Conservatives ready to fight for Norfolk

I was at the well publicised meeting of senior Norfolk Conservatives yesterday discussing a response to the failed City Council unitary bid. The government has let it be known that they now favour a series of unitary councils across Norfolk and an enlarged Norwich unitary would solve the twin problems of value-for-money and affordability in the original bid. Such obvious politicing makes rational debate very difficult but we have been assured that Ministers haven't made up their minds and that the Treasury is still very worried about the Norwich bid, even when enlarged. Now the Greens have gone against an enlarged unitary and I understand the LibDems are a bit limp too (no change there then!)

The meeting was totally united behind fighting for the status quo which has given us a 4* county council and some superb Conservative controlled districts. I still feel that Norwich should start by putitng its own house in order before trying this power grab.

Not only are there still the financial concerns - with a Unitary you pay more and get less - but now we understand that Labour's own advisor has said that unitary's never pay form themselves. Plus this 3 unitary solution does seem a rather naive plan to undermine the county of Norfolk. We are stronger together than we are apart.

I am from Norwich and I live in Norwich City Council. I am from Norfolk and I live in Norfolk County Council. Each council offers me the services appropriate to its size and functions. Easy. I am not part of some unitary blob that may or may not run from Taverham to Trowse or even Horsford to Long Stratton. How do these random coloured lines on a map compare to our historic counties? No wonder some people are calling this a campaign to Save Norfolk.

The Conservatives are now clear and united on this - unlike Labour and the LibDems. We must harness the people power in Norfolk to stop this plan to split our county.

Given the unitary fight is now between the Labour and LibDems politicos at City Hall versus the people of Norfolk, I know who'd I would put money on.

This bid isn't inevitable or a fait accompli. It's far from that - the people will make sure of it.

B&Q: At the forefront of the worst customer service in the country

I am so fuming about this I cannot write any more, but I will return with the full story tomorrow. If you are thinking about spending any money in any B&Q store anywhere in the country, I strongly urge you to stop and think.

In 28 years on this planet and even being a Norwich City Councillor (thus seeing the internal workings of City Hall) I have never been treated so badly by such an incompetent company.

Stay well clear.

Scotland's next Leader of the Opposition

Another election, another coronation, another Scot ...

... but well done to Wendy Alexander for siezing the Labour Leadership in Scotland. She is probably the only person to quit a Ministerial role because of the high workload and lack of support and now return as Leader of her Party. I trust the high workload and lack of support in her new role won't get her down!

Conservatives ARE the Agenda

I had said some time ago that I felt it was complacency on the part of "Team Cameron" that led to the shaky start to the Brown Premiership for the opposition. Whereas the LibDems took the novel approach of saying and doing nothing - which, to be fair, has paid off - the Conservatives got themselves tangled up in all sorts and ended up 10 points behind the polls.

That complacency seems to have been shaken off and nobody can deny that over the last week or so it is Cameron who is once again setting the agenda. Last week's trailed report regarding tax and in particular the hated Inheritance Tax really rung bells with the sort of voters we need to win back. Today's Telegraph lead story about Cameron's pledge to abolish the Human Rights Act is excellent and will no doubt have legs over the next few days at least. Add to that Shadow Schools Minister Michael Gove attacking the dumbing down of GCSEs - on the front page of the Time - and Shadow Home Secretary David Davis laying out a positive approach to immigrtion in the Telegraph, it seems that the Tories are really controlling the agenda and leading the media.

Now I notice that the BBC is also leading on Cameron's plans to cut youth crime, which was also trailed in the press. And whatever you may think of the fallout, the coverage of the NHS Cuts Campaign was very, very good.

Whilst his shadow team focus in on specifics and, in some cases, play to the base, Cameron continues to define the big themes and add flesh to the Tory policy bones.

The Conservatives have come out fighting now and a good job too. They are controlling the agenda and long may this continue. We so desperately need our media management to be better. I hope this starts to reflect in new polls soon.

UPDATE: The LibDem Leader has finally said something - about the floods. A bit late, but never mind.

The "Facebook Faker" is revealed... as a stupid person

Having been at first quite irritated by this, you may have guessed that I now find this whole thing very very amusing. And just in case my day looked like it may have been dull, what pops into my email box but a message from the "Facebook Faker"! Oh yes - it came from the famous norman_lamb@hotmail.co.uk e-mail address and this is what it said:

Dear Norwich Conservatives,

I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. I am the person who setup a fake Norman Lamb profile on Facebook.

I did send my party (the Liberal Democrats) an e-mail a while ago pointing out that I am a Liberal Democrat activist who made the Norman Lamb profile and group in response to another group about Norman Lamb on Facebook. I felt that by pretending to be Norman Lamb I could get more support for the group. In terms of messages I would pass them onto Norman himself. I was happy to pass the group and profile onto Norman when he was ready. I just felt Norman was taking too long to join Facebook.The only reason I gave a reference to Norman's opponent was to show that Norman was confident about beating him. I was confident we could show off Norman's group had more support than his rival. Also by people seeing his rival's website they would more likely look at Normans and see how much better it is.

In terms of replying to one person saying that the negative stuff posted was true. The reason I did that was because I felt sure there was evidence out there which could be used against Norman if he denied it. Therefore I felt it better off saying it was true and therefore make Norman appear more straight forward.I did post some stuff on Norman's wikipedia. I was giving him credit for some campaigns, but it got taken off apparently because some activists would have been offended. I wasn't sure why, but chose to ask no more questions.Because I have felt that the accusations against your party could damage my party and after having told my party a while ago that I am a Liberal Democrat activist I have with deep regret had to tell you the Conservatives about this so it does not damage Norman in a General Election. By that I mean our two parties can put this to bed quickly. I have sent a similar message to this back to my party. I hope we can get back to positive campaigning which I think is good for politics in general.

Best wishes

Norman Lamb's loyal activist
P.S. I won't tell you or anyone who I am because otherwise it could damage my party. Because David Cameron wants to get rid of your nasty image I think you would rather know no more about me.

So, there we have it, case closed ... a LibDem after all! Or is it...

... the trouble is that whilst this e-mail absolutely comes from the Facebook Faker, something troubles me about their claims to be a LibDems.

I just can't put my finger on it.

Hang on! What's this? The e-mail display name ... it doesn't come from Norman Lamb, it appears to come from NORMAN LAMN.

Oh dear, a suppoter so loyal and so dedicated that they can't even spell their own man's name.

Which leads me to conclude that this isn't a LibDem or a Conservative ... it is just a very, very stupid person with too much time on their hands. And if you are a stupid person who wants to give a few LibDems and the EDP a thrill every now and again - try getting the spelling right.

Case closed.

Stupid, but not serious

The BBC has worked its way into a political lather over an error on a Conservative campaign document that claimed a hospital was under threat when it wasn't. Oh well, some idiot at CCHQ didn't check you might think. Alternatively you may recall that Norman Lamb, darling of the LibDems, did a similar thing when he slammed the hygenic state of the Norfolk & Norwich only to have to apologise a day later - so it happens to the best of us. You may also remember a certain LibDem by-election candidate claiming a hospital was to shut when it wasn't. These thing happen in the heat of battle - they shouldn't but they do. I always think you should say sorry, move on, learn something and get it right next time.

However, the BBC has gone at this like a corporation possessed. The rolling News 24 coverage is way out of proportion to what is going on, especially compared to slightly more interesting and important news items at the moment - like Britain's woeful cancer recovery rates. So, what is going on with the BBC? They should really know better having had to apologise to the Conservatives twice in a week after bias reporting on the Tory tax proposals and having to admit a Labour mole in the Blue Peter camp (no, really, it's true - one of the presenters openly backed Red Ken at a rally). Does this have anything to do with the threat of an autumn election I wonder...

Lost Days

Sorry about the lack of posts - no, I wasn't out searching the Norfolk countryside for people who fake facebook pages - I was in fact having an away-weekend withe my darling wife and lovely children in London. And rather nice it was too. However, the reality of a fortnight more off has now sunk back in and the task of getting B&Q to actually install a bathroom begins in ernest.

This evening I attended a Conservative campaigning meeting and there the general consensus was that Brown wouldn't call an early poll but by all accounts we are now geared up for an Autumn election. In fact, some of the more eager among us are now willing it on. I'm not sure - as I've said before, I don't did Brown has the cash or the inclination to do it.

The Net Closes In

I notice from every LibDem blog in the world that the net is closing in on the "Facebook Faker" and a jolly good job too. Trouble is (well, for the LibDems) the only person looking more innocent than they are is Trevor Ivory, on whom all the blame was heaped at the beginning. This is almost certainly now not a LibDem, but I am now pretty much as certain it has nothing to do with Ivory either.

I genuinely hope whoever did it is caught, but I hope those who flung mud in the wrong direction apologise when they are.

Could a LibDem be the "Facebook Faker"?

The controversy over a faked Facebook page in the name of LibDem MP Norman Lamb seems to have the EDP and the blogosphere in a frenzy to discover whodunnit. Several bizarre claims have been made - not least that it was a UKIP plot - but most of the LibDem accusations seem to have been directed towards Tory candidate Trevor Ivory who made a strong denial of being involved or even knowing who did it.

As always in these cases, the LibDems drop big hints without actually pointing the finger (due to, well, no evidence) and the EDP leaves the reader with that no-smoke-without-fire feeling towards Mr Ivory because whoever did do it put a link to Trevor's blog on it.

So, all-in-all, Norman Lamb looks like the innocent hard-working MP and the Tory candidate looks a bit shifty.

And that's what started me thinking. A faked Facebook page attacking Norman Lamb attracts a small readership of Facebook diehards. If they'd left this alone, very few people would ever have cared. But an EDP article suggesting Tory involvment in a smear plot attracts a large readership of floating voters in North Norfolk and from around the county.

Could it be that this albeit rather time-consuming stunt was not designed to besmirch the good name of Norman Lamb MP (as claimed) but to give plenty of sleaze ammunition against the Tory candidate?

After all, who would be stupid enough to leave their own blog details on a site like this which was bound to cause trouble? It just doesn't add up, and with the LibDems being the only winners you have to ask if somebody with a lot of time on their hands and a devious mind could just have dunnit...

LibDems on Crime

A rather curious letter today in the post (when it arrived at nearly midday) ... it was either a copy of a crime survey that was meant to be sent to LibDem PPC Simon Wright or it was the actual copy that was meant for Mr Wright but was posted to me in error.

Either way, I'm pretty sure that Mr Wright would prefer me to have it rather than him. An incredibly irrate Eaton resident went into a multi-page attack on the LibDem insincerity on crime. Now I know very, very little about the LibDem crime policy but if this letter is in any way accurate then they will have a credibility problem come the election.

It is, apparently, not just that they are too liberal on crime (well, what do you expect from the LIB Dems) but that they are currently claiming to be tough on it. Poor Mark Oaten gets a battering as do the local LibDems - lots of stuff about wardens etc. They are accused of hypocrisy of the highest order.

This isn't a green-ink letter but one written by somebody who clearly knows their stuff and has a good point. I think the message here is that crime isn't the easy political score it used to be. I asusme Mr Wright's survey was meant to demonstrate that Labour was soft, the LibDems are tough etc. etc. It didn't come across to this voter that way. The voter wanted detail that demonstrated a rounded approach to cutting crime, rather than just statements such as "more police", "scrap ID cards" etc - as good as those policies are. What, for example, will we (politicans) do about illiteracy in prisons, conditions in cells and the independence of the judiciary? Good questions I think, but apparently the LibDems had no answers. But do the Tories either?

I hope that the Tory Justice Department team and CCHQ take note - we need real answers on crime rather than headline grabbing policies and glib surveys. Will we get them?

Tippett Close

The Conservative team are having a walkabout with the area Neighbourhood Housing Officer in and around Tippett Close, Three Score, today to look at what can be done about fly tipping, litter and the state of the pavements. If you are around at 10am then just give us a shout.

Hay Hill may give Brenda and Felicity some living space

Publicity hungry councillors who are due for re-election next year quite often don't stop to think about the consequences when a photographer is about. In this month's "Citizen" magazine there is a jolly nice shot of LibDem Cllr Felicity Hartley and Labour's Cllr Brenda Ferris at the unveiling of the Thomas Browne modern art on Hay Hill.

True, their picture has been shoved under the nose of every voter in the city (those who pay attention) but this also now ties both ladies to the fate of the art work. Given all the controversy about both the cost and if the council should put modern art on the site at all, it was a high risk strategy.

The jury is still out on this - most people I speak to don't like the Browne art work but these things do sometimes grow on people. I hope, for their sake, that it does grow on people because their role in this controversial expenditure is bound to be a feature of their re-election.

If people like it then all will be forgiven. But if not, the folly of this wasted money could well sink both of them at the polls and both are clinging on by their finger tips as it is.

People will, quite rightly, ask what the money that the City Council has ploughed into this could have been used for in their communities.

This is one photo op that may just come back to bite them.

Clover Hill Village Green: Labour Council does it again

On the first day of the summer holidays, local people were surprised when a digger turned up on Clover Hill village green. They took down the goal posts, and ripped up the grass. It was then left for days until the council admitted that they hadn’t consulted residents on the crucial issue of installing new play equipment.

When residents complained, the scheme was put on hold and a full consultation was held which showed that local people wanted to keep the green and the football pitches. The council have now done a full u-turn and the play equipment will be installed elsewhere – this time with full consultation.

This episode is a disgrace and local kids have had their play area and football pitches destroyed just as the summer holidays have got going. The council said to local councillors that they had carried out full consultation but they had not. Now they are even saying that planning permission may be required. What a disaster from beginning to end. Why are City Hall so afraid of asking residents what they think about these plans? One local person told me that the only consultation he saw was a poster up in the village hall. It isn’t good enough and now the village green has been ruined for the summer.

Now the community faces a second blow as the works site for City Care to replace local tenants kitchens has been placed on the green space at nearby Waldergrave.

With the news that Waldergrave cannot be used, local people must be asking themselves where they can go to have a kick-about. Have the council decided to cancel summer for some reason?

If we don't get assurances of a better service, this is an issue I will take to the next full meeting of Norwich City Council. This has been an error from beginning to end but we must learn something from this. Consultation must be real and extensive – no more half measures. We can never allow this to happen again.

The statement from the Council to residents, issued by Paul Nicholson said:

Basically the problem at Clover Hill stems from the fact the we should have undertaken a much more in depth consultation with local residentsbefore progressing this project. We had intended to erect a play areathat would help to serve a lot of local children and this seemed like agood location. Our project officer was very keen to respond to requeststo erect something quickly so that the children could have a new playarea in time for the Summer. Unfortunately, this haste meant that people like yourselves were not fully consulted, for this I apologise.When we realised that there would be some opposition to the play area,we immediately asked for the work to be halted until we completed a door to door questionaire to Peverell Road area residents. The replies that we've had show that there are significant concernsabout using the village green to site a permanent play area andtherefore this work will stop until we discuss the matter with localcouncillors and community representatives. In addtion, I believe that planning permission would be needed to continute to build the play area.This is something that we would be unlikely to get in light of the correspondance that we've received. As a result my advice to officersand councillors is that we should look to use our resources on othersites and to leave the village green intact.We'll put back the village green as it was - work in progress to dothis. I'm very sorry for the trouble this has caused everyone and wewill make sure that, in future, we undertake much more fuller consultations in Norwich than we have done previously in order toprevent a similar situation occuring.Once we've finally agreed what to do next I'll ensure that all local residents are kept informed and they are asked for their opinions onfuture play areas that are proposed.

Well Done City Council for putting your hands up on this issue, but we really must do better in future.

Hillingdon CF in good hands

As an ex-member of Hillingdon Conservative Future (though, he adds, still a member of CF!) I was pleased to stumble across this blog from their new Chairman Peter Smallwood. Having read through it I am glad that they are getting out and about to help other areas such as Barnet and Watford - it's what being in the party should be about. I hope he sticks to the blogging because so many people with so much to say lose heart with blogs.

What is acceptable risk for the Council when it comes to giving out Grants?

I have been working with some residents on the case of the Citywide Co-op, which recieved quite a large City Council grant just weeks before ceasing trading and folding up entirely. Although the council say that they had no idea that the Co-op was in bad shape, it does raise the question of how certain the council should be about the viability of such companies and groups before Grants are made. This issue is bought into sharper context when you consider that this is taxpayers money that we are handing out and City Hall is on the brink of handing out £50,000 to community projects in the next few weeks. What is acceptable risk in these cases?

The Community Grants programme provides seed corn funding for community based groups to develop local provision which meets the Council's corporate objectives. It does not provide long term funding, but groups can get up to a maximum of £1000. Before you exclaim that this is short change in the council coffers, ask yourself what can be done in your area for £1,000. Originally the maximum was a whopping £5k, and the rational for this change was to ensure that the maximum number of grants possible could be awarded from the budget available and also to reduce the risk to the Council of such awards to community groups. So when the amount was reduced it was accepted by the council that there was a risk. But is reducing the amount paid out really reducing the risk?

At the time that the Council made a Community Grant award to the Citywide Co-op there was no knowledge that the organisation was at risk of closure, therefore a grant was awarded as the group provided the appropriate information and met the criteria for the grant programme. This begs the questions - how many checks were made? Was the group turned upside before we happily handed out taxpayers money? Or was this an episode in box ticking where somebody had filled in an application form really, really well and thus got the cash? Who is looking after the taxpayer here?

The types of groups that the community grant programme supports are often small with limited reserves, as was the case of the Citywide Co-op. When I challenged the council about the risks involved here, I was told that community run activities do bring a degree of risk because of the limited capacity of volunteers to run a project. So, we are admitting that on occassions we hand out cash to people incapable of using it properly or spending it wisely. Now I'm sure there are dozens of groups who use the cash well, but this success shouldn't hide those schemes which fail and waste money.

The council argued that because of this risk, each application is evaluated by an appropriate officer to provide the Council with as much information as possible, such as track record, financial balances, governance arrangements and whether the proposal is SMART. The evaluation of the Citywide Co-op did not identify any problems and an award was approved. How rigerous was the system and, given hindsight, could we have been expected to spot the mistakes?

This area of council finances looks like a minefield to me and we are lucky that John Wyatt is our man on Small Grants Panel - he'll soon dig out any problems.

But, to conclude, we admit that these grants are risky by their very nature. However the co-op case must ask us if we have become resigned to the risks or if we are still being as rigerous as we can in checking how we spend taxpayers money. I'll be disappointed if it isn't the latter. In the meantime, we have to ask what can learn from the co-op disaster.

Was the Lila Cooper story a decade old political deception?

The Evening News ran an intersting story on Saturday regarding the so-called switch of the Conservative position on Unitary from being pro-home rule in 1993 to anti-unitary now. It included quotes from former Councillor Lila Cooper, then Tory group leader, advocating unitary. I liked the media coverage because, apart from producing another mug shot of myself in the press even when out of the country, it gave us another chance to state that:

"The Conservative County Council gives us a 4-star service, whilst the Labour-LibDem City Council is inadequate"

For those that know and care about this, that line has been the narrative at the heart of the Conservative response to Unitary. This story allowed us to put that point again, without the rebuttle of Morph, Cooke or Ramsay. Thank you, Evening News!

Trouble is, behind the headline, the story isn't quite true. I recieved a phone call this morning completely out-of-the-blue from a very long standing member who attended a Conservative Policy meeting in 1993 at which the Unuaty issue was discussed and voted upon. He claims to have evidence that, in fact, the position of the two-woman Conservative Group at the time was anti-Unitary - although the minutes do not state by what majority it was defeated. Cllr Cooper's group member was absolutely against Unitary and remains against it to this day. So on what authority did Cllr Cooper pen her words for "Citizen" magazine? Because it certainly didn't have the backing of the Norwich Conservatives.

So something is amiss here. I am not sure what the truth is, but it certainly isn't as cut and dried as first presented. We'll never know!

North Norfolk Councillor defects to UKIP

One of the more significant stories buried in the news was that Cllr Mike Baker has quit the Conservative & Indepenent Group on North Norfolk District Council and has joined UKIP instead. Cllr Baker, who owns the local shop in his Holt Ward (!), is always elected as an Independent despite having well known Conservative views. His defection, such as it is, is a blow to local Conservatives but serves as a warning to Conservative associations up and down the county and the country.

For years Conservatives have given Tory-minded Independents a free run in elections, as Cllr Baker was, because they thought it was better to have an elected right-of-centre Independent than to split the vote and elect, say, a LibDem. All probably very true but the fact of the matter is that the majority of these Independent seats are in very strong Conservative areas rather than crucial marginals. If genuine Conservative candidates stood they'd probably win. Sometime a few years back the party made a political decision to give Independents who sat with Conservative groups a choice - join the party and stand as an official Conservative candidate or face an electoral challenge. One of the reason for the decline in the number of Independent Councillors over the past 6 years is the number that have joined the Tories or been beaten by them.

In the case of the member for Holt, the Conservatives didn't challenge him. Why not, as he wasn't and clearly isn't a Conservative?

If we had put up a Conservative and lost, and then he defected we could at least say that his crackpot decision to join UKIP was nothing to do with us. To not challenge him meant Conservatives using their votes to put this man in office. Are we, therefore, somehow responsible for delivering UKIPs newest recruit?

Returning home...

We got back from our family holiday in France late last night - a wonderful time had by all, though particularly by Emily as she had sheep on hand to talk to day and night. The gite was advertised as "real France" and boy that was an apt name - very rural, very France.

By this morning my head was starting to clear from all the travel and driving but my brain was going to explode - with all the e-mails and mail I had. A fortnight back copies of the EDP and EEN to read! All the council gumpf too - it doesn't matter that it's August they still pump it out! So many people to catch up with. I have spent the whole day working and have only just caught up, and that's on admin and paperwork alone. I haven't even started with e-mail, facebook or this blog!

There is an adage in teaching that there is no point taking a day off work because the crap sits on your desk waiting for you to return. I have, only today, realise that elected politics is the same!

It's a done deal

The EDP reports this morning that a senior source in Whitehall says that the Greater Norwich bid is now a done deal. Nothing we, or the public, can say will stop this now. Apparently everything from Taverham in the North to Long Stratton in the South is about to come under City Hall control. A few points, randomly and in no particular order, spring to mind:

This is the most undemocratic and political move ever by a British government towards a faction of local government, outstripping even the 1974 reorganisaion. I think a lot of people who oppose this move will punish Labour at the polls.

If they do that the irony is, as suggested by the EDP, that the Tories could just form a majority administration in the City. I'm sure that will thrill Morph, Read, Ramsay, Cooke and all the other unitary cheerleaders who did this to get away from Conservative control!

It will mean massive ward boundary changes. I think wards ought to get smaller and that we should have 2 member divisions with bi-annual elections, but anything could now happen.

Broadland and South Norfolk become untennable as districts. What do they do now?

And one final thought - do the Leaders of Norfolk, South Norfolk and Broadland now accept the fait accompi and work towards getting a good deal in the breakup of the councils or do they die in a ditch for their residents and risk letting Labour set the post-unitary agenda? I personally don't think that the residents would accept anything short of death-in-action over this. We must oppose this to the bitter end - and then win the unitary poll.

Unitary was good for one thing...

And that is my hit rate, which went up on Wednesday a great deal. And what was more amazing is that by far and away the biggest sourec of hits was from ... Norwich City Council! I wonder why they were so interested in my mutterings?

The Media get it wrong over Unitary

Amusingly Norwich City Council aren't the only people left red-faced by today's announcements. At around 1.30pm today the BBC led quite clearly with "City Council awarded unitary status" and a quote from Charles Clarke. That headline found its way onto the EDP website. Within an hour, the EDP changed it to "Unitary Bid Fails - For Now". Interestingly their sister paper the Evening News took a very pro-unitary line with "City claims victory in Unitary Bid". The BBC have now changed their line to a much more neutral story. Oh dear. The radio stations have, apparently, been reporting that City Hall have been spinning the story about getting unitary but have been caught out.

I understand from an impeccable source within the local media that everybody is seething over City Hall's spinning. They feel, I am told, that they have been taken in. I await tomorrow's analysis with interest.

Unitary bid confusion

First the BBC reported that Norwich had been granted unitary status. Then Charles Clarke leaps in with both feet to congratulate them, though nobody can work out what for. Norwich City Council put out statements saying they had achieved unitary, which all the media duly follow.

Then the Department for Communities issues their press release in which it becomes clear that 9 councils became unitary today ... but Norwich isn't amongst them. The press release says that the government is not convinced by the affordability case (whic was exactly why we opposed it - more tax, services suffer and jobs are cut). So it seemed that Norwich hadn't got unitary. The press feel cheated, City Hall stands accused of spinning and there are red faces all around.

We read on to find out that this will now be referred to the Boundary Commission - City Hall's bid fails, but the government fall back on the bid that was ruled out of order a few months back. Why? Why did the bid that Ruth Kelly dumped months ago suddenly end up back on the table? Clear signs of an emotional political decisions being taken rather than the cold sober treasury judgement we were promised. This bid that will now be taken forward wasn't compliant just weeks ago and now it is. Look out Broadland and South Norfolk - the government confirms that the only way they can make their unitary folly work is by engaging in a land grab AND a power grab.

So, City Hall chiefs are now under fire for spinning the decision, the media have bene made to look fools by City Hall and the good people of South Norfolk and Broadland had better hold onto their wallets. This has costs Norwich £290,000 and it's gonna get a lot more expensive before its over.

Live Blogging PMQs

As this is probably the third most important PMQs Cameorn has faced (behind his first with Blair and then the first with Brown - both wins for Cameron) I thought I would live blog my views on how all sides do.

Brown flanked by Labour Deputy Leader Harman and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith - looks good for TV. They are wearing matching white suits!

Tory MP Phillip Davies raises the issue of the release of dangerous prisoners without tags. A strong political start. Brown hits back with support from various organisations. Brown says they were only allowed out 18 days early. Well, that's OK then! Jibe about the Tories not having enough money to pay for extra prison places.

Stroud MP David Drew raises the flood issues and says that it cannot take as long as it does to get mains water re-connected. Why should this sort of crisis mean that people should be without water for so long? Brown sends wishes to all those impacted by floods and praises those working to get the situation sorted. He looks a little shocked that it was his own MP that raised this. Brown is now reading a pre-scripted answer and failing to look sincere. He is, however, providing a very full answer. Brown says he is visiting the area today, taking Tory and Labour backbenchers with him.

Cameron rises to prolonged cheers from the Tory cheers. Cameron pays tributes to soldiers killed in Iraq. He then praises councils and emergency services in their work against the floods. Cameron says he wants to look to the future ... will the Environment Agency and councils now work together to reduce impact on critical services. Cameron looks consensual and Brown returns in kind. Brown lays out the focus of the inquiry into the flooding. Brown welcomes the stance of the Conservatives on this.

Cameron thanks Brown - Speaker stops Labour shouting down Cameron - he "names" a Labour MP for barracking. Cameron asks if councils will be forced to fund the first part of the flood repair bills because Brown has previously said that the insurance would cover 100%. Brown says that funding available will be 46million for just 2 counties. Brown not answering the question about percentages. Brown says flood defence spending has been increased.

Cameron asks what the government can do to make sure that insurance companies pay up speedily. Does the PM think that the hardship funds locally will be enough? Good questions from Cameron and he has come across well. Brown talks about crisis grants to help the uninsured. Brown says he wants to make sure people insure in future.

Rosemary McKenna, a Scottish Labour MP, asks what we can do to return confidence in broadcasters. Brown says he'll look into it.

Campbell, the LibDem Leader, rises to some cheers and pays tribute as Brown and Cameron have done. He says that he has seen the work on the ground - a jibe at Cameron. In the review set up, Campbell asks, will there be a detailed assessment of all impact on all critical services across the country and not just those in flooding areas? Infrastructure should be safe from flooding, and that includes all sites across the country says Brown. He offers Campbell the chance to look at the terms of reference.

Campbell now raises the Stern Report and the economic consequences of climate change. Will Brown spend the money to combat climate change? Brown says that he has increased spending on flood defences. He avoids Campbell's question.

Eric Illsley says that the smoking ban and high taxation is impacting on bingo clubs. Would Brown meet with him to discuss the issue? Brown says he will.

Graham Brady, the Tory MP who quit over grammar schools, raises to ironic cheers. He asks if Blair was right to give up £7bn Euro rebate? The Speaker tells off the Tories this time! Brown says the Tories don't support the enlargement of the EU ... a weak answer.

Dari Taylor asks about looked after children. Brown gives a strong answer and says he will meet to find a way forward.

Cameron leaps to his feet to raise the EU Constitution - to more ironic cheers! - and says that 90%-98% of the constitution is the same, according to the Irish and Spanish PMs. What % does the PM think is the same? Speaker Martin tells off Labour MPs again. Brown says Tories back on the old agenda. Brown lists objectives secured by the government and says Cameron should back the constitution. Brown quotes Ken Clarke saying the Tory position was absurd.

Cameron hits back by quoting Brown - who promised a vote and then backtracked. Cameron lists the good and the great who say that the constitution is the same. He presses him for the percentage that is the same. Brown continues to avoid the question, he falls back on a long-winded quote. Still no answer to Cameron's question. Tories getting restless.

Cameron asks why he doesn't wake up - and quotes the Trade Minister saying it is the same. Ah! say the Tories. Cameron says that if Brown wants to reintroduce trust into politics he will hold the vote. Brown says Cameron back to the old agenda - didn't take long after Ealing Southall by-election. Wheels are coming off the Tory bicycle ... lucky he has a car coming after him! Good joke, but Brown fails to answer the question again. Overall, a marginal win for Cameron but not his best performance.

Islington MP Emily Thornberry asks about the Royal Mail Strike. Brown says inflation is more important than wages.

LibDem MP Sir Robert Smith asks the PM to bring the British forces home from Basra and put them into Afghanistan. Brown says numbers are down and basically the answer is "no".

Mary Creagh, a Labour backbencher, asks about the need to change the law so that people are not scalded by hot water. Brown thanks her and says that she has done a great campaign. Guidance will be given to hot water installators. He will meet her.

Angus Robertson, SNP, says opinion polls puts Salmond ahead of Brown. Will he back Jack McConnell to be the Labour Leader? Yes, says Brown, and Labour have done well in Scotland. Hopes the SNP won't wreck the economy.

Lindsay Hoyle, Labour, asks if the government will back the new aircraft carrier building to support industry. Brown says yes.

David Heathcote-Amory, Conservative MP, asks what the PM will do to heal English and Scottish drift. Brown says 70% voted against independence ... throws it back to Cameron, does he support devolution?

Groans as Chris Bryant asks about child poverty - a good question, well put and those MPs who groaned must feel silly. Brown gives a list of statistics to show how Labour are making things better. Yawn. Nothing about the future here.

Labour say vote for the candidate who lives closest to Bowthorpe

During our walkabout this morning I was passed a copy of the latest Labour leaflet by a resident. In it, the following classic line appears:

"In the end she [ Chrissie Rumsby, the former Labour Councillor ] lost her seat to a Tory who lives miles away by just 9 votes."

Oh, so it's a competition to see who lives nearer to the ward is it then? We won't go into the fact that both remaining Labour councillors live miles from the ward themselves, but that this really is a stupid-bordering-on-hypocritical stance to take.

When I lived in the ward and stood against dear old Ron Borrett who lived "miles away" in New Costessey and then again when he lived "miles away" in Eaton, Labour urged people to vote for the long-distance councillor Ron Borrett.

And next year, when Dereham Road resident Niki George (who lives a minutes walk from the ward) stands against City Centre resident Brenda Ferris (who lives "miles away") I wonder whom they'll want people to vote for then?

I notice that the great Leader Steve Morphew has taken over as agent ... not a great start then Steve!

New Website Poll

Please take a few moments to check out the new poll on the frontpage of norwichconservatives.com about the proposed academy at Heartsease High. The City Council is due to vote on the proposals on 8th August and we'd love to hear your views.

CCTV Please!

Today was a day back on the streets, knocking on doors and talking to people around Bowthorpe about key local issues.

Following the awful stabbing in Clover Hill village centre last week, we launched a new campaign "CCTV Please" asking people to sign a petition to get the council to introduce cameras and make the area safer. We had loads of people on the streets gathering signatures and we were really pleased to be backed by the police, the victim's sister and also the newsagents in the centre who have had their lives blighted by the anti-social behaviour in Clover Hill.

During the time we did a walkabout and made loads of notes about other issues - litter, graffiti and over hanging bushes - that can be dealt with to make the area nicer.

There was a good feeling on the street today - not just because we are championing a popular and important initiative but because somebody was taking action. A few residents around Peverell Road wanted to know why after 30 years representing the seat why Labour hadn't already done this. A good question!

We will keep the pressure on and are out delivering leaflets next week about this issue - more can be found here. This afternoon I met with John and Niki to plan our activites over the summer - a lot to do!

Baptism of Olivia Grace

A bit of deja-vue last Sunday as we baptised Olivia in much the same way as we did Emily two years earlier - same parents, same church, same priest and roughly the same people! There were, of course, 3 key differences - the Godparents for a start plus also the decision to switch from homemade jam butties to M&S platters!

Most strikingly though was that two years ago the only child present was Emily herself ... this time it was a real kids party with thes babes almost outnumbering the adults (or, given the noise, it felt so!) We must be at an age where all our friends are having children.

We were clearly trend setters! Our redoubtable priest, Father Tony McSweeney, very clearly took charge and even put my brother in his place! And we even managed (somehow) to get cleared out before evening mass at St. George's. A great day!

Photos: Top: Ft. Tony at work, Middle: The Godparents (Katie, Pauline & Chris), Bottom: The Parents & Olivia talking to God

Can you guess what it is yet?

Tonight: The Police, Clover Hill & Thatcher

I am going to spend an evening with the Norfolk police force tonight at one of their "meet-the-poice" events, held in Peverell Road, Clover Hill.. Both John Wyatt and myself are looking forward to getting to grips with this, ahead of tomorrow's campaign launch for the extension of CCTV into the Clover Hill village centre. Then when I get home ... a real treat! On Iain Dale's advice I have bought "Thatcher: The Final Days" on DVD. Friends who have seen it said there wasn't a dry eye in the house, even from rapid antt-Thatcherites. Am looking forward to it!

Isaby on the Ealing Southall by-election

I very rarely re-post somebody else's stuff on here, but then I very rarely find something so interesting on the DT Blogs site. Here their correspondant Jonathon Isaby fisks the LibDems who fisked his original article linking LibDem success (or failure) in the Ealing Southall by-election to Sir Ming's political survival. I have no idea about the result tomorrow, other than what a relative who works in Southall told me about the campaign and the tales of another Norwich Conservative who made it down to help. But whatever the result, the LibDems have not come out of this well.

I want to respond to the comments to my blog posting of last Friday, in which I suggested that it would be a very bad result for the Lib Dems (and for the prospects of Sir Menzies Campbell's continued leadership) if they fail to win the Ealing Southall by-election on Thursday.

Sir Menzies Campbell's leadership will be tested by by-election
The comments would appear to come from Lib Dem sympathisers trying to downplay expectations, which is to be expected - but nevertheless worthy of further scrutiny.

Firstly, Martin Lowe reminded us that "Ealing Southall is a strong Labour seat (the previous MP had a 11,400 majority), with the Tories and LibDems more or less in joint second place. I don't think it can fairly be said to be a crushing blow for the LibDems should they not gain this seat."

True, the result in 2005 was a large Labour majority with the second and third-placed parties close together. Indeed the figures were thus:

Labour - 22,937 (48.8%)Lib Dem - 11,497 (24.4%)Conservative - 10,147 (21.6%)
Labour majority - 11,440 (24.3%) ie, Lib Dems need a swing of a little over 12% from Labour to win the by-election.

But now compare the Ealing Southall result with that of Dunferline and West Fife in 2005:
Labour - 20,111 (47.4%)Lib Dem - 8,549 (20.2%)Scot Nat - 8,026 (18.9%) Labour majority - 11,562 (27.3%) ie, Lib Dems needed a swing of just under 14% to win the seat.

In the by-election in Gordon Brown's back yard of Dunfermline and West Fife in February 2006, just five weeks after the death of the previous Labour MP, the Lib Dems did indeed gain that seat - from virtually the same position as they start in Ealing Southall - on a swing of a tad over 16%. Why shouldn't observers of this election cite that as a comparable situation? And lest we forget, that Lib Dem by-election triumph was attained when the party didn't even have a leader!

The second criticism of my analysis was from Olly Kendall, who said that it was "inflated media expectation" to suggest that the Lib Dems could and should be winning this kind of by-election.

Well all I can do is to ask readers to consider what I read in the clutch of Liberal Democrat leaflets I picked up I went to the constituency on Saturday:

"This time [Lib Dem candidate] Nigel can beat Labour... The Conservatives are out of the race here""He [Nigel Bakhai] looks set to pull off a stunning victory""He [Bakhai] is set to be our next local MP"

If those are the messages the Lib Dems are putting out on their literature, surely it's fair for the media to judge them by their own publicly-stated expectations?

From the few hours I spent in the constituency on Saturday, it seemed to me that it is the Conservatives who are making the serious challenge to Labour on this occasion - running the kind of effective local campaign, using tactics more usually associated with the Liberal Democrats.

We obviously wait with interest to see the real result on Thursday night, but based on what the Lib Dem literature is saying, the party is setting itself up for a fall if its candidate comes in trailing.

The Times: Two more Labour defections to the Conservatives in Ealing

According to The Times, a further two Labour councillors have quit to join Tony Lit's campaign. Tom Watson must be spitting blood tonight and the LibDems will be holding their heads in their hands. Cameron and Shapps are doing a great job and whatever the result, there is no doubt that Lit has the best campaign.

UPDATE: I am grateful to Andrea, as always, who points out that they are Southall residents but former Councillors. The Times doesn't make that at all clear. Either way, a good catch and will keep the big mo' with Lit.

LibDem haven't cut tax ... how odd

Donal Blaney on 18DS has just reminded us that the LibDems are in power in Scotland and dozens of councils around the country and have never cut tax, despite the fact that they could. Good point ... so why should we trust them now?

Iain Dale also points to the fact that the LibDems have argued for higher taxes over the last 3 elections and have now switched. Have they accepted the political arguement for lower taxes? Dale once said that politics was like football - nobody switches from high tax to low tax like nobody switches from City to United.

The more I read about this, the more and more I feel we can't trust this LibDem plan.

LibDem Tax Plans

The LibDems often tell us that they hate the headline grabbing antics of Labour and the bandwagon jumping of the Conservatives. Yet they managed to achieve both today with their tax cut plans. Apparently they will cut tax, raise tax thresholds and support businesses, all by increasing the tax on the super-rich and increasing green taxes. Apparently this is fairer. It may well be, but it also doesn't add up. Iain Dale does a pretty good fisk of the policy here.

However, and I urge the Tories not to fall into this trap either, politicians seem to think that green taxes are dreadfully popular and will pay for nearly everything you want (in the same way that "cutting costs" used to). Green taxes are a good thing, but they are not sustainable. If you are taxing bad things like flying short haul then you have to accept that people will not fly (if not, then the green taxes aren't very green and don't work!). If people don't fly then you don't raise the tax. And thus your tax take falls. So how will the LibDems pay for their tax cuts in two, three, four years time? Will they then raise tax again or cut spending on health and education? Green taxes sound good but in themselves cannot have a tax policy built upon them.

Please, by all means, raise green taxes to support the environment - but don't think it will last to provide meaningful long-term tax cuts. It won't.

It may have got short term headlines, but I think this may cause the LibDems a long term headache.

Political Tennis

There seems to be real churn at the moment in politics with an MP, several councillors, association officers and activists flying all over the shop. But the most bizarre is that of the sixth Labour Councillor in Ealing Southall - a real ding-dong battle worthy of Wimbledon. Here are the highlights!

A lovely serve by Iain Dale, who announces that a sixth Labour councillor has quit to join the Tories. This, linked with the double Colchester LibDem defection could be match point for Cameron.

Labour campaign manager Tom Watson does a perfect return saying that she hasn't quit and is ready to take legal action against Dale whom she claims has slurred her. It looks like a spritied fightback...

Then a fantastic backhand return by Iain Dale, saying he has evidence that she was ready to defect and CCHQ claim she has been bullied by Labour into staying put.

I'm glued to my lap-top over how this game ends! 30-15 to Mr Dale so far ... I await the return play by Mr Watson.

Two LibDem Councillors defect to the Conservatives

The Conservatives have won overall control of Colchester Borough Council following the defection of two councillors from the LibDems (via a fortnight as Independents). This will come as a blow to local LibDem MP Bob Russell who is doing a good job annoying local people and dividing his party.

Like opinion polls, individual defections mean nothing. It's the trend that counts.

William Hill: It's between Tony Lit and Labour in Ealing Southall

One of the many tricks that the LibDems use in by-elections is to lay plenty of money on their candidate in the hope of forcing down the odds and making it look like they have momentum in the campaign. They can then say to people that even the bookies agree that only the LibDems can beat X, where X is any party you care to name.

Today William Hill opened the betting on the bitterly fought Ealing Southall by-election with Labour as favourites and Conservative Tony Lit as second favourite. The LibDems are a poor third - meaning, by LibDem logic, that only Tony Lit can beat Labour! Is this as a result of genuine Tory momentum in the campaign? I've no idea, but I'm sure there'll be a few more seething LibDems out there - one told me a week or so ago that this was theirs to win. It seems that Lit and Cameron (plus the electorate) think otherwise.

LibDem Councillor says to vote for Tony Lit in Ealing Southall (apparently it's between Tony Lit and Labour - the LibDems can't win here!)

LibDem Councillor Abid Latif Chohan has urged people to support Conservative candidate Tony Lit in the Ealing Southall by-election, saying that the LibDems can't win the seat and are being out-campaigned by the Tories. So, that's at least one honest LibDem we know of!

5 (yes, FIVE) Labour Councillors defect to the Conservatives in Ealing Southall

The story of five Councillors defecting on a local authority would make the news both locally and nationally - it would swing control of a large number of councils too - but these defections have a great deal of importance because they happened in a parliamentary seat where Labour are trying to fight off a strong Tory challenge. As I've said before, defections are pretty nasty things which tend to dominate for a few days before leaving the defector(s) largely as lame ducks and the people not properly represented. However when a group of councillors do it then you have to ask questions about the dynamics of that political group or the council.

Well done to Tory elections boss Grant Shapps MP for this one and it will give Tony Lit a real boost - but it says more about Ealing Labour. Sir Ming will be seething I'm sure!

Relentlessly Negative

In the same week that David Cameron promises that the Conservatives will be "relentlessly positive" (apart from PMQs, I note) I recieved a rather irrate complaint from a Town Close resident about the LibDems latest leaflet.

Apart from the mathematically incorrect bar chart, portraying dodgy statistics without any explanation (a staple part of any LibDem leaflet) the newsletter has two stories pushing the tactical vote in Norwich. Two stories? Don't they have anything else to say? I haven't seen it but I am told it is negative from beginning to end. Do they ever learn? Why don't the LibDems link their negative campaigning with their electoral defeat in Norwich ... people want to vote for people who stand for something, as opposed to people who simply say "we aren't the other lot"!

I also urge the LibDems to read the election results, because the party that won certainly wasn't us and it certainly wasn't them...

Soapbox Hypocrites

The BBC report on the welcome news of a budget airways route from Stanstead to New York included some clips of what people thought of this from pasisng people at the airport. Cue two rather smug people complaining loudly about the environmental impact and carbon footprint of this initiative ... just before they themselves boarded a planet-destroying flight!

Isn't it odd how these people think they should be able to fly where they like and it's OK but everyone else should be ashamed of their environment wrecking flying habits!

Tory defector failed to be selected as Ealing Candidate

The LibDems are doing much crowing about the so-called defection of the Deputy Chairman of Ealing Southall Conservatives over the selection of local buisnessman Tony Lit. I had no problem with this and I thought the LibDems had done well with this coup, until I discovered here that Mr Gupta has himself applied to be the candidate and failed.

Such obvious sour grapes at his own failure is rather sad and pathetic and the party will be better off once these prima-donna's all depart. Are you in this for your community, your constituents, your party or yourself?

I actually feel rather sorry for Mr Gupta, who clearly became an Association Officer in order to become the next candidate, because all of that time and effort was wasted. By jumping ship he'll find himself as yet another failed LibDem council candidate. Shame.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the Tories outpolled the LibDems massivly at the last election and they only have one very lonely councillor on the Borough Council, compared to the majority Conservative controlled council! A rat joining a sinking ship?

Cameron's bloodless coup

I don't think there is much to be said about today's shadow cabinet resuffle. Unlike some Tory bloggers I think that Caroline Spelman will do very well as Party Chairman and I think she will bat well for the party. I am disappointed that Francis Maude doesn't get a higher profile berth than Shadow Cabinet Office Minister and feel that the promotions of Teresa Villiers (Shadow Transport) & Chris Grayling (Shadow Pensions) are well deserved. The new boys in the team - Michael Gove (Shadow Schools), Herbert (Shadow Justice) and Hunt (Shadow Culture) are fine appointments and will really present a new face to the public. However, having said that I think that 2 more experienced heads in Eric Pickles (Shadow Communities) and Owen Paterson (Shadow NI) will add depth to the team. As a big supporter of Osbourne I am glad that he was given extra responsibility and that Hague is being given extra support in the foreign affairs team. A good job, if rather unspectacular.

However the really impresisve thing is the way that Cameron has managed to carry out a full reshuffle without spilling any blood on the carpet - everyone seems happy with this team and it has maintained real unity in the party. The only casualties were Hugo Swire and Oliver Heald - both of whom were pretty low profile and not quite up to the job. The other departing Shadow Minister is David Lidington who is apparently happy with his new job as Hague's No2. Now, I know that Cameron had the advantage of having to match Brown's new enlarged team and that gave him more positions to fill, but the way in which he has shuffled and carefully balanced the wings of the party is very impressive. Compare that to the leaving of Hewitt and Beckett after Brown's shuffle.

A good job well done Mr Cameron!

British Library wants "Little's Log" for the nation

Along with such brilliant sites as pb.com, Little's Log had been chosen by the British Library to be archived for future reference and research work.

Around 150 blogs and sites nationally are involved and the British Library is choosing “sites of research value reflecting national culture and events of historical importance. These could include web pages focusing on key events in national life, museum web pages, e-theses, selected blogs to support research material and web-based literary and creative projects by British subjects.”

This means that my blog will be archived and preserved by the British Library so that my random musing will, unbelievably, be available to both current and future generations of researchers.

I feel very proud that a small-time blogger such as myself has been chosen from the thousands available. I have always meant this site to be focused on local politics and the happenings in Bowthorpe and City Hall, plus a few national insights and some details of my parliamentary campaigns. It has never sought to rival people like Iain Dale but be a resource for local people. My inclusion in the national e-campaigning work of the DCLG plus this news from the British Library are a real honour and I am very pleased to be involved. It is, I am told, a mark of the work that I have put into this and the unique style and character of my blog (whatever that means) - so thank you and also to the people that contribute through comments. I am delighted!

Better start checking my spelling now that I'm being recorded...

Another defector does well

Following his 24 hour burst of publicity, poor old deluded Quentin Davies looks like he is falling into obscurity already, however another recent defector seems to be doing rather much better. After the news that Tory turncoat Shaun Woodward has now been made Northern Ireland Secretary after being parachuted into a safe Labour seat, it seems that Labour switcher Rehman Christi has been chosen for the notionally Tory seat of Gillingham and now must be odds-on to join the Conservative benches after the next election. It seems a little 50:50 if defectors go on to do well at the moment. I wonder if any other Tory, Labour or LibDem MPs fancy their chances?

It always makes me think about Paul Marsden who quit Labour for the LibDems and then changed back a few years later.

Too Busy to Blog!

Apologies for the lack of posts this week - it's been hectic! Thursday I attended a campaign co-ordination meeting in Suffolk for the next general election. I am very impressed at the level of professionalism being put in by both CCHQ and by the Area team and the reports from the targets seats seem to be very positive and the level of activity from across the region should have Labour and the LibDems VERY worried!

Unfortunately Olivia has been sick and so I was able to attend the Ann Widdecombe dinner at Oxburgh Hall - which is a shame as she is always good value! However, Saturday came and we managed to get out to a friend's marriage blessing at St. Pauls in Hellesdon. They married in the USA but wanted to allow their friends and family who didn't get out there the chance to witness their vows. It was a lovely service and the highlight was the bride and groom taking the unusual step of doing their own music - literally! Heidi has an amazing voice and she sung with Christian playing the music. Amazing!

It was then over to the People's Republic of Dussindale for an exclusive drinks party involving a Waitrose-a-thon (don't ask). And then onto UEA for the 1990s reunion. Lou and I cannot believe it is 10 years since we started at UEA - almost the same length of time as Blair's reign. God it feels like a long time! There was a fantastic party in the Square and sitting out in the rain, supping on cheap booze and chatting to old friends it felt like I'd never left. It really was a who's-who of UEA alumni! Old flatmates, senior Tories, people from my course and those randoms who you recongise but just can't remember their names! The music was all 1990s and it was good to see Chesney and S-Club7 in the top 3 songs of the decade. Although was slightly miffed not to include Take That's "Relight my Fire" or Robbie William's "Angel". Well done UEA - you know how to throw a party!

I'm afraid the toll of a certain number of G&Ts was evident this morning and so the day has been spent recovering. Tomorrow and Tuesday I am out on a retreat day with Year 9 in Poringland so I better get an early night!

Questions & Answers

As I didn't blog about the recent full council meeting I thought I would update you on the question and answers given to give you some idea about the subjects that councillors are raising.

New elected Councillor John Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe) asked how much the council was owed in rent arrears. Labour's Executive Member for Housing, Julie Westmacott, said that the council had failed to collect £1.6m this year and this was only forcast to fall to £1.4m next year. Cllr Wyatt accused the council of being cavalier with taxpayers money and lacking ambition in wanting to tackle the problem. Council Leader Cllr Morphew said that the Tory response was predictable and that the council was getting to grips with the issues.

I then asked if the council has a "zero-tolerance" approach to anti-social behaviour from council tenants, a subject that was raised time and again at the Clover Hill residents meeting. Cllr Westmacott launched a snotty answer which accused the Conservatives of suggesting that all council tenants were engaged in ASB. In bad tempered exchanges, I then asked if they would come to a CHARM meeting and explain to hard working decent tenants why they are out of order raising this problem, as they seemed I was in putting the question. Labour's Cllr Bremner, in replying gave a list of things the council was doing to cut ASB.

Cross-party harmony then broke out as Cllr Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove) congratulated the council on looking at brownfield infilling to solve the housing crisis and asked when the council survey on the use of garages was going to be published. Cllr Morphew replied that it would be released as soon as it was done.

Cllr Hooke (LibDem, Thorpe Hamlet), fresh from his 1 vote victory over the Greens, asked what the cost of the concessionary bus fares was going to be. Executive Member Brian Morrey replied that it was estimated at £1.35m but that this figure could change.

Due to the recent arson attack on her home, Cllr Lubbock (LibDem, Eaton) wasn't there to hear the answer to her question about parking around St. Andrew's Plain. Cllr Morrey gave another stroppy answer - Lubbock faces a regular stream of these - in which he suggested that she already knew the answer. However Labour then promised a blitz on illegal parkers in the area, which I think was the point of Cllr Lubbock's question in the first place.

The Norman Centre has long been the central campaigning issue for all parties in the North of the City, and Cllr Carl Mayhew (LibDem, Mile Cross) is making a great play of this in the run up to his re-election campaign next year. However, once again, he walked into a bit of an elephant trap asking why it didn't open at weekends. Labour's Culture Member Brenda Ferris suggested he asked his LibDem colleagues - who cut the centre opening hours during their term in office in 2003. Cllr Mayhew had a rough meeting all-in-all suggestion later that councillor's shouldn't be given allowances. Oh dear. Desperate Carl then had the weight of all parties on his back...

Councillor Little (Green, Town Close) asked what consultation the City Council had done regarding the wi-fi system given the health risks. Cllr Morrey said it wasn't a city council function but that the county council thought that there were no risks. He suggested that Cllr Little write to the relevant government department.

Cllrs Watkins (LibDem, Eaton) and Dylan (Green, Mancroft) both asked about the council position on the Innes' project for the re-development of City Hall. Cllr Waters, in his usual fashion, said that members should control their enthusiasm for such schemes until the review of council property - including taking police opinions into account - were complete. He outlined the process, including a series of meetings.

Puddles occupied the mind of Cllr Bearman (Green, Town Close) this month complaining loudly (well, as loud as she gets) about puddles in the council's underground cycle store. How Cllr Waters kept a straight face answering this was beyond me - but he said that after work on the car park was complete then this would be a priority. Cllr Bearman complained that she waded through inches of water and this discouraged cycling. Cllr Waters couldn't agree more!

Cllr Hume (LibDem, University) clarified the rules of bulky collection for the elderly. Cllr Cooker, Lib Dem Leader and Lakenham Member, then asked how other group leaders would input into the renegotiation of the CityCare contract. Cllr Morphew said he had no idea but would raise it at group leaders meetings.

Housing was raised again - this time by Cllr Lowe (LibDem, Mancroft) - who asked why the length of time required to bring a house back into use had risen under Labour. Cllr Westmacott replied that the department has worked hard to address this and the time was now falling again.

Finally, the only Labour member to ask a question Cllr Cannell (Lab, Lakenham) asked what support the council gave to live music. Cllr Ferris replied "lots" and then gave an answer that I think was more planned for the media than for councillors interests. Too cynical perhaps?

And that was that for another few weeks...

Davies defection is a blow to Cameron, but it says more about Labour's newest MP than it does about the Tory Leader

You have to hand it to Labour they always manage to pull it off - and the stream of Tory defectors (9 in 10 years) continues to swell their ranks and boost their PR. However they always manage to do this because of the line of Tory dimwits willing to aid Blair and Labour in their quest to bugger up Britain.

Quentin Davies is the latest MP to do this and the defection will give Brown a much needed boost on the day that he becomes Prime Minister. It is certainly bad news for the Cameron Big Tent and it does raise the issue of how many other MPs are so-discontented with his leadership. But...

I believe this whoe sorry affair says more about the judgement and character of Quentin Davies than it does about the Cameron leadership. Davies is one of the few people in politics that doesn't see how Brown will chew him up and spit him out - being used by a party that he has fought against for 20 years and a politican he referred to as "losing control", "imprudent" whom he hoped "something nasty" would happen to. Now Davies suddenly changes his mind. Do we really want this man on our benches specifically or even as a British member of parliament generally?

And this is before we come to his voting record. Quite frankly I hadn't realised what a throw-back he was before looking into this in detail. He voted against gay rights, against the fox hunting ban, against anti-terrorism law and for the war on Iraq. If that is the person that the Labour Party want on their side then they are welcome to him. How Labour can accept Davies or how Davies can accept Labour is beyond me.

The truth is that this defection isn't about policy, or leadership or even principle. It is about one rather tragic figure who will now find himself isolated on both side of the House of Commons. Judging by the mauling Davies got on Newsnight he has got some rough days ahead of him. I won't shed any tears and look forward to the phrase "Con gain Grantham & Stamford" at the next election ... because he won't have the guts to fight a by-election.

I will leave this post with a true story. I spoke to a fellow Tory Councillor on the phone this afternoon. He said: "I was thinking about defecting to Labour until I heard they'd accepted Quentin Davies. Now I don't think I'll bother - I don't want to be associated with people like him." Well said, Councillor!

UPDATE: It should be pointed out that Mr Davies was a shadow cabinet member under IDS and now feels at home with Mr Brown. Who should be worried more by this - Iain or Gordon?

LibDems down to just 12 % in new poll

On the eve of the Brown premiership, a new YouGov poll puts the Conservatives ahead again, but the sensational result is the LibDem share sinking to just 12%.

I have said time and time again that you cannot tell anything specific from individual polls, only the general trend of the polls over a few months. However if the LibDems continue to struggle in the 12-15 box, as several polls over a few weeks have had them, then questions are going to have to be asked about Campbell's leadership.

Cameron's First Question

Brown's First PMQs:
Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP (Con, Witney): "Does the Prime Minister agree with his new Party Chairman and Party Deputy Leader when she says that if she knew then what she knew now, she wouldn't vote voted for the war?"

Or maybe he'll go for Trident, or tax, or any one of the other desperate gaffes she used to win in the first place!

As somebody once said, "I'm enjoying this..!"

Ha Ha Ha Harman

I am absolutely thrilled that the person Blair sacked for incompetence has been ressurected as Labour's new Deputy Leader. Who on earth voted for her? I'm stunned.

Apart from being totally useless and institutionally sexist herself, she is one of the few politicans who causes people to switch off after less than 5 milliseconds. Labour think that because she's a woman and because she represents a London seat (I think she's Del Boy's MP) that she'll connect with key swing voters in those all-important South East marginals. I think differently - she is exactly the kind of hauty left-wing nanny that makes people vote Tory. Her personal majority may rise but I can see a swath of marginals in Kent falling one-by-one.

So as far as I can see, Labour have made the perfect choice! And Brown's first stupid mistake is to put this woman in the public eye as Party Chairman.

Labour MP Ian Gibson's Unitary bid hypocrisy

What do you make of these two quotes from Ian Gibson regarding the Norwich Unitary bid?

“They probably think for some reason I am seen to be on the city's side. I am not. I am listening to my constituents and what they want.” (EDP, 18th June 2007)

“I both welcome and support the bid for a Unitary Norwich.” Dr Ian Gibson MP quoted in the City Council’s Unitary bid (p.76)

There are two explanations for this. Either this is a cynical U-turn by Dr Gibson or the City Council have lied in their Unitary bid.

I would be horrified if the unitary bid sought to misrepresent the views of a local politician. If it did, then the Leader of the Council would have to seriously consider his position after a blunder like that.

However, what I think is more likely is that Dr Gibson has cynically changed his mind when he realized that local people were dead against Labour’s expensive and dangerous local government reorganization.

He rushed to back Labour but didn’t stop to think what the people he represented might think. In Thorpe St Andrew, Sprowston and Hellesdon – as well as large numbers of people in the City – have seen straight through Labour’s power grab.

I, of course, welcome Dr Gibson’s conversion to the anti-unitary cause. But people will conclude this is a cynical and hypocritical vote grab. The Conservatives opposed this from the start – Dr Gibson is bandwagon jumping again.

I note that people can now electronically tag where Dr Gibson is in the UK – it’s a pity we cannot track his ever-changing views.

Eight Days

Labour's Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly and the Norwich Conservatives do agree on one thing - that the City Council's Unitary Bid is financially risky and could do damage to services such as education and social services, which are currently provided by the 4-star rated Norfolk County Council.

Well, we did last March anyway.

Just eight days after Ms Kelly wrote to DPM Prescott warning about the dangers of these City unitary bids, she then put the Norwich bid straight onto the Unitary bid shortlist - despite the misgivings she held just a week previously.

The question this leaves everyone involved is ... why?

Well if you ask me there is something seriously dodgy going on here. Labour Ms Kelly has been heavily lobbied by the Labour City Council and you have to wonder how she dealt with this.

Did Norwich Labour manage to persuade their Labour colleague to put the bid, no matter how weak (it was, remember 16th out of 17 according to the league table) on the shortlist because they knew they would be politically savaged if it fell at the first hurdle?

Kelly, probably annoyed by this political stalking, may well have thrown her hands in the air, stuck the City on the list and done so in the sure and certain knowledge it would fail anyway. Why break Steve's heart at the outset?

Whatever the truth, and we may never know, the fact is that in just eight short days the Secretary of State did a 180-degree turn.

Sunday Express: Now Labour Ministers say that the Norwich Unitary Bid is financially risky and will damage education and social services

I will comment at length later, but before I go out for my Father's Day dinner, I thought I would add the press release which went out today in response to the Sunday Express story regarding Norwich Unitary. A couple of radio stations have done interviews and all the newspapers have been onto me today so I think this may cause a stir tomorrow - and yet more damage to what remains of the fragile credibility of the LibDems and Labour's political white elephant:

Commenting on the Sunday Express story regarding the Norwich Unitary Bid, in which it is claimed that a leaked letetr between Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly and Deputy Prime Minister John prescott reveal the weakness of the case for Norwich Unitary, Conservative Group Leader and Bowthorpe Councillor Antony Little said:"It is good to know that Ministers and Civil Servants see all the same faults with the bid that we do - a costly re-organisation that can only put up tax and make services worse. The fears expressed by the Minister regarding the impact on Education and Social Services are well founded. City Hall is an "inadequate" authoritiy sekeing more powers from one that is 4 star rated, so they are right to be worried."

"Also, as we expressed at the time, there are concerns that it is not financially stable and the Ministers warn against the risk to taxpayers of having a Unitary Norwich."

"The fact is that Norwich should never have made the shortlist. If Norwich now gets through it is clear that it will be Ministerial plotting rather than the strenght of the bid that does it."

"This is a massive blow to Labour and their LibDems allies on the council. Only the Conservatives warned against Unitary and voted against Unitary. The next time a resident can't get bushes cut back, or street signs repaired, or community centres refurbished because of council cutbacks, they ought to remember the vast amount of money wasted on Labour's political Unitary project."

"Norwich should never have put this bid in - we know it, the County Council know it, the civil servants know it, the Minister knows it. Will they have the guts to back up their instincts and reject the Unitary bid or will Labour do a dodgy-deal with their pals in Westminster to get this expensive, dangerous and flawed project through?"

Ming Campbell is "completely divorced from reality"

Of all the stupid policies currently hanging around the necks of LibDem candidates and councillors around the country there can be nothing more stupid than today's so-called radical plan to build 1,000,000 new homes over 10 years.

Apparently this will be done by getting council's to buy land from farmers at a knock down price, give it planning permission and then sell it onto developers (at a profit). Can anyone see the problem with this cunning plan? Which farmer is actually going to do it?

The Country Land and Business Association has described Sir Ming's scheme as "completely divorced from reality". President David Fursdon said the system was "open to so much abuse" as councils would be deciding whether to grant permission for schemes that would make them huge sums of money. "And why is it that it's OK for the local authority to do something on the land when it's not for the private landowner?"

So now everyone who lives near farm land better ask their local LibDems if they plan to plonk houses on them. A bad idea from an increasingly desperate leader of an increasingly desperate party.

What are we scrutinising?

I have said before that Scrutiny is one of the most important functions of the council, keeping track of the actions of the all-powerful Executive Committee.

Having attended some scrutiny training tonight, I'm not quite sure.

Apparently there are such restrictions about what we can scrutinise, when we can scrutinise, what we should scrutinise ... it hardly seems worth it. If the Executive makes a stupid decision we can't call it in for scrutiny unless they break the policy guidelines (which they or the government set!) and everything must be justified in terms of achievement. Scrutiny should be there for detailed work but I also think that just stopping to think twice is a good function in itself is important. But, no...

So what can we actually do - are we checks and balances or are we there simply to help further the work of the executive?

We then had one of the longest meetings I have ever known, bickering amongst ourselves over which of several rather sidelined topics we should scrutinise.

I hope whichever we end up picking (decision still not made) good ones and making the best of what the government gives us. One thing is for sure, I have an interest in making bad policy work for the people of Norwich, but I sure won't try and make it work for the Norwich Labour Party!

Jim Cushing - Rest in Peace

Nobody can fail to have been shocked and saddened by the news of Jim Cushings death - stabbed in a quiet residential street in Clover Hill, Bowthorpe. Harris Mews and Yaxley Way are amongst the nicest streets in the area and I have always felt that it has a nice community feel to it. It is certainly one of the places where kids are always playing on the street and people will cross the road to speak to you. Our thoughts and prayers are with Jim Cushing's family tonight and also to another resident who was injured in the attack.

Britain's got something...

I am loving ITV's Britain's Got Talent programmes at the moment - it is just pleasing to know that so many people can do so much that is good and talented, and that so many people believe they can do something good and talented. Who can fail to have been moved by the mobile phone salesman turned opera singer? Or laugh at the dog who sings to Crazy Frog? Or fall off the sofa at the magician with two ducks...

This programme is from the stable of Simon Cowell and is brilliant television. A form of reality TV that doesn't involve humiliation, swearing, indecent behaviour or a blatant quest for fame.

The contestants and judges deserve much praise - and also well done to ITV for finally producing something worth watching!

Rats and Sinking Ship spring to mind

Cabinet Office Minister Hilary Armstrong, the former Chief Whip, is the latest senior minister to announce that they are quitting the frontline to return to the relative safety of the backbenches.

Like Home Secretary John Reid, she has said that she wants to quit in order to give Brown some wriggle-room with the post-coronation reshuffle. How much room does Brown need? He'll sack a few - hopefully starting with Hewitt - and that will give him the room he needs, especially given two top jobs (Chancellor and DPM) will already be available.

I think there is a little bit of jumping going on here, maybe before Mr Brown has to start pushing!

Is the Council's Communication Department now directly supporting the campaigning work of Labour Councillors?

Councillor's were surprised yesterday to recieve two copies of the same Norwich City Council press release regarding the environmental standards of new homes in Three Score, Bowthorpe.

The first was the standard press release copy sent to the media, councillors, senior council officers and others.

The second was a carbon copy of the first, with the exception of one thing ... the addition of this line:

Further to the below email, Bowthorpe councillor Brenda Ferris is available for comment on XXXXX XXX XXX. Thanks

This is a bizarre move - normally all the material the council wishes to give is in the press release and no further comment is made. On Norfolk County Council Press Releases the contact details for all 4 party spokesman are given in order to be fair. Normally Norwich give contact details of nobody to be fair.

Yet on this important story regarding Bowthorpe, a decision was made to encourage the press to contact a specific councillor for more comment - and it just happens that this specific councillor is the sole Labour member for the area. The majority Conservative Councillors were ignored. Neither Cllr Wyatt nor I were contacted.

Was it because of Cllr Ferris being Deputy Leader of the Council? Nope. Look at the wording - it's very clear. Not Deputy Leader Councillor Brenda Ferris, but Bowthorpe Councillor Brenda Ferris.

John and I have now had to ask why this was the case and also for assurances that the Communications Department at City Hall were not "leaned on" over this story. We need to know that press officer were not asked to put in the line in order to get publicity for a Labour councillor in a marginal seat up for election next May. We also want to know how many press releases are followed up with Labour Councillor contact details.

This unfortunately looks very suspicious. The extra e-mail, the inclusion of the local member details and the fact it was only Cllr Ferris should make us think again. We need assurances on this - and fast. Our Communications Department must be, and must be seen to be, pushing the message of the authority not of a political party. The impartiality of local government depends on it.

Of course, the irony is that the EDP who followed the story up today took the quotes from the press release from Cllr Morphew and also those from my own press release which I did off my own back and without the aid of a local government bureaucracy.

The Caretaker's Caretaker

One top Norwich LibDem seems to have put his finger on their troubles at the moment. Cllr Cooke was only ever meant to be a caretaker leader until the new talent emerges. Now, I understand, that talent has come forward - with all sides in praise of newly-elected Cllr Wright's first council speech it seems that she is the chosen one.

When I pointed out that she made one good set piece speech and we had yet to see her under fire, thinking on her feet or even proposing a motion that was opposed by any other party, I was told that she would develop and after Cooke goes the LibDems may need another caretaker until she is ready.

So Hereward Cooke was the caretaker's caretaker. It isn't clear who the caretaker is - although Cllr Watkins fits the bill - but it seems that Mr & Mrs Simon Wright may have the whole constituency sown up soon.

It will be interesting to see how those LibDem Councillors, former Councillors and activists who have criticised Mr Wright to me will take the new Cllr Mrs Wright in the future!

With friends like Judith Lubbock...

It seems that Hereward Cooke's fulsome apology for LibDem lies in the local elections isn't quite what it seems.

For now fellow frontbencher Cllr Judith Lubbock appears to have stabbed him in the front - and said she won't apologise for the LibDem fibs.

She said in the EDP:
“The buck stops with me, and I don't apologise. We can back up what's been put in the literature. If he had [told her he would say sorry], I would have said 'hang on a minute what are you apologising for? I do not want to undermine his position. Hereward, bless him, just thinks you can draw a line under these things. I was responsible for those leaflets and I certainly stand by them. We certainly won't be having any review of our literature.”

So, what do we make of that? Two things really. Firstly that the vicious lies that make up most of the LibDem Focus leaflets will continue with Lubbock in charge. And secondly Cooke's leadership is now pretty much untenable. He lost the trust of his backbenchers ages ago and now it seems that he has lost the trust of his frontbench.

Hereward will, of course, hang on until he can say that he went when he wanted to. But the pressure is on and the LibDems won't have real, clear leadership until he has gone.

Quiz Question

Of a LibDem election leaflet, who said:

"I do apologise"

"It was an embarrassment"

"I am ashamed"

"I had no idea what was going out"

"It should not have been put out in our name"

"I've not heard so much rubbish in all my life"

"If there is anything I have left out I apologise for that as well"

The answer?

Norwich LibDem Leader Cllr Hereward Cooke.

At least he's now said what the rest of us knew all along - the LibDem Focus leaflets are fiction at best and downright lies at worse. You can't just trust a word they say - or write.

Scrutiny Committee Tomorrow

4.30 in the Committee Rooms at City Hall the Scrutiny Committee is meeting to discuss the Draft Best Value Performance Plan.

Greens vote LibDem, Tory votes Labour, Labour won't vote for anyone ... a strange night at the council!

Last night's Full Council meeting was probably the most bizarre - and badly attended - I have ever known.

Labour were short of 5 members, Tories 1 down and the LibDems 1 down. Only the Greens fielded a full team - but in a bizarre twist all of the three big groups had 10 members each.

It was John's first council meeting and his reaction was quite telling. He thought that it addressed some of the big issues that face Norwich but also has the ability to drift off into complete obscurity.

And then the really odd stuff started.

Labour's in-house attack dog Cllr Sands took up a whole speech telling us how 10 years of Labour government had made education worse in Norwich.

Executive Members Cllr Alan Waters and Cllr Steve Morphew agreed that their own government had made a balls up of the NHS and planning.

The Green Party voted for LibDem Chief Cllr Hereward Cooke to be Chair of the Audit Committee ... but only after Cllr Cooke grovelled to council and had to admit his party lied and cheated during the election.

Then I voted for Labour Cllr Keith Driver ... only his own side didn't. It was left with a Conservative councillor being the only person to vote for a Labour committee chair.

Then the LibDems and Greens stitched up a bizarre amendment to a motion that stopped us voting against it.

I'll post my thoughts during the week!

Three Score - the Masterplan

Tonight I went to a really useful meeting of the Bowthorpe Community Partnership where the outline plans for the 1200 house Three Score development was debated. There was a lot of good questioning of the planning officers and I have come out quite comfortable with the plan ... remember that this is just the outline plan rather than the details.

I am glad that the roads are wider than in the "old" Three Score development, where there is clear room for parking and also for manoevering cars.

I am glad there ther is a distinction between neighbourhood roads and home zone roads.

I am slightly worried about the lack of play space and the lack of development of the two 0.1acre play space areas.

I am worried that the proposed sheltered housing and small shop plots may get mangled in the development process and may fail to materialise.

I am pleased that the environmental standards are going to be very high.

Comments appreciated - you can view the Masterplan at the Planning Reception, Level 2 at City Hall

What if Steen is right?

There has been a predictable backlash by a combination of disability rights campaigners, LibDems and the intellectual-left over comments by Tory MP Anthony Steen regarding disabled parking places.

Devon MP Steen was, quite rightly, nicked for parking for 2 days in a disabled space. I am a great believer in the law and it is right that he was fined.

But his so-called defence of his actions was saying that there are too many disabled spaces and not enough for the abled bodies. This looked liked sour grapes and that Mr Steen was trying to get out of trouble. That is sad because it has masked a subject that was discussed recently on Scrutiny Committee at Norwich City Council - are there too many disabled spaces?

From my totally unscientific sample I'd say so - whilst at the same time there being far too few parent spaces (that should be "parent & toddler" spaces - I'm fed up of people with 11 year olds parking next to the door at Sainsbury's whilst Emily and I struggle across the length of the car park).

There was much discussion about St. Giles Car Park where large numbers of disabled spaces stand empty whilst able bodies drivers go round and round looking for gaps. Could the disabled give up a few spaces (not all, but a few) to ease pressure for other people? Or could a few disabled spaces become parents spaces?

In the end, we decided we didn't have enough information to judge but that the council should look into this at some point in the future.

Jumping up and down and shouting at Steen won't make the substantive point go away - we need to ask if there are too many disabled spaces and the disabled lobby won't be taken seriously until they partake in this debate themselves.

Church, Lunch, Beach, Garden

Apologies for the lack of posts - I am rather enjoying the post-election period at the moment and we found ourselves drawn along by the weather today. After going to mass at St. George's this morning, we then headed down to the Recruiting Sergeant for one of the best Sunday lunches we've had in a long time! After this we went to Mundesley for a trip to the beach. It was much colder on the North Norfolk coast than in the City so within hours we were back in the garden and finally enjoying the summer.

It's been a very sociable weekend all-in-all - yesterday, following a strategy meeting with the Town Close Conservatives, we had a get together at Dunstan Hall. Beautiful location and great food - although my pint of beer did manage to nearly blow up the bar when the tap went wrong and backfired! In the evening I stepped out with UEA Conservatives past and present - a social to launch their new blog, which can be found here. It is great to have a large and active Tory group at UEA and even better when they are fired up for the elections!

In fact, wherever have I found the time to facebook this weekend???