Rather like a football team stuck to the bottom of the league who suddenly get 3 points on the last day of the season, the LibDems used the last full council meeting of the year to good effect; in fact, from their point of view, it is a shame that few people will appreciate their strongest performance since I was elected.
We experienced a sustained attack on the Labour executive from 3 members of the public, all of whom put down questions regarding traffic calming on Mount Pleasant. I thought they did extremely well - some people don't like taking on Councillors and others waffle for ages, but this trio of residents made poor old Cllr Brian Morrey (Lab, Catton Grove) look like an idiot and made their point very effectivly. How, they asked, would the 20mph zones be enforced? Don't know, said Morrey, ask the police. So how much money is put aside for traffic calming on Mount Pleasant? 25k says Cllr Morrey - but thats for the consultation! Hang on, say residents, how much traffic calming could that buy in itself? I'd love to see more of these intelligent, articulate residents taking on a political establishment that seems to be totally divorced from reality. Well done to all of them.
We then formally nominated the BBC's Roy Waller as the new Sheriff.
I'm sure that the Treasury Management Strategy Report is vital and needs to be debated by full council, but from the general standard of questions and answers you have to wonder why. The only decent questioning, if I might be so bold, came from the Conservatives. Cllr Eve Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove) tore through the figures - actually probably so well that the breadth of questions was lost. Cllr John Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe) asked how the council balance the ethical and financial nature of investment and I asked about the £80m debt that the councilo has and what would happen to it under unitary - "is this Norwich's final legacy to the districts around us?" Even super-clever Labour Cllr Alan Waters (Crome) couldn't answer and so an officer did. The trouble is that the political back-and-forth you could have with an Exec member isn't really possible across the chamber with an officer.
Chair of Scrutiny Cllr Stephenson (Green, Nelson) then reported back on the Year of Exercise & Sport Motion that said we didn't have the time, money or resources to complete. It was all plodding along fine, including the LibDem Brian Watkins (Eaton) who originally proposed the motion accepting the verdict when his ward colleague Judith Lubbock lept up to declare that if we stopped spending money on other things - such as the works on Unthank Rd - then we could afford this. Sadly, of course, Cllr Lubbock misses the point about budget streams but she does have a point regarding waste as council level. How curious the LibDems should discover this so close to an election!
We then turned to yet another one of Brian Morrey's hobby-motions - this time World Water Day. If it is a good cause, add the word "hour, day or week" to the end and Cllr Morrey will propose it. Of course it is right and proper to talk about water usage and supply, but as Cllr Lubbock made the point forcefully, it is barking that the council doesn't monitor its use or try to save money by cutting down. This turned from a fluffy motion, as hoped by Cllr Morrey, into a political bunfight. However, step up again Cllr Watkins who made a blistering attack on the envrionment policies of the government. If this was a pitch for the LibDem leadership, no other candidate need apply. It was excellent - well pitched and timed too. Luckily, with all this excitement, we had the other Cllr Little (Green, Town Close) to give a speech so dull some of us forgot what the motion was. Three cheers to the Lord Mayor for being so accurate with his allocated time slot...
Cllr Hereward Cooke's last motion to council - on Restorative Justice - also found cross party support and he spoke passionately for the concept. The Conservatives raised a few objections, and a few realities, but it still managed to find its way to the executive ok.
Cllr Lubbock stepped into the fray at the end of a long meeting to ask for council's support in opposing the HGV usage of the Newmarket Road bus lane. Well done her but she looked vaguely surprised when I suggested that one solution to traffic in the city was building the NDR...
It was, overall, a fun and boisterous pre-election meeting. We have another one on Wednesday to hear a damning government verdict on our accounts. 7.30 in City Hall if you are free!
Friday, March 21, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Cameron's Family Values
In what was meant to be an aside to the launch of the Tory families policy, the political story has appeared to move onto the decision of Leader David Cameron to invite the ITN cameras into his home to film the family at work and play (read more here). Actually I believe this can only add to the news coverage of what are set to be an excellent set of policies.
So should Cameron have done this? Undoubtably the answers is that this is a personal choice. Tony Blair played the family card really well and benefited; clearly Brown isn't going to, and thats his choice. I actually think Cameron is right about one thing - the British public want to know what makes him "tick" and if we are to have this man as our next Prime Minister we'd want to know more about the kind of man he is.
I have never used my wife or family on any party political campaigning (although we did get our picture in the paper when Emily was born - a media hit that wasn't reproduced for Olivia, may I add) but I do talk about my children both on this blog and on the doorstep - because they shape who I am and what my political beliefs are. People ask if I have a family and I always reply to them, normally in gushing terms!
Louise is ultra-shy when it comes to publicity and politics; she married me, not my career. She stays out of everything; occassionally coming with me to a fundraiser or even but her focus in life is being a great mum and a great teacher. She isn't a trophy Tory-wife and I don't expect her to fawn by my side at events and suchlike. If she ever chose to get involved, I'd support her, but I don't think it's likely! She supports me 110% - by keeping my feet on the ground, telling me when I'm being an idiot and occassionally smacking me with reality. That's more important to me than anything else.
So, if Samantha Cameron was fine by it then why shouldn't Cameron open his doors to the news, and thus by extension the nation? That's what personal choice is all about; I may not do it, but I admit I was fascinated by the news coverage.
So should Cameron have done this? Undoubtably the answers is that this is a personal choice. Tony Blair played the family card really well and benefited; clearly Brown isn't going to, and thats his choice. I actually think Cameron is right about one thing - the British public want to know what makes him "tick" and if we are to have this man as our next Prime Minister we'd want to know more about the kind of man he is.
I have never used my wife or family on any party political campaigning (although we did get our picture in the paper when Emily was born - a media hit that wasn't reproduced for Olivia, may I add) but I do talk about my children both on this blog and on the doorstep - because they shape who I am and what my political beliefs are. People ask if I have a family and I always reply to them, normally in gushing terms!
Louise is ultra-shy when it comes to publicity and politics; she married me, not my career. She stays out of everything; occassionally coming with me to a fundraiser or even but her focus in life is being a great mum and a great teacher. She isn't a trophy Tory-wife and I don't expect her to fawn by my side at events and suchlike. If she ever chose to get involved, I'd support her, but I don't think it's likely! She supports me 110% - by keeping my feet on the ground, telling me when I'm being an idiot and occassionally smacking me with reality. That's more important to me than anything else.
So, if Samantha Cameron was fine by it then why shouldn't Cameron open his doors to the news, and thus by extension the nation? That's what personal choice is all about; I may not do it, but I admit I was fascinated by the news coverage.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Random Thoughts on QT
Is it me, or is Charles Kennedy on Question Time roughly every few weeks? Or does it just feel like it? Or do they have so few decent speakers they have to recycle them so often!
Question One: Budget
Fantastic start by George Osborne; attaches budget with fluency; big clap.
BTW, John Denham is very good and George Osborne seems to be playing a blinder! Big claps for the Shadow Chancellor and for tax cutting too!
Kennedy - a slow start; says Darling is hitting rock-bottom.
Woman in audience blaming Tories for everything (is it me, or was the ERM a long time ago now?)
Wow - lady in audience slates Labour and says they must take responsibility and stop blaming the Tories - biggest clap of the night so far.
Denham says Labour have done some good; starts listing "tractor production" style figures. Says he wants to be accountable for record.
Leading businesswoman Louise Horlicks says that the East is financing the debt of the West; she is very much on top of this brief and comes across as clever and rational.
Lady in audience says Chancellor is hypocritical for saying "stability" 22 times despite poor predictions of worse for the future!
Man says that politicans should agree and stop bickering; I totally disagree with this - we need debate in politics. If we all agreed, it wouldn't be democracy! I hate this glib statement that people throw out.
Salmond says Scottish parliament is all about agreement; Osborne says he gets on better with Darling than Brown; Osborne cites education reform as an example of cross-party co-operation.
Second Question: Swearing oath of allegance to Queen
Salmond says its daft; its all Monty Python! Good line to take IMHO. Ruins it by saying he won't take allegance to Britain - makes him look petty and rudely nationalistic. A mistake now.
John Denham says it won't work - causes division. An innovation too far, suggests DD - quite, says Denham. Says he wants debate about Britishness. Attacks Salmond - good on him - for not wanting to see Britishness.
School leaver in audience calls for pupils to be taught about monarchy/political system.
17-year-old in audience says that we should unite around sport rather than monarchy.
LibDem Kennedy says he doesn't agree with idea; says he is only British third - and then European! Deafening silence from audience - another blunder. Kennedy not on good form. Calls for a debate (standard answer from all palenists now).
Audience member says Queen is irrelevant. Horlick says sport is a good way to integrate; calls for more money to be spent on sport; Osborne says all these issues are part of the answer. Osborne is fluent and sensible - but dull on this question. Osborne quoting a Rabi. Gets a good clap from those still awake.
Question Three: Cameron's use of his children as Tories prepare to launch childcare policies - a publicity stunt?
Horlicks says its his personal choice - got his wife's OK for it. It's good if politicans show another side to them.
Kennedy says that he has never featured his son in this way, but he wouldn't attack Cameron because its his decision.
Audience member says it gives the media free reign now.
Salmond responds that it is a choice for Cameron, but that he wouldn't put his family forward. Attacks on family always upset politicians.
Denham says its personal choice too - Tony Blair did it. Says he used his 5 year old daughter in election leaflet in 1992, but says he regrets it now. Now challenges Cameron on Tory childcare policies in the past. DD says that Denham must be pleased that they've changed - Denham looks slightly awkward.
Osborne says that Leader of the Opposition is different because people want to know more about them and thus there will be more interest in their families. Osborne says real issue is the policies. Says that this will motivate people to know more about Cameron and help the choice of the next PM.
Audience member says that although it is detailed to policy, it is a gimmick. Another says that the children have no choice.
A clear win for Osborne, but Denham did very well. Both Kennedy and Salmond made good points but slipped up whilst neither of the other 2 did.
Question One: Budget
Fantastic start by George Osborne; attaches budget with fluency; big clap.
BTW, John Denham is very good and George Osborne seems to be playing a blinder! Big claps for the Shadow Chancellor and for tax cutting too!
Kennedy - a slow start; says Darling is hitting rock-bottom.
Woman in audience blaming Tories for everything (is it me, or was the ERM a long time ago now?)
Wow - lady in audience slates Labour and says they must take responsibility and stop blaming the Tories - biggest clap of the night so far.
Denham says Labour have done some good; starts listing "tractor production" style figures. Says he wants to be accountable for record.
Leading businesswoman Louise Horlicks says that the East is financing the debt of the West; she is very much on top of this brief and comes across as clever and rational.
Lady in audience says Chancellor is hypocritical for saying "stability" 22 times despite poor predictions of worse for the future!
Man says that politicans should agree and stop bickering; I totally disagree with this - we need debate in politics. If we all agreed, it wouldn't be democracy! I hate this glib statement that people throw out.
Salmond says Scottish parliament is all about agreement; Osborne says he gets on better with Darling than Brown; Osborne cites education reform as an example of cross-party co-operation.
Second Question: Swearing oath of allegance to Queen
Salmond says its daft; its all Monty Python! Good line to take IMHO. Ruins it by saying he won't take allegance to Britain - makes him look petty and rudely nationalistic. A mistake now.
John Denham says it won't work - causes division. An innovation too far, suggests DD - quite, says Denham. Says he wants debate about Britishness. Attacks Salmond - good on him - for not wanting to see Britishness.
School leaver in audience calls for pupils to be taught about monarchy/political system.
17-year-old in audience says that we should unite around sport rather than monarchy.
LibDem Kennedy says he doesn't agree with idea; says he is only British third - and then European! Deafening silence from audience - another blunder. Kennedy not on good form. Calls for a debate (standard answer from all palenists now).
Audience member says Queen is irrelevant. Horlick says sport is a good way to integrate; calls for more money to be spent on sport; Osborne says all these issues are part of the answer. Osborne is fluent and sensible - but dull on this question. Osborne quoting a Rabi. Gets a good clap from those still awake.
Question Three: Cameron's use of his children as Tories prepare to launch childcare policies - a publicity stunt?
Horlicks says its his personal choice - got his wife's OK for it. It's good if politicans show another side to them.
Kennedy says that he has never featured his son in this way, but he wouldn't attack Cameron because its his decision.
Audience member says it gives the media free reign now.
Salmond responds that it is a choice for Cameron, but that he wouldn't put his family forward. Attacks on family always upset politicians.
Denham says its personal choice too - Tony Blair did it. Says he used his 5 year old daughter in election leaflet in 1992, but says he regrets it now. Now challenges Cameron on Tory childcare policies in the past. DD says that Denham must be pleased that they've changed - Denham looks slightly awkward.
Osborne says that Leader of the Opposition is different because people want to know more about them and thus there will be more interest in their families. Osborne says real issue is the policies. Says that this will motivate people to know more about Cameron and help the choice of the next PM.
Audience member says that although it is detailed to policy, it is a gimmick. Another says that the children have no choice.
A clear win for Osborne, but Denham did very well. Both Kennedy and Salmond made good points but slipped up whilst neither of the other 2 did.
Why the Tories are making the running on tax again
The issue of the total tax take in the UK is set to become one of the cornerstone issues at the next General Election. When the economy was good, people shrugged off Labour's various tax hikes with a sense that at least they were paying for the investment in "schools 'n' hospitals" that Blair told us all was vital. The new electoral rule was that tax cuts were a vote loser; because any tax cut could be expressed not in pounds and pence but in the number of schools shut or nurses sacked. And it worked.
Now the chickens from the last 10 years are coming home to roost and improvements in public services are clearly not coming fast enough, people are starting to query all this tax. Residents on the doosteps are starting to ask a few harsh questions of the government - why are we paying so much tax, why has it had to go up so much and ... more importantly, can I keep more of the money I earn?
Because without better public services, people are finally challenging the last reason they had for putting up with tax rises year-after-year. I hope Cameron does put the focus on the reform of public services rather than just the funding of them.
I now think the conditions are right for the Tories to talk about tax cuts without being accused of being service-slashers. The rules of the game have changed. Labour convinced people that tax cuts mean service cuts. Cameron now needs to convince people that tax cuts mean a fairer society and reform leads to better services.
I think that residents are now willing to listen to Cameron and the arguement is on our side.
Now the chickens from the last 10 years are coming home to roost and improvements in public services are clearly not coming fast enough, people are starting to query all this tax. Residents on the doosteps are starting to ask a few harsh questions of the government - why are we paying so much tax, why has it had to go up so much and ... more importantly, can I keep more of the money I earn?
Because without better public services, people are finally challenging the last reason they had for putting up with tax rises year-after-year. I hope Cameron does put the focus on the reform of public services rather than just the funding of them.
I now think the conditions are right for the Tories to talk about tax cuts without being accused of being service-slashers. The rules of the game have changed. Labour convinced people that tax cuts mean service cuts. Cameron now needs to convince people that tax cuts mean a fairer society and reform leads to better services.
I think that residents are now willing to listen to Cameron and the arguement is on our side.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Former LibDem Candidate defects to the Conservatives
The most interesting thing in the decision of one Cllr Sloan, a LibDem Councillor and former parliamentary candidate, to defect to the Conservatives is where he is from.
When a Manchester LibDem Councillor moved over to the Tories recently I said that it made the news because it suggested that Cameron was making moves in our big cities.
Cllr Sloan is from Hull; hardly a Tory stronghold and shows that people across the country are looking again at the Conservatives. I'm glad the people of Hull have a new Conservative representative and I hope Cllr Sloan does them proud and works hard.
When a Manchester LibDem Councillor moved over to the Tories recently I said that it made the news because it suggested that Cameron was making moves in our big cities.
Cllr Sloan is from Hull; hardly a Tory stronghold and shows that people across the country are looking again at the Conservatives. I'm glad the people of Hull have a new Conservative representative and I hope Cllr Sloan does them proud and works hard.
Another Con Gain
So despite claiming he quit, it now turns out that Castle Point MP Bob Spink was sacked by the Tory Chief Whip tonight for trying to blackmail the party into saving him from a de-selection vote. Although we are sad that he has done this, it does open another winnable seat up and will join Grantham, Croydon Central and Bexley as definite "Con Gain" seats at the next election.
David Cameron has spoken about wanting a parliamentary party that reflects the country; I wonder if I could, tonuge-in-cheek, suggest that some sitting MPs are doing all they can to give him the chance by vacating their safe seats in new and interesting ways!
David Cameron has spoken about wanting a parliamentary party that reflects the country; I wonder if I could, tonuge-in-cheek, suggest that some sitting MPs are doing all they can to give him the chance by vacating their safe seats in new and interesting ways!
The Budget View from Earlham
As a political activist, the Budget is one of the great parliamentary set-pieces of the year. I could have gathered my A Level students around to watch it live and then spend the way bouncing from media outlet to blogs watching the reaction unfold.
However, given the utterly dull performance given by the Chancellor, Mr Darling, I am rather glad that didn't and I instead spent the evening with a team of campaigners in West Earlham. Amazingly, not a single person mentioned the budget on the doorsteps at all; but then, there wasn't much to mention.
So, the government got is figures wrong (again), booze and fags are to be taxed more and Darling cops out of any real reform at all. I suppose he was boxed in by the previous Chancellor - one, Gordon Brown - but still he could have done better than this, in terms of presentation if not actually policy changes. He was humiliated by David Cameron's strong, assured and detailed analysis and a few parliamentary speakers could learn something from Cameron about how to deliver a speech!
So given the budget was such a dud, I am pleased to have spent time on doorsteps rather than glued to the TV. We had a fantastic reception tonight, in roads that have traditionally not been good for us. What was marked is the number of people that said they would consider voting Conservative. I canvassed for the party in the mid-1990s; back then, barely more than a third of the country could ever see themselves as voting for us. From tonight, things are now very different. I'm sure Labour won't believe me, and because of their arrogance they wouldn't do anything even if they did, but they ought to be very worried indeed about the polling results in this community. Earlham believes Labour has failed them, and is actively looking for an alternative; it is now up to the Conservatives to step into the role of champion for the community.
However, given the utterly dull performance given by the Chancellor, Mr Darling, I am rather glad that didn't and I instead spent the evening with a team of campaigners in West Earlham. Amazingly, not a single person mentioned the budget on the doorsteps at all; but then, there wasn't much to mention.
So, the government got is figures wrong (again), booze and fags are to be taxed more and Darling cops out of any real reform at all. I suppose he was boxed in by the previous Chancellor - one, Gordon Brown - but still he could have done better than this, in terms of presentation if not actually policy changes. He was humiliated by David Cameron's strong, assured and detailed analysis and a few parliamentary speakers could learn something from Cameron about how to deliver a speech!
So given the budget was such a dud, I am pleased to have spent time on doorsteps rather than glued to the TV. We had a fantastic reception tonight, in roads that have traditionally not been good for us. What was marked is the number of people that said they would consider voting Conservative. I canvassed for the party in the mid-1990s; back then, barely more than a third of the country could ever see themselves as voting for us. From tonight, things are now very different. I'm sure Labour won't believe me, and because of their arrogance they wouldn't do anything even if they did, but they ought to be very worried indeed about the polling results in this community. Earlham believes Labour has failed them, and is actively looking for an alternative; it is now up to the Conservatives to step into the role of champion for the community.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Don't Take On Basher
David Davis is currently proving what an asset to the Conservatives he is, appearing on BBC's Question Time.
He crushed lil 'ol Ed Millband over ID Cards, and I'm sure the link "Orwell was meant to be a warning, not a template" will be recycled after tonight.
Good on him for taking on idiotic celebrity Marcus Brigstoke and his arguement that we shouldn't have a referendum on Lisbon because people hadn't read it. He concluded: "Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't get a vote because people can't understand it; are you saying the people in this audience can't cope with it? What a ridiculous conclusion."
And best of all, his attack on the utterly shameless Shirley Williams for her fence-sitting over Europe. She came out fighting OK, but being loud and rude doesn't make up for lacking an arguement. Then Basher asked her if it was "unimportant beause it doesn't need a vote" or "so important three of your frontbenchers had to resign over it". Williams blubbed for a few seconds, then he went for the throat again. Williams looked intellectually feeble, out-of-touch and just a little bit absurd for the whole programme; and her knock about with Davis just made it worse for her.
Warning, as if a warning is required, that you take on Basher at your peril!
He crushed lil 'ol Ed Millband over ID Cards, and I'm sure the link "Orwell was meant to be a warning, not a template" will be recycled after tonight.
Good on him for taking on idiotic celebrity Marcus Brigstoke and his arguement that we shouldn't have a referendum on Lisbon because people hadn't read it. He concluded: "Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't get a vote because people can't understand it; are you saying the people in this audience can't cope with it? What a ridiculous conclusion."
And best of all, his attack on the utterly shameless Shirley Williams for her fence-sitting over Europe. She came out fighting OK, but being loud and rude doesn't make up for lacking an arguement. Then Basher asked her if it was "unimportant beause it doesn't need a vote" or "so important three of your frontbenchers had to resign over it". Williams blubbed for a few seconds, then he went for the throat again. Williams looked intellectually feeble, out-of-touch and just a little bit absurd for the whole programme; and her knock about with Davis just made it worse for her.
Warning, as if a warning is required, that you take on Basher at your peril!
Says it all, really....
Don't ask why but I am currently enjoying the repeat of Defence Questions from 3rd March on BBC Parliament and one thing is very evident. The Commons enjoyed packed Tory benches, one or two LibDems and others ... and a mere smattering Labour MPs (curious as they have 355 MPs in total so as a percentage. It says a lot about the seriousness with which Labour MPs take defence issues I suppose...
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Is Clegg planning to make LibDem frontbench smaller as one silver lining of the Euro-fiasco?
One of the points I raised below was the massive size of the LibDem frontbench; roughly half of their parliamenarty party hold "senior" positions. It is notable that Nick Clegg has reshuffled his team by effectivly removing the jobs of the quitting MPs; Tim Farron's Countryside brief will move the Environment Spokesman Steve Webb, David Heath's Justice portfolio now moves to Home Affairs Spokesman Chris Huhne and Scottish/N.Ireland Spokesman Alistair Carmichael has his jobs moved to International Development Spokesman Michael Moore.
Firstly, this is fast moving - Clegg did this within an hour of their resignations, meaning he knew about them and has made these decisions before the ink was dry. I think that looks bad on him as a leader. Secondly this could, I'm informed, be part of a plan to slim down his top team in the future to ensure that less MPs can drag his party down by opposing his whip - after all, you can live with awkward backbenchers, but not with maverick frontbenchers.
Obviously Clegg will have to re-appoint a Justice Spokesman but Countryside, Scotland and N.Ireland are likely to be extra part time jobs for some poor unsuspecting LibDem MP. And when he does have the full reshuffle expect a bigger cull.
Firstly, this is fast moving - Clegg did this within an hour of their resignations, meaning he knew about them and has made these decisions before the ink was dry. I think that looks bad on him as a leader. Secondly this could, I'm informed, be part of a plan to slim down his top team in the future to ensure that less MPs can drag his party down by opposing his whip - after all, you can live with awkward backbenchers, but not with maverick frontbenchers.
Obviously Clegg will have to re-appoint a Justice Spokesman but Countryside, Scotland and N.Ireland are likely to be extra part time jobs for some poor unsuspecting LibDem MP. And when he does have the full reshuffle expect a bigger cull.
Nick Clegg: Utterly Useless
If the Liberal Democrats had any powerful men-in-grey-suits they should be striding towards Mr Clegg's office tonight to give him the roasting of his political life. His populist position on the Lisbon Treaty has failed on all fronts and now he must face the public backlash and the political crisis within his own party. How has it come to this?
Well, for reasons best left to Mr Clegg he decided against sticking to his 2005 election committment and backing a public poll on the Lisbon Treaty. Quite why is beyond me, but never mind. He then thought up a huge wheeze - go for the big referendum on the "in-out" question; he'll look mildly euro-realistic, it'll be an elephant trap for the Tory right and gets him out of his Lisbon hole. One problem - it was a rubbish plan.
Immediately people like me, who want Britain to say in Europe but don't see the need for a constitution/treaty would be disenfranchised. It's like saying if you won't play football then you won't play any ball game at all. Europe-with-Lisbon or no Europe at all. Actually, Mr Clegg, I want to be in Europe but without Lisbon. I want to play Rugby (if you follow my point).
Now Mr Clegg could have hidden behind political obscurity and hope nobody noticed this blunder, but then a dozen or so of his parliamentary party promised their electorate they'd vote for a referendum and this blew the lid off the plan. Again, Nick Clegg could have dealt with this - but he insisted on having a massive LibDem frontbench (half his party count as such) and so consequently a few of them held important posts and so having them resign looks bad.
He might still have escapes, but then he went on Newsnight last night and totally humiliated himself; firstly by being savaged by Paxo and then saying that Brown was u-turning but, of course, he wasn't at all... And then he chose the most barking of views; that he should three line whip his MPs into abstaining! So he's prepared to force his own side to resign over not making up their mind!
And today three senior members of his party quit and, from what I hear in Norwich, his party grassroots are in uproar. Not helped by the fact that 63 will be his magic number - the number of votes that the referendum was defeated by and also the number of MPs in his party.
So, Nick Clegg is utterly humiliated in a political crisis entirely of his own making. He could have avoided this at several points and didn't.
This issue is no longer about Europe, it's about Clegg's judgement. He should go home, learn the lessons, make up with his own party ... then start working on his reshuffle. Because I'm pretty sure a few LibDem MPs will be going to home to think about their future under Clegg.
Well, for reasons best left to Mr Clegg he decided against sticking to his 2005 election committment and backing a public poll on the Lisbon Treaty. Quite why is beyond me, but never mind. He then thought up a huge wheeze - go for the big referendum on the "in-out" question; he'll look mildly euro-realistic, it'll be an elephant trap for the Tory right and gets him out of his Lisbon hole. One problem - it was a rubbish plan.
Immediately people like me, who want Britain to say in Europe but don't see the need for a constitution/treaty would be disenfranchised. It's like saying if you won't play football then you won't play any ball game at all. Europe-with-Lisbon or no Europe at all. Actually, Mr Clegg, I want to be in Europe but without Lisbon. I want to play Rugby (if you follow my point).
Now Mr Clegg could have hidden behind political obscurity and hope nobody noticed this blunder, but then a dozen or so of his parliamentary party promised their electorate they'd vote for a referendum and this blew the lid off the plan. Again, Nick Clegg could have dealt with this - but he insisted on having a massive LibDem frontbench (half his party count as such) and so consequently a few of them held important posts and so having them resign looks bad.
He might still have escapes, but then he went on Newsnight last night and totally humiliated himself; firstly by being savaged by Paxo and then saying that Brown was u-turning but, of course, he wasn't at all... And then he chose the most barking of views; that he should three line whip his MPs into abstaining! So he's prepared to force his own side to resign over not making up their mind!
And today three senior members of his party quit and, from what I hear in Norwich, his party grassroots are in uproar. Not helped by the fact that 63 will be his magic number - the number of votes that the referendum was defeated by and also the number of MPs in his party.
So, Nick Clegg is utterly humiliated in a political crisis entirely of his own making. He could have avoided this at several points and didn't.
This issue is no longer about Europe, it's about Clegg's judgement. He should go home, learn the lessons, make up with his own party ... then start working on his reshuffle. Because I'm pretty sure a few LibDem MPs will be going to home to think about their future under Clegg.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Back on the Streets
Apologies for lack of posting about the campaign trail, but its so hectic at the moment there is so much to write that I don't know where to start! (So I didn't start ... you get the picture ...)
Yesterday a big group of us went to Clover Hill in Bowthorpe; and we found a fantastic reception on the doorsteps. One of the big problems in working with Niki George is getting him from door-to-door - he just wants to talk to people and they want to talk to him! Niki has managed to involve a lot of new people in his campaign and all they saw of him was the occassional glimpse whilst we canvass the rest of the street!
The campaign so far has seen a fair amount of "shadow boxing" with Labour; they've been saying some rather interesting things about us (as a party) and about me in particular. I'm sure this won't do them any good; the last time they tried this was against Eve Collishaw in Catton Grove last year and it spectacularly backfired. It did again this time - the voter said that because of Labour's attitude, she was willing to think about voting Conservative this time.
The issues that were raised were mainly centered around anti-social behaviour, road safety and recycling. Interestingly the bus lane was raised a fair few times and so was the whole unitary mess.
A good day out all-in-all; Bowthorpe Ward's shaping up to be another cracker!
Yesterday a big group of us went to Clover Hill in Bowthorpe; and we found a fantastic reception on the doorsteps. One of the big problems in working with Niki George is getting him from door-to-door - he just wants to talk to people and they want to talk to him! Niki has managed to involve a lot of new people in his campaign and all they saw of him was the occassional glimpse whilst we canvass the rest of the street!
The campaign so far has seen a fair amount of "shadow boxing" with Labour; they've been saying some rather interesting things about us (as a party) and about me in particular. I'm sure this won't do them any good; the last time they tried this was against Eve Collishaw in Catton Grove last year and it spectacularly backfired. It did again this time - the voter said that because of Labour's attitude, she was willing to think about voting Conservative this time.
The issues that were raised were mainly centered around anti-social behaviour, road safety and recycling. Interestingly the bus lane was raised a fair few times and so was the whole unitary mess.
A good day out all-in-all; Bowthorpe Ward's shaping up to be another cracker!
Mother's Day!
We've had a great day in our house and I am rather pleased to say that Louise had no idea what we had planned for her in the morning!
After the complusory lie-in and breakfast in bed (at which she wasn't prepared for a two-girl fight over a pain-au-choc - Emily won, but Olivia gave as good as she got) came the present. Now Daddy really wanted to buy Mummy a smoothie maker, but as he has foolishly promised a nearly-3-year-old that she could choose, Mummy instead got a ...
... toy sweet shop. Well, the shop was a toy but the sweets were very much real. Emily loves playing shop - she has a great imagination - but Olivia seemed to be more into shoplifting than paying for her goods. Oh well ...
Then after this I managed to completely pull the wool over her eyes by arranging a surprise lunch at a new restaurant in the City, complete with family and friends on standby. Louise was totally stunned; more so for the fact she almost managed to walk past everyone she knows! The food was amazing and service very good; the restaurant was heaving and I don't think I've seen anywhere that busy in a long time - but newly opened restaurants and Mother's Day seems to attract a lot of people! Then from there, back to ours...
A really fun day out; the girls have been non-stop so we're both shattered. Now settling down for an evening working on election material. A great end to a great day!
After the complusory lie-in and breakfast in bed (at which she wasn't prepared for a two-girl fight over a pain-au-choc - Emily won, but Olivia gave as good as she got) came the present. Now Daddy really wanted to buy Mummy a smoothie maker, but as he has foolishly promised a nearly-3-year-old that she could choose, Mummy instead got a ...
... toy sweet shop. Well, the shop was a toy but the sweets were very much real. Emily loves playing shop - she has a great imagination - but Olivia seemed to be more into shoplifting than paying for her goods. Oh well ...
Then after this I managed to completely pull the wool over her eyes by arranging a surprise lunch at a new restaurant in the City, complete with family and friends on standby. Louise was totally stunned; more so for the fact she almost managed to walk past everyone she knows! The food was amazing and service very good; the restaurant was heaving and I don't think I've seen anywhere that busy in a long time - but newly opened restaurants and Mother's Day seems to attract a lot of people! Then from there, back to ours...
A really fun day out; the girls have been non-stop so we're both shattered. Now settling down for an evening working on election material. A great end to a great day!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Just another night at full council...
Well, the fact that the first news tonight was that all of the Conservative Questions to Council were sucked into the giant IT black hole at the council kind of set the tone of what was to come.
We kicked off with the installing of Judge Jacobs as an honourary recorder. Cllr Morphew, Leader of the Council, did a very bland speech and Cllr Cooke, LibDem Leader, did an almost too political speech. I feel they should have aimed somewhere in between. However the speech by Judge Jacobs was pitch perfect and brilliant to listen to - actually one of the best efforts in a very long time. If he judges as well as he speaks, then the City has a great new ally.
We then had an interesting question time with the public; a representative from Amnesty really took Cllr Ferris apart over charges for stalls in the City - her defence was pretty poor and it is evidence that the public can really make a point at these question times. My favourite part was one lady who listened carefully to Cllr Morrey's craefuly crafted answer about the danger to cyclings of glass on the road, only to respond: "Errr, does that mean you are actually doing to do anything?"
Then community campaigner Niall Baxter submitted our congestion charge petition. Niall did very well - speaking to council is a nerve racking experience and I rememer shaking with fear when I first used a question to then-Council Leader Ian Couzens about the threat to Ellacombe Care Home in Thorpe Hamlet. So Niall managed to get through his speech with clarity and purpose (which is more than some Councillors do). Some LibDems, accepting the implict criticism of them, didn't manage to stay for the whole thing. I know he's an opponent and I shouldn't say this by Cllr Morrey did a very good job in responding; with one factual slip - the Norwich Conservatives opposed the C-Charge before Labour, remember my motion of June 06? His joke at the end about facing both ways was well timed and really bought the house down. About time Cllr Morrey put in a good performance. It almost makes up for his normal pisspoor efforts at Question Time.
Talking of which ... this was spectacularly dull ... Cllr Wright (LibDem, Eaton) asked about the No. 25 bus stop at Castle Meadow, Cllr Read (Green, Wensum) asked how up to date the electoral maps were and Cllr Jago (Green, Mancroft) asked when the old elections office in City Hall would be re-let. Cllr Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe) asked again about the relationship between the UEA and her neighbours. Nothing really to report; sadly.
Then, a really rare sight - the next motion was to make the wonderful Cllr Hooke (LibDem), Thorpe Hamlet's one-vote wonder - the Lord Mayor elect. This movement at great speed and shockingly I hadn't made it from my seat to the water cooler back to my seat in time and totally missed the vote. Bugger! Because I had planned on voting against him! ;-)
Cllr Bearman (Green, Town Close) then moved a very worthy motion about allotments, which was supported by Cllr Brociek-Coulton (Lab, Sewell) - in remarkable amounts of detail - and also by Cllr Lubbock (LibDem, Eaton) - in a bumbled speech she clearly hadn't prepared - and Cllr John Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe) - allotment holder-in-chief of the council who somehow managed to blame the government for overgrown weeds. Well done him.
The up stepped Cllr Morrey to ask us to join the rest of the world in switching our lights off for an hour 8pm-9pm on 29th March (a Saturday). Cllr Cooke (LibDem, Lakenham) made a classic speech urging us to door more interesting activities in the dark - a superb piece of oratory and the like that the council will be poorer for when he leaves. Needless to say it got passed.
Finally the awarding of the Freedom of the City to RAF Marham. Again Cllr Morphew made the dull-but-worthy speech in favour and left the really good stuff up to LibDem Deputy Leader Cllr Watkins (Eaton). Cllr Watkins was passionate, informative and thoroughly decent. We had the pleasure of several excellent speeches tonight and this was one of them. I followed up by suggesting that although this was the FotC for the RAF it should be taken as indicative of our support for all of our armed forces. I suggested that Norwich was proud of the RAF - which didn't recieve support across the chamber. Whilst Labour, Conservatives, LibDems and some Greens voted in favour it was notable that Cllrs Stephenson (Nelson), Llewelyn (Wensum), Read (Wensum) and Gledhill (Nelson) all abstained. Are we not backing the RAF then, chaps?
All in all not the most important meeting and certainly no worlds were set on fire. But we did experience some really good speeches and no real foul ups tonight. Maybe, actually, council at its best?
We kicked off with the installing of Judge Jacobs as an honourary recorder. Cllr Morphew, Leader of the Council, did a very bland speech and Cllr Cooke, LibDem Leader, did an almost too political speech. I feel they should have aimed somewhere in between. However the speech by Judge Jacobs was pitch perfect and brilliant to listen to - actually one of the best efforts in a very long time. If he judges as well as he speaks, then the City has a great new ally.
We then had an interesting question time with the public; a representative from Amnesty really took Cllr Ferris apart over charges for stalls in the City - her defence was pretty poor and it is evidence that the public can really make a point at these question times. My favourite part was one lady who listened carefully to Cllr Morrey's craefuly crafted answer about the danger to cyclings of glass on the road, only to respond: "Errr, does that mean you are actually doing to do anything?"
Then community campaigner Niall Baxter submitted our congestion charge petition. Niall did very well - speaking to council is a nerve racking experience and I rememer shaking with fear when I first used a question to then-Council Leader Ian Couzens about the threat to Ellacombe Care Home in Thorpe Hamlet. So Niall managed to get through his speech with clarity and purpose (which is more than some Councillors do). Some LibDems, accepting the implict criticism of them, didn't manage to stay for the whole thing. I know he's an opponent and I shouldn't say this by Cllr Morrey did a very good job in responding; with one factual slip - the Norwich Conservatives opposed the C-Charge before Labour, remember my motion of June 06? His joke at the end about facing both ways was well timed and really bought the house down. About time Cllr Morrey put in a good performance. It almost makes up for his normal pisspoor efforts at Question Time.
Talking of which ... this was spectacularly dull ... Cllr Wright (LibDem, Eaton) asked about the No. 25 bus stop at Castle Meadow, Cllr Read (Green, Wensum) asked how up to date the electoral maps were and Cllr Jago (Green, Mancroft) asked when the old elections office in City Hall would be re-let. Cllr Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe) asked again about the relationship between the UEA and her neighbours. Nothing really to report; sadly.
Then, a really rare sight - the next motion was to make the wonderful Cllr Hooke (LibDem), Thorpe Hamlet's one-vote wonder - the Lord Mayor elect. This movement at great speed and shockingly I hadn't made it from my seat to the water cooler back to my seat in time and totally missed the vote. Bugger! Because I had planned on voting against him! ;-)
Cllr Bearman (Green, Town Close) then moved a very worthy motion about allotments, which was supported by Cllr Brociek-Coulton (Lab, Sewell) - in remarkable amounts of detail - and also by Cllr Lubbock (LibDem, Eaton) - in a bumbled speech she clearly hadn't prepared - and Cllr John Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe) - allotment holder-in-chief of the council who somehow managed to blame the government for overgrown weeds. Well done him.
The up stepped Cllr Morrey to ask us to join the rest of the world in switching our lights off for an hour 8pm-9pm on 29th March (a Saturday). Cllr Cooke (LibDem, Lakenham) made a classic speech urging us to door more interesting activities in the dark - a superb piece of oratory and the like that the council will be poorer for when he leaves. Needless to say it got passed.
Finally the awarding of the Freedom of the City to RAF Marham. Again Cllr Morphew made the dull-but-worthy speech in favour and left the really good stuff up to LibDem Deputy Leader Cllr Watkins (Eaton). Cllr Watkins was passionate, informative and thoroughly decent. We had the pleasure of several excellent speeches tonight and this was one of them. I followed up by suggesting that although this was the FotC for the RAF it should be taken as indicative of our support for all of our armed forces. I suggested that Norwich was proud of the RAF - which didn't recieve support across the chamber. Whilst Labour, Conservatives, LibDems and some Greens voted in favour it was notable that Cllrs Stephenson (Nelson), Llewelyn (Wensum), Read (Wensum) and Gledhill (Nelson) all abstained. Are we not backing the RAF then, chaps?
All in all not the most important meeting and certainly no worlds were set on fire. But we did experience some really good speeches and no real foul ups tonight. Maybe, actually, council at its best?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Budget Debate
Yesterday was the longest and hardest council meeting of the year; both physcially in terms of the lenght and stress of the meeting but also because of the issues involved. Nobody in the council is an expert on every section of the budget and, despite our claims, no party leader has a total grasp even given all the extra meetings we've had on this recently. Our meeting saw some robust exchanges and some honest views being set out - given that most of the budget was thrashed out well in advance, god knows how long we'd have been there if we hadn't of done that!
Firstly the Leader of the Council, Cllr Morphew, moves the budget framework; that is the high level strategy direction that the budget will follow. Cllr Morphew couldn't resist turning it into a kind of two-year review of his administration; incuding battering the poor LibDems - the first of many batterings and their party must have left the chamber feeling very down indeed. Cllr Morphew set out changes to the financial regime, improvements in housing, CCTV extension ... in fact, I accuse dhim of sounding like a Stalinist Minister reeling off the tractor production figures. Outgoing LibDem Leader Cllr Hereward Cooke took an open shot at Cllr Morphew but seemed to be leaving his best fire for later. LibDem Cllr Carl Mayhew (Mile Cross) joined us in abstaining on this item, against his own party decision to vote in favour.
Then the budget itself is moved. Cllr Alan Waters, Executive Member for Finance, made a decent and amusing stab at justifying the budget - including some very amusing powerpoint slides and a pre-emptive attack on other budget amendments. My only feeling was that Cllr Waters spent too much time knocking the alternatives rather than saying why his budget was the best. Then came the LibDem budget amendment...
... they wanted to have a council tax rise of 2.95% and give an extra £32,000 to Visit Norwich Ltd - and to pay for it, they'd cut the wardens programme by £92,000. I have to say on first hearing this I couldn't believe our political luck. The wardens are popular, hard working and successful - the LibDems wanted to sack some of them in favour of tourism???
Cllr Cooke seemed like a man who knew his time was up and hardly flourished on his last big occassion. He put forward the amendment but did so in a quiet way, almost hoping this might take the edge off the atatcks from other parties. A shame - Cllr Cooke is, despite his party's difficulties, one of the best orators on the council. This should have been his moment to really make one last stand before standing down. It feel flat; not a disaster but without any spark. The same can't be said for his Deputy, Cllr Brian Watkins (Eaton), who led with a clenched fist in a passionate defence on VisitNorwich. Cllr Watkins has long been an advocate of a strong tourist strategy and he clearly had the bit between his teeth. However, a good speech went bad when he slipped and said the LibDems wanted to give "32 million" to VisitNorwich rather than just £32,000. Oh dear.
The LibDem amendment cut little ice with other parties; I'm afriad I couldn't sit by and watch all this go through without making a fuss. Whilst I'm sure Labour would be happy just to let the votes roll through, Cllr Ramsay accused the LibDems of "throwing good money after bad" and suggested they were writing "a blank cheque" for VisitNorwich.
I was rather less kind. I said it, "looks like a visionless effort from a leaderless party ... it has the desperate smack of a party who knows its time is up ... we're dealing with a failing organisation who don't seem to be able to fulfill their purpose, wandering lost and trying to find some measure of support (that's the LibDems, not VisitNorwich) ... perhaps this is about undercutting Labour, well I tell you they aren't going to undercut the Conservatives; we'll deliver tax cuts because we believe in tax cuts ... thousands raised, thousands spend, thousands wasted but only now do the LibDems realise that tax is too high ... no ideas, no vision, no leadership and quite frankly, no hope!"
Cue LibDem groaning and plenty of cheers; I'm told even clapping from the public gallery. The LibDems lost their amendment 7 votes to 17 with 11 abstentions; including their very own Cllr Mayhew.
Then came our amendment. We would have;
Reduce spending on Unitary by £500,000
Use £300,000 to reduce council tax
Use £200,000 to support community projects through the People's Fund
In my speech, I said that this "was not an attempt to de-rail unitary - believe me, we've tried that - ...now is the time to say that the project has gone on long enough and cost more than enough ... other districts will be paying out just £300,000 so why can't we just spend what everybody else will ... this isn't about unitary, it's about unitary without the waste, it isn't about council tax, it's about a signal that this council won't accept ever higher bills, this isn't about extra funding for community projects, it's about the best use of our limit resources."
I have to admit to not knowing quite what the opposition arguements were. Cllr Waters was so nice and charming that I totally lost what he was saying. He did use a typical Labour trick of plucking a figure out of the air and claiming we'd cut service. Errr, no. There's only 2 cuts - the unitary budget and then everyone's council tax bills. We were then told that council tax bill cuts would only benefit the middle classes. I'm sorry, does everybody else not pay council tax? Finally Cllr Waters assured us that the rise was only 3p per week anyway. Well, that's OK ... if it wasn't my 3p in the first place and I can still spend it better than the council can.
The other-Cllr Little (Green, Town Close) made an incoherant and bizarre speech of which I can remember little (no pun) other than being accused of electioneering. I'm surprised that Cllr Read could contain himself, but it took Cllr Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove) to come to my aid. I then surprised the council by revealing that I am a conservative, favour a small council and tax cuts; one mans electioneering is another man's political principle.
After our sound defeat (31 votes to 3!) Cllr Ramsay, Green Leader, clearly felt his own side had missed their chance so tried to come back to our amendment which, needless to say, I had to stop using a Point of Order. Come on, chaps, let's do this right!
In the final vote on the budget, it was left to Labour and the Conservatives as the other groups chose to sit it out. The final result was 13 votes to 3; we voted against Labour's 3.7% tax hike.
A good debate, well natured and largely good fun. We all had our say, votes were taken and I suppose the will of the city was heard. Roll on next year...
... one pleasing footnote was that during another topic, I managed to force te delightful Cllr Lubbock to storm out of the chamber. Half a dozen other councillors congratulated me afterwards, saying they had always wanted to do the same thing!!!
More tomorrow ... a friend in the galery wrote some pen portraits which I will publish.
Firstly the Leader of the Council, Cllr Morphew, moves the budget framework; that is the high level strategy direction that the budget will follow. Cllr Morphew couldn't resist turning it into a kind of two-year review of his administration; incuding battering the poor LibDems - the first of many batterings and their party must have left the chamber feeling very down indeed. Cllr Morphew set out changes to the financial regime, improvements in housing, CCTV extension ... in fact, I accuse dhim of sounding like a Stalinist Minister reeling off the tractor production figures. Outgoing LibDem Leader Cllr Hereward Cooke took an open shot at Cllr Morphew but seemed to be leaving his best fire for later. LibDem Cllr Carl Mayhew (Mile Cross) joined us in abstaining on this item, against his own party decision to vote in favour.
Then the budget itself is moved. Cllr Alan Waters, Executive Member for Finance, made a decent and amusing stab at justifying the budget - including some very amusing powerpoint slides and a pre-emptive attack on other budget amendments. My only feeling was that Cllr Waters spent too much time knocking the alternatives rather than saying why his budget was the best. Then came the LibDem budget amendment...
... they wanted to have a council tax rise of 2.95% and give an extra £32,000 to Visit Norwich Ltd - and to pay for it, they'd cut the wardens programme by £92,000. I have to say on first hearing this I couldn't believe our political luck. The wardens are popular, hard working and successful - the LibDems wanted to sack some of them in favour of tourism???
Cllr Cooke seemed like a man who knew his time was up and hardly flourished on his last big occassion. He put forward the amendment but did so in a quiet way, almost hoping this might take the edge off the atatcks from other parties. A shame - Cllr Cooke is, despite his party's difficulties, one of the best orators on the council. This should have been his moment to really make one last stand before standing down. It feel flat; not a disaster but without any spark. The same can't be said for his Deputy, Cllr Brian Watkins (Eaton), who led with a clenched fist in a passionate defence on VisitNorwich. Cllr Watkins has long been an advocate of a strong tourist strategy and he clearly had the bit between his teeth. However, a good speech went bad when he slipped and said the LibDems wanted to give "32 million" to VisitNorwich rather than just £32,000. Oh dear.
The LibDem amendment cut little ice with other parties; I'm afriad I couldn't sit by and watch all this go through without making a fuss. Whilst I'm sure Labour would be happy just to let the votes roll through, Cllr Ramsay accused the LibDems of "throwing good money after bad" and suggested they were writing "a blank cheque" for VisitNorwich.
I was rather less kind. I said it, "looks like a visionless effort from a leaderless party ... it has the desperate smack of a party who knows its time is up ... we're dealing with a failing organisation who don't seem to be able to fulfill their purpose, wandering lost and trying to find some measure of support (that's the LibDems, not VisitNorwich) ... perhaps this is about undercutting Labour, well I tell you they aren't going to undercut the Conservatives; we'll deliver tax cuts because we believe in tax cuts ... thousands raised, thousands spend, thousands wasted but only now do the LibDems realise that tax is too high ... no ideas, no vision, no leadership and quite frankly, no hope!"
Cue LibDem groaning and plenty of cheers; I'm told even clapping from the public gallery. The LibDems lost their amendment 7 votes to 17 with 11 abstentions; including their very own Cllr Mayhew.
Then came our amendment. We would have;
Reduce spending on Unitary by £500,000
Use £300,000 to reduce council tax
Use £200,000 to support community projects through the People's Fund
In my speech, I said that this "was not an attempt to de-rail unitary - believe me, we've tried that - ...now is the time to say that the project has gone on long enough and cost more than enough ... other districts will be paying out just £300,000 so why can't we just spend what everybody else will ... this isn't about unitary, it's about unitary without the waste, it isn't about council tax, it's about a signal that this council won't accept ever higher bills, this isn't about extra funding for community projects, it's about the best use of our limit resources."
I have to admit to not knowing quite what the opposition arguements were. Cllr Waters was so nice and charming that I totally lost what he was saying. He did use a typical Labour trick of plucking a figure out of the air and claiming we'd cut service. Errr, no. There's only 2 cuts - the unitary budget and then everyone's council tax bills. We were then told that council tax bill cuts would only benefit the middle classes. I'm sorry, does everybody else not pay council tax? Finally Cllr Waters assured us that the rise was only 3p per week anyway. Well, that's OK ... if it wasn't my 3p in the first place and I can still spend it better than the council can.
The other-Cllr Little (Green, Town Close) made an incoherant and bizarre speech of which I can remember little (no pun) other than being accused of electioneering. I'm surprised that Cllr Read could contain himself, but it took Cllr Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove) to come to my aid. I then surprised the council by revealing that I am a conservative, favour a small council and tax cuts; one mans electioneering is another man's political principle.
After our sound defeat (31 votes to 3!) Cllr Ramsay, Green Leader, clearly felt his own side had missed their chance so tried to come back to our amendment which, needless to say, I had to stop using a Point of Order. Come on, chaps, let's do this right!
In the final vote on the budget, it was left to Labour and the Conservatives as the other groups chose to sit it out. The final result was 13 votes to 3; we voted against Labour's 3.7% tax hike.
A good debate, well natured and largely good fun. We all had our say, votes were taken and I suppose the will of the city was heard. Roll on next year...
... one pleasing footnote was that during another topic, I managed to force te delightful Cllr Lubbock to storm out of the chamber. Half a dozen other councillors congratulated me afterwards, saying they had always wanted to do the same thing!!!
More tomorrow ... a friend in the galery wrote some pen portraits which I will publish.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Norwich Tories 0% council tax rise bid
Norwich Conservatives will today launch our alternative budget ahead of Tuesday’s crunch council meeting. The budget will see more investment into key areas such as recycling but will trim the unitary spending of the council to deliver an overall freeze on council tax.
Taxpayers in Norwich have been hammered by Labour year after year. Once again we are looking again at inflation busting rises that will see senior citizens and low income families suffer.
That’s why, as Conservatives, we believe in keeping council tax low. Conservative run South Norfolk Council has led the way in setting a freeze on council tax and now we hope to do the same in Norwich.
Clearly much of the spending is good, but unitary stands alone as being Labour’s great white elephant in the City. We’re picking up the bill for Labour’s political vanity.
It is ridiculous that when services are in need of extra investment and people across Norwich are being told there is no money available, we are planning to spend £800,000 of taxpayers money on Unitary. This brings the bill for Unitary well into the millions for the people of Norwich.
Clearly the council needs to do some preparation work so we are suggesting a compromise – that £300,000 be taken out of the unitary budget and be used to cut tax for thousands of hard working people across the City.
However, we would go further than that – trimming another £250,000 off Labour’s unitary bill and putting that money directly into future community projects, making the lives of people around our City better.
The unitary debacle has gone on long enough and cost more than enough. It’s time people knew that at least one party is willing to put them, their families and their services first in all this. The Conservatives are willing to take tough decisions and say that tax is too high and must now come down.
Residents can also use the elections this May to send Labour and the LibDems a message – if you want to pay less tax, spend more on services and less on political bureaucracy you have to vote Conservative.
Taxpayers in Norwich have been hammered by Labour year after year. Once again we are looking again at inflation busting rises that will see senior citizens and low income families suffer.
That’s why, as Conservatives, we believe in keeping council tax low. Conservative run South Norfolk Council has led the way in setting a freeze on council tax and now we hope to do the same in Norwich.
Clearly much of the spending is good, but unitary stands alone as being Labour’s great white elephant in the City. We’re picking up the bill for Labour’s political vanity.
It is ridiculous that when services are in need of extra investment and people across Norwich are being told there is no money available, we are planning to spend £800,000 of taxpayers money on Unitary. This brings the bill for Unitary well into the millions for the people of Norwich.
Clearly the council needs to do some preparation work so we are suggesting a compromise – that £300,000 be taken out of the unitary budget and be used to cut tax for thousands of hard working people across the City.
However, we would go further than that – trimming another £250,000 off Labour’s unitary bill and putting that money directly into future community projects, making the lives of people around our City better.
The unitary debacle has gone on long enough and cost more than enough. It’s time people knew that at least one party is willing to put them, their families and their services first in all this. The Conservatives are willing to take tough decisions and say that tax is too high and must now come down.
Residents can also use the elections this May to send Labour and the LibDems a message – if you want to pay less tax, spend more on services and less on political bureaucracy you have to vote Conservative.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Safe Play Teams - meaningless jargon or something better?
The news that Bowthorpe's parks are to be covered by a Safe Play Team is clearly to be welcomed. There is so much more we can do to make these areas safe, clean and attractive for families. Very good news in fact, because this formed a central plank of our election manifesto in the last few years.
Yet, drilling down on what this actually means leaves me rather disappointed. It means linking the wardens and lottery-funded play rangers. Well, erm, why hasn't that been happening and also why does this require a new name and a media launch?
Local Councillors have been doing this work, on the ground, for some time. The real improvements made in the Three Score Park, between Caddow Road and The Runnell, has ben achieved thanks to work of the police, PCSOs and wardens. Isn't that the same as the Safe Play Team?
Or is there something else we don't yet know about the work of these teams? There is a lot of scope for these teams, and I suppose that development will tell us if these teams are there for headlines or actually improving life.
Come on Council - what's the vision?
Yet, drilling down on what this actually means leaves me rather disappointed. It means linking the wardens and lottery-funded play rangers. Well, erm, why hasn't that been happening and also why does this require a new name and a media launch?
Local Councillors have been doing this work, on the ground, for some time. The real improvements made in the Three Score Park, between Caddow Road and The Runnell, has ben achieved thanks to work of the police, PCSOs and wardens. Isn't that the same as the Safe Play Team?
Or is there something else we don't yet know about the work of these teams? There is a lot of scope for these teams, and I suppose that development will tell us if these teams are there for headlines or actually improving life.
Come on Council - what's the vision?
Should a Tory candidate have to do his own gardening?
The lack of posts this week says something about the pace at which the parliamentary campaign has taken off. Between ward work, the media and canvassing there hasn't bene much time for blogging. However this week is Half-Term and Louise has forced me to address the total disaster zone that is the garden.
Hence, this morning I could be found in old jeans and scruffy top lugging whole sections of my garage and garden into a skip. As I was pulling one of my least attractive faces, pushing the last of what once passed as a buddleia into a tiny crack between a brick and a plank of wood with nails sticking out, a friends who lives at the end of the road passed by.
"Ey, what have we here?" he proclaimed, as if it wasn't blatantly obvious enough. "Our local Tory candidate doing his own garden? Can't see Mr Clarke digging his own plot!" - no, I thought, launching a plot or whispering one, but never digging it. I then took a few moments of abuse before he finished with, "at least I can vote for somebody who knows how to get their hands dirty!".
I didn't know what to be more shocked about; that he was voting for me after admitting previously to being a LibDem, or the fact that he was genuinely amazed I did my own DIY and gardening.
Do other candidates get away with this? I also wash clothes, clean baths, put out the bin and even go to work. Is the land stalked with other PPCs who don't do this sort of stuff anymore? Or has the public's perception of politicans now moved so far from the truth that we are all tarnished with the nose-in-trough stereotype of the worth excesses of the Westminster MP?
Hence, this morning I could be found in old jeans and scruffy top lugging whole sections of my garage and garden into a skip. As I was pulling one of my least attractive faces, pushing the last of what once passed as a buddleia into a tiny crack between a brick and a plank of wood with nails sticking out, a friends who lives at the end of the road passed by.
"Ey, what have we here?" he proclaimed, as if it wasn't blatantly obvious enough. "Our local Tory candidate doing his own garden? Can't see Mr Clarke digging his own plot!" - no, I thought, launching a plot or whispering one, but never digging it. I then took a few moments of abuse before he finished with, "at least I can vote for somebody who knows how to get their hands dirty!".
I didn't know what to be more shocked about; that he was voting for me after admitting previously to being a LibDem, or the fact that he was genuinely amazed I did my own DIY and gardening.
Do other candidates get away with this? I also wash clothes, clean baths, put out the bin and even go to work. Is the land stalked with other PPCs who don't do this sort of stuff anymore? Or has the public's perception of politicans now moved so far from the truth that we are all tarnished with the nose-in-trough stereotype of the worth excesses of the Westminster MP?
Iain Dale is Human
The wonderful Iain Dale's Diary, probably the most readable and important Tory blog going, is fast becoming an all-in-one, one-stop-shop Iain Dale website; promoting the many facets of the talented Mr Dale, including his blogging, speeches, TV and radio work. In fact, it seems like Iain is beocming the media friendly Tory.
So it is fantastic that, on clicking to read about his writing, the first thing he does is make a spelling mistake! Thank God he's human too...
Iain is attracting a reputation as one of Britain’s most informed an incisive political writers.
So it is fantastic that, on clicking to read about his writing, the first thing he does is make a spelling mistake! Thank God he's human too...
Iain is attracting a reputation as one of Britain’s most informed an incisive political writers.
Frank Field: Right theory, Wrong practice
Labour MP Frank Field has had to put up with a lot over the years - not least being ousted from Blair's first government for being too radical and since then being treated by his own side as if he's about to defect to the Conservatives.
Well, today Frank launched rather interested reform plans that would charge people who earn over £150,000 a year an extra 10% tax which could be offset totally through donations to charity. You can read the BBC report here.
I am a great believer in charity; that some things are beyond the state and that people working together can do wonderful things for society. Much lamented US President Herbet Hoover once remarked that a single dollar given by free will was worth ten dollars given by the government. I happen to agree, and I think thats one of the aspects that makes me a Conservative. The act of giving is as much an important act as the amount itself.
So, anything which encourages greater giving has to be good - especially as this type of giving normally goes to projects ignored by the government. However, to force rich people at a financial version of gunpoint to give to charity rather defeats the point. I'm sure that, if introduced, this would net the government no money at all - most rich people would still rather give to a favourite charity than this unpopular goverment.
Frank Field is spot on in asking how we get more people, particularly the rich, to give to charity - but this plan is not the answer.
Well, today Frank launched rather interested reform plans that would charge people who earn over £150,000 a year an extra 10% tax which could be offset totally through donations to charity. You can read the BBC report here.
I am a great believer in charity; that some things are beyond the state and that people working together can do wonderful things for society. Much lamented US President Herbet Hoover once remarked that a single dollar given by free will was worth ten dollars given by the government. I happen to agree, and I think thats one of the aspects that makes me a Conservative. The act of giving is as much an important act as the amount itself.
So, anything which encourages greater giving has to be good - especially as this type of giving normally goes to projects ignored by the government. However, to force rich people at a financial version of gunpoint to give to charity rather defeats the point. I'm sure that, if introduced, this would net the government no money at all - most rich people would still rather give to a favourite charity than this unpopular goverment.
Frank Field is spot on in asking how we get more people, particularly the rich, to give to charity - but this plan is not the answer.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Challenging Clarke
On Friday night I was honoured to have been selected at the new Conservative parliamentary candidate for Norwich South - it was a packed meeting, much larger than for the 2005 election and I have to say that the overall quality of candidate was very good and I hope that both Martin and Will go on to find good constituencies.
Everybody who wants to become an MP, I think, dreams of doing so in their home City. I live here, work here, my kids go to school here ... I have a real stake in this community and am dedicated to making it working better. Norwich is a fantastic City and, above all, I am going to run a positive campaign. I think that this City and its citizens are really going places and above all, I want to be a part of that; hopefully as our MP. I reserve the right to highlight failure and criticise, but when I do so I will always offer a positive alternative for people.
The Norwich Conservatives go from strength to strength locally; our canvass in Chapel Break, Bowthorpe, and also in Eaton yesterday show us that more people prefer a new Cameron Conservative government to the old failed Labour one under Brown. People weren't just anti-Labour but they were becoming pro-Conservative again.
Why is this? Because whilst we may getting richer as a City in material goods, there are still real concerns when two local High Schools are under OFSTED scrutiny, when our flagship hospital doesn't have enough beds and when anti-social behaviour still impacts on our estates. I've written in detail about my response to those problems here and I hope that when Cameron launches our manfiesto, it tackles those issues. And, before you ask, I won't be employing my wife or any other member of my family - mostly because the girls are too young to be of any real help and I don't think Louise would want to spend that amount of time with me!
So now's the time to get on with the job - I've got a campaign team to put together and a plan to create. I like to think I have shown the dedication to this City and have the experience to really make a difference. Given the positive reaction of friends in the City and party members, I think this may well be a really fun election to fight!
So Mr Clarke, who has this week been worrying about a Conservative revival, ought now to be worrying about the Conservative revival in his own back yard!
Everybody who wants to become an MP, I think, dreams of doing so in their home City. I live here, work here, my kids go to school here ... I have a real stake in this community and am dedicated to making it working better. Norwich is a fantastic City and, above all, I am going to run a positive campaign. I think that this City and its citizens are really going places and above all, I want to be a part of that; hopefully as our MP. I reserve the right to highlight failure and criticise, but when I do so I will always offer a positive alternative for people.
The Norwich Conservatives go from strength to strength locally; our canvass in Chapel Break, Bowthorpe, and also in Eaton yesterday show us that more people prefer a new Cameron Conservative government to the old failed Labour one under Brown. People weren't just anti-Labour but they were becoming pro-Conservative again.
Why is this? Because whilst we may getting richer as a City in material goods, there are still real concerns when two local High Schools are under OFSTED scrutiny, when our flagship hospital doesn't have enough beds and when anti-social behaviour still impacts on our estates. I've written in detail about my response to those problems here and I hope that when Cameron launches our manfiesto, it tackles those issues. And, before you ask, I won't be employing my wife or any other member of my family - mostly because the girls are too young to be of any real help and I don't think Louise would want to spend that amount of time with me!
So now's the time to get on with the job - I've got a campaign team to put together and a plan to create. I like to think I have shown the dedication to this City and have the experience to really make a difference. Given the positive reaction of friends in the City and party members, I think this may well be a really fun election to fight!
So Mr Clarke, who has this week been worrying about a Conservative revival, ought now to be worrying about the Conservative revival in his own back yard!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Campaign turns nasty as LibDems are “forced to lie” about Conservatives
The desperate LibDem campaign to avoid electoral wipeout in May has taken a nasty turn following a new story that reveal a senior Councillor is prepared to lie to keep her seat.
LibDem frontbencher Judith Lubbock, who is trying to hold onto her marginal Eaton Ward against the Conservatives, claims on her website that:
A leading story in one Conservative newsletter in Eaton, titled "Alternate Weekly Collections - What A Load of Rubbish?" criticises the new household waste scheme. Despite the fact that Conservative Councillors actually supported and voted in council meetings to introduce the new scheme.
However, on this blog I can exclusively revealed that the exact wording of the newsletter was:
The Big Bin Debate:
Is AWC rubbish?
The way your household rubbish is collected will be changing this autumn as Alternative Weekly Collection (AWC) is introduced across Eaton. This new measure will be trialled in the South and West parts of Norwich, with plans to extend it across the city.
AWC means that recycling is collected one week and residual household waste is collected during the alternate week. Residents have expressed concerns about the impact of fortnightly rubbish collections. There are serious worries about the effect this will have on hygiene, fly tipping and problems with vermin.
Cllr Antony Little, Conservative Group Leader at City Hall, and Niall Baxter, local campaigner, will keep in touch with residents to assess the impact of this scheme.
Niall says: “I’ve spoken to many people in Eaton recently, and I know how worried they are about this. I want to know their reactions to AWC as it gets going.”
Give us your feedback on the attached slip, or use our new residents’ hotline: 0845 634 9709. You can also use our special AWC feedback e-mail address: awc@norwichconservatives.com
We did vote for the scheme but also expressed some concerns regarding its consequences. I made these clear in my speech to council. The LibDems have lied about our headline, lied about the content of the school and seem to be willing to do anything to hold onto power. This newsletter prompted a debate, which is what we wanted, and both the positive and negative feedback went straight to City Hall and I am grateful to officers for their time in answering those questions.
However, the news gets worse for Cllr Lubbock, who went on to say:
Residents were also surprised to read that the Tories are claiming that Lib Dems support congestion charging in Norwich. This is not true! In fact, the Liberal Democrats put down a policy motion to a recent Council meeting stating that congestion charging would not be supported without a number of strict criteria being met, such as improvements to public transport and exemptions for residents.
Sadly Cllr Lubbock undermined her own case in a single paragraph. She has admitted that if criteria are met they will support the Congestion Charge in Norwich! Her speech to council was unashamedly pro-congestion charging as was that of her ward colleague Cllr Brian Watkins. We all noted her quotes, but she doesn’t like having them thrown back at her. Even Councillors from other parties were shocked at her pro-congestion charge stance.
We all expect a bit of rough and tumble at election time, but to issue half truths and bar-faced lies isn’t the way to engage the electorate. We’re all used to the fantasy-world politics of LibDem leaflets but she shouldn’t tar others with her own brush. We are for honest, positive campaigning. It’s a shame they can’t be.
LibDem frontbencher Judith Lubbock, who is trying to hold onto her marginal Eaton Ward against the Conservatives, claims on her website that:
A leading story in one Conservative newsletter in Eaton, titled "Alternate Weekly Collections - What A Load of Rubbish?" criticises the new household waste scheme. Despite the fact that Conservative Councillors actually supported and voted in council meetings to introduce the new scheme.
However, on this blog I can exclusively revealed that the exact wording of the newsletter was:
The Big Bin Debate:
Is AWC rubbish?
The way your household rubbish is collected will be changing this autumn as Alternative Weekly Collection (AWC) is introduced across Eaton. This new measure will be trialled in the South and West parts of Norwich, with plans to extend it across the city.
AWC means that recycling is collected one week and residual household waste is collected during the alternate week. Residents have expressed concerns about the impact of fortnightly rubbish collections. There are serious worries about the effect this will have on hygiene, fly tipping and problems with vermin.
Cllr Antony Little, Conservative Group Leader at City Hall, and Niall Baxter, local campaigner, will keep in touch with residents to assess the impact of this scheme.
Niall says: “I’ve spoken to many people in Eaton recently, and I know how worried they are about this. I want to know their reactions to AWC as it gets going.”
Give us your feedback on the attached slip, or use our new residents’ hotline: 0845 634 9709. You can also use our special AWC feedback e-mail address: awc@norwichconservatives.com
We did vote for the scheme but also expressed some concerns regarding its consequences. I made these clear in my speech to council. The LibDems have lied about our headline, lied about the content of the school and seem to be willing to do anything to hold onto power. This newsletter prompted a debate, which is what we wanted, and both the positive and negative feedback went straight to City Hall and I am grateful to officers for their time in answering those questions.
However, the news gets worse for Cllr Lubbock, who went on to say:
Residents were also surprised to read that the Tories are claiming that Lib Dems support congestion charging in Norwich. This is not true! In fact, the Liberal Democrats put down a policy motion to a recent Council meeting stating that congestion charging would not be supported without a number of strict criteria being met, such as improvements to public transport and exemptions for residents.
Sadly Cllr Lubbock undermined her own case in a single paragraph. She has admitted that if criteria are met they will support the Congestion Charge in Norwich! Her speech to council was unashamedly pro-congestion charging as was that of her ward colleague Cllr Brian Watkins. We all noted her quotes, but she doesn’t like having them thrown back at her. Even Councillors from other parties were shocked at her pro-congestion charge stance.
We all expect a bit of rough and tumble at election time, but to issue half truths and bar-faced lies isn’t the way to engage the electorate. We’re all used to the fantasy-world politics of LibDem leaflets but she shouldn’t tar others with her own brush. We are for honest, positive campaigning. It’s a shame they can’t be.
Monday, January 28, 2008
It's like the news actually knows my lesson plan!
I spent two hours this morning telling my 'A' Level politics students about the theoretical powers of backbench MPs. We spoke about the role of the MP as a legislator and then moved onto the wonderful world of the Private Members Bills. I waxed lyrical about how although MPs look as if they can create their own Bills, the fact of the matter is that the government, the whips and the parliamentary business managers have a variety of plots and tricks to ensure nothing ever reaches the statute book without their say-so.
Then, bang on queue, this little gem appears here, in which Tory MP Michael Fallon's Planning Bill goes through the first stage because of a massive government cock up. The government whips planned to force the Bill to fall through an inquorate vote (any vote much engage at least 40 MPs or it fails automatically); that is, by not turning up they could ensure that 40 MPs would be be present and thus Fallon is defeated. However the idiotic government whips badly miscalculated and a hotch-potch of Tories, LibDems and Labour rebels mustered the 45 votes in favour they needed. And as the government MPs were boycotting it ... you guessed it, it went through by 45 votes to 0 (yes, zero). Interesting that the Tories who voted for the bill included Shadow Schools Secretary Michael Gove and Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers and the LibDem frontbencher Susan Kramer did likewise. A tactical poke in the eye for the government and a victory for House of Commons.
Here is the roll of honour, those who voted for this Bill:
Ainsworth, Baldry, Barker, Boswell, Bottomley, Brake, TomBrazier, Mr. JulianCarmichael, Caton, Cohen, Cormack, Phillip Davies, Dai Davies, Dorries, Dowd, Evans, Fabricant, Fallon, Francois, Gale, Gerrard, Gove, Greenway, Grieve, Hammond, Harper, Herbert, Hollobone, Howarth, Hurd, Key, Kramer, Leigh, McLoughlin, Neill, Price, Randall, Stanley, Steen, Turner, Villiers, Watkinson, Whitehead, Wiggin, Willetts, Heald (teller), Battle (teller)
Then, bang on queue, this little gem appears here, in which Tory MP Michael Fallon's Planning Bill goes through the first stage because of a massive government cock up. The government whips planned to force the Bill to fall through an inquorate vote (any vote much engage at least 40 MPs or it fails automatically); that is, by not turning up they could ensure that 40 MPs would be be present and thus Fallon is defeated. However the idiotic government whips badly miscalculated and a hotch-potch of Tories, LibDems and Labour rebels mustered the 45 votes in favour they needed. And as the government MPs were boycotting it ... you guessed it, it went through by 45 votes to 0 (yes, zero). Interesting that the Tories who voted for the bill included Shadow Schools Secretary Michael Gove and Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers and the LibDem frontbencher Susan Kramer did likewise. A tactical poke in the eye for the government and a victory for House of Commons.
Here is the roll of honour, those who voted for this Bill:
Ainsworth, Baldry, Barker, Boswell, Bottomley, Brake, TomBrazier, Mr. JulianCarmichael, Caton, Cohen, Cormack, Phillip Davies, Dai Davies, Dorries, Dowd, Evans, Fabricant, Fallon, Francois, Gale, Gerrard, Gove, Greenway, Grieve, Hammond, Harper, Herbert, Hollobone, Howarth, Hurd, Key, Kramer, Leigh, McLoughlin, Neill, Price, Randall, Stanley, Steen, Turner, Villiers, Watkinson, Whitehead, Wiggin, Willetts, Heald (teller), Battle (teller)
Sunday, January 27, 2008
May poll strategy U-turn for LibDems
The vast majority of political hacks in and around the City expect the LibDems to get a damn good kicking at the May elections. However, I am reliably informed that the yellow peril have come up with a cunning plan to avoid such a fate ... targeting.
The LibDems were once the Kings of Targeting ... knowing where to put their resources, being able to move on from seats they would win to the marginals and knowing when the pull out. But in recent years they have missed this point and have slogged around Nelson furiously (getting destroyed by the Greens) whilst at the same time losing out in Lakenham but a couple of dozen votes.
So, I'm told, they have decided that some wards are beyond their reach and others are worth the fight. Amazingly they seem to have given up against the Greens whilst believing that the fight is still on with Labour. So, Thorpe Hamlet with a 1 vote LibDem majority is set to be all-but abandoned whilst University Ward, with a 600-odd Labour majority, is to be targetted. Similarly, Town Close and Mancroft are to be thrown to the wall. Then in Lakenham and Mile Cross are to be the scenes of the LibDem final lines of trenches. Interesting stuff; a realisation that the Greens haven't yet hit their peak of popularity or a realisation that Labour can still be beaten in Norwich and that Brown isn't "top cat"?
I also know that this decision - probably driven by the new professional LibDem team who have taken over - hasn't gone down well with the Councillors, and their activist friends, who aren't going to get support.
This strategy could also frustrate Labour; they had planned on the LibDems slinking away in those wards freeing them up to defend other seats and also chase the new Labour fascination - Wensum Ward.
If the LibDems sort their game out, it could yet be a fascinating May election.
The LibDems were once the Kings of Targeting ... knowing where to put their resources, being able to move on from seats they would win to the marginals and knowing when the pull out. But in recent years they have missed this point and have slogged around Nelson furiously (getting destroyed by the Greens) whilst at the same time losing out in Lakenham but a couple of dozen votes.
So, I'm told, they have decided that some wards are beyond their reach and others are worth the fight. Amazingly they seem to have given up against the Greens whilst believing that the fight is still on with Labour. So, Thorpe Hamlet with a 1 vote LibDem majority is set to be all-but abandoned whilst University Ward, with a 600-odd Labour majority, is to be targetted. Similarly, Town Close and Mancroft are to be thrown to the wall. Then in Lakenham and Mile Cross are to be the scenes of the LibDem final lines of trenches. Interesting stuff; a realisation that the Greens haven't yet hit their peak of popularity or a realisation that Labour can still be beaten in Norwich and that Brown isn't "top cat"?
I also know that this decision - probably driven by the new professional LibDem team who have taken over - hasn't gone down well with the Councillors, and their activist friends, who aren't going to get support.
This strategy could also frustrate Labour; they had planned on the LibDems slinking away in those wards freeing them up to defend other seats and also chase the new Labour fascination - Wensum Ward.
If the LibDems sort their game out, it could yet be a fascinating May election.
County Council listens to Puppet Theatre fans ...
You can read more about the decision of the Conservatives on the County Council to offer an emergency grant to the Puppet Theatre here, but it is worht noting that part of the political reasoning for unitary was that the county council never paid any attention to the City.
It is rather pleasing to see good ol' Morph and co. posing for the cameras with their support, but then failing to actually help, and then see a Tory-run council step in with practical measures to help. I'm sure this example won't make any pro-unitary leaflets from the City but it does rather blow yet another hole in their arguement.
It is rather pleasing to see good ol' Morph and co. posing for the cameras with their support, but then failing to actually help, and then see a Tory-run council step in with practical measures to help. I'm sure this example won't make any pro-unitary leaflets from the City but it does rather blow yet another hole in their arguement.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
If they're in, they're Tory
Today was mainly spent as part of a big group of canvassers hitting the streets of Bowthorpe. Although I am sure that blogger-campaigners always say this, but today it's true, it was the most amazing day of canvassing I can remember in a long, long time.
The feeling on the doorstep was very positive - towards both us locally and also towards the national party. People who we canvassed as Labour for the last 3 elections were saying they were thinking of switching. The Conservative vote was very solid indeed. Reviewing the canvass cards tonight, what is clear is if they were in, they were voting Conservative. In fact it became the running joke of the day that if you met somebody it must have been positive.
Nobody goes into local politics to be thanked, but what was also nice was the feedback about the work that John and I put in - people were very pleased with the Three Score cleanup, the ASB tackling and the CCTV in Clover Hill. It's nice to be thanked every now and again! One of our group, who came to help us canvass from a neighbouring authority, said that she wished all of our councillors worked as hard as we did in Bowthorpe because it would help us to hold seats given the feedback from the doorstep.
Very little word about Labour - a couple of people mentioned they were opposed to the 20mph campaign Labour are currently running in Three Score; this is interesting because all politicans assume road safety is a vote winner. Maybe not? People were saying that any 20mph zone would be ignored and it was unenforceable; road calming (of one sort or another) is what is required. We're certainly going to have to knock on a few more doors about this matter I think.
Finally a word about Niki. I've campaigned for a lot of candidates in my time, some of whom I have been impressed with and others less so. In fact, I've delivered leaflets for some people where I know I preferred the opposition! But Niki is really growing into the role and I am more and more impressed with his thinking and his doorstep manner. Local people are certainly warming to him. It helps being a young, enthusiastic candidate I suppose! Niki is rallying a lot of troops to his colours, so good on him.
Overall, good to be back on the stump. Being a Councillor means being in touch with your ward and the people of Bowthorpe have given us a lot to think about today. Democracy in action!
The feeling on the doorstep was very positive - towards both us locally and also towards the national party. People who we canvassed as Labour for the last 3 elections were saying they were thinking of switching. The Conservative vote was very solid indeed. Reviewing the canvass cards tonight, what is clear is if they were in, they were voting Conservative. In fact it became the running joke of the day that if you met somebody it must have been positive.
Nobody goes into local politics to be thanked, but what was also nice was the feedback about the work that John and I put in - people were very pleased with the Three Score cleanup, the ASB tackling and the CCTV in Clover Hill. It's nice to be thanked every now and again! One of our group, who came to help us canvass from a neighbouring authority, said that she wished all of our councillors worked as hard as we did in Bowthorpe because it would help us to hold seats given the feedback from the doorstep.
Very little word about Labour - a couple of people mentioned they were opposed to the 20mph campaign Labour are currently running in Three Score; this is interesting because all politicans assume road safety is a vote winner. Maybe not? People were saying that any 20mph zone would be ignored and it was unenforceable; road calming (of one sort or another) is what is required. We're certainly going to have to knock on a few more doors about this matter I think.
Finally a word about Niki. I've campaigned for a lot of candidates in my time, some of whom I have been impressed with and others less so. In fact, I've delivered leaflets for some people where I know I preferred the opposition! But Niki is really growing into the role and I am more and more impressed with his thinking and his doorstep manner. Local people are certainly warming to him. It helps being a young, enthusiastic candidate I suppose! Niki is rallying a lot of troops to his colours, so good on him.
Overall, good to be back on the stump. Being a Councillor means being in touch with your ward and the people of Bowthorpe have given us a lot to think about today. Democracy in action!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
QT: LibDem Laws squirming on EU Treaty
The LibDem policy on the EU Treaty - that is, to demand a referendum on Britain's future in the EU - which has been through the mill by bloggers this week is totally falling apart on QT.
The question no LibDem will answer is this; what happens if you are pro-EU and anti-Treaty?
Let the people decide!
UPDATE: Letwin winning the battle; audience joining in on the Tory side. Laws struggling without support. Why on earth has Clegg allowed his party, and some of his best spokesmen, get mullered on this subject?
UPDATE 2: Daily Mail woman says that Laws has thrown a Queenie strop: "if you won't give us our treaty, we'll tear the whole thing up!" Good on her! Exactly the point. This isn't about the whole EU Question, its about the Treaty!!! And it's about Labour and the LibDems breaking a promise.
The question no LibDem will answer is this; what happens if you are pro-EU and anti-Treaty?
Let the people decide!
UPDATE: Letwin winning the battle; audience joining in on the Tory side. Laws struggling without support. Why on earth has Clegg allowed his party, and some of his best spokesmen, get mullered on this subject?
UPDATE 2: Daily Mail woman says that Laws has thrown a Queenie strop: "if you won't give us our treaty, we'll tear the whole thing up!" Good on her! Exactly the point. This isn't about the whole EU Question, its about the Treaty!!! And it's about Labour and the LibDems breaking a promise.
Dithering is the most damaging attack
Poor Gordon Brown must be thinking his Premiership is jinxed; and dear old Mr Blair must be chortling into his Pina Colada tonight. Peter Hain is now set to spend more time with his tan and the pension holders of the nation rejoice. The snare of the media now turns to the impact upon Gordon, now that he's lost his first cabinet minister.
Of all the charges laid against the Prime Minister tonight, I believe the most damaging to Mr Brown is that of dithering. From the cancelled election to Northern Rock and now Peter Hain (he should have been sacked weeks ago).
Dithering is the one thing - the one underlying characteristic - that will lose Brown the sympathy of the British people. We like decisive leaders, we want people to take charge; we voted in Thatcher and Blair with landslide majorities and yet large numbers hated one, or other, or both.
The one thing I have always respected about some people is their ability to make decisions. Be it in school or in politics, nobody wants to hear "I'll sleep on it", "I'll think about it" or "I'll mull that one over." We want something to happen and we want it to happen now. I want a leader, an MP and a PM who make decisions and make things happen.
The more and more we hear of Brown's dithering, the more his total persona is undermined. Is there any way back for a dithering PM?
Of all the charges laid against the Prime Minister tonight, I believe the most damaging to Mr Brown is that of dithering. From the cancelled election to Northern Rock and now Peter Hain (he should have been sacked weeks ago).
Dithering is the one thing - the one underlying characteristic - that will lose Brown the sympathy of the British people. We like decisive leaders, we want people to take charge; we voted in Thatcher and Blair with landslide majorities and yet large numbers hated one, or other, or both.
The one thing I have always respected about some people is their ability to make decisions. Be it in school or in politics, nobody wants to hear "I'll sleep on it", "I'll think about it" or "I'll mull that one over." We want something to happen and we want it to happen now. I want a leader, an MP and a PM who make decisions and make things happen.
The more and more we hear of Brown's dithering, the more his total persona is undermined. Is there any way back for a dithering PM?
Monday, January 21, 2008
My Night Tonight
Tonight I did two meetings at City Hall - firstly to feedback on the new Councillors IT system which is better but still has some problems. Then it was the Waste Working Party. Although I'm not at liberty to say, we recieved some very good news about the way in which AWC has been rolled out and also some very tricky questions to solve in the future. It was a thought provoking meeting really. Odldy enough not a single LibDem Councillor bothered to attend; if the boot was on the other foot they'd be shouting about a lack of interest from other parties (I have blogged before about thier glee when Labour, Tories and Greens don't put down motions at Council) so I wonder why they passed up the chance to have their say on important recycling and waste issues.
Then tonight I have been formulating my questions for the Bus Scrutiny Committee and I focused heavily on the length of total bus journies, the cost of the tickets and the social, economic and educational impact of late buses in the morning. I mean, how many hours of education are lost because of bus lateness? How much productivity in industry and business is thrown away?
Tomorrow I will be at a Scrutiny meeting and then onto the Bowthorpe and Costessey SNAP, 7.30pm at Costessey High School if you'd like to make any points there.
Then tonight I have been formulating my questions for the Bus Scrutiny Committee and I focused heavily on the length of total bus journies, the cost of the tickets and the social, economic and educational impact of late buses in the morning. I mean, how many hours of education are lost because of bus lateness? How much productivity in industry and business is thrown away?
Tomorrow I will be at a Scrutiny meeting and then onto the Bowthorpe and Costessey SNAP, 7.30pm at Costessey High School if you'd like to make any points there.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Boys and Girls, Young and Old
Iain Dale has a deeply thought provoking piece in yesterday's EDP (sadly not on-line) about the trend in Norfolk Conservative PPCs. Newly selected Chloe Smith (Norwich North) got a splash in the paper mainly focused on being a young candidate - she's a tender 25 years old. But the fact is that the Conservatives are a younger party now (CF has more members than its Labour and LibDem equivalents put together) and Norwich / Norfolk have a strong youth wing of the party. Also the Norfolk Conservatives have strong trackrecord of trusting their younger members with standing for parliament - I was 26 on being selected for Norwich South in '04, whilst we also had 26 year old James Tumbridge (Norwich North) and 28 year old Trevor Ivory (North Norfolk). Chloe isn't remarkable beause of her age, but, as Iain points out, because of her sex. She's only the second female candidate in Norfolk for the Conservatives since Gillian Shepherd was chosen for South West Norfolk in 1983. Well done, Chloe - it doesn't matter if you are a boy, girl, young or old, Norwich North needs a Conservative.
My Dad's in his sixties
We've had a weekend away (aside from an interview with Radio Broadland on the Congestion Charge and with the Evening News about city council finances) to celebrate my Dad's 60th birthday. Needless to say there was a surprise party - photos and a brilliant video of my half-cut father trying to pay tribute to his family but failing miserably to come - and a fantastic night of eating, drinking and dancing. Emily was the star of the show and did a turn in her new spotty party dress; Olivia slept through most of it. This morning we went out, just the immediate family, for a meal at a new local French restaurant and then headed back to Norwich. This evening I have been working on some events and publicity for the new Norwich CF and writing to all those people who signed our petition against the Congestion Charge.
Back to work tomorrow ... reality strikes!
Back to work tomorrow ... reality strikes!
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Hain won't go, but he should consider this...
If Peter Hain resigns as Work & Pensions Secretary on Monday morning, he'll be back in the cabinet before the next General Election.
The one thing that strikes even politics students is this; as Ministerial resignations (for whatever reason) decrease, the liklihood of a return to frontline politics increases. David Blunkett had two shots in the cabinet, as did Peter Mandelson; despite quitting for much worse a cause than Hain might.
The reason so many people despair of politics and believe that MPs are in it for themselves is the kind of corrputing arrogance that keeps Hain in office. People might have slightly more respect for such men if they were prepared to let go of office rather than be dragged out.
If Hain resigned, he could restore some trust in politics, serve out his pennance on the backbenches and I bet he's be back in Brown's top team by the election (unless, of course, Mr Brown is less forgiving of allies than Mr Blair).
The fact that he won't says a lot about himself and might actually exclude him from holding high office in the first place - in the eyes of some people!
The one thing that strikes even politics students is this; as Ministerial resignations (for whatever reason) decrease, the liklihood of a return to frontline politics increases. David Blunkett had two shots in the cabinet, as did Peter Mandelson; despite quitting for much worse a cause than Hain might.
The reason so many people despair of politics and believe that MPs are in it for themselves is the kind of corrputing arrogance that keeps Hain in office. People might have slightly more respect for such men if they were prepared to let go of office rather than be dragged out.
If Hain resigned, he could restore some trust in politics, serve out his pennance on the backbenches and I bet he's be back in Brown's top team by the election (unless, of course, Mr Brown is less forgiving of allies than Mr Blair).
The fact that he won't says a lot about himself and might actually exclude him from holding high office in the first place - in the eyes of some people!
Liberal Youth: Blog first, think later
The brilliant post here, by the brilliant blogger Dizzy is slightly annoying.
I knew about the re-branding of the LDYS into the Liberal Youth some weeks ago and also of the plans by new Leader Nick Clegg to kidnapp the launch for his own spin purposes. This has been frustrating a lot of the leading lights of the LDYS and even Clegg backers arefuming about his decision.
The name - which you have to admit does rather bring to mind the Hitler Youth, even only in title rather than operation - isn't the only problem for the youthful LibDem chief. Apparently he is preparing the hijack the movement as a vehicle for his own brand of Liberalism, leaving a lot of the more social democratic-minded members high and dry. It's certainly causing a fuss at grassroots level.
So, Dizzy beat me to it - how? I didn't blog it because it fell under the "will anyone care" category in my brain. Clearly they do - both the gleefull bloggers having fun with it and the "shock and horror" reaction by the faithful LibDems.
I knew about the re-branding of the LDYS into the Liberal Youth some weeks ago and also of the plans by new Leader Nick Clegg to kidnapp the launch for his own spin purposes. This has been frustrating a lot of the leading lights of the LDYS and even Clegg backers arefuming about his decision.
The name - which you have to admit does rather bring to mind the Hitler Youth, even only in title rather than operation - isn't the only problem for the youthful LibDem chief. Apparently he is preparing the hijack the movement as a vehicle for his own brand of Liberalism, leaving a lot of the more social democratic-minded members high and dry. It's certainly causing a fuss at grassroots level.
So, Dizzy beat me to it - how? I didn't blog it because it fell under the "will anyone care" category in my brain. Clearly they do - both the gleefull bloggers having fun with it and the "shock and horror" reaction by the faithful LibDems.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Birmingham Labour Councillor defects to the Conservatives
Former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in Solihull has quit to join David Cameron's Conservatives. Click here for the local report. This follows on from the decision of a Manchester LibDem Councillor to resign from his party and join the Conservatives.
When asked what he thought of Labour, Councillor Ryan replied: "It's finished."
Interesting too is that this Solihull Councillor represents an area in urban Birmingham. When the media talk about the Tory position in Cities and the North, what they often forget is that whilst we may not represent many inner city wards, we do represent vast swathes of these cities and the areas around them. A lot more to do, I grant you, but not as bad as we are often told.
When asked what he thought of Labour, Councillor Ryan replied: "It's finished."
Interesting too is that this Solihull Councillor represents an area in urban Birmingham. When the media talk about the Tory position in Cities and the North, what they often forget is that whilst we may not represent many inner city wards, we do represent vast swathes of these cities and the areas around them. A lot more to do, I grant you, but not as bad as we are often told.
Clegg's first outing
Nick Clegg had a very competent first outing at PMQs, although to be fair he could compete with neither Cameron's brilliant performance ("You were the future, once...") or Vince Cable's classic performances ("Stalin to Mr Bean"), although Cable's efforts were done with the freedom of being acting leader with no expectations.
I did think, however, that he made two slight erros - nothing major, but worth noting.
Firstly he spoke from the middle of the front row of LibDem MPs, rather than in the traditional corner seat nearest the dispatch box and Speaker. Although this meant he was surrounded by frontbench colleagues cheering and nodding furiously, it did look rather like he was dodging battle and was avoiding facing down the Tory and Labour heckles. He looked safe in his new seat and well guarded but didn't look like he had the drive to be sitting in any other seat.
Also his choice of subject was a little bizarre. Some people have said that Cameron stole his topic (ID cards) and he was forced to use his emergency questions. I'm not too sure about this. I think he wanted some in-depth and worthy questions to mark a difference between himself and the jokey style of Vince. Is this the LibDems missing the big issue or trying to agenda set themselves?
What I did think was more clever was the use of other LibDem MP to ask supplementary questions on the same topic. Clegg has to survive with fewer shots at the PM than Cameron and usually LibDem MPs ask worthy questions regarding constituency issues. This method means Brown could come under more sustained scrutiny from the LibDems.
So overall a mixed bag. Clegg is new and untested. We'll have to wait and see!
I did think, however, that he made two slight erros - nothing major, but worth noting.
Firstly he spoke from the middle of the front row of LibDem MPs, rather than in the traditional corner seat nearest the dispatch box and Speaker. Although this meant he was surrounded by frontbench colleagues cheering and nodding furiously, it did look rather like he was dodging battle and was avoiding facing down the Tory and Labour heckles. He looked safe in his new seat and well guarded but didn't look like he had the drive to be sitting in any other seat.
Also his choice of subject was a little bizarre. Some people have said that Cameron stole his topic (ID cards) and he was forced to use his emergency questions. I'm not too sure about this. I think he wanted some in-depth and worthy questions to mark a difference between himself and the jokey style of Vince. Is this the LibDems missing the big issue or trying to agenda set themselves?
What I did think was more clever was the use of other LibDem MP to ask supplementary questions on the same topic. Clegg has to survive with fewer shots at the PM than Cameron and usually LibDem MPs ask worthy questions regarding constituency issues. This method means Brown could come under more sustained scrutiny from the LibDems.
So overall a mixed bag. Clegg is new and untested. We'll have to wait and see!
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Political Forecaster of 2007: Bronze medal
With being away for the New Year celebrations I totally missed the news, helpfully e-mailed to me by friends, that I came third in the PoliticalBetting.Com Forecaster Competition 2007 beating off some very serious political commentators. I am surprised I did so well as, although my local predictions are normally spot-on, my national ones tend to be less so.
It should be noted that I didn't do fantastically well on all sections of the competition - I said Sir Ming would be ousted but I said he's be replaced by Huhne - but where I seriously made up ground was in predicting the 2007 local election results as I seem to have forecasted the collapse of the LibDems and Labour quite well. Similarly I picked up points for the levels of Tory support in the polls.
Sometimes when you are close to politics you can't see the woods for the trees and your support for your party blinds your decision making. It was noticeable that the staunch LibDems lost most points because they predicted their party would do well when they didn't! It is nice to know that as pro-Conservative as I am, I can still make good political predictions.
It should be noted that I didn't do fantastically well on all sections of the competition - I said Sir Ming would be ousted but I said he's be replaced by Huhne - but where I seriously made up ground was in predicting the 2007 local election results as I seem to have forecasted the collapse of the LibDems and Labour quite well. Similarly I picked up points for the levels of Tory support in the polls.
Sometimes when you are close to politics you can't see the woods for the trees and your support for your party blinds your decision making. It was noticeable that the staunch LibDems lost most points because they predicted their party would do well when they didn't! It is nice to know that as pro-Conservative as I am, I can still make good political predictions.
New Year, New Defection
It is clearly great news that a Liberal Democrat Councillor in Manchester has resigned days after Nick Clegg becomes leader and defects to the Conservatives. David Cameron's appearance to welcome him into the party shows how seriously we are taking both such northern cities and also poaching of LibDems.
Nick Clegg must have been fuming into his cornflakes this morning. Quite frankly he could have done with a defection at the start of his leadership (he may well still have one tucked away somewhere, but that card should have been played by now) but to lose a Councillor from Manchester like this is very embarrasing to him.
Cameron starts the year well (the NHS speech was very good too) and has laid down a marker that he is not willing to ceed ground to Clegg at all.
Regular readers will know I am generally sceptical about defectors, but this one says a lot about Cameron, Clegg and the political battle ahead.
Nick Clegg must have been fuming into his cornflakes this morning. Quite frankly he could have done with a defection at the start of his leadership (he may well still have one tucked away somewhere, but that card should have been played by now) but to lose a Councillor from Manchester like this is very embarrasing to him.
Cameron starts the year well (the NHS speech was very good too) and has laid down a marker that he is not willing to ceed ground to Clegg at all.
Regular readers will know I am generally sceptical about defectors, but this one says a lot about Cameron, Clegg and the political battle ahead.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
My Predictions for 2008
Given my normal phenominal performance in predicting political events, I thought I'd do my Mystic Meg impression and make a stab at what might happen next year. Some of them more likely than others...
1. One cabinet minister will resign, citing Ministerial Responsibility, because of a massive foul-up in their department.
2. Nick Clegg will tell his party to be honest in campaigning and orders them to stop producing dodgy bar-charts. Over 150 party members are expelled for failure to comply with their leader.
3. The media will admit that just because David Cameron had a good education and a priviledged upbringing, it means he can appreciate popular culture and use public transport. Labour pledge not to use the word "toff" during their election campaign.
4. Voters in Norwich elect another hung council but the LibDems become the fourth party and the Greens become the official opposition.
5. At least one MP in each main party will call upon their leader to resign / shape up but all three will still be in place at the end of the year.
6. Education will become a political battleground and we can talk about grade inflation, inclusion, SEN and discipline without being accused of belittling students, teachers etc etc. The LibDems will get an education policy, the Tories will broaden out their policy and the goverment will admit not everything is working and will do something to bloody well sort it out.
7. Children-in-Need / Red Nose Day won't have a record breaking year and will raise less money than previously because absolutely nobody believes they can keep on getting more despite wheeling out the same old tat every year.
8. The Government will fund councils properly and stop heaping their central stealth taxes upon local people. In return councils promise to stop spending money on silly projects and cut waste.
9. The most talented person will win all reality TV events, following a new private members bill that is laid down following public outrage this year's X-Factor result.
10. LibDem Voice will actually post something that is controversial and interesting.
Your views?
1. One cabinet minister will resign, citing Ministerial Responsibility, because of a massive foul-up in their department.
2. Nick Clegg will tell his party to be honest in campaigning and orders them to stop producing dodgy bar-charts. Over 150 party members are expelled for failure to comply with their leader.
3. The media will admit that just because David Cameron had a good education and a priviledged upbringing, it means he can appreciate popular culture and use public transport. Labour pledge not to use the word "toff" during their election campaign.
4. Voters in Norwich elect another hung council but the LibDems become the fourth party and the Greens become the official opposition.
5. At least one MP in each main party will call upon their leader to resign / shape up but all three will still be in place at the end of the year.
6. Education will become a political battleground and we can talk about grade inflation, inclusion, SEN and discipline without being accused of belittling students, teachers etc etc. The LibDems will get an education policy, the Tories will broaden out their policy and the goverment will admit not everything is working and will do something to bloody well sort it out.
7. Children-in-Need / Red Nose Day won't have a record breaking year and will raise less money than previously because absolutely nobody believes they can keep on getting more despite wheeling out the same old tat every year.
8. The Government will fund councils properly and stop heaping their central stealth taxes upon local people. In return councils promise to stop spending money on silly projects and cut waste.
9. The most talented person will win all reality TV events, following a new private members bill that is laid down following public outrage this year's X-Factor result.
10. LibDem Voice will actually post something that is controversial and interesting.
Your views?
Having a Wonderful Christmas Time
Just a quick note to say I hope everyone has had a great Christmas and look forward to a fantastic 2008!
Friday, December 21, 2007
Blogging Council Question Time - December
For once the Questions certainly outshone the debates in terms of topics, answers and good old fashioned political point scoring.
Attack of the Day
An uncharacteristically boisterous attack from Cllr John Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe) who asked the Executive if they would lobby the UEA to accommodate more students on campus in order to save the Norwich housing stock. Cllr Bert Bremner, Executive Member for Communities, replied it gave the normally docile Tory a bit of an electric shock. Cllr Wyatt responded saying that the answer was "typically evasive and devoid of any real action". It certainly didn't answer Cllr Wyatt's question but could Cllr Bremner - who has incurred the wrath of UEA students several times - really be failing to provide leadership on this? Apparently so. So shocked was he that Cllr Bremner refused to answer the question. Oh dear - not a festive start.
Fluff of the Day
Cllr Wright (LibDem, Eaton) with a quite bizarre question about data protection. It was clearly meant for some press release or another and was meant to be topical but it failed miserably on all counts. Some ideas are just too clever I suppose.
Insult of the Day
"Comparing yourselfs to the woeful performance of the last LibDem administration is like saying Terry Venebals was a good England manager but only compared to Steve McClaren." Cllr Little (Con, Bowthorpe)
Angry Man of the Day
LibDem Jeremy Hooke (Thorpe Hamlet) launched into Executive Member Cllr Alan Waters about council tax collection rates with the gusto of a man possessed with political indignation. But when he got the reply he wanted, the wind was well and truly out of his sails.
Exchange of the Day
For a second month running this goes to Cllr Lubbock (LibDem, Eaton) who is moving away from her reputation for shooting herself in the foot. She asked if Cllr Morrey (Labour) would back the campaign to reduce the speed limit on Newmarket Road. When Cllr Morrey said no, Cllr Lubbock produced with wonderful timing and brilliant tone, a quote from Charles Clarke backing the plans. "Well, he's the MP and I'm on the council ... er, I have nothing to do with Charles Clarke," spluttered poor old Cllr Morrey. A second direct hit for Cllr Lubbock.
Question of the Day
The billing of LibDem Deputy Leader Brian Watkins (Eaton) versus Labour's Bert Bremner (University) didn't quite live up to the billing, but it was a well crafted question. Cllr Bremner has been involved with the campaign to save the Blackdale fields for some time. His Labour government has given permission to sell off the fields, so Cllr Watkins asked if the government had let down local people. There was no right answer to this question for Cllr Bremner. So he started a long rant about the campaign not being dead. Very very boring and most people had forgotten the political hole he was in by the end of it. Cllr Watkins had the chance to pour on pressure but his supplementary was a bit flat and let Cllr Bremner off the hook. A great question but, to be honest, a pisspoor answer.
Answer of the Day
In a bunch of Green questions that fell flat, the best of them was from Cllr Little (Town Close) who asked what carbon reduction has so far been achieved. To what poor old Cllr Brian Morrey splutter and wince and then admit he had no idea was priceless. Apparently we were making progress, but, er, um, nobody has any idea how much. If at all. Really. Ah. Yes. Cllr Morrey had a bad night all round really. Full marks to Cllr Read (Green, Wensum) who was quick enough during his question to say, "I wanted an answer to the last question actually but I suppose the answer to this one will do."
Attack of the Day
An uncharacteristically boisterous attack from Cllr John Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe) who asked the Executive if they would lobby the UEA to accommodate more students on campus in order to save the Norwich housing stock. Cllr Bert Bremner, Executive Member for Communities, replied it gave the normally docile Tory a bit of an electric shock. Cllr Wyatt responded saying that the answer was "typically evasive and devoid of any real action". It certainly didn't answer Cllr Wyatt's question but could Cllr Bremner - who has incurred the wrath of UEA students several times - really be failing to provide leadership on this? Apparently so. So shocked was he that Cllr Bremner refused to answer the question. Oh dear - not a festive start.
Fluff of the Day
Cllr Wright (LibDem, Eaton) with a quite bizarre question about data protection. It was clearly meant for some press release or another and was meant to be topical but it failed miserably on all counts. Some ideas are just too clever I suppose.
Insult of the Day
"Comparing yourselfs to the woeful performance of the last LibDem administration is like saying Terry Venebals was a good England manager but only compared to Steve McClaren." Cllr Little (Con, Bowthorpe)
Angry Man of the Day
LibDem Jeremy Hooke (Thorpe Hamlet) launched into Executive Member Cllr Alan Waters about council tax collection rates with the gusto of a man possessed with political indignation. But when he got the reply he wanted, the wind was well and truly out of his sails.
Exchange of the Day
For a second month running this goes to Cllr Lubbock (LibDem, Eaton) who is moving away from her reputation for shooting herself in the foot. She asked if Cllr Morrey (Labour) would back the campaign to reduce the speed limit on Newmarket Road. When Cllr Morrey said no, Cllr Lubbock produced with wonderful timing and brilliant tone, a quote from Charles Clarke backing the plans. "Well, he's the MP and I'm on the council ... er, I have nothing to do with Charles Clarke," spluttered poor old Cllr Morrey. A second direct hit for Cllr Lubbock.
Question of the Day
The billing of LibDem Deputy Leader Brian Watkins (Eaton) versus Labour's Bert Bremner (University) didn't quite live up to the billing, but it was a well crafted question. Cllr Bremner has been involved with the campaign to save the Blackdale fields for some time. His Labour government has given permission to sell off the fields, so Cllr Watkins asked if the government had let down local people. There was no right answer to this question for Cllr Bremner. So he started a long rant about the campaign not being dead. Very very boring and most people had forgotten the political hole he was in by the end of it. Cllr Watkins had the chance to pour on pressure but his supplementary was a bit flat and let Cllr Bremner off the hook. A great question but, to be honest, a pisspoor answer.
Answer of the Day
In a bunch of Green questions that fell flat, the best of them was from Cllr Little (Town Close) who asked what carbon reduction has so far been achieved. To what poor old Cllr Brian Morrey splutter and wince and then admit he had no idea was priceless. Apparently we were making progress, but, er, um, nobody has any idea how much. If at all. Really. Ah. Yes. Cllr Morrey had a bad night all round really. Full marks to Cllr Read (Green, Wensum) who was quick enough during his question to say, "I wanted an answer to the last question actually but I suppose the answer to this one will do."
Don't mistake activity for achievement
The desperation of opposition has sunk into the LibDems, having issued two press releases in two months attacking the Greens and Conservatives for not putting forward motions at council. The reason I call this desperate is because it fundamentally mistakes activity for achievement.
In the last year or so the Conservatives have put forward motions on congestion charging, travellers, climate change and unitary.
The Greens have put forward motions on frois gras and sustainable developments.
The LibDems have put forward motions on plastic bags, high speed rail links to London and now energy saving at City Hall.
I'm not saying that any are more important than the others (except maybe the Frois Gras one) but it is right that parties should only put forward motions that are meaningful, workable and will make an impact. Some of the absolutely tat we have to debate from the LibDems fails on all three counts. In the end, it seems to me that the Labour administration has taken to ingoring LibDems motions because they are not costed and that is because the LibDems seem unwilling to take part in proper budget negotiations.
Anyway, this is a typical politico issue that virtually nobody outside of City Hall and party meetings will care about.
And who am I to, for example, mention that the only party to use 100% of their chances to cross question the Executive are the Conservatives, with LibDem members frequently failing to scrutinise Labour?
Or that the LibDem Leader used his time on scrutiny to complain about the page numbering in a report and left it to the Conservative Leader to attack the tone and content?
Of course, I wouldn't mention such things ...
In the last year or so the Conservatives have put forward motions on congestion charging, travellers, climate change and unitary.
The Greens have put forward motions on frois gras and sustainable developments.
The LibDems have put forward motions on plastic bags, high speed rail links to London and now energy saving at City Hall.
I'm not saying that any are more important than the others (except maybe the Frois Gras one) but it is right that parties should only put forward motions that are meaningful, workable and will make an impact. Some of the absolutely tat we have to debate from the LibDems fails on all three counts. In the end, it seems to me that the Labour administration has taken to ingoring LibDems motions because they are not costed and that is because the LibDems seem unwilling to take part in proper budget negotiations.
Anyway, this is a typical politico issue that virtually nobody outside of City Hall and party meetings will care about.
And who am I to, for example, mention that the only party to use 100% of their chances to cross question the Executive are the Conservatives, with LibDem members frequently failing to scrutinise Labour?
Or that the LibDem Leader used his time on scrutiny to complain about the page numbering in a report and left it to the Conservative Leader to attack the tone and content?
Of course, I wouldn't mention such things ...
Thursday, December 20, 2007
A very modern resignation
Social networking may have gone a step too far as one friend points out that Labour's latest resignation in the City has come on the Facebook site. Dan Roper, who I think may even have stood as a candidate before, has quit and left an open message giving his reasons why. At least Labour have found an up-to-date way of people of shunning them.
LibDem member quits when he finds out what the party stands for
Today's postbag was good. Along with a mixture of Christmas cards from party figures I have never heard of came a letter from a gentleman in Norwich who told us about his decision to resign from the Liberal Democrats.
He said he had been a member of the party since the beginning but had concluded that as a group they are now totally pointless (his words, not mine). So what had caused this resignation? A Huhne voter fed up? A disgruntled party activist?
No, for the first time in many years he looked up the LibDem policies on various issues. On top of a long list of policy errors, he says it was their decision to support Congestion Charging in Norwich that was the final straw and you could almost feel the passion of the ripped up membership card in the way he wrote.
This gentleman isn't crossing the floor to Labour or defecting to the Tories. He wants to step back from politics and says he'll look again next May to see who deserves his vote. Good on him. I always like to hear of open minded voters, and maybe one day he'll vote LibDem again.
On a similar note, of fluid politics, whilst out canvassing around Newmarket Road recently I met a couple who told me they were switching from LibDem to Green. Apparently a LibDem had tried to convince them this would mean letting a Tory in via the backdoor. They didn't care at all, because they weren't worried about electing a Conservative. That sort of change is all down to Cameron ; such an attitude would never have existed under Howard or, say, IDS.
There's a lot of churn on the doorsteps of Norwich at the moment. The next election is wide open.
He said he had been a member of the party since the beginning but had concluded that as a group they are now totally pointless (his words, not mine). So what had caused this resignation? A Huhne voter fed up? A disgruntled party activist?
No, for the first time in many years he looked up the LibDem policies on various issues. On top of a long list of policy errors, he says it was their decision to support Congestion Charging in Norwich that was the final straw and you could almost feel the passion of the ripped up membership card in the way he wrote.
This gentleman isn't crossing the floor to Labour or defecting to the Tories. He wants to step back from politics and says he'll look again next May to see who deserves his vote. Good on him. I always like to hear of open minded voters, and maybe one day he'll vote LibDem again.
On a similar note, of fluid politics, whilst out canvassing around Newmarket Road recently I met a couple who told me they were switching from LibDem to Green. Apparently a LibDem had tried to convince them this would mean letting a Tory in via the backdoor. They didn't care at all, because they weren't worried about electing a Conservative. That sort of change is all down to Cameron ; such an attitude would never have existed under Howard or, say, IDS.
There's a lot of churn on the doorsteps of Norwich at the moment. The next election is wide open.
Nick Clegg's First Shuffle
Having started well, Nick Clegg today walked straight into his first political brick wall with his post-election reshuffle. Not the people in the shuffle, obviously, but his first quote about it.
"I'm hugely excited to announce my new shadow cabinet. I think this team is the strongest political team in British politics today," he said.
Oh dear. And this man wants to be taken seriously. It's bad enough they use the term "shadow cabinet" which according to the Parliamentary Library is a term reserved only for the main opposition party. But to claim the LibDems have the strongest team in British politics is so far from the mark it makes you wonder if Nick Clegg is the man who writes all those bar-chart stories for Focus leaflets.
Let's compare and contrast.
Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is having a tough time of it at the moment - but in Huhne versus David Davis, its got to be Basher all the way.
Now think about pigmy Foreign Secretary Milliband against Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague. I think both of them dwarf poor little Ed Davey.
Now what about Business? John Hutton and Alan Duncan - both polished performers with a good background. Clearly, no, we'd all prefer to see Sarah Teather in the job.
The environment? Hilary Benn, Peter Ainsworth or ... Steve Webb?
Housing: Absolutely anybody would be better than Lembit!
In fact, I cannot find a single portfolio where the LibDem spokesman would be better than both their Labour or Tory equivalent.
There are clearly some good people on the LibDem frontbench - Browne, Cable, Featherstone, Lamb to name a few. But these are not the political giants in this country.
Add to that the news that the LibDem Frontbench team is now nearly half their total parliamentary party and you understand why their top team is becoming more and more like an "everybody wins a prize" machine.
"I'm hugely excited to announce my new shadow cabinet. I think this team is the strongest political team in British politics today," he said.
Oh dear. And this man wants to be taken seriously. It's bad enough they use the term "shadow cabinet" which according to the Parliamentary Library is a term reserved only for the main opposition party. But to claim the LibDems have the strongest team in British politics is so far from the mark it makes you wonder if Nick Clegg is the man who writes all those bar-chart stories for Focus leaflets.
Let's compare and contrast.
Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is having a tough time of it at the moment - but in Huhne versus David Davis, its got to be Basher all the way.
Now think about pigmy Foreign Secretary Milliband against Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague. I think both of them dwarf poor little Ed Davey.
Now what about Business? John Hutton and Alan Duncan - both polished performers with a good background. Clearly, no, we'd all prefer to see Sarah Teather in the job.
The environment? Hilary Benn, Peter Ainsworth or ... Steve Webb?
Housing: Absolutely anybody would be better than Lembit!
In fact, I cannot find a single portfolio where the LibDem spokesman would be better than both their Labour or Tory equivalent.
There are clearly some good people on the LibDem frontbench - Browne, Cable, Featherstone, Lamb to name a few. But these are not the political giants in this country.
Add to that the news that the LibDem Frontbench team is now nearly half their total parliamentary party and you understand why their top team is becoming more and more like an "everybody wins a prize" machine.
That was Nick Clegg's answer when asked if he believes in God. I think he was quite right to be honest and this may be the chance we need to broaden politican debate when it comes to religion.
I believe in God. My wife and children are all Catholic and I too attend Mass. I am not christened but do count myself as some kind of christian. However I believe that we best express our christian faith not through the symbols we wear or the church services we attend, but how we behave and act towards others. I like to think I am christian in outlook and attitude if not strictly so on paper.
David Cameron, when asked the same question, gave the brilliant answer "yes, but I don't have a direct hotline." There was once a time when any serious British politican, let alone the man who could be the next Prime Minister, would have to have a serious attitude towards religion. Now I think we can finally start to talk about this properly. After all, it isn't long before Blair converts to catholicism.
I want politicans to show respect, honesty, tolerance, decency, selflessness and - yes - love. If I can get all those things from a non-believer then that is as good as such qualities from a regular church-goer.
I am (as you might expect from a man who teaches at a catholic school) a great supporter of religion. But the qualities of a leader I expect aren't always synonymous with being a christian.
So well done to Nick Clegg - a thought provoking start!
I believe in God. My wife and children are all Catholic and I too attend Mass. I am not christened but do count myself as some kind of christian. However I believe that we best express our christian faith not through the symbols we wear or the church services we attend, but how we behave and act towards others. I like to think I am christian in outlook and attitude if not strictly so on paper.
David Cameron, when asked the same question, gave the brilliant answer "yes, but I don't have a direct hotline." There was once a time when any serious British politican, let alone the man who could be the next Prime Minister, would have to have a serious attitude towards religion. Now I think we can finally start to talk about this properly. After all, it isn't long before Blair converts to catholicism.
I want politicans to show respect, honesty, tolerance, decency, selflessness and - yes - love. If I can get all those things from a non-believer then that is as good as such qualities from a regular church-goer.
I am (as you might expect from a man who teaches at a catholic school) a great supporter of religion. But the qualities of a leader I expect aren't always synonymous with being a christian.
So well done to Nick Clegg - a thought provoking start!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
LibDems vote for a calamity ... just!
The 511 vote margin of victory for Nick Clegg in today's LibDem Leadership vote will no doubt occupy vast reams of blog pages, so I will just stick to a few key points.
Firstly, just over 40,000 people voted - down on those that turned out to elect Sir Ming and a worrying sign for the membership of the LibDems generally.
Secondly the slim margin of victory may cause a headache for Clegg everytime he has a party showdown. He actually got, if you include spoilt ballot papers and those with the inevitable Cable write-ins, less than 50% of the vote. No prize to the first LibDem to throw that back at him when me makes an unpopular decision.
Thirdly, the LibDems will now have a leader for whom the word "calamity" will forever be linked. Again, no prizes for the first use of that at PMQs, Question Time etc. It's a tag he won't be able to shift.
Lastly is the problem with what to do with Huhne. Chris must be gutted ; but the frontbench reshuffle would be easier if it were Huhne shuffling Nick (remaining as Home Affairs Spokesman is a no-brianer) but less easy to know what Nick should do with Chris. Sticking at Environment plays down his important and the fact he was a handful of votes away from being party leader, but can he have somebody who personally dislikes him so much in one of the key jobs? Vince is guaranteed Deputy Leadership and the Treasury. What can Nick do that doesn't look bad?
I always said - to some derision - that the Tories would fear Huhne more and I stick by that. This is the wrong decision for the LibDems and, as so, Cameron must be laughing tonight. Huhne was capable of leading them forward in terms of media and intellectually. Lightweight Clegg - Calamity Man - hasn't had a good leadership contest.
So well done, Mr Clegg. We all look forward, with interest, to what you do now.
Firstly, just over 40,000 people voted - down on those that turned out to elect Sir Ming and a worrying sign for the membership of the LibDems generally.
Secondly the slim margin of victory may cause a headache for Clegg everytime he has a party showdown. He actually got, if you include spoilt ballot papers and those with the inevitable Cable write-ins, less than 50% of the vote. No prize to the first LibDem to throw that back at him when me makes an unpopular decision.
Thirdly, the LibDems will now have a leader for whom the word "calamity" will forever be linked. Again, no prizes for the first use of that at PMQs, Question Time etc. It's a tag he won't be able to shift.
Lastly is the problem with what to do with Huhne. Chris must be gutted ; but the frontbench reshuffle would be easier if it were Huhne shuffling Nick (remaining as Home Affairs Spokesman is a no-brianer) but less easy to know what Nick should do with Chris. Sticking at Environment plays down his important and the fact he was a handful of votes away from being party leader, but can he have somebody who personally dislikes him so much in one of the key jobs? Vince is guaranteed Deputy Leadership and the Treasury. What can Nick do that doesn't look bad?
I always said - to some derision - that the Tories would fear Huhne more and I stick by that. This is the wrong decision for the LibDems and, as so, Cameron must be laughing tonight. Huhne was capable of leading them forward in terms of media and intellectually. Lightweight Clegg - Calamity Man - hasn't had a good leadership contest.
So well done, Mr Clegg. We all look forward, with interest, to what you do now.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
The Last Word on X-Factor (until next year)
I just wanted to join the chorus of disapproval building up over ITV's total stupidity in trying to sell the X-Factor final as the "battle of the nations". Given the result, it is clear the British people didn't treat it as such - luckily.
If they had done, Same Difference would have walked away with it. As they didn't you can only assume that people voted for who they wanted to win irrespective of where they live (or, as one blogger points out, the Scots voted en masse for Leon but the English voted for the most talented).
I've seen a reasons given for the weaker Leon beating Rhydian last night. Some say it was the Kyle factor (both the performance and that fact that Kylie was the most popular of the 3 duets), some say is was because Rhydian's supporters didn't feel the need to vote because he was so far ahead and some say it was because the Brits love an underdog.
However, I'm most convinced by this one. Everybody knows what a talent Rhydian is, but maybe not as a recording artist. He's already said was wants a Lloyd Webber part. So Rhydian is set for the future, win or lose the X Factor. Leon, however, isn't. The X Factor is the only thing that stands between him and going back to his shoplife in Glasgow. So the person who could benefit most won. The question is, five years down the line, where will both these two remarkable young men be? I'm sure Rhydian will be big in his chosen field, Leon I'm much less sure of.
If they had done, Same Difference would have walked away with it. As they didn't you can only assume that people voted for who they wanted to win irrespective of where they live (or, as one blogger points out, the Scots voted en masse for Leon but the English voted for the most talented).
I've seen a reasons given for the weaker Leon beating Rhydian last night. Some say it was the Kyle factor (both the performance and that fact that Kylie was the most popular of the 3 duets), some say is was because Rhydian's supporters didn't feel the need to vote because he was so far ahead and some say it was because the Brits love an underdog.
However, I'm most convinced by this one. Everybody knows what a talent Rhydian is, but maybe not as a recording artist. He's already said was wants a Lloyd Webber part. So Rhydian is set for the future, win or lose the X Factor. Leon, however, isn't. The X Factor is the only thing that stands between him and going back to his shoplife in Glasgow. So the person who could benefit most won. The question is, five years down the line, where will both these two remarkable young men be? I'm sure Rhydian will be big in his chosen field, Leon I'm much less sure of.
It's not the design that's the problem - it's the content
Whenever companies, corporations or political parties are in trouble they change something about their image - Pepsi did it, the BBC did it, Blair's New Labour did it and, yes, Cameron's Conservatives did it. However, for it to work. the design change is only the first stage of brand de-contamination and is more often that not followed by substantive change in the organisation.
LibDem Voice - the piss-poor equivalent of ConservativeHome.Com - has recently changed its look. I happen to think the new site is as bad as the old one, but never mind. It's new. It looks slightly slicker and more professional, I grant you, but when you read it, you'll soon notice that it's the same old content. Attacks on the Conservatives, a laugh at Labour and some good old solid grovelling to the leadership for their own side.
CH.Com is well respected because its written by Conservatives for Conservatives. It tackles issues head-on. It's honest about itself and the party. It takes a critical friend stance and does so well. It only mentions the other side when major stories break and never goes scrabbling around for an unknown backbench councillor to accidently make a spelling mistake on a leaflet. It has now replaced newspapers for many of us because it covers all the major stories so well and even breaks the news. It is quite rightly the leader in its field. It is, in fact, everything LDV isn't.
So I do hope that the image change for LDV will now herald the substantive change it requires. Will the new site feature more real news? Will it be informative and honest about the LibDems? Or will it continue to be the party's online attack dog? Don't hold your breath, but if it really wants to change and be more successful it ought to look more than just skin deep.
LibDem Voice - the piss-poor equivalent of ConservativeHome.Com - has recently changed its look. I happen to think the new site is as bad as the old one, but never mind. It's new. It looks slightly slicker and more professional, I grant you, but when you read it, you'll soon notice that it's the same old content. Attacks on the Conservatives, a laugh at Labour and some good old solid grovelling to the leadership for their own side.
CH.Com is well respected because its written by Conservatives for Conservatives. It tackles issues head-on. It's honest about itself and the party. It takes a critical friend stance and does so well. It only mentions the other side when major stories break and never goes scrabbling around for an unknown backbench councillor to accidently make a spelling mistake on a leaflet. It has now replaced newspapers for many of us because it covers all the major stories so well and even breaks the news. It is quite rightly the leader in its field. It is, in fact, everything LDV isn't.
So I do hope that the image change for LDV will now herald the substantive change it requires. Will the new site feature more real news? Will it be informative and honest about the LibDems? Or will it continue to be the party's online attack dog? Don't hold your breath, but if it really wants to change and be more successful it ought to look more than just skin deep.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Leon wins the X-Factor
"You see, this is what happens when you're not allowed to rig votes," - Mrs Little
"Quite," - Mr Little
Not for the first time we started the evening on opposing sides (Mrs Little for Ryhdian, Mr Little for Same Difference) and ended up united against a common enemy.
I'm going to have to stop watching the X-Factor - it's destroying whatever sanity I have left after being at school and on Norwich City Council.
"Quite," - Mr Little
Not for the first time we started the evening on opposing sides (Mrs Little for Ryhdian, Mr Little for Same Difference) and ended up united against a common enemy.
I'm going to have to stop watching the X-Factor - it's destroying whatever sanity I have left after being at school and on Norwich City Council.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Full Council Agenda - December
Next Tuesday, 7.30pm at City Hall
1. Lord Mayor's Announcements
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Questions from the Public
4. Petitions
5. Minutes
6. Questions to the Executive
7. Review of Licensing Policy
8. Motion - Energy Efficiency in Council Buildings, Proposed by Cllr Cooke, LibDem Leader
Should be short ... and maybe just a little bit brutal!
1. Lord Mayor's Announcements
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Questions from the Public
4. Petitions
5. Minutes
6. Questions to the Executive
7. Review of Licensing Policy
8. Motion - Energy Efficiency in Council Buildings, Proposed by Cllr Cooke, LibDem Leader
Should be short ... and maybe just a little bit brutal!
Sunday, December 09, 2007
It's Health & Safety Gone Mad!
My favourite story of the week that went shamefully unnoticed in all newspapers, except that organ-of-truth Eastern Evening News, was the Health & Safety exectuive's attack on yet another bastion of childhood.
The Panto being shown on the pier at Great Yarmouth has apparently been told it cannot partake in the tradition of throwing sweets into the audience in case a child gets hurts by being struck on the head by one. Oh dear. Hence from now on, they will pass the sweets from the front row back, in a calm and orderly manner.
Why don't they throw jellies instead? Or do they still hurt when tossed at some velocity?
Anyway, the point is that we have lost completely the sense of "acceptable risk". Children may fall off swings. They may be hit in the eye by a conker. They may be struck on the head by a flying sweet at panto.
As a parent I've learnt to accept that and so should the Health & Safety Executive. Haven't they got better things to do?
The Panto being shown on the pier at Great Yarmouth has apparently been told it cannot partake in the tradition of throwing sweets into the audience in case a child gets hurts by being struck on the head by one. Oh dear. Hence from now on, they will pass the sweets from the front row back, in a calm and orderly manner.
Why don't they throw jellies instead? Or do they still hurt when tossed at some velocity?
Anyway, the point is that we have lost completely the sense of "acceptable risk". Children may fall off swings. They may be hit in the eye by a conker. They may be struck on the head by a flying sweet at panto.
As a parent I've learnt to accept that and so should the Health & Safety Executive. Haven't they got better things to do?
Monday, December 03, 2007
Newsnight: 86% say the LibDems are incompetent, but at least only 15% say they are sleazy
Is this the reason why you should never include the LibDems in major polls about leading the country? I'm pretty sure these figures are down to low name recongition but they did make me laugh.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
LibDem Leader to stand down
The news that Hereward Cooke, the LibDem Leader in Norwich, is to stand down next year and move to North Norfolk, is a blow to debate in the chamber if nothing else. Yet the response to this news was different from inside and outside of his group.
Whilst Tory and Labour Councillor seemed genuinely sorry to hear that the council will lose one its better orators (if politically misguided), LibDem wags were less kind. One said (within my earshot) that it was "better to retire than be beaten" - a reference to the fact that Labour have won his Lakenham Ward for the previous two years and Hereward would have the fight of his life to win again. The swing that saw Keith Driver and Mary Cannell win would see Hereward lose the ultra-marginal seat.
However, now the attention will move to the leadership contest. As it was explained to me, the LibDems couldn't go into an election with a Leader who wasn't even standing in that contest. So if Hereward wanted to give his successor a chance to get established, he's have to stand down around Christmas or early in the new year. When he won the leadership last year, a few councillors referred to Cllr Cooke as the Ming Campbell of Norwich ... a safe pair of hands to guide the ship. Whilst Campbell fell by the layside, Hereward continues. But for how much longer? And who'll be in the frame to take over?
Anyway Hereward, you have long been the butt of the political jousting on this blog and in the council chamber, but you are a committed and hard working councillor with Norwich at heart. A real treasure in the council, and I'll certainly miss our political battles. Good luck for the future!
Whilst Tory and Labour Councillor seemed genuinely sorry to hear that the council will lose one its better orators (if politically misguided), LibDem wags were less kind. One said (within my earshot) that it was "better to retire than be beaten" - a reference to the fact that Labour have won his Lakenham Ward for the previous two years and Hereward would have the fight of his life to win again. The swing that saw Keith Driver and Mary Cannell win would see Hereward lose the ultra-marginal seat.
However, now the attention will move to the leadership contest. As it was explained to me, the LibDems couldn't go into an election with a Leader who wasn't even standing in that contest. So if Hereward wanted to give his successor a chance to get established, he's have to stand down around Christmas or early in the new year. When he won the leadership last year, a few councillors referred to Cllr Cooke as the Ming Campbell of Norwich ... a safe pair of hands to guide the ship. Whilst Campbell fell by the layside, Hereward continues. But for how much longer? And who'll be in the frame to take over?
Anyway Hereward, you have long been the butt of the political jousting on this blog and in the council chamber, but you are a committed and hard working councillor with Norwich at heart. A real treasure in the council, and I'll certainly miss our political battles. Good luck for the future!
Questions & Answers
Summary of the questions asked at this month's council meeting.
Cllr Rosalind Wright (LibDem, Eaton) asked if charity shops were being charged for waste disposal. We all thought she was on to something there, but the answer from Labour frontbencher Cllr Brian Morrey was a simple no (spread over 4 paragraphs).
Bowthorpe's Councillor John Wyatt (Con) asked, if the council wanted to build houses on the site of old garages how they would work out which garages would be used. Council Leader Steve Morphew replied that the location, usage and condition were all factors. Cllr Morphew then made an unwarranted attack on Cllr Wyatt, suggesting he could have got this information by asking. Cllr Wyatt then embarrassed the council leader by revealing he had asked ... but hadn't been answered!
Cllr Morphew's bad mood spread over into his repsonse to Cllr Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove) when she asked how he felt about the £3 per passenger development tax at Norwich Airport. Cllr Morphew attacked the charge, saying it may indeed deter passengers, but also then turned on Cllr Collishaw for the use of the word "tax" when it should have been "charge". Shouldn't the Leader of the Council have more things to worry about?
Cllr Little (Con, Bowthorpe) asked if the Council would introduce freephone and freepost so that people didn't pay to contacted their own council. Moneyman Cllr Alan Waters tutted like a builder and said that this all costs money. Cllr Little asked, in principle, if he supported it if money was not a problem. Cllr Waters, in a moment of honesty, replied no.
Cllr Cooke (LibDem, Lakenham) asked when the future use of City Hall report would be made public - this is a frequent question and the LibDems have made some political headway in persuing this issue. Cllr Waters said that unitary would change all demands and the report would have to wait.
Cllr Lubbock (LibDem, Eaton) was the only member to score a direct hit during the questioning session - asking how much the doomed Unthank Road changes cost the public. Cllr Morrey confirmed it was 10% either way of £140,000. Cllr Lubbock's supplementary was an example of what can be achieved with this kind of questioning, blasting the total waste of money on the whole scheme. Cllr Morrey, who usually uses Cllr Lubbock as a political punchbag, was left looking rather foolish.
Cllr Stephen Little (Green, Town Close) asked about energy saving in housing developments and was satisfied with an answer that went above the heads of most present.
Cllr Claire Stephenson (Green, Nelson) asked how councillors could keep track of motions passed at council. Cllr Morphew replied that, short of the weekly bulletin, they couldn't. He also pointed out that the council didn't have the resources to support every motion passed at council. Cllr Stephenson then came back, asking the Leader to define the word "regular", missing the open goal of asking what the point of passing motions was if council was going to ignore them.
Cllr Bob Gledhill (Green, Nelson) asked if we could recycle aluminium. Cllr Morrey said no. Cllr Gledhill asked if we could in the future. Cllr Morrey said no. No is currently Cllr Morrey's favourite answer to questions.
Cllr Rupert Read (Green, Wensum) asked if the council kept lists of cycle thefts. Cllr Bremner, Labour Execuitve Member, replied that they didn't because the police did and to ask for those details would break the DPA. Cllr Read then started on a rambling reply which the Deputy Lord Mayor attempted to cut short. "Ask a question," she barked at Cllr Read ... "I would if you let me," replied the irrate member. Anyway, we were all so engrossed by the challenge to the authority of the Deputy Lord Mayor that we totally missed the point and answer to the question.
Next came an interesting clash of the left. Cllr Holmes (Green, Wensum) asked if the Norfolk Pension Scheme invested in any companies with a poor ethical record. Cllr Waters, a Labour member and certainly no New Labour stooge, replied that they weren't really sure, but that in general the performance of the pension scheme outweighed the need for ethics. Cllr Holmes barked a rather hysterical response about how people who lived with abuse may feel about his asnwer. Cllr Waters was in a tight spot - you either protect people in poor conditions abroad or protect the pensions of people in Norfolk. I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear of this issue.
We flew through the next set of question with little or nothing to report - Cllr Dylan (Green, Mancroft) on democratic involvement in the council's tenant housing stock, Cllr Bearman (Green, Town Close) asked if the council were working towards "matrix" standard, Cllr Llewellyn (Green, Mancroft) asked what the council was doing to support the Families Support Unit and Cllr Jago (Green, Mancroft) asked about involvement of residents association.
Even ever-present Cllr Ramsay (Green, Nelson) was happy with the answer to his question about how inclusive the Boundary Commission report would be.
It was a shame that so many questions - overwhelmingly from the Greens - failed to ignite or hit the spot this month.
Cllr Rosalind Wright (LibDem, Eaton) asked if charity shops were being charged for waste disposal. We all thought she was on to something there, but the answer from Labour frontbencher Cllr Brian Morrey was a simple no (spread over 4 paragraphs).
Bowthorpe's Councillor John Wyatt (Con) asked, if the council wanted to build houses on the site of old garages how they would work out which garages would be used. Council Leader Steve Morphew replied that the location, usage and condition were all factors. Cllr Morphew then made an unwarranted attack on Cllr Wyatt, suggesting he could have got this information by asking. Cllr Wyatt then embarrassed the council leader by revealing he had asked ... but hadn't been answered!
Cllr Morphew's bad mood spread over into his repsonse to Cllr Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove) when she asked how he felt about the £3 per passenger development tax at Norwich Airport. Cllr Morphew attacked the charge, saying it may indeed deter passengers, but also then turned on Cllr Collishaw for the use of the word "tax" when it should have been "charge". Shouldn't the Leader of the Council have more things to worry about?
Cllr Little (Con, Bowthorpe) asked if the Council would introduce freephone and freepost so that people didn't pay to contacted their own council. Moneyman Cllr Alan Waters tutted like a builder and said that this all costs money. Cllr Little asked, in principle, if he supported it if money was not a problem. Cllr Waters, in a moment of honesty, replied no.
Cllr Cooke (LibDem, Lakenham) asked when the future use of City Hall report would be made public - this is a frequent question and the LibDems have made some political headway in persuing this issue. Cllr Waters said that unitary would change all demands and the report would have to wait.
Cllr Lubbock (LibDem, Eaton) was the only member to score a direct hit during the questioning session - asking how much the doomed Unthank Road changes cost the public. Cllr Morrey confirmed it was 10% either way of £140,000. Cllr Lubbock's supplementary was an example of what can be achieved with this kind of questioning, blasting the total waste of money on the whole scheme. Cllr Morrey, who usually uses Cllr Lubbock as a political punchbag, was left looking rather foolish.
Cllr Stephen Little (Green, Town Close) asked about energy saving in housing developments and was satisfied with an answer that went above the heads of most present.
Cllr Claire Stephenson (Green, Nelson) asked how councillors could keep track of motions passed at council. Cllr Morphew replied that, short of the weekly bulletin, they couldn't. He also pointed out that the council didn't have the resources to support every motion passed at council. Cllr Stephenson then came back, asking the Leader to define the word "regular", missing the open goal of asking what the point of passing motions was if council was going to ignore them.
Cllr Bob Gledhill (Green, Nelson) asked if we could recycle aluminium. Cllr Morrey said no. Cllr Gledhill asked if we could in the future. Cllr Morrey said no. No is currently Cllr Morrey's favourite answer to questions.
Cllr Rupert Read (Green, Wensum) asked if the council kept lists of cycle thefts. Cllr Bremner, Labour Execuitve Member, replied that they didn't because the police did and to ask for those details would break the DPA. Cllr Read then started on a rambling reply which the Deputy Lord Mayor attempted to cut short. "Ask a question," she barked at Cllr Read ... "I would if you let me," replied the irrate member. Anyway, we were all so engrossed by the challenge to the authority of the Deputy Lord Mayor that we totally missed the point and answer to the question.
Next came an interesting clash of the left. Cllr Holmes (Green, Wensum) asked if the Norfolk Pension Scheme invested in any companies with a poor ethical record. Cllr Waters, a Labour member and certainly no New Labour stooge, replied that they weren't really sure, but that in general the performance of the pension scheme outweighed the need for ethics. Cllr Holmes barked a rather hysterical response about how people who lived with abuse may feel about his asnwer. Cllr Waters was in a tight spot - you either protect people in poor conditions abroad or protect the pensions of people in Norfolk. I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear of this issue.
We flew through the next set of question with little or nothing to report - Cllr Dylan (Green, Mancroft) on democratic involvement in the council's tenant housing stock, Cllr Bearman (Green, Town Close) asked if the council were working towards "matrix" standard, Cllr Llewellyn (Green, Mancroft) asked what the council was doing to support the Families Support Unit and Cllr Jago (Green, Mancroft) asked about involvement of residents association.
Even ever-present Cllr Ramsay (Green, Nelson) was happy with the answer to his question about how inclusive the Boundary Commission report would be.
It was a shame that so many questions - overwhelmingly from the Greens - failed to ignite or hit the spot this month.
More LibDem Poll Gloom: ICM confirms party on the slide (again)
After all of the excitement that the corpse of the Liberal Democrats may yet be twitching, an ICM poll confirms today that their ratings have slipped by another 2%. The poll puts Cameron up, again, 11% ahead of Labour and heading for an overall parliamentary majority. You might have thought that a leadership election, which puts the party in the spotlight, may result in a poll improvement ... but it seems that the backbiting of the Clegg-Huhne battle (which looks, according to YouGov to be too close to call) has damaged the party yet further.
Knife Edge Council Vote on Congestion Charging
At the full council meeting last week, the Council voted for a LibDem motion to accept the Congestion Charge, albeit with various conditions attached. It was one of the closest votes in the chamber, which could have swung either way as members came and went from the floor. In the end, I forced it to a recorded vote so that local people could check how their councillor voted. I have added the wards to make it easier for people to see who their councillors are.
In the words of Cllr Lubbock, who moved the motion: "Why are people so opposed to the Congestion Charge - they need to be made to see the benefits." Her colleague, LibDem Brian Watkins added: "Roadmap for the introduction of the Congestion Charge sometime in the future."
For the Congestion Charge:
Cllrs Bearman (Green, Town Close), Cooke (LibDem, Lakenham), Divers (LibDem, Thorpe Hamlet), Dylan (Green, Mancroft), Gledhill (Green, Nelson), Hartley (LibDem, Town Close), Holmes (Green, Wensum), Jago (Green, Mancroft), S Little (Green, Town Close), Llewelyn (Green, Wensum), Lubbock (LibDem, Eaton), Ramsay (Green, Nelson), Read (Green, Wensum), Stephenson (Green, Nelson), Surridge (LibDem, Thorpe Hamlet), Watkins (LibDem, Eaton), Wright (LibDem, Eaton).
Against the Congestion Charge:
Cllrs Banham (Lab, Sewell), Blakeway (Lab, Mile Cross), Bradford (Lab, Crome), Brociek-Coulton (Lab, Sewell), Bremner (Lab, Uni), Cannell (Lab, Lakenham), Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove), Driver (Lab, Lakenham), Ferris (Lab, Bowthorpe), Lay (Lab, Crome), A Little (Con, Bowthorpe), Morphew (Lab, Mile Cross), Morrey (Lab, Catton Grove), Sands (Lab, Sewell), Waters (Lab, Crome), Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe)
This is a serious issue - voters of Norwich, take note.
In the words of Cllr Lubbock, who moved the motion: "Why are people so opposed to the Congestion Charge - they need to be made to see the benefits." Her colleague, LibDem Brian Watkins added: "Roadmap for the introduction of the Congestion Charge sometime in the future."
For the Congestion Charge:
Cllrs Bearman (Green, Town Close), Cooke (LibDem, Lakenham), Divers (LibDem, Thorpe Hamlet), Dylan (Green, Mancroft), Gledhill (Green, Nelson), Hartley (LibDem, Town Close), Holmes (Green, Wensum), Jago (Green, Mancroft), S Little (Green, Town Close), Llewelyn (Green, Wensum), Lubbock (LibDem, Eaton), Ramsay (Green, Nelson), Read (Green, Wensum), Stephenson (Green, Nelson), Surridge (LibDem, Thorpe Hamlet), Watkins (LibDem, Eaton), Wright (LibDem, Eaton).
Against the Congestion Charge:
Cllrs Banham (Lab, Sewell), Blakeway (Lab, Mile Cross), Bradford (Lab, Crome), Brociek-Coulton (Lab, Sewell), Bremner (Lab, Uni), Cannell (Lab, Lakenham), Collishaw (Con, Catton Grove), Driver (Lab, Lakenham), Ferris (Lab, Bowthorpe), Lay (Lab, Crome), A Little (Con, Bowthorpe), Morphew (Lab, Mile Cross), Morrey (Lab, Catton Grove), Sands (Lab, Sewell), Waters (Lab, Crome), Wyatt (Con, Bowthorpe)
This is a serious issue - voters of Norwich, take note.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)