The People's Verdict

So, it's Hung. As I type the backroom deals are going on, Brown is clinging to the doorknocker at No.10 and policies are being dumped and adapted. There is uncertainty but nobody can say that people weren't informed about the problems of Hung Parliaments; this is clearly the will of the people, so we have to deal with that. I think that Mr Cameron's challenge to the LibDems to join him in coalition was bold, statesmanlike and grasps the nettle; we may have a government by Monday if everything goes as planned. Personally I'd prefer a minority Conservative government with a "memorandum of understanding" - maybe one with the LibDems and another with smaller groups such as the Unionists.

I can't deny that I am not gutted with the result - both nationally and locally. There were great moments (Opik and Smith, for example) but the results lacked consistency and too many marginals were missed by the Tories. However we ought to remember that Cameron had an electoral mountain to climb; gaining 100 seats is an impressive achievement and he did score more votes than Blair did in '97. Brown, although hammered in the popular vote, did actually hold up the number of Labour seats rather well. It was probably Mr Clegg who had the most disappointing night, seeing "Cleggmania" (whatever that is, or was) disappear to the point where they actually lost seats at the election. Quite why the opinion poll ratings never translated into votes could be the subject of a whole dissertation! Where were the RATM facebook group when you needed them?

Locally the LibDems picked up Norwich South with a wafer thin 310 vote majority. I have to say that the City scene will miss Mr Clarke's knowledge and experience - Mr Wright has large shoes to fill. Nothing in our canvassing - or that of Labour or the Greens - picked up this LibDem "surge" and so it came as a genuine surprise to most, if not all, of the people at the count. The LibDems had thrown a large amount of money, locally and nationally, at this campaign and done so in a largely negative and aggressive way. Clearly, it paid off.

I loved the campaign and thought we managed to strike a positive and constructive note. It was great that policies were once again the order of the day in British politics. I also thought the turnout was a great sign too; for once, the British people realised the solution to a discredited political system is by voting for change rather than staying away from the polling booths. Polling Day itself was great fun and zoomed by; we had probably the largest and most effective polling day operation in Norwich South for a generation.

And although the LibDems walked away with the prize, I believe that was much for us to be pleased about. We were the only major party to have a swing to us (yes, the LibDems won the seat despite getting a lower vote share than in 05), and managed to put on nearly 3,000 extra votes since the last election. That's 3,000 real people who now voted Conservative that didn't a few years back; we put over 1/3rd onto our vote. This is the first time that the Tory vote has risen in Norwich South since the 1980s. And with the 3 parties now all 3,000 votes apart the next election is shaping up to be a cracking contest - "a 3 way marginal with a strong Green interest", as one TV presenter put it!

I learnt 2 major things in this campaign; firstly that debate is still at the heart of our political system and people are ready to engage about ideas. The second, sadly, is that negative campaigning really does work. I thought this campaign would show that people want to vote for something rather than against something else, but I am not sure I can. The LibDems proved that with enough money and enough negativity you can achieve success. I hope this isn't a lesson other parties learn but I am sure they will.

So, I wish Simon Wright well in his new important position and hope he is able to stand up and speak up effectivly for our City. My feeling is that - like the LibDem Council here in Norwich - he will have one chance at this, because local people don't tolerate failure from their MP. Mr Wright has a largely supportive media and goodwill in the City; we look forward to seeing what difference he can make.

And as this is my last General Election post, a final word of thanks to the hundreds of people who helped in various different ways to my campaign. It is a great honour to think that people give freely of their time and energy to see me elected to parliament. And a big thank you to the c.11,000 local people who voted for me - some will have never voted Tory before, some will be stalwarts and some will be friends who put their trust in me when their political beliefs said otherwise. To each and every one of them, I say "thank you"l you faith in me made the whole campaign worthwhile. Roll on 2014?

Campaign Diary - Day Eighteen (the day Newsnight rolled into the City)

Well, today was eventful and have just finished watching myself on Newsnight and that 30 second clip sort of dominated the day.

It began with a Group Leaders meeting at City Hall, a sharp reminder that life goes on outside of the election and I still have an important job to do representing the people of Bowthorpe and Earlham and also the Conservatives in Norwich.

By 10.30 we were all at the Age UK / Age Concern Hustings held at the Vauxhall Centre. It was a great meeting and the Labour, LD, Green & UKIP candidates were there. Funnily enough the questions weren't all about older people's issues (which you might have expected). It kicked off with Britain's member of the EU but soon covered immigration, skills, the Lisbon Treaty & the funding of the voluntary sector. I was told by two of the audience that they felt I had "won" but I am not clear what that means in terms of these local debates where there is more agreement (yes, even between Tories and Greens) than you might imagine.

In the afternoon I did a quick interview for Heart Radio about the election campaign and then the whirlwind that is Michael Crick came to town. It was quick but fairly intensive. He just throws questions at you, plus the camera is always on. He made the critical error of thinking Mike Gillepsie - my agent, and somebody whom the party ought to employe PDQ after the election - was my brother and then went on to criticise the spelling of my name (no "h", you see) so that set us off well! He was stunned to note I was wearing a rosette - no idea why, I wear it pretty much all the time so people know who I am and can come up and chat if they want to. We then had a persistent Green heckler, although he soon got bored. Crick just raised an eyebrow. I think that said everything. Interestingly his questions focused on the campaign and the debate last night and yet the clip they used was my attack on Charles Clarke and his attempts to re-package himself as a Labour rebel rather than take responsibility for the last 13 years of government. Crick asked questions about my current career and if I had declared it on leaflets; the answer is yes and I am proud of being a teacher and proud of my school. Apparently some candidates don't tell people what they do for a living and don't put it on leaflets. Others - like Green Adrian Ramsay and LibDem Simon Wright - are "career politicans", which means they don't have jobs. Crick also asked where we recieved our funding from and seemed a little stunned to note we had raised the spending limit from small local donations. He then probed every bit of election material we put out - including our 2 latest leaflets for this week - and found nothing to raise. I am not moaning about this, I thought Mr Crick was very, very thorough in what he did and it was impressive to see what happens close up. The report itself was very fair and balanced, clearly stating the 4-way marginality of the seat and included clips of supporters of each parties. I think Newsnight did the job well, and Crick's scrutiny was detailed (I wonder if the other candidates got this??). The funny bit was the mess up with the name tags - they called Adrian "Simon", then corrected themselves but still spelt his name wrong!

After the fun and games we sorted ourselves out and started to deliver our letters to people who have Postal Votes, with several teams across the City. I joined our Eaton group to help and we ended up doorknocking as well. The feeling was good and we felt people moving over to the Conservatives. Two people mentioned Cameron's debate as their reason for switching to us, but yet more voters turned off by the negative LibDem campaign. I also met the owner of a significant local business who had decided to vote Conservative this time on the issue of wanting to pay down the debt quicker. I think the issues and debates are getting through.

Got home to find 2 different LibDem tabloid newspapers delivered - why together, unless they were struggling to get material out. Perhaps they don't have enough activists? Hmmm, I also wonder how close they are to the election spending limit?

Tonight Cameron faced Paxman and I thought he was calm and detailed in his answers. Cameron is looking more and more Prime Ministerial in the way in which he conducts himself -I thought it was impressive and certainly Paxman didn't get a knock out blow. People have picked up on the cuts for the North East and NI, but I would assume that all regions would share in the painful decisions to come - after all, "we're all in this together".

Tomorrow is a big day with plenty of letters to deliver and doors to knock on as Postal Votes hit the mats in Norwich South!

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.

Campaign Diary - Days Nine - Thirteen

Apologies for lack of Campaign Diary; a constituent said they were disappointed when it disappeared last Tuesday. I thought few people would be interested in my daily movements but it has been mentioned a fair few times in conversation and email. So let's give it another go. One of my "honesty pledges" is to put, wherever possible, my MPs diary online.

So, what have we been up to over the last few days?

This morning I took part in a short debate on the BBC Politics Show in the East, along with 3 other candidates. I am grateful for the txts, Facebook and Twitter messages. I've done a lot of these but you still get nervous and anyone who said otherwise is fibbing! Charles Clarke seemed in good form and confident, and I've no idea why given the doorstep response! The questions were on the debate, education & the environment. The practice question was on Europe. Although I gave the LibDem candidate a bit of a hard-time over their manifesto, it was a positive and lively debate. The best line, though, undoubtably came from Chloe in the audience who said that whatever we think about the debate it was further personalisation of politics over policy debate. The rest of today is spending time with my family!

Yesterday we hit the doors in several areas of the constituency. I enjoyed the time in Bowthopre for two reasons; firstly I get instantly recognised on most doorsteps but secondly because people are able to point to my record of action as a Councillor and know I mean business as our MP. But it was in Wensum that the campaign seemed to come alive. I was canvassing one of the areas off the Dereham Road - and no party came out well. The Greens were attacked for being "all talk", especially their Councillors, the LibDems were playing "fantasy politics" with their manifesto and Labour and the Tories were "just the same". We have to do more to engage with people and give them a reason to vote - to demonstrate the differences. I am sure Adrian Ramsay would be furious (as am I) to be told that there were no difference between the Greens and Conservatives! Interestingly people said only the Greens and Conservatives had gone door-to-door in that area.

So what differences can we demonstrate? The big one has to be the economy and the differences on public spending. The Conservatives would start to get the debt down now; the debt is the biggest threat to the recovery. We would do this through reducing wasteful or unnecessary spending. Labour would keep this waste and start cutting next year (why the delay - if it is "wasteful" spending, cut it now.) Also on crime you now have the Conservatives talking about new powers for the police and honesty in sentencing, whilst the LibDems would not have any prison sentences under 6 months in length. On Transport, the Conservatives support Norwich Airport, dualing of the A11, work on the A47 and making the Acle Straight safe - the Greens support none of these. But are we getting these across sufficiently?

On Friday we had the uber-blogger Iain Dale helping out. He has written a report here! We were out canvassing in Mancroft when the call came and so we decided to take a risk and take Iain to a more challenging area for the party. We could have zipped to an area where we were sure of pledges of support to get a good write up but chose not to - a risk, but one that paid off. Very little LD or Green support, a number of Labour switchers to us, some good core Tory vote but winning by a mile were the "I used to vote Labour but never again" brigade, many of whom are yet to make up their minds. Iain has always been a great supporter of the party in Norwich and are grateful for his support.

I could write more, but I am needed for a re-enactment of the Sleeping Beauty story!

Clean Campaigning

Chloe Smith and Antony Little, the two Norwich Conservative candidates at the General Election, have written today to all declared candidates in the city asking for their support in a clean campaign pledge. This follows the model of the clean campaign pledge signed by Chloe Smith and the Green Party candidate, Rupert Read, at last year's Norwich North by-election.

Chloe Smith comments: "The pledge, updated for this election, promotes honest and positive campaigning. Unfortunately, at the 2009 by-election, the Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates refused to sign it. I hope all Norwich candidates in the General Election will join me and Antony Little in signing it now."

Antony Little adds: "As this parliament comes to an end, the issue of honesty is very important to people we meet on the doorstep - but that honesty covers the way in which we campaign as well as expenses. People want us to be positive, set out our policies and not spend all our time making personal attacks and predicting who can or cannot win this election. Chloe and I are putting honesty and positive politcs at the heart of this campaign. "

We, the undersigned, pledge in the forthcoming General Election campaign:
· To show by our actions that politics need not be a dirty game, but can be a clean and positive activity, engaged in genuinely for the good of all.
· To tell the truth about what we stand for and have achieved, and about what others stand for and have achieved.
· To refrain from personal attacks.
· Not to mislead the public about who is doing well and about who is likely to win in this election.
· To make only honest and reasonable promises.
· To fight a clean, positive and honest campaign around the issues that concern the people of Norwich North.
· To be honest about public spending, and not to scaremonger in ways that may frighten the most vulnerable members of our society, such as children and elderly people.
· To take money only from organisations and individuals whose motives in giving us money we do not have reason to suspect, and who do not ask for influence over party policy in return.
· And to sign up to transparency on MPs' expenses.

We encourage voters:
· To expect from us decent and honest behaviour, as candidates and as their elected representatives.
· To ask Parties operating in this election whether they have signed up to the Pledge or not, and, if not, to encourage them to do so.
· And to help us enforce this Pledge, by reporting truthfully to us and to the media any apparent breaches of it.

UPDATE: Charles Clarke agrees to sign, Adrian Ramsay suggests a watered down version, no word from Simon Wright

Ramsay Resigns as Green Leader

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

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

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!)

Daily Telegraph: Clarke facing "concerted Tory push"

The Daily Telegraph today reports that Charles Clarke is coming under increasing political pressure and faces the reality of losing his Norwich South seat next time becuase of a "concerted Tory push". We are certainly getting a lot of traction in the campaign and the media are really noticing how many shadow ministerial we are getting, the volume of leaflets going out and the professional nature of the campaign.

It says:
Other Labour big hitters who face a concerted Tory push are Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, whose 3,000 majority in Norwich South looks shaky after Chloe Smith won the neighbouring seat in last month’s by-election to become the youngest Tory MP for 30 years.

Interestingly the LibDems are at war - both locally and the blogosphere - about the decision to target Norwich South with the utter lack of support for their candidate is symptomatic of this. Most independent commentators are now saying they could be the wooden spoon winners coming fourth in Norwich South.

Why is Ramsay being so timid on the "Honesty Pledge"?

I have the latest Green party newspaper thrust into my hand today - more on that later - included in which is an article by their PPC Adrian Ramsay demanding an independent body deal with MPs wage, allowances and expenses and also details of promises being made by young Ramsay if he shocks everyone and wins the parliamentary seat. This is a co-incidence because this is also what I have dedicated my latest parliamentary newsletter to as well. So let's compare.

Now usually minority parties, such as the Greens and LibDems, can promise what they want because they know they cannot win and wouldn't have to fund it or implement it. So you might expect Ramsay's honesty pledges to be wild and over the top, really taking in the public anger. Strong, bold way of cleaning up politics? Errr, no...

Ramsay pledged to carry on living in the constituency (ditto for me), to put his expenses on the web (who on earth won't be doing this now) and to carry out surgeries across the constituency listening to residents (isn't this part of the job anyway?).

I know that my promises have caused some colleagues to double-take but I believe each of them to be desirable and possible to achieve. They include:
Taking no paid work other than being an MP
Publishing my diary so you can see who I meet and whta I am doing
Never to employ any member of my family
Never taking taxpayers money (MPs communications allowance) to produce party leaflets
Claiming less year-on-year in total costs than Clarke

So why is Cllr Ramsay being so timid with this? Even if political expediency doesn't allow him to be bold doesn't he believe in making things more open and transparent?

There seem to be a number of issues on Ramsay's plate at the moment - other bloggers are asking which Green Councillor has been thrown out of the national party and if he backs Rupert Read's internal campaign which is mired in negative campaigning.

But this is serious stuff; will the Greens be as serious and strong on this as I am?

Moment of the Day

A wonderfully ironic moment today as when I was walking down the Earlham Road, a massive petrol-guzzling estate car pulled out ... proudly displaying its "Vote Green" poster.

My first reaction was to laugh; my second was to wonder what Adrian and Rupert would say; and my third was to think if Green supporters really know what their party stands for.

How many cars should a Councillor own?

The latest bizarre effort from the "Silent Majority" in Lakenham; which most people have concluded is part of the UKIP effort in the ward; attacks the useless LibDems. However, in its regular politican / councillor bashing, the "Silent Majority" blast:

DID YOU KNOW SOME COUNCILLORS OWN MORE THAN ONE CAR - EVEN GREEN ONES.

Ok, Ok, own up - which of Ramsay's brigade owns 2 cars? We know which one uses short hop flights so we may as well know this too! This could be quite funny I suppose (and for the record I own one car but generally walk everywhere).

However, does anybody have the right to know this sort of information about their elected representatives? I suppose if there was hypocrisy involved (Prescott, Ming Campbell etc) then maybe but I don't see what the hypocrisy is here.

And something worse comes to mind; we already struggle to recruit for politics, especially at local government level. If you thought your personal and financial details, which are totally legal and above board, will be broadcast for ridicule by anybody with a photocopier, who would step forward for election? Won't this put people off standing for election? But, on the other hand, shouldn't we be totally open about this sort of thing - and then let the electors decide? Isn't this just People Power taken to the n-th degree? Would be interested in your views ...

"That" debate in council

The last few days have been hectic so I haven't even had time to blog the full council meeting which happened last Tuesday; and with it, "that" debate on Norwich Airport.

I was worried that blogging about it a few days later I might be squeezed out of the post-debate analysis, but seen as the man of the moment hasn't blogged about it himself, I may have gotten away with it. The night started with a group of protestors outside City Hall and soon enough Leader of the Council Steve Morphew was batting away public questions about the subject. Why they had to ask public questions with a debate already lined up was beyond me, but seen as it is the usual Green Party crowd (and, yes, living with a Green Councillor does count as being part of the crowd) then at least they won't be able to ask another question for 6 months. Morphew certainly didn't hold back with his support for the airport and I think facing the green-mob made a strong line easier than otherwise it might have been.

When the debate finally came, I spoke at length about the challenges facing the aviation industry in general and Norwich Airport in particular. I challenged other parties to recognise 2 issues; firstly the economic impact of the airport on the City. Also the liberty issue; would we really want to start preaching to people about where, when and how they take their holidays? Both Labour and LibDem Leaders agreed with my interpretation of the issues and made sound speeches supporting the Airport.

Then the Greens stepped forward ... when I laid down the motion I knew that the Greens wouldn't be happy (they want fewer and fewer flights, leading one day to nil I'm sure) so unlike the A11 motion where their opposition took me by surprise (I thought Ramsay's political radar would have been better) I knew what was coming. Or did I?

After his woeful ranting performance last month, Cllr Read didn't lead off for the Greens. Despite being Transport Spokesman that job was left to Cllr Gledhill - perhaps Ramsay thougth better of letting Read loose on the public again? Well, Gledhill surprised us all by being absolutely attrocious. Now I like Gledhill and think he is passionate about his issues; but my fear he may do a hatchett job was short lived. His speech was dull, badly scripted and hardly structured at all - talking from behind a list of stats rarely works. Monotone and without any real themes; I'm afraid it was a very poor job. But then they started to swop notes and let a new Councillor take over for another 3 minutes of the same. Cllrs Jeraj, Makof and Bearman all did the same (although Janet's story about her holiday did lift the gloom somewhat). And then stepped up dear Cllr Read ... I think more annoyed about the pisspoor efforts of his own party.

However, Morphew has taken away his legs before he had got up - by quoting back at Read something he said a few years back saying it was none of his concern if the airport closed. So Read had to start off by justifying his own position. Ramsay even tried coming in to say he was confused by the motion, before being rebutted by others who said the only confusion was the Green position.

Of course we won the vote but the debate was rather bitty and lacked the spark which some has predicted. The three major parties all stayed their ground and instead of letting the Greens assault our walls, we went out and met them on their ground. The Green response was not good and despite using around half their group to speak their dependence on stats and "evidence" let them down. They didn't have an alternative to sell (they couldn't, for example, say what capacity they thought the airport should have) and didn't speak with the passion which you might imagine. No matetr what other councillors said, they got their heads down and stuck to the script. No bouncing off their opposition, too rigid and too badly prepared.

So a good motion passed by a Council now determined to see the Airport work, but the debate lacked spark.

Why the Greens oppose the A11

For those of you unable to attend the City Council meeting where the dualling of the A11 was discussed, I thought I would let you know why the Green Party voted against the scheme.

According to Adrian Ramsay's party, it would encourage people to come to Norfolk including tourists and also make it easier for us to go on holiday. This shouldn't be allowed, we were told - we should all be holidaying in Norfolk, whether we want to or not.

The Greens also said it might encourage business to come and employ people in Norwich and Norfolk and trade with our businesses. This shouldn't be allowed, we were told - businesses should be kept small and local, large ones were not welcome.

And the Greens would certainly not want supermarkets bringing their produce into Norwich. This shouldn't be allowed, we were told - as people should eat locally even if they could not afford to do so.

So take note, if you have a job at a medium or large company, or shop at supermarkets or take holidays outside of Norfolk then the Green Party disapprove of you and the choices you make.

The A11 badly needs dualling - for our economy, for our tourist trade and for our safety. For the Greens, political extremism come before all of those things.

Scrutiny gets angry

I have been thoroughly disappointed with being on Scrutiny Committee for over a year now. It seems totally unable to hold the Executive to account and it feels as if people are deliberately frustrating the work of what should be an important check and balance. We are told we are there to support the Executive - I think we are there to support the poor, long suffering council tax payer of Norwich.

So it was to my delight that today the powers-that-be got a really rough time as Councillors - of all parties - laid into the complacent attitudes at the council. Lakenham were particularly well represented. Keith Driver, who is becoming an increasingly independent minded Labour member, kept coming back to the issue of value-for-money and never got the answers he wanted over the number of firms who tender for council contracts. He also made a good point about the workload of restaurant inspectors when it was revealed that 81% of inspections would be squeezed into the last 6 months of the year. His fellow ward member, Hereward Cooke, was equally irrate. Saying that the officer comments justifying various council failures were "gobbledegook", Hereward make a passionate plea for councillors to keep control of the management of the council. He also tore into the council about community engagement and asked that residents didn't have things "done to them, but with them". Green member Tom Dylan, who represents Mancroft Ward, did brilliantly on several counts including challenging the council to allow councillors to set policy rather than just having briefing notes bought to us and being asked to comment. Other councillors, myself included, enjoyed this moment as one to lay a marker in the sand about who does, and who should, control overall council policy. LibDem Brian Watkins raised the issue of the tourist strategy (again) and to good effect. Labour's David Bradford and Green Leader Adrian Ramsay did similarly good interventions on other topics too.

This meeting probably achieved very little but it did certainly lay down a marker about the work of the Scrutiny committee. This was an excellent examples of opposition and backbench councillors making a stand about just some of the flaws in the system. I hope this heralds the start of a new sort of approach from Scrutiny. It was democracy and accountability at its best ... just a pity not a single members of the public turned up to see it.

Another former LibDems enters Adrian's big tent ...

The one thing that Adrian Ramsay, co-ordinator of the Greens at City Hall, has been remarkably good at is encouraging defections from other parties ... well, Labour and the LibDems anyway. Although no sitting member has crossed the floor, all of these defectors are big players in their now-former parties. If you want to find political activists, I suppose the best way is to find other activists and get them to join your side!

Today I learnt thay Paul McAlenan, LibDem Councillor 1999-2004, has quit the LibDems to back Ramsay as our potential Green consistuency MP. So what? Well, McAlenan was part of the "Nelson mafia" a group of young LibDem activists that were active in the late 90s just as I got into politics. Heavily armed with Focus leaflets and some vicious Bar Charts they decimated Labour and crushed the Tories, winning first Nelson Ward and then St. Stephens which seemed to fall with relative ease. McAlenen and friends represented the young, confident edge which surrounded the LibDems before they dramatically siezed control from Labour. McAlenan, along with Billy Boulton and Sarah Mitchell, were the modern and successful face of the party.

Then along came Ramsay and the Greens swept the board in the ward and Nelson elected its fourth party in twenty years. So to have picked up the endorsement of McAlenan is good work for Ramsay - he's a tribal LibDem and to secure his backing shows us either the lure of the Greens or the complete shambles which the Norwich LibDems have become, losing council seats, former councillors and activists. If I were Ramsay, I'd want McAlenan casting his expert eye over his election material. If I were Simon Wright, I'd be extremely worried about this. It looks more and more like he'll only have the North Norfolk LibDems to prop up his piss-poor campaign.

So, where are they now? We hear nothing of Sarah Mitchell now (expect Ramsay to be working his charm) and Billy Boulton famously attempted a come-back to the Council by taking over the LibDem Town Close seat from Derek Wood, which he went on to lose to the Greens on a massive swing. Nelson LibDems is now run by David Fairbairn who has led the party in the ward from calamity to distaster with the Greens now on 62% of the vote.

Political Scrutiny

Scrutiny Committee is one of the most powerful tools in the checks and balances on the executive in councils. It gives a wide range of councillors the chance to inspect policy at close detail, to question key officers and to analyse and probe the workings of the authority. I have been very impressed by the work of the scrutiny committee (on which I serve) and think it has a big role especially in a hung council. Scrutiny matters and, thus, the Chair of Scrutiny matters.

Last year it was held by now-former Councillor Ian Couzens who took on the role as he was then Leader of the Opposition. (It, in my view, really needs to be an opposition councillor doing the job because as Chair of Scrutiny you set the agenda and if the Chair was the same colour as the administration they may not be as vigerous in keeping tabs on their work). Even after the new leadership of Hereward Cooke took over, Ian kept his position and did a good job.

So you might image that this year Hereward would step into the role as Leader of the Opposition. Not so. Apparently the Opposition Leader has no right to the job.

On Tory run authorities in Norfolk they are changing the rules so that Conservatives Chair scrutiny and sideline our opponents - so in Broadland an Independent Councillor will do it instead of the LibDems. I will be honest and say that I do not favour this as I don't think it aids democracy and accountability very well.

Anyway, here in Norwich the LibDems have lost the Chairmanship of Scrutiny and it has been given to the Greens, whom Steve Morphew described in today's EDP as being "more honest".

Now the LibDems can't seem to walk anywhere in Norwich without getting a smack in the mouth by a garden rake. A few years back they gained control with a massive swing and controlled the council with a big majority and a lot of goodwill. They seemed odds-on to oust Clarke and seemed to be motoring.

Now they are reduced to a rump of councillors, with many of them predicted to lose their seats next time around. They are split from top to bottom over their Council Leadership as well as their controversial choice of PPC for Norwich South. Their campaigning has gone into meltdown and they seem to pose no threat to anyone at the moment. So losing the Chair of Scrutiny must seem like being slapped with a wet fish, whilst you're down.

Instead, bright eyed Green Councillor Claire Stephenson steps in the ring - apparently saying that Scrutiny will look at things through Green eyes now. I do hope that isn't the start of the party politics on Scrutiny. We have enough of that on council without it dripping into committee too. Claire is intelligent, hard working and popular - I'm sure she'll do a good job and the mark of that is keeping her own side under control too! So watch out, Cllr Ramsay.

Now Labour justify this decision by saying that the LibDems are two-faced, lied in their election material (when don't they???) and cannot be trusted to Chair such an important committee.

According to the EDP battle lines are now drawn between Labour and the LibDems. My advice would be thus. To Cooke, the LibDems squaring up to Labour is like a 4 year old taking on a nightclub bouncer at the moment. Don't bother, bide your time. To Ramsay, make sure your party is being politically plundered by Labour ... sometimes power isn't worth selling yourself out for. To Morphew, let's keep a good natured co-operation good for a while longer.

NOC is going to be even more interesting this year...

A burning issue?

According to today's EEN, the Green Party are plotting to ban the use of goldfish as prizes at funfairs et al held on council property.

What a shame that the Greens, who have worked so hard to make themselves seem like an alternative council leadership, now choose to go down the route of bonkers politics - a roadmap normally held by the LibDems.

Or have I got this totally wrong? Please help me out here.

Is the sale or use of goldfish a major political issue? Nobody has mentioned it on the doorsteps yet the Greens are making headlines about it.

Forget the Quality Bus Partnership, the Unitary Bid, affordable housing, council tax levels, combating anti-social behaviour or improving recycling - we know what will be crossing the Chief Executive's desk on the first day of a Green-led City Council.

I can only assume that this was a silly publicity stunt by the Greens ... unless blog readers put me right on this.

Greens are "ill informed" claims Clarke

Charles Clarke doesn't write to the Evening News often so when he does, it is often on a politically sensitive or crucial issue. Today his letter dominates the paper with a quite remarkable attack on the "characteristically ill informed" Green Councillors.

Labour have, for quite some time now, plodding along ignoring the Greens whilst our eco-friends destroyed the LibDem vote and stole their seats. Labour are in power in City Hall now because the Greens have won over a lot of traditional LibDem areas. So for Mr Clarke to bite back like this is quite remarkable - maybe a few jitters over the next parliamentary election but far more likely is that political heavyweight Mr Clarke is fed up of the Greens being allowed to get away with peddling any old nonsense without being held to account.

The Greens now hold 9 out of 39 council seats and, if experts and polls prove to be correct, they will at least hold onto those and maybe even grow again in 2007. They are a major political force in Norwich (at least) and we should scrutinise what they have to say. I know that the LibDems find it hard to attack the Greens, so maybe this Clarke letter is the start of a Labour offensive against City Hall's third party?