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

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.

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

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 ...

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

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 ...

Connaught goes into Administration

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.

Labour's Comeback Kids?

Even though she was utterly wrong, the strong performance of former Communities Secretary Hazel Blears on Newsnight tonight actually left me wondering if she is angling for a Shadow Cabinet comeback - which leads to the question of what the Labour frontbench will look like after the new leader is elected.

One thing is for certain - if Diane Abbot doesn't win (!) she won't serve the new leader. But it does ask the question about what you do with the other failed leadership candidates; the Milibands, Andy Burnham or Ed Balls?

Hazel is one of a number of ministers who quit under Brown who could be brought back into action. What about Caroline Flint - is she ready for the Shadow Cabinet?

There is a question about some of the outgoing cabinet and if they would either want to serve or if a new "change" leader would want them - such as Bob Ainsworth (Defence) or Liam Byrne (will he survive that note?), Alistair Darling (would he want to stay on)? What about Jack Straw?

Then there are the young guns who'll be looking for promotion - Douglas Alexander, for example, will expect a leg up from International Development. Yvette Cooper could also expect a big new job.

There are the safe pairs of hands - Hilary Benn, Nick Brown, John Denham, Peter Hain, Alan Johnson, Jim Murphy, Shaun Woodward will all be on the roundabout.

And what about the golden oldies - might they wish for one more pop, either to help balance the Shadow Cabinet & offer experience ... or do they walk away? So, for example, what will Margaret Beckett, former Foreign Secretary, do? David Blunkett, former Home Secretary, may also be tempted?

Ed Balls is a tricky move for any new leader who isn't Ed Balls; but his recent pitbull attitude to the Tories would suit a more free-ranging role.

The other name that it would interesting to see if any leader could get them to serve is Jon Cruddas; it would be a coup if they could and a healing moment for the party.

And then there are the young bucks trying to make their shadow cabinet breakthrough - Rhondda MP Chris Bryant, Tooting's Sadiq Khan, Tottenham's David Lammy, . Former Minister Chris Leslie, who returned to the Commons as Nottingham East MP is also touting himself about the House. Ditto Stephen Twigg, back as one of Liverpool's MPs.

Plus of course you get to keep Deputy Leader Harriet Harman as a bonus; will she try and get Margaret Hodge to come with her? Can Pat McFadden keep his position? What about Stephen Timms? Or Rosie Winterton?

Of course the big thing will be that this Shadow Cabinet will be subject to an election and may look very different depending on who takes the helm!

Campaign Diary - Day Fourteen

And today it was back to work ... well, for half the day. We had training in the morning about Safeguarding Procedures and then coursework moderation. After all the campaigning it was an odd - but subtly pleasure - to do some schoolwork.

In the afternoon we headed to Thorpe Hamlet where we discovered a surprising number of people in to talk to. My favourite was a lady who is now voting Conservative because she was pleased to have a candidate who shared her thoughts on educational inclusion practices. There was a lot of movement amongst the left-wing candidates (including former LibDems voting Labour) but a steady and growing number of Conservatives. Other issues raised were transport and road layout in the City!

Then after I joined the other Norwich South Candidates (except the BNP) at a Trade Union meeting. It was enjoyable - the audience was, of course, challenging. The only applause of the night went to the Revolutionary Workers Candidate. I felt a little like groundog day - the RWP candidate said every issue was a symptom of capitalism whilst the UKIP candidate blamed everything (and, I mean, everything) on the EU. The LibDems were challenged about their policies on Trident and tax cuts, the Conservatives about homophobia in the party and Labour about Clarke's external work above being an MP. He stunned us all when he said he took on extra jobs to make up the salary he lost when he quit the cabinet - amazing! As always, the Greens had little or no scrutiny.

And home, to lesson planning, marking, blogging and a film called "Adam" about a couple where one of them has Aspergers. Fascinating film that really highlights the issue.

Labour plans £4bn worth of NHS cuts

The small print of the budget shows a £4bn reduction in the NHS budget.

Why is it that if this were a Conservative budget, the media, Unions and the Labour Party would call them "CUTS". There would be protests, direct action, campaigning & scare stories of vulnerable people dying.

But it's OK, because this is a Labour budget, so they are only "efficiency savings".

Phew.

It passed me by

Was there a Budget today? Really? That was it?!?

I had been keen to know how the government was going to tackle our record debt, support business, encourage enterprise and get people back to work. After all, this is what people on doorsteps want to know. But I don't think I am any further forward tonight.

The Chancellor spoke for an hour, but said nothing.

He whacked up the cost of cider (thanks Darling - he knows what I drink now!)

He stole a Conservative policy about Stamp Duty.

He admitted (I think) that his growth forecasts were wrong.

Petrol up, cigarettes up, booze up - again.

No rabbits. No hats. What was the point of this budget? Wouldn't it have been better to have held a General Election?

UPDATE: I know you can't fit every piece of economic news into the budget, but why on earth didn't the Chancellor mention billions of pounds worth of tax rises. I wonder why, in such a long speech with so little else to say, that was forgotten?

Crushing embarrassment for Labour as C4's Factchecker says their Sure Start claims are "wrong"

As anybody who has been paying attention to the Labour gumpf in Norwich, the "Tory cuts" to Sure Start have headlined. This claim has caused real concern amomgst local people, particularly Mum's in areas like one I represent, who are worried that their support will be taken from them. This claim is taken from a Conservative idea to move funding to support outreach and Health Visitor work. I have for some time believed that the party ought to be more vigerous in defending the position - which is that there are no planned cuts - because Labour had repeated the fib so many times it was taking on an air of truth. Even the Labour Councillors at City Hall have bet their political reputation on this.

Oh dear. Now the C4 Factchecker has done the research (click here for more) and come up with ... Labour claims, coming from cuts to Sure Start, but from the health budget. So the inflammatory headline on Labour’s scare story is, strictly, wrong.

Will I get an apology from those Labour Councillors, including their Leader Steve Morphew and Childrens Spokesman Sue Sands, who were vigerous in their attack on this issue? I not holding my breath, but Mums and Dads across the City ought to take note of these independent findings.

Labour claims not true ...

Unitary: How do Labour (and the LibDems) expect to get away with this?

Typical Labour Government - they can't even announce a decision without making a ham fist of it. Let me tell you the story of Unitary.

As regular readers will no doubt remember the story goes something like this.

Norwich Labour decide they want Unitary because they thought that those horrible Tories (you know, the ones who run the excellent four-star County Council) ignored Norwich and their out-of-touch cabinet members who know little about the City (you know, the ones who represent faraway places like Cringleford or live in Eaton) shouldn't be allowed to spread practice (you know, the acclaimed service provision) to Norwich (you know, the council with the zero-star Housing Department). So they applied for unitary status.

Unfortunately the then-Labour Secretary of State said that the plans were unaffordable, so they put in 2 bids (against the rules at the time I think) which contained plans for a small unitary based on existing boundaries and an enlarged unitary based upon taking in surrounding villages. Labour Ministers never killed this off...

Then people in South Norfolk and Broadland went bananas at the thought of this and protested against the plans. Still the then-Labour Secretary of State thought it was a bad idea.

Then the County Council launched their own bid for one large Unitary based upon the whole of Norfolk, which upset an awful lot of people including the district councils.

So given the County bid met the 5 criteria set down by the government but the City bid didn't, the then-Labour Secretary of State sent the decision off to the Independent Boundary Commission for a decision. Still Labour Ministers didn't kill this off...

The Independent Boundary Commission worked very hard and fought off various legal challenges and the whole thing dragged on-and-on whilst taxpayers continued to foot the bills.

Then the Independent Boundary Commission stunned everyone by saying only the Norfolk Unitary met all the criteria and that the Norwich bid was risky, unaffordable, poor value for money and the government should avoid it at all costs.

So the decision goes off to the Labour Secretary of State for a decision. Should he go with the County Unitary, scrap the whole thing (despite telling everyone status quo wasn't an option all along) or do something else?

You got it - do something else.

So a written statement was sent out and the Secretary of State avoided questions in the Commons because his decision was to implement the original City Council bid (you know, the one which the Independent Boundary Commission warned against as did two former Labour Secretaries of State).

And now - thanks to the Guardian for the story - it turns out the Civil Servants are so worried about the decision backfiring that they asked the Secretary of State to "order" them to do this and thus clearing them of responsibility.

And how does the Secretary of State justify this? By changing the goal posts and applying some very muddled thinking to this. So still Labour don't kill it ...

If you think I'm being partisan about this, think again - this decision sees me unable to stand for council and will have to give up my seat and does nothing to help the Tory position (an extended boundary unitary would have, for example). The position I have taken has always been in the best interest of the City (and taxpayers) of Norwich

If you think I'm being flippant, you're right, I am. Only because like a lot of people I want this whole thing sorted one way or another. And given the potential hold ups in the Commons and the Lords, and the Conservative pledge to overturn this in office, could the whole game be for nothing? This has dragged on too long and cost too much - for all councils and all council tax payers.

Unitary has been cursed since the day that Labour, and their LibDem / Green poodle allies, popped corks on the steps of City Hall. So where has this announcement leave us? Not much further forward I'd say; still in the air.

UPDATE: LibDems are pretty much at war over this now - Norman Lamb was uncompromising in his attack on the plans in the EDP today and tonight Brian Watkins, City LibDem Leader, told me he still passionately backed the bid. Words from LibDem circles is that of daggers drawn.

Don't get excited

The Hoon-Hewitt plot (backed by Norwich MP Clarke) has set Wesminster alight in the snow today. And yet from the excitement of lunchtime it has all fizzled out. Why? Because Labour MPs are spineless and unable to act in the way that the Tories did in 2003 or the LibDems in 2007. Most of their MPs would rather go down to defeat with Brown and have a post-election bloodbath than do so now in the hope of producing a leader who may just save them a few extra seats. OK, that's fine by me and probably fine by Cameron too.

So let's not get too excited; it'll all come to nothing, as usual from Labour.

MORI humiliate pretty much everyone

Overnight political hacks have been having much fun (best summarised here) about a new MORI poll which was claimed to have a narrow Tory lead of 3%, which would fall within the margin of error and could have meant that Brown was level pegging with Cameron, but ended up being a whopping 17% Conservative lead.

The joke was, of course, on everyone - Tories who were scared that the rumours were true were buzzily doing some "expectation managing" and critiquing the work of MORI (regular readers will testify that I hold MORI in no regard at all when it coming to polling; I don't care for the 17 point lead in the same way I didn't care for the 6 point one) and Labour were spinning this was the fightback and that Gordon could still win.

Then the real result was announced and some Tories were left to delcare that MORI was, in fact, spot on and Labour were attacking the MORI methodology.

This has led, rightly, to some saying that the political commentararti ought to wait for results before speculating and looking fools.

In the last few weeks things have gone well for Labour in the narrtive if not the events; Brown has done well-ish at PMQs, the polls were narrowing and the Tories seemed to be underpressure on a number of fronts. Locally here in Norwich the activists were getting bullish, their MPs had a spring in their steps. Good news gave them hope; optimism.

And now? Things have pretty much fallen apart again - the polls are pretty much back to where they were, Cameron is back on the policy frontfoot and the government continues to stumble from disaster to disaster. And Labour MPs? Once again the storm clouds gather over their heads.

Labour in Bowthorpe

The Bowthorpe page on the Labour Website says everything about their ideas for - and chances in - the community.

Exclusive (biscuit) poll says Gordon set for landslide

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

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

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

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

Why aren't we talking about allowances?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Next General Election in 30 Minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influential poll puts Tories ahead in Norwich South

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

When will Gordon's parliamentary maths not add up?

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

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

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

Don't do it, Eric!

According to the DT's Andrew Pierce, reported all over the place, the Conservatives are going to pile in extra resources to target Labour's big hitters in seats that the party has a chance of winning. With the swing that the party achieved in Norwich North we could have a very good chance of removing John Denham in Southampton, Jack Straw in Blackburn and Ben Bradshaw in Exter. Also rather appealing is the thought of winning the Yorkshire seat of Balls and Darling's Edinburgh Berth.

I have to admit that I worry about having a so-called decapitation strategy. I warned against it when the LibDems tried it before the '05 election and - as predicted by this blog - it came across as being nasty, neative and malicious. I think for the same reasons we ought to avoid it too.

If these MPs fall as the Tory tidalwave crosses the country then so be it, but to pour in resources to try and defeat big hitters would come across as being arrogant and wrong. Don't do it Eric!

Totnes Matters

The "Open Primary" result at Totnes, which saw local GP Dr Sarah Wollaston selected as Conservative candidate, could yet be the most significant political event of the year. Have I gone mad - a rural seat in Devon, setting the pace for the country? Well, yes ...

This was all part of Cameron's localism agenda, about enpowering people and getting more citizens involved in the democractic process. Post-expensesgate a chance to really engage with voters. Finally, all those people who live in safe seats but who aren't in a political party (and that's the overwhelming majority) will get a say on who is their local MP, or at least the candidate. For what its worth, I think this helps sew up Totnes - a marginal seat with a strong LibDem challenge - for the Conservatives.

The nay-sayers are in full flow, however, but I say this. Forget the turnout arguement; 25% of the constituency is far more people engaged that the few hundred local members under the old system. Forget the cost arguement; democracy can be expensive and we have to live with that. Forget the opposition parties trying to rig it; they can't do it.

So how will this change politics?

Firsty imagine if just one party did this nationwide next time, including making sitting MPs open to challenge. Then think about the kind of candidate who will be selected. I think it will inherently favour local candidates - party members are usually selecting the person they want to be the next Foreign Secretary, voters may want somebody who really knows about the area. I think it could benefit non-politicians and also people in non-traditional jobs. Lawyers and management consultants will find it harder to be selected than GPs, teachers and radio presenters. Why, because in these jobs you have a profile in a community already. A teacher, say, in a large comprehensive will be known by thousands of families locally who have been through the system. Ditto a GP in a tight-knit community. All goof stuff you might say.

Now for the bit the whips won't like. In the USA, the Primary system ensures that candidates owe their political survial more to local people and less to the party machine. Primaries in Britain I think will lead to more mavericks or independent - minded MPs being selected. In a tight vote, will that MP in a safe seat think about pleasing their whip or pleasing the voters who are due to vote in their primary next month?

One more thought; if they want to keep up as a radical democractic party I cannot see the LibDems being able to not follow suit soon - every day they delay and every Tory contest that is decided this way makes Clegg look more and more establishment and Cameron more and more grassroots orientated. But for Labour; can they follow suit without upsetting the Unions (their paymasters)? An interesting thought.

Absolute full marks to Pickles and Cameron for this one. It needs really serious thinking about and could radically change the landscape of politics.