delegates.

The Minister's Mind: One thing I had forgotten is what amazing access you get to Ministers, MPs and even the media themselves. I bumped into most of the senior BBC staff and spoke to them and probably half of the cabinet. You forget how human some of these people are - I ran into Transport Secretary Phillip Hammond, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, Leader of the House Sir George Young, Education Secretary Michael Gove amongst others ... all just looking around the conference or having a drink at the bar. No wonder this kind of event attracts lobbyists!

The Exhibition: Now wasn't that good! The conference exhibition was massive - much bigger than 10 years ago, with various groups having stands and trying to engage the delegates and each other. CCHQ put on a good range of training, I enjoyed Red Ed's Beer & Sandwiches, stands with the latest in technology, Conservative friend groups, printers, shops (ASDA and M&S were there), unions & public sector groups. It was vibrant, noisy, engaging and never dull. When I had a spare half hour, a wander around the exhibition was a great way of bumping into people.

The Parties: Something which hasn't changed is the Tory capacity to drink and eat!! The food was good but got very samey towards the end as most parties / fringe meetings had the same caterers! Best booze award goes to the teaching unions for their wine stocks and to the Conservative Friends of Cyprus for having decent beer! Best food award goes to Barnardos for their Fish 'n' Chip supper! The National Autistic Society had a cocktails party too! The Eastern Region Reception was very well attended and great fun and the Norfolk Tories tried, and failed, to eat the hottest curry known to man.

The Security: 10 years ago you pretty much were able to stroll into conference with a swipe of your library card. Now we've in government the security was amazing; it sometimes took a good 20-30 minutes just to get into the ICC; which as you have the PM and cabinet around must be a good thing! The security staff were all very good natured and even the policemen with guns cracked a smile!

The Splits: In short, I didn't spot any. The Freedom Zone, outside of the conference center, ran a number of very good events where the more radical elements of Tory thinking were explored. Quite right too - good on them. Debate is important, especially as we weren't allowed any in the main conference hall.

The Stamina: I had forgotten that Conference is a stamina event; either that or I could manage it 10 years ago and can't now! Getting up for an 8am fringe, going to bed at 3am and drinking for 15 hours straight can make things difficult (at my age). But it was so good natured and happy. There was, above all, a real sense of enjoyment about the conference.

The Conservative Party seemed more professional and much more organized than I ever remembered. It was a really good event and hopefully I may be able to do it again, maybe within the next 10 years.

I'll finished with another word from a BBC reporter; they do 3 weeks of this, on the road, from the LibDems to Labour to the Tories. The LibDem event was muted, the Labour get-together was stunned and the Conservative conference was just more fun.

Ed's Loose Change

2010-10-08T17:40:00.005+01:00

New Labour Leader (oops - he won't like me saying that!) Ed Miliband has today announced his first Shadow Cabinet and I have to say that I share the view of many that a lot of his appointing are, frankly, bizarre.

I know that he has his hands tied by having to have Shadow Cabinet elections rather than just appointing who he likes - although apparently he can also appoint some places too (more on that later) - but his allocation of jobs goes from the boring to the bonkers (copyright, Labour MPs).

A lot has been focused on the role of Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, but to me the most fascinating role is that given to Harriet Harman. Hattie is a Shadow Cabinet certainty given her directly elected role of Deputy Leader. Under Mr Brown, Harman also doubled (or quadrupled) as Commons Leader, Labour Chairmwoman and Minister for Equalities. No doubt she'll be grateful to be down to just the 2 extra jobs ... Deputy Leader and Shadow International Development Secretary. Odd, I think, but maybe explainable. You see, Harriet's standing has rocketed after her stint as Acting Leader. Share prices in HH Ltd. have gone through the roof. The reception and plaudits she won at conference show us that. Like Margaret Beckett in1994, Harman's political reputation has been enhanced no end. In fact to the point where I know a lot of Labour members who wished she had gone for the top job herself. So given her massive popularity and status within the party, why dump her off on the relatively low status cabinet job of Shadow DID? Most people expected at least Shadow Justice (taken by Red Ed's main man Sadiq Khan). I am not saying that International Development isn't important - it is, as shown by the fact it has a ring fenced budget - but that the cabinet role doesn't involve the great partisanship and media role that Harman would thrive on. Ed has showed her into the background, maybe fearful of the power that a resurgent Harman has in the party. I'm afraid this role, to me, makes Ed look weak. He should have exploited Harman rather than demolishing her.

So onto the top jobs. Johnson for Shadow Chancellor is a sound move in one way - he is a loyal, union man and will serve Ed to the end with undying-bunker-mentality. He is also an extremely effective Commons performer (one of Mrs Little's favourite MPs actually) and will give the Chancellor a real run for his money (no pun intended). But Johnson is the compromise candidate; a man who will show the imprint of the last leader to sit on him. Ed can mould Alan in his own image. And so, because he doesn't have the guts to choose between Ed Balls and Mrs Ed Balls, Alan will do for now. Somebody on the Beeb suggested he was a caretaker appointment - I think so too. I saw Johnson doing an interview on Sky and was, frankly, terrible. He avoided all questions about policy, or even opinions, and sidestepped the issued of public sector pensions and strike action. But I guess he won't find his backbone until Ed tells him where it is. And that leaves Balls and Cooper like fish out of water in their new roles. Economists both, and both yearing for the top economic portfolio, Yvette Cooper now has to shadow the Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ed Balls is opposite Home Secretary Theresa May. I would suggest that Mr Hague will sleep more soundly than Mrs May, but neither Labour spokespeople have the experience or knowledge - yet - to lay a glove on the government.

The LibDems in the coalition may too be breathing a sign of relief that they will not have to face Labour's big guns - maybe a sign on the big thaw between the two parties. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will face charming former Treasury Minister Angela Eagle. I am no fan of Mr Alexander but he dwarfs her and won't face much of a Commons challenge. John Denham, for Labour, will be opposite Vince Cable. Mr Denham, who clung on by his fingernails in his Southampton constituency, is a good and clever man but Vince is there to be wound up a treat by Labour and Denham isn't the man who can do this. Chris Huhne now faces Meg Millier - who? - a fairly anonymous former Minister who doesn't seem to have much going for her. Ann McKechin is now Shadow Scottish Secretary and given her deep rooted socialist links, it'll give LibDem Michael Moore plenty of scope for attack. That leaves Sadiq Khan opposite Nick Clegg. What a let down - Jack Straw used sheer gravitas and intellect to regularly crush the hapless Clegg at Commons Questions and I would suggest that the DPM will relieved to have some of the political heat taken off. Mr Khan is a man rewarded for his loyalty and way, way out of his depth. The LibDems in government look like they have survived the worst of Labour's "new generation".

That leaves Andy Burnham - my pick for Labour Leader - at Shadow Education. Although I think Mr Burnham will be a tougher opponent that many Tories think, the fact is that Michael Gove has intellectual rigour on his side and Burnham's button-down-the-hatches view of education (the it's all fine just chuck some money at it approach) won't work. John Healey is a well respected MP but he'll have to put in some work to deal with Andrew Lansley who has had the Health portfolio in and out of government for six years now and is considered a formidable expert on the NHS now.

Labour's election guru Douglas Alexander is Shadow DWP opposite Iain Duncan Smith. Duncan Smith has the edge on thinking and until Labour formulate their own ideas for welfare reform, his policy of oppose-oppose-oppose (I am guessing that's what it'll be) won't be enough.

Caroline Flint, who definitely isn't window dressing, is back at Shadow Communities and I cannot wait to see her come up against Secretary Pickles, public chum number one! It is the one Commons clash that I am really looking forward to!

I think shuffling Hilary Benn off to Shadow Commons Leader is a bit premature as that role involves lots of HoC work rather than letting Mr Benn loose on one of the big spending departments. I am glad Lima Byrne survived, shadowing Francis Maude, as a certain "note" may make regular reappearances in debate!

And then there is Peter Hain (Shadow Wales) and Shaun Woodward (Shadow NI) - the two men who now they didn't get into the Shadow Cabinet by rights. How can they go to work in the morning knowing they shouldn't be there? Mind you, I suppose Ed has to do that too!

All in all I don't sense a thread running through this; rather more like a collection of panic appointments. Very few of them backed Ed in the first place and for a new generation they look rather a lot like Brown's old generation. I am afraid not good enough, yet, and I would expect Ed to be re-shuffling again in about a year.

In Praise of Dan Cox

2010-10-01T20:44:00.002+01:00

I am very sad to see that Dan Cox has resigned as Conservative Leader and County Council Leader. He is doing so for the right reasons, working with VSO in India to provide for some of the very poorest. That's taking "Social Action" to a whole new level! Dan has been a keen champion and a good friend for the last few years. He led the party to a massive victory in the 2009 elections and has steered the authority through the turmoil of Labour's failed unitary bid. He has led the council through economic choppy-waters and remained a focused, decent guy. I, and I am sure politics as a whole, will miss Dan Cox - "a good guy".

Busy Life

2010-10-01T20:39:00.002+01:00

Apologies for the lack of blogging - I thought that being out of politics would give me more time, but sadly not! I am taking on one or two very exciting projects, more to come later, but they are outside of the Conservatives!

But the no-politics diet is about to come to a crushing end because on Sunday we are off to conference in Birmingham. I am pleased that Norwich will be very well represented at the conference and I am going to some very interesting fringe meetings as well as a number of sessions in the main hall. I am very much looking forward to this - my first conference since 2000; I wonder how things have changed in ten years!

I have my bagged packed, my conference badge on standby and ready to go - I don't think I'll have time to blog but keep an eye on my Twitter to see updates!

Ministers Threaten To Quit

2010-09-22T21:47:00.004+01:00

Don't for a moment think I am happy about this, but the Channel 4 exclusive about 2 Tory Ministers - Jeremy Wright & David Lidington - threatening to quit if the plans for a high speed rail link between London and Birmingham are not scrapped does have an interest side line for us teachers of politics. The rail line, we are told, would do great damage to their constituencies and they will go if it presses ahead because they'll want to vote against it in the House. This really is collective responsibility working - if you can't support a key government policy you can't be in the government. What a world away from Labour Ministers campaigning against hospital closures that their government forced through, for example.

Ministers have 2 options - abandon their principles / constituents and vote with the government.

Or vote against their own government, which Ministers cannot do. So quit as a Minister to vote against them.

Collective responsibility - Ministerial responsibility - Individual responsibility.

Maybe, just maybe, making a comeback in a government near you ...

Cable is Wrong on Bankers

2010-09-22T21:25:00.004+01:00

If I didn't know better, I'd have assumed that the rabble rousing speech by Vince Cable was a leadership bid in the making. He delivered it extremely well and very funny in parts it was too. And the LibDem crowd lapped it up - yellow friends of mine who were there said it was, finally, what they wanted to hear. So, good news - except for the fact that we need to stop this ridiculous banker bashing.

Even LibDem Susan Kramer says this must come to an end. And I say so for two reasons.

Firstly because Labour are using it as a fig leaf for their disastrous tenure. Forget Brown's government, they tell us, it's all down to the bankers. Yes, every problem of the last 13 years - would you believe it! Well, actually, no I don't. What about the role of the government in setting a framework and the role of regulators in enforcing it? What about Brown's reckless spending and borrowing and spending and then borrowing some more? By reinforcing the public image that its all the fault of the bankers we let Brown, Labour and the Milibands off the hook for their role in this.

And secondly because it isn't true. The vast majority of bankers did not cause this and are not "spivs". Somehow it has been acceptable to be publicly vile to a whole profession on the basis of a minority of them. All teachers are bad!! All police officers are bent!! All politicians are corrupt!! Obviously nonsense and yet we allow people to talk about bankers in the same way. Tax them!! String them up!! Castrate them!! Hardly fair or accurate, from a party that preaches fairness. Playing to the crowd? Who'd have believed it from a LibDem?

As somebody tweeted me this evening - after agreeing with this argument - let's focus our anger on the minority that deserve it. Sadly, Cable's speech was aimed at his party and his standing rather than serious debate. I'm surprised that Cable has allowed this to happen.

Update:
I notice that not only the "establishment" but also the Director of the Adam Smith Institute (whom Cable credited with his ideas) have rubbished it now.

Update2:
This post says it rather well too

Chugging Rules In Place

2010-09-20T18:50:00.002+01:00

I am extremely pleased that new regulations that I championed as a Councillor have now been put into force (details here) to combat issues that many members of the public feel about chugging (or "face to face fund raising").

There will now be rules as to where fundraisers can be and limits on the number of times and days of the week that the activity can be carried out.

Norwich is, rightly, a vibrant City - but when we were going down Gentleman's Walk on Saturday, with Libby in a buggy, it was like being on a cannon run. It was so busy it was actually uncomfortable and we ended up seeking sanctuary somewhere else. If these new rules help to improve this situation just a little bit they will be worthwhile.

I spent a long time researching this, liaising with the regulation body (the PFRA) and then putting the motion through council so I have a certain amount of pride in this announcement.

Well done to the City Council for having the guts to take on this issue.

Why I'm For Andy

2010-09-11T16:59:00.002+01:00

The Labour Leadership contest has been an absolute bore-fest for those of us not in the Labour Party; similar, I should imagine, for non-supporters in any leadership election. However I have been interested in the media coverage, debates and focus groups which have provided the electorate (which covers Labour Members and Trade Unionists) with a great deal of information.

Of course, my original choice was the current Shadow Home Secretary Alan Johnson, whose assured, confident and humorous Commons speeches have shown a man very relaxed with not standing for the leadership. I am glad he didn't stand, but wonder if he even intends to stand for election to the Shadow Cabinet? Anyway, back to the rest ...

Diane Abbott, the "great communicator" has fallen flat in my view. As a dinosaur leftie we all knew she wasn't going to win, but I expected her to blow the contest wide open. I doubt she will even in these late stages. The two Milibands are just b-o-r-i-n-g; David has history involving a banana that may well haunt him for a long time and his admission that he drinks beer by the half-pint is his "baseball cap" moment (copyright, W.Hague). Ed on the otherhand comes across in a kind of nerd-trying-to-be-groovy kind of way. That leaves the two people that have really impressed me the most in this contest.

There is Ed Balls, who scrapped home in his Morley seat at the election, the most loyal commander left in the Brown bunker. He has shown himself to be a bulldog and would be an opportunistic fighter for Labour in opposition; just what they need in many ways. However despite this he doesn't look like the next Prime Minister. He may well have secured himself the Shadow Home Secretary position as a reward for having such a good leadership campaign.

And so to Andy Burnham - the frontline candidate whom we knew least about before this election. He's impressed me as the man who speaks in normal language and with a normal tone of voice. He represents his home constituency and has been loyal through-and-through. He has been leading the debate with ideas (not that I agree with them, of course, but at least he's brave enough to put them forward). He seems at ease, handles pressure well and has stayed above the Mili-spats going on. I am impressed and would be much more concerned if he led Labour than any of the others.

Having said that - to be frank I don't think any of them look like election winners. One Labour activist said to me at the count on Thursday that when Hague fought Clarke and IDS fought Clarke, they prayed for the leader most likely to screw up the Tories. Was I, he asked, doing the same for Labour? No, I replied, whoever wins the Labour crown then Cameron is still sure to win the next election. For us, it's a win-win-win-win-win situation. But if Labour activists were to take any advice from an old Tory lag like me, to make the best fist of the next parliament - it has to be Andy Burnham.

In choosing between FPTP and AV, do I vote for the system that will stop STV?

2010-09-11T16:52:00.004+01:00

As a politics teacher I am looking forward to the AV referendum next year (although personally I wouldn't vote to have one; too expensive at this time). I don't yet know which way I will vote, but I am currently leaning towards the "No" side and one thing in particular has been tipping my view.

I am concerned that the people advocating AV are actually those who want full blown PR, which I am definitely against - this article on the Coffee House blog says it all, that all those chosen to push AV actually don't support it but another system.

Why would I vote for a system which may lead, in time, to a system I am totally opposed to?

That's It - The End.

2010-09-10T19:22:00.003+01:00

Well, the results from last night were pretty shocking and certainly a poor night for both coalition partners. Judging from the BBC, ITV and Archant reports I was certainly the story of the night. Sadly I lost my seat, by 46 votes, to Labour.

For the last week I had began to become convinced I would lose - and in case you think that is 20-20 hindsight I actually said this to Labour friends as well as my campaign team. Knocking on doors, although there were far fewer Labour voter than Tory ones, they were simply more motivated to vote. The low-turn out, the switch from LibDems to Labour, the campaign on cuts (which never mentioned where Labour would swing the axe, of course) were all factors. But as the sitting member you always look to yourself and your own personal role in the election. I have put my heart and soul into being a good ward councillor but clearly it wasn't enough.

To all those who are my friends in the community, the people who supported me in Bowthorpe and Earlham, to my colleague ward Councillors and to the hundreds who voted for me, I am personally very, very sorry.

Being a councillor has been a fantastic experience and I have got to contribute to the civil life of our City in ways that few ever get. I look back on the last 4 years with pride, but life moves on. I am lucky that I have a job I love and a young family to enjoy. I shall miss helping people in Bowthorpe and working for them (I had resisted being "emotional" until the emails and calls from residents I am helping or have helped started to come through) but I always said that I wanted more in my life than just politics.

I am sticking to that promise - starting today.

Vote

2010-09-08T22:11:00.004+01:00

Thursday is by-election day - when 13 seats, and perhaps the future direction of the City - are decided. I know this election campaign hasn't exactly set the world on fire but it will make a difference here in the City.

Some parties are trying to convince you this is a referendum on the Coalition Government.

Some parties are trying to say its a county council election instead.

Some parties have some very choice figures to say only they can win here.

I say this - this is a City Council election, about City issues for City voters. Read the manifesto documents of the parties (the Conservatives one is here, for example) then make your decision.

But whatever you do - vote and vote for a positive reason.

I obviously hope that my record as a Councillor in the last 4 years will see me home in Bowthorpe but nothing can be taken for granted and we will fight every minute tomorrow for each and every vote.

Norwich Leaseholders Demand Connaught Inquiry

2010-09-08T18:58:00.003+01:00

I don't usually reproduce comments from this blog but this one is well worth it, from Leaseholders Chairman Pauline Walton:

Leaseholders have been expressing concern about the management of this procurement project since it began in March last year.

We believe there Norwich Council has a case to answer for its failure to notice the state of Connaught's accounts in November last year, and adverse reporting by fund manager Tim Steer in mid-December. We believe that the Council was reckless in its appointment of Connaught on 10 February 2010, given the incredibly low bid price (30% lower than anyone else). We wonder whether its "due diligence exercise" really proved that this bid was affordable.

Morrison tried to warn this council immediately it knew it had lost the bid, but the Council pressed on.

Citizens of Norwich deserve better than this.

Now, with Connaught's social housing operation in administration, I presume we can look forward to another interim contract while the council has to go through a major expensive procurement process all over again.

Surely this warrants a public inquiry?

Pauline Walton
Chair, Norwich Leaseholders' Association

Personally I couldn't agree more - this has been a shambles and the point is that I don't know if the argument made by Mrs Walton is correct. An inquiry would sort that out. This all demonstrates the shambles of the way that Labour have run the City Council. There were warned ...

An inquiry is a good long term solution, but a vote to remove this Labour administration tomorrow is a better short term solution.

Connaught goes into Administration

2010-09-07T21:44:00.002+01:00

The bad news for the staff and customers of Connaught was heavily trailed this morning and we now know that they have gone into administration (more here). This in, obviously, a very worrying time for both the 10,000 Connaught staff both here in Norwich and around the country and also for the tens of thousands who depend on their services.

There has been much concern expressed at Labour's handling of the Connaught contract, including from both City MPs Chloe Smith and Simon Wright, and also by the Conservative Group on the City Council. Questions were raised about the situation surrounding the Morrison bid, the "teething problems" at the beginning of the service and now the financial perils of the company. All along Labour have told us - don't worry, it'll be fine. There are, apparently, plans in place to ensure services do not suffer. I am not on the Council so I know no more than anybody else but Labour are going to have to make those plans public pretty soon.

This whole situation seems to have been handled very badly indeed. Was this contract ever robust enough? Labour have some big questions to ask - but residents on the doorstep tonight were rightly very concerned and many believed this incident was symptomatic of the way Labour have run City Hall.

No wonder Labour are desperate to turn a City by-election into a County election or General Election - because they are afraid of their own record in office.

Almost There

2010-09-06T21:02:00.002+01:00

With polling day now just a few days away, I can report that I am absolutely shattered. Day-in-day-out campaigning - a mix of canvassing, leafleting and meeting residents groups is all coming to an end and on Thursday people will have their say.

I don't know if I'll have blogging time between then and now but this is just really say a big thank you to all those people in Bowthorpe and Earlham who have been so kind when we have called. Your support is greatly appreciated. Thanks also to those who have tramped the streets with me during these four weeks - plus those who have dished out the moral support!

This is an election nobody wanted but the result will shape our City for many years to come.

Local media & Local democracy

2010-09-01T13:44:00.003+01:00

Archant goes through good times and bad times when it comes to reporting local democracy and elections. Currently, under the present Editor and team, they are having a good time. Shaun Lowthorpe and Dan Grimmer are like the Statler and Waldorf of the City (there goes my favourable coverage) but are doing an excellent job. At the moment they are previewing 2 wards per day in the lead u to the poll. It's even better to see them coming off the fence and having a punt at who they think is in the game at the moment. So far they think the Conservatives will hold Bowthorpe, LibDems hold Eaton (just) and Labour to hold University. Lakenham is too-close-to-call. It's good to see pieces from all the candidates (except UKIP who failed to provide any copy) with then an opinion-style piece from the paper. When the first article about the elections appeared on page 57 of the EDP I did fear a lack of coverage, but this really is a good service to democracy. Well done, Archant.

What should the GOP strategy for the Senate be?

2010-08-30T22:42:00.003+01:00

News of a poll - twittered by Tim Montgomery of ConservativeHome fame - which gave the Republicans a 10 point national lead over the Democrats has got me thinking. The 51-41 result would almost certainly wipe out the Presidents party majority in the House, but how close are they to losing the Senate as well? A bit of number crunching has helped.

This is a bumper year of contests including a couple of Special Elections to fill vacancies left both those who resigned to serve in the Obama administration. However the numbers in the Senate without these contest shows the ease by which the Democrats should hold firm; without a vote being cast there are:

Democrats 41
Republicans 21

These elections are from the class of '04, who saw their elections clash with that of President George W Bush. Hence most of the seats up for election are, in fact, Republican held.

Added to these numbers there are 11 very safe Republican states or candidates up for election - either in their solid Southern heartland (Alabama, Georgia Kansas), the Mid-West (Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Utah) or where the candidate means they will win (Arizona, New Hampshire - plus North Dakota and Ohio). That puts the numbers at democrats 41, Republicans 32.

Let's assume that the Democrats themselves do not make progress - but there are States where the Republicans cannot take victory for granted. In Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina & South Dakota their winning majority was less than 5% of the vote. In Oklahoma & South Carolina it was less than 10%. Assuming these States stay red, then the Senate is Democrat 41, Republican 39. Getting closer.

Now the fun states. Scott Brown, Special election winner from Massachusetts is up for re-election. He overturned the late, great Ted Kennedy's 39% margin to win that seat last year. The smart money is on him holiday on. We also have Louisiana where the Republican margin was greatly inflated by having 2 Democratic candidates on the ballot paper. This time with just one the GOP margin falls to just 8%, although you'd still put the mortgage on them holding on. Senate now Democrat 41, Republican 41.

Onto Pennsylvania - the seat of defector Arlen Spectre who quit the Republicans to join the Democrats. His margin of victory was 11% as a republican. He lost the Democratic primary and his replacement looks unlikely to repeat his success. In fact this State is likely to join the "safe R" column. That leaves us as Republican 42, Democrat 41 - without a single toss-up contest being decided.

We've had the safe Republican berths, so what about the Dems? Well, you'd be surprised if any of the following seats were in play (number refers to D winning margin) - Connecticut (34%) , Delaware (29), Hawaii (55), Illinois (42), Maryland (31), New York (2 seats - 47 and 36), Vermont (46). That's 8 seats, without breaking sweat. Senate now Democrat 49, Republican 42.

So the Democrats need just one of the following swing States for half and two for a majority. Four States and they wouldn't have to rely on the votes of Independent members.

Some States are surely lost - it's hard to see the Dems holding on in Colorado (5%) or even Arkansas (11), Washington (12) or Wisconsin (11). That would be Democrat 49, Republican 46.

What's left? the winning margin in West Virginia was 31%, in Oreagon 32%, Nevada 26% and Indiana 24%. All of those should be in play given the latest polls. And that leaves California - which despite a relatively low 20% margin is so solidly Democratic it couldn't be any other way ... could it?

So the chances of the Reps taking the Senate are very very low but only because of the electoral cycle they face. But the result could be squeaky bum time for the Pres and still leave him hanging by the votes of a few independent members.

UPDATE: Rasmussen, the respected US pollster also has the figures of D49, R46 with 5 toss-ups (I didn't look - honest) but disagrees about which states. West Virgina it thinks is OK for the Dems despite the Reps whittling the poll lead down to just 6%. It also thinks Delaware is heading for a GOP victory. It's toss-up seats are Colorado, Illinois, California, Nevada and Wisconsin. For what its worth if the Reps don't take Colorado they're in trouble - but if the Dems don't take California or Delaware the same is true!

LibDem Negative Campaigning - New Low

2010-08-29T12:51:00.004+01:00

The LibDems are very much predictable in the vicious and negative style of campaigning - the sort which led their former Leader Hereward Cooke, a decent man, to apologise to council for it (background here). Yet amazingly, despite poll after poll saying people don't like negative campaigning it seems to work. I wonder, however, if they can both be negative and mislead at the same time and still get away with it?

The following is taken from the latest "Simon Wright school of negative campaigning" - just a small section but from an A3 leaflet designed to knife Labour and suggest only the LibDems can beat them here (without a word about the Greens who actually do hold the ward).

Take a look ...
You would think from this that the LibDems has valiantly tried to stop the madness of Labour spending £1.5m of taxpayers cash on a "huge vain white-elephant of a project that was doomed to failure" (words taken from my first speech on the issue ...)

Yet, no. LibDem Councillors voted FOR this money to be spent and did so every time of asking.

Every time Labour wanted more cash to throw at this project, the LibDems said YES YES YES.

Check out the roll-call of those who voted for this money to be spent and you will soon find ...

"Councillors LUBBOCK, WATKINS ..."

and most embarrassingly ...

"... WRIGHT."

I wonder if Simon Wright knows his wife voted for this money to be spent? (For the record, the Conservative Group have voted against spending the money on every occasion we could have).

But wait - they have a chance to redeem themselves!! In 2008 and 2009 there were budget proposals on the table to reduce the unitary spend and use the money elsewhere. Surely if they were that concerned that would have voted FOR these measures?

Nope ... all LibDem Councillors, including Ros Wright, voted against Tory plans to scale back on unitary spending.

The the U-turn is sharp, the hypocrisy is breathtaking and no wonder people are losing faith in politics.

The LibDems vote, consistently, for unitary spending and then oppose it after the project fails.

This takes the LibDem negative campaigning to a new low - because it is designed to mislead.

Happy or Sad?

2010-08-28T18:20:00.003+01:00

True story ...

A friend meets a LibDem deliverer ...

Friend: Thanks for calling round but it's too late, I've done my postal vote.

LibDem: Lovely, thank you, may I ask if you supported us?

Friend: No, sorry, I voted for Antony Little

LibDem: But Antony Little isn't a candidate here - he stood in the General Election.

Friend: Oh. I have no idea who I voted for then.

UPDATE: for clarification this wasn't in Bowthorpe and the LibDem was right - I wasn't on the ballot paper!!

Guest Post: Why Peter is wrong (and right) about Wensum

2010-08-24T19:58:00.003+01:00

I suggest that before you read this you scroll through the comments on previous posts to find Peter's views on campaigning in his home ward of Wensum. Before I tell you why he is wrong, firstly we'll dwell on why he is right.

In an ideal world, every party would stand candidates everywhere and each community would have a full flourishing campaign where every vote is fought over and every argument challenged. That would be a real democracy. But sadly life is not like that.

Firstly politics requires people. Doors do not knock on themselves, and leaflets do not fly through your letter box by magic. Even if a party posts you material, as the LibDems did heavily last time, they first have to raise the money to do it. Even the Royal Mail doesn't run on IOUs. Sadly in modern politics the number of people given to do these activities is falling, driven on by a number of factors (like all the parties looking the same and lack of time in working practices). So with limited finances and limited workforces the parties have to be rational about what they do and where. I imagine the Tory and LibDem membership in Wensum is quite low and Labour's is quite inactive. Only the Greens, as supported by Peter's evidence on the ground, have what it takes to get around. In fact, it could be that the Tory / Libdem / Labour candidates are "paper" ones, where they stand only to give a choice on the ballot paper rather than seriously expect to win. That could explain the lack of effort. Whenever somebody complains to me about lack of communication from party X, I always ask them if they have volunteered to be the street leafleter recently. Usually the answer is "no"; QED.

So, in this election would we expect parties to be focusing on Wensum? Well, yes and no ...

I happen to believe that Mr Altman, the Green candidate, is a weak candidate and very open to attack. His record as Mancroft's councillor was poor, as was his decision to walk away after only a year. Hardly the commitment the people of Wensum want. In addition, a lot of people my end of the ward wonder if the Greens just want the council allowances (wages!) rather than to do the job for the right reasons. Llewellyn to Altman is like from the firepan into the fire! If the other candidates had decent local people who really wanted the job out of a sense of public duty, they'd do well. However ...

The fact of the matter is that the Greens hold the ward with a big majority, with Labour in second. The Tories have improved in the last 3-4 years but have only just managed to leapfrog the poor old fourth placed LibDems (although no doubt only they can win here!!).

And do the parties need Wensum for where they are going? The Greens do because they need it in their column for the great council take-over. But I guarantee you neither Tory nor LibDems have in in the front, middle or even back of their minds. And that leaves Labour - with the party struggling to hold onto 6 (yes, six) marginal wards I doubt they have room for a seventh target no matter how tempting.

I am sorry Peter - Wensum is not going to be a great political fight this year; maybe next. You can expect a few leaflets, probably from Greens and Labour, and a knock from maybe the Greens. The rest you'll have to discover from the internet.

I know it's sad and not how elections ought to be, but until one of the other parties need Wensum or the results show they may be able to win it, don't expect that to change.

But have heart - the Tories are making a good show in Thorpe Hamlet, a seat that I know well and where most people thought they were out of the running. My partner has a leaflet and a letter from the party in a clear third place, so maybe there is hope for Wensum yet.

The author is a regular here and lives in Wensum Ward.

Norwich MP lets down democracy

2010-08-22T22:19:00.004+01:00

Regular readers of this blog will know I'm an "on the fence" Conservative when it comes to the AV vote. But this really made me laugh.

Generally the only party to be in favour of AV are the LibDems (and even then they believe it to be a poor compromise). Their party has been engaged in a competition to find a great pro-AV poster (more here) and the above is one example of that work.

Pretty shocking eh? One MP won with as little as 29% of the vote ... who could be this betrayer of democracy?

Well, step forward ...

Norwich South
Simon Wright (LibDem) - 29%
Charles Clarke (Labour) - 29&
Antony Little (for it is he, Conservative) - 23%

I am aware that some people believe this result is the prime example of why we need AV, but there is a certain irony in the LibDems using their own MPs electoral records as a reason to change the system!

Guest Post: Is a new Green dawn "unstoppable"?

2010-08-21T18:31:00.005+01:00

I suppose this post came out of a brief chat with Antony during the week, in which he re-iterated the point that turnout at these elections was likely to be low and that would damage the Greens chances. I'll go on to why I think the Greens are un-stoppable in a moment, but first the turnout point.

I disagree - the canvassing that I have done does show an increased level of apathy, partly because of the time of year and also because you rarely meet anybody who wants these elections. However I would argue that we all share in the apathy - it doesn't just impact on the young, student, green-voters. I have met middle-aged Tories and working class Labour who just aren't going to vote. And think on this - this will be an election where the most motivated set of supporters win. And I would say that the Greens have amongst the most determined, motivated and political (with a big P) supporters in the City. It's why I think the Tories will edge it in Eaton and why the Greens will do better than you all think across the City. In fact (here I go) I think the Greens will take Thorpe Hamlet and University in Norwich South and also Sewell in Norwich North.

Even so, we come to the wider point of the arithmetic. The Greens are essentially a single seat short of becoming the largest party; they have 9 seats and you need to add in holds in Town Close, Nelson, Wensum and Mancroft. Labour have 9 but I wouldn't bet on any of them being an automatic hold at this point (although clearly Mile Cross will end up in the Labour column come election night). Even if Labour do stage a massive recovery, the Green gain in Thorpe Hamlet will leave the parties 15-14; all it would take is a Tory gain in Catton Grove or Crome to put them as equals at 14-14. Can Morphew hold on then? I wouldn't bet on it. You see the Greens are unstoppable; because the other parties will do our work for us. A Tory gain here or a LibDem gain there (Lakenham?) and they've slipped behind. The Greens can take control without taking a single Labour seat.

For what it's worth, I think the result will be:
Green 16 (gains Thorpe Hamlet, University & Sewell)
Labour 10 (holds Mile Cross)
Tories 8 (holds Bowthorpe, gains Eaton, Catton & Crome)
LibDems 5 (loses Thorpe Hamlet & Eaton but gains Lakenham)

And in those circumstance not even a Condem coalition can stop Claire Stephenson being Leader of the Council.

LibDem Bar Chart Comeback - but it's still inacurrate - Shock.

2010-08-18T23:25:00.003+01:00

Judging from my email inbox there is more hubbub about the LibDems using the whole Norwich South result to prove "it's a two horse race" between them and Labour and no point in voting Conservative or Green - sadly, though, they used this argument in places like Eaton (where the Tories and LibDems are around 200 votes apart with Labour fourth) and Town Close (where the Greens have a 20% lead over the LibDems with Labour in fourth).

After all we hear about "new politics" and "I understand why politicians are not trusted", surely this kind of campaigning is partly to blame? Luckily (for us) confused electors don't believe the party that mis-lead them.

Guest Post: What happened to LibDem localism?

2010-08-17T21:14:00.004+01:00

One of the issues which really stood out for me amongst the "Statement of Persons Nominated" in how few of the candidates live in the areas they seek to represent. Back in the days, the LibDem campaigning rule-book clearly stated that you stood a much, much better chance of winning with a local candidate and that you should always select a local above anybody else. In fact, when you have done that and the other parties have not simply hammer them the whole way through the parachuting in an unpopular outsider!!

Antony's note: True, and in the Tories we used to say that you were only as local as your LibDem candidate. If the LibDem didn't live in the ward, it didn't matter - but if the Tory didn't then it was a high crime!

So going down the list it is interesting to see who lives where.

In Catton Grove the LibDem lives in Mile Cross. in Crome they live in Nelson. In Bowthorpe the LibDem is from Eaton, but in Eaton he's from Nelson. The Lakenham LibDem is from Mancroft. The Nelson candidate is from Unviersity whilst the Thorpe Hamlet guy is from Sewell. Town Close LibDems have a candidate from Wensum and in Wensum he's from Mancroft

But Bingo - we have genuine locals in Mile Cross (I rate Carl Mayhew and whilst I don't think he'll win this time, I think it will be a good match for May 2011). Mancroft LibDems also have a local - Simon Nobbs.

University have a local candidate (just - he lives on the borderline with Nelson!) as too do Sewell LibDems.

2 locals out of 13? 4 at a push? Come on, what are the Norwich LibDems playing at? Especially given that their target seats - Eaton, Town Close, Thorpe Hamlet and Lakenham are all missing out on locals. Are the LibDems really stuck for candidates like this?

Is it better to live in a set geographical area or to work hard at campaigning? I wonder if people care where the candidates come from anymore? Have the LibDems missed a trick with this?

Antony's Update: I know this guest post focuses on the LibDems so out of fairness I have evaluated the Tory local candidate count. We have 6 candidates who live in their wards and 2 more with existing elected links.

AV referendum to cost £100m

2010-08-17T16:45:00.002+01:00

Either that figure is wrong (but as it came from Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg - I doubt it !!!) or I am voting NO just to spite whoever decided to run such an expensive waste of time just as the rest of country is bracing itself for cuts. Honestly - I know I'm a Conservative but is this really the best that the "new politics" can do?

Pearson quits as UKIP Leader

2010-08-17T16:32:00.003+01:00

Recovering from the earthquake news that Lord Pearson has quit as UKIP Leader, I found myself wondering if anybody could name any UKIP Leader other than Nigel Farage? Some bloggers are getting very excited today about a Farage comeback, others claiming huge names like David Campbell-Bannerman (against whom I once debated) will stand. Either way I can't see this contest setting the political (or real) world on fire. Let them get on with it in peace.

Oh, and for your interest the previous leaders were:

1993-1997 Alan Sked (who then quit the party claiming it was on the political fringe)

1997-1999 Michael Holmes (who was forced to quit after claims he was too pro-European - he went on to quit the party in 2000)

1999-2002 Jeffrey Titford (probably the only person to come out of this well)

2002-2006 Roger Knapman (who was found to be employing Polish immigrants and spent much of his leadership being undermined by Robert Kilroy-Silk)

2006-2009 Nigel Farage (who ended up challenging the Speaker and begin humiliated in the 2010 General Election but just survived death after being involved in a plane crash)