And the next Mayor of London is ...

... 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! ;-)

Ridiculous Claims Pt. 133

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.

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!

Greens Killer Instinct

Rupert Read lays into Clegg, Wright and the LibDems.

Dont click here if you are politically squeamish!

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.

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.

Greens are petty and shortsighted when they reject jobs for the City

The decision of Green Councillor to work en bloc to reject a planning application for the car park of the disused Romany Pub on Colman Road for a new shop is nothing short of disgraceful and shows the party up for the shortsighted bunch they are.

Forget the jobs created through construction, forget the jobs created when the store opens, forget the virtual lack of local opposition and forget the need to clean up this site.

Don't worry about the fact we're in a recession and ought to be doing all we can to back business.

The Green Party rejected this proposal just in case Tesco are planning to buy the site after planning permission is granted. I am told that Tesco's have no idea about the site, haven't made any approaches and don't have plans for a store in the area.

So why have the Greens done this? Because their shortsighted attitude is going to drag this City down. I am furious with their petty actions; I hope all those in the area who are unfortunate enough to not have employment and may have applied for these jobs note who has denied them this opportunity.

Greens Elect New Leader

After Adrian Ramsay's resignation as City Hall's Green Leader, the party has now elected Cllr. Claire Stephenson as Leader and Cllr. Samir Jeraj as her Deputy. There has been a small re-shuffle of frontbench positions too. I hope Cllr. Stephenson uses this as a chance to return to the days when the Leader of the Opposition is also the Chair of Scutiny. My big wish for the Stephenson Leadership is that she starts to flesh out what a Green-led Council would look like; the Greens have a habit of abstaining a lot and failing to produce their own budgets etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What experience do Green Councillors have?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramsay Resigns as Green Leader

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

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

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.

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?

Chloe Smith MP

So, what's happened whilst I've been on holiday then?

Oh yes, the Labour Party in Norwich completely imploded, the LibDems fell flat on their faces and the Green bandwagon halted at the steps of Norwich North. And we have a new, excellent Conservative MP in the City.

Chloe took a lot of slings and arrows in the campaign for her age and lack of experience; I think that she will now turn these into virtues as she does a clean sweep of Westminster. Chloe will be a great advocate for the constituency and a superb MP. She is the only MP not tainted with the expenses row and has an outlook on life that I wish more MPs - let alone Conservatives MPs - had.

But for a moment let's think of the campaign. Chloe deserves a great deal of credit for the result (shock horror!) because it was her who set the whole tone for the campaign. The themes of honesty and a fresh approach to politics may have seemed like a slogan bought in for the campaign - but far from it. Chloe has been making these an issue for years and, together with myself in Norwich North, has been campaigning on the issues of honesty and expenses well before the media train arrived at Norwich station. Chloe set the tone, particularly on positive campaigning, and each of her votes is a tribute to this.

Luckily, I suppose, Labour chose this moment to implode and both they and the LibDems ran an ultra-negative campaign. I may come back to this in future but especially the LibDems ought to consider that the party who delivered most literature didn't win, the party with the dodgiest statistics didn't win and the party who played the man rather than the ball didn't win. This result is bad for Labour - but at least they can blame the government - but the real losers here are the LibDems and Clegg personally. I do feel for April Pond - what now for her? It would be churlish not to say well done to both the UKIP and Greens who, in real votes, were big winners in the campaign.

Chloe Smith has a big challenge in front of her - not least holding the newly redrawn seat at the next election. But I tell you, after this election there won't be a Labour candidate in the country who would want to face her on the ballot paper.

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 ...

How genuine is Green pledge on supermarket booze?

The "other" Councillor Little - that is, Stephen who represents Town Close for the Greens - had a rash of excellent press last week that included linking in with the EEN's campaing to support pubs by not buying alcohol in a supermarket for a year (click here for more). Great, you might think - but a click on a different web page makes the story a little less clear. Rather than being a personal crusade, according to pledgebank.com, Stephen writes that:

I will not buy alcohol from a supermarket for a year but only if 500 other people will do the same.
— Stephen Little, Green Party City Councillor

That isn't quite the same thing - and as only 19 people have signed up so far it might seem that Cllr Little is off the hook; so if this is more than just a publicity stunt, no doubt he will be making clear the pledge stands, even if 500 don't sign up...

Rupert Read Apology Watch: Still no sign

Various letters to the local paper and this blog have all called upon democratically elected Green Party Cllr Dr Rupert Read to apologise for backing the utterly illegal actions of the "Plane Stupid" group who bought havoc to Stansted recently.

Judging by this post on his blog it isn't coming anytime soon.

It is a disgrace that any man who seeks power via the ballot box should endorse those who seek influence via direct, destructive and undemocratic means.

My experience, from the media and the doorstep, is that most people are very unhappy with his public stance on this. It is a shame that when Ramsay has worked so hard to make the Green Party electable and decent in Norwich and beyond, that Read is undoing all that work along the political fringes. I don't know why Ramsay continues to tolerate him - unless he agrees with him?