New Labour Leader (oops - he won't like me saying that!) Ed Miliband has today announced his first Shadow Cabinet and I have to say that I share the view of many that a lot of his appointing are, frankly, bizarre.
I know that he has his hands tied by having to have Shadow Cabinet elections rather than just appointing who he likes - although apparently he can also appoint some places too (more on that later) - but his allocation of jobs goes from the boring to the bonkers (copyright, Labour MPs).
A lot has been focused on the role of Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, but to me the most fascinating role is that given to Harriet Harman. Hattie is a Shadow Cabinet certainty given her directly elected role of Deputy Leader. Under Mr Brown, Harman also doubled (or quadrupled) as Commons Leader, Labour Chairmwoman and Minister for Equalities. No doubt she'll be grateful to be down to just the 2 extra jobs ... Deputy Leader and Shadow International Development Secretary. Odd, I think, but maybe explainable. You see, Harriet's standing has rocketed after her stint as Acting Leader. Share prices in HH Ltd. have gone through the roof. The reception and plaudits she won at conference show us that. Like Margaret Beckett in1994, Harman's political reputation has been enhanced no end. In fact to the point where I know a lot of Labour members who wished she had gone for the top job herself. So given her massive popularity and status within the party, why dump her off on the relatively low status cabinet job of Shadow DID? Most people expected at least Shadow Justice (taken by Red Ed's main man Sadiq Khan). I am not saying that International Development isn't important - it is, as shown by the fact it has a ring fenced budget - but that the cabinet role doesn't involve the great partisanship and media role that Harman would thrive on. Ed has showed her into the background, maybe fearful of the power that a resurgent Harman has in the party. I'm afraid this role, to me, makes Ed look weak. He should have exploited Harman rather than demolishing her.
So onto the top jobs. Johnson for Shadow Chancellor is a sound move in one way - he is a loyal, union man and will serve Ed to the end with undying-bunker-mentality. He is also an extremely effective Commons performer (one of Mrs Little's favourite MPs actually) and will give the Chancellor a real run for his money (no pun intended). But Johnson is the compromise candidate; a man who will show the imprint of the last leader to sit on him. Ed can mould Alan in his own image. And so, because he doesn't have the guts to choose between Ed Balls and Mrs Ed Balls, Alan will do for now. Somebody on the Beeb suggested he was a caretaker appointment - I think so too. I saw Johnson doing an interview on Sky and was, frankly, terrible. He avoided all questions about policy, or even opinions, and sidestepped the issued of public sector pensions and strike action. But I guess he won't find his backbone until Ed tells him where it is. And that leaves Balls and Cooper like fish out of water in their new roles. Economists both, and both yearing for the top economic portfolio, Yvette Cooper now has to shadow the Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ed Balls is opposite Home Secretary Theresa May. I would suggest that Mr Hague will sleep more soundly than Mrs May, but neither Labour spokespeople have the experience or knowledge - yet - to lay a glove on the government.
The LibDems in the coalition may too be breathing a sign of relief that they will not have to face Labour's big guns - maybe a sign on the big thaw between the two parties. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will face charming former Treasury Minister Angela Eagle. I am no fan of Mr Alexander but he dwarfs her and won't face much of a Commons challenge. John Denham, for Labour, will be opposite Vince Cable. Mr Denham, who clung on by his fingernails in his Southampton constituency, is a good and clever man but Vince is there to be wound up a treat by Labour and Denham isn't the man who can do this. Chris Huhne now faces Meg Millier - who? - a fairly anonymous former Minister who doesn't seem to have much going for her. Ann McKechin is now Shadow Scottish Secretary and given her deep rooted socialist links, it'll give LibDem Michael Moore plenty of scope for attack. That leaves Sadiq Khan opposite Nick Clegg. What a let down - Jack Straw used sheer gravitas and intellect to regularly crush the hapless Clegg at Commons Questions and I would suggest that the DPM will relieved to have some of the political heat taken off. Mr Khan is a man rewarded for his loyalty and way, way out of his depth. The LibDems in government look like they have survived the worst of Labour's "new generation".
That leaves Andy Burnham - my pick for Labour Leader - at Shadow Education. Although I think Mr Burnham will be a tougher opponent that many Tories think, the fact is that Michael Gove has intellectual rigour on his side and Burnham's button-down-the-hatches view of education (the it's all fine just chuck some money at it approach) won't work. John Healey is a well respected MP but he'll have to put in some work to deal with Andrew Lansley who has had the Health portfolio in and out of government for six years now and is considered a formidable expert on the NHS now.
Labour's election guru Douglas Alexander is Shadow DWP opposite Iain Duncan Smith. Duncan Smith has the edge on thinking and until Labour formulate their own ideas for welfare reform, his policy of oppose-oppose-oppose (I am guessing that's what it'll be) won't be enough.
Caroline Flint, who definitely isn't window dressing, is back at Shadow Communities and I cannot wait to see her come up against Secretary Pickles, public chum number one! It is the one Commons clash that I am really looking forward to!
I think shuffling Hilary Benn off to Shadow Commons Leader is a bit premature as that role involves lots of HoC work rather than letting Mr Benn loose on one of the big spending departments. I am glad Lima Byrne survived, shadowing Francis Maude, as a certain "note" may make regular reappearances in debate!
And then there is Peter Hain (Shadow Wales) and Shaun Woodward (Shadow NI) - the two men who now they didn't get into the Shadow Cabinet by rights. How can they go to work in the morning knowing they shouldn't be there? Mind you, I suppose Ed has to do that too!
All in all I don't sense a thread running through this; rather more like a collection of panic appointments. Very few of them backed Ed in the first place and for a new generation they look rather a lot like Brown's old generation. I am afraid not good enough, yet, and I would expect Ed to be re-shuffling again in about a year.
Friday, October 08, 2010
Friday, October 01, 2010
In Praise of Dan Cox
I am very sad to see that Dan Cox has resigned as Conservative Leader and County Council Leader. He is doing so for the right reasons, working with VSO in India to provide for some of the very poorest. That's taking "Social Action" to a whole new level! Dan has been a keen champion and a good friend for the last few years. He led the party to a massive victory in the 2009 elections and has steered the authority through the turmoil of Labour's failed unitary bid. He has led the council through economic choppy-waters and remained a focused, decent guy. I, and I am sure politics as a whole, will miss Dan Cox - "a good guy".
Busy Life
Apologies for the lack of blogging - I thought that being out of politics would give me more time, but sadly not! I am taking on one or two very exciting projects, more to come later, but they are outside of the Conservatives!
But the no-politics diet is about to come to a crushing end because on Sunday we are off to conference in Birmingham. I am pleased that Norwich will be very well represented at the conference and I am going to some very interesting fringe meetings as well as a number of sessions in the main hall. I am very much looking forward to this - my first conference since 2000; I wonder how things have changed in ten years!
I have my bagged packed, my conference badge on standby and ready to go - I don't think I'll have time to blog but keep an eye on my Twitter to see updates!
But the no-politics diet is about to come to a crushing end because on Sunday we are off to conference in Birmingham. I am pleased that Norwich will be very well represented at the conference and I am going to some very interesting fringe meetings as well as a number of sessions in the main hall. I am very much looking forward to this - my first conference since 2000; I wonder how things have changed in ten years!
I have my bagged packed, my conference badge on standby and ready to go - I don't think I'll have time to blog but keep an eye on my Twitter to see updates!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Ministers Threaten To Quit
Don't for a moment think I am happy about this, but the Channel 4 exclusive about 2 Tory Ministers - Jeremy Wright & David Lidington - threatening to quit if the plans for a high speed rail link between London and Birmingham are not scrapped does have an interest side line for us teachers of politics. The rail line, we are told, would do great damage to their constituencies and they will go if it presses ahead because they'll want to vote against it in the House. This really is collective responsibility working - if you can't support a key government policy you can't be in the government. What a world away from Labour Ministers campaigning against hospital closures that their government forced through, for example.
Ministers have 2 options - abandon their principles / constituents and vote with the government.
Or vote against their own government, which Ministers cannot do. So quit as a Minister to vote against them.
Collective responsibility - Ministerial responsibility - Individual responsibility.
Maybe, just maybe, making a comeback in a government near you ...
Ministers have 2 options - abandon their principles / constituents and vote with the government.
Or vote against their own government, which Ministers cannot do. So quit as a Minister to vote against them.
Collective responsibility - Ministerial responsibility - Individual responsibility.
Maybe, just maybe, making a comeback in a government near you ...
Cable is Wrong on Bankers
If I didn't know better, I'd have assumed that the rabble rousing speech by Vince Cable was a leadership bid in the making. He delivered it extremely well and very funny in parts it was too. And the LibDem crowd lapped it up - yellow friends of mine who were there said it was, finally, what they wanted to hear. So, good news - except for the fact that we need to stop this ridiculous banker bashing.
Even LibDem Susan Kramer says this must come to an end. And I say so for two reasons.
Firstly because Labour are using it as a fig leaf for their disastrous tenure. Forget Brown's government, they tell us, it's all down to the bankers. Yes, every problem of the last 13 years - would you believe it! Well, actually, no I don't. What about the role of the government in setting a framework and the role of regulators in enforcing it? What about Brown's reckless spending and borrowing and spending and then borrowing some more? By reinforcing the public image that its all the fault of the bankers we let Brown, Labour and the Milibands off the hook for their role in this.
And secondly because it isn't true. The vast majority of bankers did not cause this and are not "spivs". Somehow it has been acceptable to be publicly vile to a whole profession on the basis of a minority of them. All teachers are bad!! All police officers are bent!! All politicians are corrupt!! Obviously nonsense and yet we allow people to talk about bankers in the same way. Tax them!! String them up!! Castrate them!! Hardly fair or accurate, from a party that preaches fairness. Playing to the crowd? Who'd have believed it from a LibDem?
As somebody tweeted me this evening - after agreeing with this argument - let's focus our anger on the minority that deserve it. Sadly, Cable's speech was aimed at his party and his standing rather than serious debate. I'm surprised that Cable has allowed this to happen.
Update:
I notice that not only the "establishment" but also the Director of the Adam Smith Institute (whom Cable credited with his ideas) have rubbished it now.
Update2:
This post says it rather well too
Even LibDem Susan Kramer says this must come to an end. And I say so for two reasons.
Firstly because Labour are using it as a fig leaf for their disastrous tenure. Forget Brown's government, they tell us, it's all down to the bankers. Yes, every problem of the last 13 years - would you believe it! Well, actually, no I don't. What about the role of the government in setting a framework and the role of regulators in enforcing it? What about Brown's reckless spending and borrowing and spending and then borrowing some more? By reinforcing the public image that its all the fault of the bankers we let Brown, Labour and the Milibands off the hook for their role in this.
And secondly because it isn't true. The vast majority of bankers did not cause this and are not "spivs". Somehow it has been acceptable to be publicly vile to a whole profession on the basis of a minority of them. All teachers are bad!! All police officers are bent!! All politicians are corrupt!! Obviously nonsense and yet we allow people to talk about bankers in the same way. Tax them!! String them up!! Castrate them!! Hardly fair or accurate, from a party that preaches fairness. Playing to the crowd? Who'd have believed it from a LibDem?
As somebody tweeted me this evening - after agreeing with this argument - let's focus our anger on the minority that deserve it. Sadly, Cable's speech was aimed at his party and his standing rather than serious debate. I'm surprised that Cable has allowed this to happen.
Update:
I notice that not only the "establishment" but also the Director of the Adam Smith Institute (whom Cable credited with his ideas) have rubbished it now.
Update2:
This post says it rather well too
Monday, September 20, 2010
Chugging Rules In Place
I am extremely pleased that new regulations that I championed as a Councillor have now been put into force (details here) to combat issues that many members of the public feel about chugging (or "face to face fund raising").
There will now be rules as to where fundraisers can be and limits on the number of times and days of the week that the activity can be carried out.
Norwich is, rightly, a vibrant City - but when we were going down Gentleman's Walk on Saturday, with Libby in a buggy, it was like being on a cannon run. It was so busy it was actually uncomfortable and we ended up seeking sanctuary somewhere else. If these new rules help to improve this situation just a little bit they will be worthwhile.
I spent a long time researching this, liaising with the regulation body (the PFRA) and then putting the motion through council so I have a certain amount of pride in this announcement.
Well done to the City Council for having the guts to take on this issue.
There will now be rules as to where fundraisers can be and limits on the number of times and days of the week that the activity can be carried out.
Norwich is, rightly, a vibrant City - but when we were going down Gentleman's Walk on Saturday, with Libby in a buggy, it was like being on a cannon run. It was so busy it was actually uncomfortable and we ended up seeking sanctuary somewhere else. If these new rules help to improve this situation just a little bit they will be worthwhile.
I spent a long time researching this, liaising with the regulation body (the PFRA) and then putting the motion through council so I have a certain amount of pride in this announcement.
Well done to the City Council for having the guts to take on this issue.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Why I'm For Andy
The Labour Leadership contest has been an absolute bore-fest for those of us not in the Labour Party; similar, I should imagine, for non-supporters in any leadership election. However I have been interested in the media coverage, debates and focus groups which have provided the electorate (which covers Labour Members and Trade Unionists) with a great deal of information.
Of course, my original choice was the current Shadow Home Secretary Alan Johnson, whose assured, confident and humorous Commons speeches have shown a man very relaxed with not standing for the leadership. I am glad he didn't stand, but wonder if he even intends to stand for election to the Shadow Cabinet? Anyway, back to the rest ...
Diane Abbott, the "great communicator" has fallen flat in my view. As a dinosaur leftie we all knew she wasn't going to win, but I expected her to blow the contest wide open. I doubt she will even in these late stages. The two Milibands are just b-o-r-i-n-g; David has history involving a banana that may well haunt him for a long time and his admission that he drinks beer by the half-pint is his "baseball cap" moment (copyright, W.Hague). Ed on the otherhand comes across in a kind of nerd-trying-to-be-groovy kind of way. That leaves the two people that have really impressed me the most in this contest.
There is Ed Balls, who scrapped home in his Morley seat at the election, the most loyal commander left in the Brown bunker. He has shown himself to be a bulldog and would be an opportunistic fighter for Labour in opposition; just what they need in many ways. However despite this he doesn't look like the next Prime Minister. He may well have secured himself the Shadow Home Secretary position as a reward for having such a good leadership campaign.
And so to Andy Burnham - the frontline candidate whom we knew least about before this election. He's impressed me as the man who speaks in normal language and with a normal tone of voice. He represents his home constituency and has been loyal through-and-through. He has been leading the debate with ideas (not that I agree with them, of course, but at least he's brave enough to put them forward). He seems at ease, handles pressure well and has stayed above the Mili-spats going on. I am impressed and would be much more concerned if he led Labour than any of the others.
Having said that - to be frank I don't think any of them look like election winners. One Labour activist said to me at the count on Thursday that when Hague fought Clarke and IDS fought Clarke, they prayed for the leader most likely to screw up the Tories. Was I, he asked, doing the same for Labour? No, I replied, whoever wins the Labour crown then Cameron is still sure to win the next election. For us, it's a win-win-win-win-win situation. But if Labour activists were to take any advice from an old Tory lag like me, to make the best fist of the next parliament - it has to be Andy Burnham.
Of course, my original choice was the current Shadow Home Secretary Alan Johnson, whose assured, confident and humorous Commons speeches have shown a man very relaxed with not standing for the leadership. I am glad he didn't stand, but wonder if he even intends to stand for election to the Shadow Cabinet? Anyway, back to the rest ...
Diane Abbott, the "great communicator" has fallen flat in my view. As a dinosaur leftie we all knew she wasn't going to win, but I expected her to blow the contest wide open. I doubt she will even in these late stages. The two Milibands are just b-o-r-i-n-g; David has history involving a banana that may well haunt him for a long time and his admission that he drinks beer by the half-pint is his "baseball cap" moment (copyright, W.Hague). Ed on the otherhand comes across in a kind of nerd-trying-to-be-groovy kind of way. That leaves the two people that have really impressed me the most in this contest.
There is Ed Balls, who scrapped home in his Morley seat at the election, the most loyal commander left in the Brown bunker. He has shown himself to be a bulldog and would be an opportunistic fighter for Labour in opposition; just what they need in many ways. However despite this he doesn't look like the next Prime Minister. He may well have secured himself the Shadow Home Secretary position as a reward for having such a good leadership campaign.
And so to Andy Burnham - the frontline candidate whom we knew least about before this election. He's impressed me as the man who speaks in normal language and with a normal tone of voice. He represents his home constituency and has been loyal through-and-through. He has been leading the debate with ideas (not that I agree with them, of course, but at least he's brave enough to put them forward). He seems at ease, handles pressure well and has stayed above the Mili-spats going on. I am impressed and would be much more concerned if he led Labour than any of the others.
Having said that - to be frank I don't think any of them look like election winners. One Labour activist said to me at the count on Thursday that when Hague fought Clarke and IDS fought Clarke, they prayed for the leader most likely to screw up the Tories. Was I, he asked, doing the same for Labour? No, I replied, whoever wins the Labour crown then Cameron is still sure to win the next election. For us, it's a win-win-win-win-win situation. But if Labour activists were to take any advice from an old Tory lag like me, to make the best fist of the next parliament - it has to be Andy Burnham.
In choosing between FPTP and AV, do I vote for the system that will stop STV?
As a politics teacher I am looking forward to the AV referendum next year (although personally I wouldn't vote to have one; too expensive at this time). I don't yet know which way I will vote, but I am currently leaning towards the "No" side and one thing in particular has been tipping my view.
I am concerned that the people advocating AV are actually those who want full blown PR, which I am definitely against - this article on the Coffee House blog says it all, that all those chosen to push AV actually don't support it but another system.
Why would I vote for a system which may lead, in time, to a system I am totally opposed to?
I am concerned that the people advocating AV are actually those who want full blown PR, which I am definitely against - this article on the Coffee House blog says it all, that all those chosen to push AV actually don't support it but another system.
Why would I vote for a system which may lead, in time, to a system I am totally opposed to?
Friday, September 10, 2010
That's It - The End.
Well, the results from last night were pretty shocking and certainly a poor night for both coalition partners. Judging from the BBC, ITV and Archant reports I was certainly the story of the night. Sadly I lost my seat, by 46 votes, to Labour.
For the last week I had began to become convinced I would lose - and in case you think that is 20-20 hindsight I actually said this to Labour friends as well as my campaign team. Knocking on doors, although there were far fewer Labour voter than Tory ones, they were simply more motivated to vote. The low-turn out, the switch from LibDems to Labour, the campaign on cuts (which never mentioned where Labour would swing the axe, of course) were all factors. But as the sitting member you always look to yourself and your own personal role in the election. I have put my heart and soul into being a good ward councillor but clearly it wasn't enough.
To all those who are my friends in the community, the people who supported me in Bowthorpe and Earlham, to my colleague ward Councillors and to the hundreds who voted for me, I am personally very, very sorry.
Being a councillor has been a fantastic experience and I have got to contribute to the civil life of our City in ways that few ever get. I look back on the last 4 years with pride, but life moves on. I am lucky that I have a job I love and a young family to enjoy. I shall miss helping people in Bowthorpe and working for them (I had resisted being "emotional" until the emails and calls from residents I am helping or have helped started to come through) but I always said that I wanted more in my life than just politics.
I am sticking to that promise - starting today.
For the last week I had began to become convinced I would lose - and in case you think that is 20-20 hindsight I actually said this to Labour friends as well as my campaign team. Knocking on doors, although there were far fewer Labour voter than Tory ones, they were simply more motivated to vote. The low-turn out, the switch from LibDems to Labour, the campaign on cuts (which never mentioned where Labour would swing the axe, of course) were all factors. But as the sitting member you always look to yourself and your own personal role in the election. I have put my heart and soul into being a good ward councillor but clearly it wasn't enough.
To all those who are my friends in the community, the people who supported me in Bowthorpe and Earlham, to my colleague ward Councillors and to the hundreds who voted for me, I am personally very, very sorry.
Being a councillor has been a fantastic experience and I have got to contribute to the civil life of our City in ways that few ever get. I look back on the last 4 years with pride, but life moves on. I am lucky that I have a job I love and a young family to enjoy. I shall miss helping people in Bowthorpe and working for them (I had resisted being "emotional" until the emails and calls from residents I am helping or have helped started to come through) but I always said that I wanted more in my life than just politics.
I am sticking to that promise - starting today.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Vote
Thursday is by-election day - when 13 seats, and perhaps the future direction of the City - are decided. I know this election campaign hasn't exactly set the world on fire but it will make a difference here in the City.
Some parties are trying to convince you this is a referendum on the Coalition Government.
Some parties are trying to say its a county council election instead.
Some parties have some very choice figures to say only they can win here.
I say this - this is a City Council election, about City issues for City voters. Read the manifesto documents of the parties (the Conservatives one is here, for example) then make your decision.
But whatever you do - vote and vote for a positive reason.
I obviously hope that my record as a Councillor in the last 4 years will see me home in Bowthorpe but nothing can be taken for granted and we will fight every minute tomorrow for each and every vote.
Some parties are trying to convince you this is a referendum on the Coalition Government.
Some parties are trying to say its a county council election instead.
Some parties have some very choice figures to say only they can win here.
I say this - this is a City Council election, about City issues for City voters. Read the manifesto documents of the parties (the Conservatives one is here, for example) then make your decision.
But whatever you do - vote and vote for a positive reason.
I obviously hope that my record as a Councillor in the last 4 years will see me home in Bowthorpe but nothing can be taken for granted and we will fight every minute tomorrow for each and every vote.
Norwich Leaseholders Demand Connaught Inquiry
I don't usually reproduce comments from this blog but this one is well worth it, from Leaseholders Chairman Pauline Walton:
Leaseholders have been expressing concern about the management of this procurement project since it began in March last year.
We believe there Norwich Council has a case to answer for its failure to notice the state of Connaught's accounts in November last year, and adverse reporting by fund manager Tim Steer in mid-December. We believe that the Council was reckless in its appointment of Connaught on 10 February 2010, given the incredibly low bid price (30% lower than anyone else). We wonder whether its "due diligence exercise" really proved that this bid was affordable.
Morrison tried to warn this council immediately it knew it had lost the bid, but the Council pressed on.
Citizens of Norwich deserve better than this.
Now, with Connaught's social housing operation in administration, I presume we can look forward to another interim contract while the council has to go through a major expensive procurement process all over again.
Surely this warrants a public inquiry?
Pauline Walton
Chair, Norwich Leaseholders' Association
Personally I couldn't agree more - this has been a shambles and the point is that I don't know if the argument made by Mrs Walton is correct. An inquiry would sort that out. This all demonstrates the shambles of the way that Labour have run the City Council. There were warned ...
An inquiry is a good long term solution, but a vote to remove this Labour administration tomorrow is a better short term solution.
Leaseholders have been expressing concern about the management of this procurement project since it began in March last year.
We believe there Norwich Council has a case to answer for its failure to notice the state of Connaught's accounts in November last year, and adverse reporting by fund manager Tim Steer in mid-December. We believe that the Council was reckless in its appointment of Connaught on 10 February 2010, given the incredibly low bid price (30% lower than anyone else). We wonder whether its "due diligence exercise" really proved that this bid was affordable.
Morrison tried to warn this council immediately it knew it had lost the bid, but the Council pressed on.
Citizens of Norwich deserve better than this.
Now, with Connaught's social housing operation in administration, I presume we can look forward to another interim contract while the council has to go through a major expensive procurement process all over again.
Surely this warrants a public inquiry?
Pauline Walton
Chair, Norwich Leaseholders' Association
Personally I couldn't agree more - this has been a shambles and the point is that I don't know if the argument made by Mrs Walton is correct. An inquiry would sort that out. This all demonstrates the shambles of the way that Labour have run the City Council. There were warned ...
An inquiry is a good long term solution, but a vote to remove this Labour administration tomorrow is a better short term solution.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Connaught goes into Administration
The bad news for the staff and customers of Connaught was heavily trailed this morning and we now know that they have gone into administration (more here). This in, obviously, a very worrying time for both the 10,000 Connaught staff both here in Norwich and around the country and also for the tens of thousands who depend on their services.
There has been much concern expressed at Labour's handling of the Connaught contract, including from both City MPs Chloe Smith and Simon Wright, and also by the Conservative Group on the City Council. Questions were raised about the situation surrounding the Morrison bid, the "teething problems" at the beginning of the service and now the financial perils of the company. All along Labour have told us - don't worry, it'll be fine. There are, apparently, plans in place to ensure services do not suffer. I am not on the Council so I know no more than anybody else but Labour are going to have to make those plans public pretty soon.
This whole situation seems to have been handled very badly indeed. Was this contract ever robust enough? Labour have some big questions to ask - but residents on the doorstep tonight were rightly very concerned and many believed this incident was symptomatic of the way Labour have run City Hall.
No wonder Labour are desperate to turn a City by-election into a County election or General Election - because they are afraid of their own record in office.
There has been much concern expressed at Labour's handling of the Connaught contract, including from both City MPs Chloe Smith and Simon Wright, and also by the Conservative Group on the City Council. Questions were raised about the situation surrounding the Morrison bid, the "teething problems" at the beginning of the service and now the financial perils of the company. All along Labour have told us - don't worry, it'll be fine. There are, apparently, plans in place to ensure services do not suffer. I am not on the Council so I know no more than anybody else but Labour are going to have to make those plans public pretty soon.
This whole situation seems to have been handled very badly indeed. Was this contract ever robust enough? Labour have some big questions to ask - but residents on the doorstep tonight were rightly very concerned and many believed this incident was symptomatic of the way Labour have run City Hall.
No wonder Labour are desperate to turn a City by-election into a County election or General Election - because they are afraid of their own record in office.
Monday, September 06, 2010
Almost There
With polling day now just a few days away, I can report that I am absolutely shattered. Day-in-day-out campaigning - a mix of canvassing, leafleting and meeting residents groups is all coming to an end and on Thursday people will have their say.
I don't know if I'll have blogging time between then and now but this is just really say a big thank you to all those people in Bowthorpe and Earlham who have been so kind when we have called. Your support is greatly appreciated. Thanks also to those who have tramped the streets with me during these four weeks - plus those who have dished out the moral support!
This is an election nobody wanted but the result will shape our City for many years to come.
I don't know if I'll have blogging time between then and now but this is just really say a big thank you to all those people in Bowthorpe and Earlham who have been so kind when we have called. Your support is greatly appreciated. Thanks also to those who have tramped the streets with me during these four weeks - plus those who have dished out the moral support!
This is an election nobody wanted but the result will shape our City for many years to come.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Local media & Local democracy
Archant goes through good times and bad times when it comes to reporting local democracy and elections. Currently, under the present Editor and team, they are having a good time. Shaun Lowthorpe and Dan Grimmer are like the Statler and Waldorf of the City (there goes my favourable coverage) but are doing an excellent job. At the moment they are previewing 2 wards per day in the lead u to the poll. It's even better to see them coming off the fence and having a punt at who they think is in the game at the moment. So far they think the Conservatives will hold Bowthorpe, LibDems hold Eaton (just) and Labour to hold University. Lakenham is too-close-to-call. It's good to see pieces from all the candidates (except UKIP who failed to provide any copy) with then an opinion-style piece from the paper. When the first article about the elections appeared on page 57 of the EDP I did fear a lack of coverage, but this really is a good service to democracy. Well done, Archant.
Monday, August 30, 2010
What should the GOP strategy for the Senate be?
News of a poll - twittered by Tim Montgomery of ConservativeHome fame - which gave the Republicans a 10 point national lead over the Democrats has got me thinking. The 51-41 result would almost certainly wipe out the Presidents party majority in the House, but how close are they to losing the Senate as well? A bit of number crunching has helped.
This is a bumper year of contests including a couple of Special Elections to fill vacancies left both those who resigned to serve in the Obama administration. However the numbers in the Senate without these contest shows the ease by which the Democrats should hold firm; without a vote being cast there are:
Democrats 41
Republicans 21
These elections are from the class of '04, who saw their elections clash with that of President George W Bush. Hence most of the seats up for election are, in fact, Republican held.
Added to these numbers there are 11 very safe Republican states or candidates up for election - either in their solid Southern heartland (Alabama, Georgia Kansas), the Mid-West (Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Utah) or where the candidate means they will win (Arizona, New Hampshire - plus North Dakota and Ohio). That puts the numbers at democrats 41, Republicans 32.
Let's assume that the Democrats themselves do not make progress - but there are States where the Republicans cannot take victory for granted. In Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina & South Dakota their winning majority was less than 5% of the vote. In Oklahoma & South Carolina it was less than 10%. Assuming these States stay red, then the Senate is Democrat 41, Republican 39. Getting closer.
Now the fun states. Scott Brown, Special election winner from Massachusetts is up for re-election. He overturned the late, great Ted Kennedy's 39% margin to win that seat last year. The smart money is on him holiday on. We also have Louisiana where the Republican margin was greatly inflated by having 2 Democratic candidates on the ballot paper. This time with just one the GOP margin falls to just 8%, although you'd still put the mortgage on them holding on. Senate now Democrat 41, Republican 41.
Onto Pennsylvania - the seat of defector Arlen Spectre who quit the Republicans to join the Democrats. His margin of victory was 11% as a republican. He lost the Democratic primary and his replacement looks unlikely to repeat his success. In fact this State is likely to join the "safe R" column. That leaves us as Republican 42, Democrat 41 - without a single toss-up contest being decided.
We've had the safe Republican berths, so what about the Dems? Well, you'd be surprised if any of the following seats were in play (number refers to D winning margin) - Connecticut (34%) , Delaware (29), Hawaii (55), Illinois (42), Maryland (31), New York (2 seats - 47 and 36), Vermont (46). That's 8 seats, without breaking sweat. Senate now Democrat 49, Republican 42.
So the Democrats need just one of the following swing States for half and two for a majority. Four States and they wouldn't have to rely on the votes of Independent members.
Some States are surely lost - it's hard to see the Dems holding on in Colorado (5%) or even Arkansas (11), Washington (12) or Wisconsin (11). That would be Democrat 49, Republican 46.
What's left? the winning margin in West Virginia was 31%, in Oreagon 32%, Nevada 26% and Indiana 24%. All of those should be in play given the latest polls. And that leaves California - which despite a relatively low 20% margin is so solidly Democratic it couldn't be any other way ... could it?
So the chances of the Reps taking the Senate are very very low but only because of the electoral cycle they face. But the result could be squeaky bum time for the Pres and still leave him hanging by the votes of a few independent members.
UPDATE: Rasmussen, the respected US pollster also has the figures of D49, R46 with 5 toss-ups (I didn't look - honest) but disagrees about which states. West Virgina it thinks is OK for the Dems despite the Reps whittling the poll lead down to just 6%. It also thinks Delaware is heading for a GOP victory. It's toss-up seats are Colorado, Illinois, California, Nevada and Wisconsin. For what its worth if the Reps don't take Colorado they're in trouble - but if the Dems don't take California or Delaware the same is true!
This is a bumper year of contests including a couple of Special Elections to fill vacancies left both those who resigned to serve in the Obama administration. However the numbers in the Senate without these contest shows the ease by which the Democrats should hold firm; without a vote being cast there are:
Democrats 41
Republicans 21
These elections are from the class of '04, who saw their elections clash with that of President George W Bush. Hence most of the seats up for election are, in fact, Republican held.
Added to these numbers there are 11 very safe Republican states or candidates up for election - either in their solid Southern heartland (Alabama, Georgia Kansas), the Mid-West (Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Utah) or where the candidate means they will win (Arizona, New Hampshire - plus North Dakota and Ohio). That puts the numbers at democrats 41, Republicans 32.
Let's assume that the Democrats themselves do not make progress - but there are States where the Republicans cannot take victory for granted. In Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina & South Dakota their winning majority was less than 5% of the vote. In Oklahoma & South Carolina it was less than 10%. Assuming these States stay red, then the Senate is Democrat 41, Republican 39. Getting closer.
Now the fun states. Scott Brown, Special election winner from Massachusetts is up for re-election. He overturned the late, great Ted Kennedy's 39% margin to win that seat last year. The smart money is on him holiday on. We also have Louisiana where the Republican margin was greatly inflated by having 2 Democratic candidates on the ballot paper. This time with just one the GOP margin falls to just 8%, although you'd still put the mortgage on them holding on. Senate now Democrat 41, Republican 41.
Onto Pennsylvania - the seat of defector Arlen Spectre who quit the Republicans to join the Democrats. His margin of victory was 11% as a republican. He lost the Democratic primary and his replacement looks unlikely to repeat his success. In fact this State is likely to join the "safe R" column. That leaves us as Republican 42, Democrat 41 - without a single toss-up contest being decided.
We've had the safe Republican berths, so what about the Dems? Well, you'd be surprised if any of the following seats were in play (number refers to D winning margin) - Connecticut (34%) , Delaware (29), Hawaii (55), Illinois (42), Maryland (31), New York (2 seats - 47 and 36), Vermont (46). That's 8 seats, without breaking sweat. Senate now Democrat 49, Republican 42.
So the Democrats need just one of the following swing States for half and two for a majority. Four States and they wouldn't have to rely on the votes of Independent members.
Some States are surely lost - it's hard to see the Dems holding on in Colorado (5%) or even Arkansas (11), Washington (12) or Wisconsin (11). That would be Democrat 49, Republican 46.
What's left? the winning margin in West Virginia was 31%, in Oreagon 32%, Nevada 26% and Indiana 24%. All of those should be in play given the latest polls. And that leaves California - which despite a relatively low 20% margin is so solidly Democratic it couldn't be any other way ... could it?
So the chances of the Reps taking the Senate are very very low but only because of the electoral cycle they face. But the result could be squeaky bum time for the Pres and still leave him hanging by the votes of a few independent members.
UPDATE: Rasmussen, the respected US pollster also has the figures of D49, R46 with 5 toss-ups (I didn't look - honest) but disagrees about which states. West Virgina it thinks is OK for the Dems despite the Reps whittling the poll lead down to just 6%. It also thinks Delaware is heading for a GOP victory. It's toss-up seats are Colorado, Illinois, California, Nevada and Wisconsin. For what its worth if the Reps don't take Colorado they're in trouble - but if the Dems don't take California or Delaware the same is true!
Sunday, August 29, 2010
LibDem Negative Campaigning - New Low
The LibDems are very much predictable in the vicious and negative style of campaigning - the sort which led their former Leader Hereward Cooke, a decent man, to apologise to council for it (background here). Yet amazingly, despite poll after poll saying people don't like negative campaigning it seems to work. I wonder, however, if they can both be negative and mislead at the same time and still get away with it?
The following is taken from the latest "Simon Wright school of negative campaigning" - just a small section but from an A3 leaflet designed to knife Labour and suggest only the LibDems can beat them here (without a word about the Greens who actually do hold the ward).
Take a look ...
You would think from this that the LibDems has valiantly tried to stop the madness of Labour spending £1.5m of taxpayers cash on a "huge vain white-elephant of a project that was doomed to failure" (words taken from my first speech on the issue ...)
Yet, no. LibDem Councillors voted FOR this money to be spent and did so every time of asking.
Every time Labour wanted more cash to throw at this project, the LibDems said YES YES YES.
Check out the roll-call of those who voted for this money to be spent and you will soon find ...
"Councillors LUBBOCK, WATKINS ..."
and most embarrassingly ...
"... WRIGHT."
I wonder if Simon Wright knows his wife voted for this money to be spent? (For the record, the Conservative Group have voted against spending the money on every occasion we could have).
But wait - they have a chance to redeem themselves!! In 2008 and 2009 there were budget proposals on the table to reduce the unitary spend and use the money elsewhere. Surely if they were that concerned that would have voted FOR these measures?
Nope ... all LibDem Councillors, including Ros Wright, voted against Tory plans to scale back on unitary spending.
The the U-turn is sharp, the hypocrisy is breathtaking and no wonder people are losing faith in politics.
The LibDems vote, consistently, for unitary spending and then oppose it after the project fails.
This takes the LibDem negative campaigning to a new low - because it is designed to mislead.
The following is taken from the latest "Simon Wright school of negative campaigning" - just a small section but from an A3 leaflet designed to knife Labour and suggest only the LibDems can beat them here (without a word about the Greens who actually do hold the ward).
Take a look ...
You would think from this that the LibDems has valiantly tried to stop the madness of Labour spending £1.5m of taxpayers cash on a "huge vain white-elephant of a project that was doomed to failure" (words taken from my first speech on the issue ...)
Yet, no. LibDem Councillors voted FOR this money to be spent and did so every time of asking.
Every time Labour wanted more cash to throw at this project, the LibDems said YES YES YES.
Check out the roll-call of those who voted for this money to be spent and you will soon find ...
"Councillors LUBBOCK, WATKINS ..."
and most embarrassingly ...
"... WRIGHT."
I wonder if Simon Wright knows his wife voted for this money to be spent? (For the record, the Conservative Group have voted against spending the money on every occasion we could have).
But wait - they have a chance to redeem themselves!! In 2008 and 2009 there were budget proposals on the table to reduce the unitary spend and use the money elsewhere. Surely if they were that concerned that would have voted FOR these measures?
Nope ... all LibDem Councillors, including Ros Wright, voted against Tory plans to scale back on unitary spending.
The the U-turn is sharp, the hypocrisy is breathtaking and no wonder people are losing faith in politics.
The LibDems vote, consistently, for unitary spending and then oppose it after the project fails.
This takes the LibDem negative campaigning to a new low - because it is designed to mislead.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Happy or Sad?
True story ...
A friend meets a LibDem deliverer ...
Friend: Thanks for calling round but it's too late, I've done my postal vote.
LibDem: Lovely, thank you, may I ask if you supported us?
Friend: No, sorry, I voted for Antony Little
LibDem: But Antony Little isn't a candidate here - he stood in the General Election.
Friend: Oh. I have no idea who I voted for then.
UPDATE: for clarification this wasn't in Bowthorpe and the LibDem was right - I wasn't on the ballot paper!!
A friend meets a LibDem deliverer ...
Friend: Thanks for calling round but it's too late, I've done my postal vote.
LibDem: Lovely, thank you, may I ask if you supported us?
Friend: No, sorry, I voted for Antony Little
LibDem: But Antony Little isn't a candidate here - he stood in the General Election.
Friend: Oh. I have no idea who I voted for then.
UPDATE: for clarification this wasn't in Bowthorpe and the LibDem was right - I wasn't on the ballot paper!!
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Guest Post: Why Peter is wrong (and right) about Wensum
I suggest that before you read this you scroll through the comments on previous posts to find Peter's views on campaigning in his home ward of Wensum. Before I tell you why he is wrong, firstly we'll dwell on why he is right.
In an ideal world, every party would stand candidates everywhere and each community would have a full flourishing campaign where every vote is fought over and every argument challenged. That would be a real democracy. But sadly life is not like that.
Firstly politics requires people. Doors do not knock on themselves, and leaflets do not fly through your letter box by magic. Even if a party posts you material, as the LibDems did heavily last time, they first have to raise the money to do it. Even the Royal Mail doesn't run on IOUs. Sadly in modern politics the number of people given to do these activities is falling, driven on by a number of factors (like all the parties looking the same and lack of time in working practices). So with limited finances and limited workforces the parties have to be rational about what they do and where. I imagine the Tory and LibDem membership in Wensum is quite low and Labour's is quite inactive. Only the Greens, as supported by Peter's evidence on the ground, have what it takes to get around. In fact, it could be that the Tory / Libdem / Labour candidates are "paper" ones, where they stand only to give a choice on the ballot paper rather than seriously expect to win. That could explain the lack of effort. Whenever somebody complains to me about lack of communication from party X, I always ask them if they have volunteered to be the street leafleter recently. Usually the answer is "no"; QED.
So, in this election would we expect parties to be focusing on Wensum? Well, yes and no ...
I happen to believe that Mr Altman, the Green candidate, is a weak candidate and very open to attack. His record as Mancroft's councillor was poor, as was his decision to walk away after only a year. Hardly the commitment the people of Wensum want. In addition, a lot of people my end of the ward wonder if the Greens just want the council allowances (wages!) rather than to do the job for the right reasons. Llewellyn to Altman is like from the firepan into the fire! If the other candidates had decent local people who really wanted the job out of a sense of public duty, they'd do well. However ...
The fact of the matter is that the Greens hold the ward with a big majority, with Labour in second. The Tories have improved in the last 3-4 years but have only just managed to leapfrog the poor old fourth placed LibDems (although no doubt only they can win here!!).
And do the parties need Wensum for where they are going? The Greens do because they need it in their column for the great council take-over. But I guarantee you neither Tory nor LibDems have in in the front, middle or even back of their minds. And that leaves Labour - with the party struggling to hold onto 6 (yes, six) marginal wards I doubt they have room for a seventh target no matter how tempting.
I am sorry Peter - Wensum is not going to be a great political fight this year; maybe next. You can expect a few leaflets, probably from Greens and Labour, and a knock from maybe the Greens. The rest you'll have to discover from the internet.
I know it's sad and not how elections ought to be, but until one of the other parties need Wensum or the results show they may be able to win it, don't expect that to change.
But have heart - the Tories are making a good show in Thorpe Hamlet, a seat that I know well and where most people thought they were out of the running. My partner has a leaflet and a letter from the party in a clear third place, so maybe there is hope for Wensum yet.
The author is a regular here and lives in Wensum Ward.
In an ideal world, every party would stand candidates everywhere and each community would have a full flourishing campaign where every vote is fought over and every argument challenged. That would be a real democracy. But sadly life is not like that.
Firstly politics requires people. Doors do not knock on themselves, and leaflets do not fly through your letter box by magic. Even if a party posts you material, as the LibDems did heavily last time, they first have to raise the money to do it. Even the Royal Mail doesn't run on IOUs. Sadly in modern politics the number of people given to do these activities is falling, driven on by a number of factors (like all the parties looking the same and lack of time in working practices). So with limited finances and limited workforces the parties have to be rational about what they do and where. I imagine the Tory and LibDem membership in Wensum is quite low and Labour's is quite inactive. Only the Greens, as supported by Peter's evidence on the ground, have what it takes to get around. In fact, it could be that the Tory / Libdem / Labour candidates are "paper" ones, where they stand only to give a choice on the ballot paper rather than seriously expect to win. That could explain the lack of effort. Whenever somebody complains to me about lack of communication from party X, I always ask them if they have volunteered to be the street leafleter recently. Usually the answer is "no"; QED.
So, in this election would we expect parties to be focusing on Wensum? Well, yes and no ...
I happen to believe that Mr Altman, the Green candidate, is a weak candidate and very open to attack. His record as Mancroft's councillor was poor, as was his decision to walk away after only a year. Hardly the commitment the people of Wensum want. In addition, a lot of people my end of the ward wonder if the Greens just want the council allowances (wages!) rather than to do the job for the right reasons. Llewellyn to Altman is like from the firepan into the fire! If the other candidates had decent local people who really wanted the job out of a sense of public duty, they'd do well. However ...
The fact of the matter is that the Greens hold the ward with a big majority, with Labour in second. The Tories have improved in the last 3-4 years but have only just managed to leapfrog the poor old fourth placed LibDems (although no doubt only they can win here!!).
And do the parties need Wensum for where they are going? The Greens do because they need it in their column for the great council take-over. But I guarantee you neither Tory nor LibDems have in in the front, middle or even back of their minds. And that leaves Labour - with the party struggling to hold onto 6 (yes, six) marginal wards I doubt they have room for a seventh target no matter how tempting.
I am sorry Peter - Wensum is not going to be a great political fight this year; maybe next. You can expect a few leaflets, probably from Greens and Labour, and a knock from maybe the Greens. The rest you'll have to discover from the internet.
I know it's sad and not how elections ought to be, but until one of the other parties need Wensum or the results show they may be able to win it, don't expect that to change.
But have heart - the Tories are making a good show in Thorpe Hamlet, a seat that I know well and where most people thought they were out of the running. My partner has a leaflet and a letter from the party in a clear third place, so maybe there is hope for Wensum yet.
The author is a regular here and lives in Wensum Ward.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Norwich MP lets down democracy
Regular readers of this blog will know I'm an "on the fence" Conservative when it comes to the AV vote. But this really made me laugh.Generally the only party to be in favour of AV are the LibDems (and even then they believe it to be a poor compromise). Their party has been engaged in a competition to find a great pro-AV poster (more here) and the above is one example of that work.
Pretty shocking eh? One MP won with as little as 29% of the vote ... who could be this betrayer of democracy?
Well, step forward ...
Norwich South
Simon Wright (LibDem) - 29%
Charles Clarke (Labour) - 29&
Antony Little (for it is he, Conservative) - 23%
I am aware that some people believe this result is the prime example of why we need AV, but there is a certain irony in the LibDems using their own MPs electoral records as a reason to change the system!
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Guest Post: Is a new Green dawn "unstoppable"?
I suppose this post came out of a brief chat with Antony during the week, in which he re-iterated the point that turnout at these elections was likely to be low and that would damage the Greens chances. I'll go on to why I think the Greens are un-stoppable in a moment, but first the turnout point.
I disagree - the canvassing that I have done does show an increased level of apathy, partly because of the time of year and also because you rarely meet anybody who wants these elections. However I would argue that we all share in the apathy - it doesn't just impact on the young, student, green-voters. I have met middle-aged Tories and working class Labour who just aren't going to vote. And think on this - this will be an election where the most motivated set of supporters win. And I would say that the Greens have amongst the most determined, motivated and political (with a big P) supporters in the City. It's why I think the Tories will edge it in Eaton and why the Greens will do better than you all think across the City. In fact (here I go) I think the Greens will take Thorpe Hamlet and University in Norwich South and also Sewell in Norwich North.
Even so, we come to the wider point of the arithmetic. The Greens are essentially a single seat short of becoming the largest party; they have 9 seats and you need to add in holds in Town Close, Nelson, Wensum and Mancroft. Labour have 9 but I wouldn't bet on any of them being an automatic hold at this point (although clearly Mile Cross will end up in the Labour column come election night). Even if Labour do stage a massive recovery, the Green gain in Thorpe Hamlet will leave the parties 15-14; all it would take is a Tory gain in Catton Grove or Crome to put them as equals at 14-14. Can Morphew hold on then? I wouldn't bet on it. You see the Greens are unstoppable; because the other parties will do our work for us. A Tory gain here or a LibDem gain there (Lakenham?) and they've slipped behind. The Greens can take control without taking a single Labour seat.
For what it's worth, I think the result will be:
Green 16 (gains Thorpe Hamlet, University & Sewell)
Labour 10 (holds Mile Cross)
Tories 8 (holds Bowthorpe, gains Eaton, Catton & Crome)
LibDems 5 (loses Thorpe Hamlet & Eaton but gains Lakenham)
And in those circumstance not even a Condem coalition can stop Claire Stephenson being Leader of the Council.
I disagree - the canvassing that I have done does show an increased level of apathy, partly because of the time of year and also because you rarely meet anybody who wants these elections. However I would argue that we all share in the apathy - it doesn't just impact on the young, student, green-voters. I have met middle-aged Tories and working class Labour who just aren't going to vote. And think on this - this will be an election where the most motivated set of supporters win. And I would say that the Greens have amongst the most determined, motivated and political (with a big P) supporters in the City. It's why I think the Tories will edge it in Eaton and why the Greens will do better than you all think across the City. In fact (here I go) I think the Greens will take Thorpe Hamlet and University in Norwich South and also Sewell in Norwich North.
Even so, we come to the wider point of the arithmetic. The Greens are essentially a single seat short of becoming the largest party; they have 9 seats and you need to add in holds in Town Close, Nelson, Wensum and Mancroft. Labour have 9 but I wouldn't bet on any of them being an automatic hold at this point (although clearly Mile Cross will end up in the Labour column come election night). Even if Labour do stage a massive recovery, the Green gain in Thorpe Hamlet will leave the parties 15-14; all it would take is a Tory gain in Catton Grove or Crome to put them as equals at 14-14. Can Morphew hold on then? I wouldn't bet on it. You see the Greens are unstoppable; because the other parties will do our work for us. A Tory gain here or a LibDem gain there (Lakenham?) and they've slipped behind. The Greens can take control without taking a single Labour seat.
For what it's worth, I think the result will be:
Green 16 (gains Thorpe Hamlet, University & Sewell)
Labour 10 (holds Mile Cross)
Tories 8 (holds Bowthorpe, gains Eaton, Catton & Crome)
LibDems 5 (loses Thorpe Hamlet & Eaton but gains Lakenham)
And in those circumstance not even a Condem coalition can stop Claire Stephenson being Leader of the Council.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
LibDem Bar Chart Comeback - but it's still inacurrate - Shock.
Judging from my email inbox there is more hubbub about the LibDems using the whole Norwich South result to prove "it's a two horse race" between them and Labour and no point in voting Conservative or Green - sadly, though, they used this argument in places like Eaton (where the Tories and LibDems are around 200 votes apart with Labour fourth) and Town Close (where the Greens have a 20% lead over the LibDems with Labour in fourth).
After all we hear about "new politics" and "I understand why politicians are not trusted", surely this kind of campaigning is partly to blame? Luckily (for us) confused electors don't believe the party that mis-lead them.
After all we hear about "new politics" and "I understand why politicians are not trusted", surely this kind of campaigning is partly to blame? Luckily (for us) confused electors don't believe the party that mis-lead them.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Guest Post: What happened to LibDem localism?
One of the issues which really stood out for me amongst the "Statement of Persons Nominated" in how few of the candidates live in the areas they seek to represent. Back in the days, the LibDem campaigning rule-book clearly stated that you stood a much, much better chance of winning with a local candidate and that you should always select a local above anybody else. In fact, when you have done that and the other parties have not simply hammer them the whole way through the parachuting in an unpopular outsider!!
Antony's note: True, and in the Tories we used to say that you were only as local as your LibDem candidate. If the LibDem didn't live in the ward, it didn't matter - but if the Tory didn't then it was a high crime!
So going down the list it is interesting to see who lives where.
In Catton Grove the LibDem lives in Mile Cross. in Crome they live in Nelson. In Bowthorpe the LibDem is from Eaton, but in Eaton he's from Nelson. The Lakenham LibDem is from Mancroft. The Nelson candidate is from Unviersity whilst the Thorpe Hamlet guy is from Sewell. Town Close LibDems have a candidate from Wensum and in Wensum he's from Mancroft
But Bingo - we have genuine locals in Mile Cross (I rate Carl Mayhew and whilst I don't think he'll win this time, I think it will be a good match for May 2011). Mancroft LibDems also have a local - Simon Nobbs.
University have a local candidate (just - he lives on the borderline with Nelson!) as too do Sewell LibDems.
2 locals out of 13? 4 at a push? Come on, what are the Norwich LibDems playing at? Especially given that their target seats - Eaton, Town Close, Thorpe Hamlet and Lakenham are all missing out on locals. Are the LibDems really stuck for candidates like this?
Is it better to live in a set geographical area or to work hard at campaigning? I wonder if people care where the candidates come from anymore? Have the LibDems missed a trick with this?
Antony's Update: I know this guest post focuses on the LibDems so out of fairness I have evaluated the Tory local candidate count. We have 6 candidates who live in their wards and 2 more with existing elected links.
Antony's note: True, and in the Tories we used to say that you were only as local as your LibDem candidate. If the LibDem didn't live in the ward, it didn't matter - but if the Tory didn't then it was a high crime!
So going down the list it is interesting to see who lives where.
In Catton Grove the LibDem lives in Mile Cross. in Crome they live in Nelson. In Bowthorpe the LibDem is from Eaton, but in Eaton he's from Nelson. The Lakenham LibDem is from Mancroft. The Nelson candidate is from Unviersity whilst the Thorpe Hamlet guy is from Sewell. Town Close LibDems have a candidate from Wensum and in Wensum he's from Mancroft
But Bingo - we have genuine locals in Mile Cross (I rate Carl Mayhew and whilst I don't think he'll win this time, I think it will be a good match for May 2011). Mancroft LibDems also have a local - Simon Nobbs.
University have a local candidate (just - he lives on the borderline with Nelson!) as too do Sewell LibDems.
2 locals out of 13? 4 at a push? Come on, what are the Norwich LibDems playing at? Especially given that their target seats - Eaton, Town Close, Thorpe Hamlet and Lakenham are all missing out on locals. Are the LibDems really stuck for candidates like this?
Is it better to live in a set geographical area or to work hard at campaigning? I wonder if people care where the candidates come from anymore? Have the LibDems missed a trick with this?
Antony's Update: I know this guest post focuses on the LibDems so out of fairness I have evaluated the Tory local candidate count. We have 6 candidates who live in their wards and 2 more with existing elected links.
AV referendum to cost £100m
Either that figure is wrong (but as it came from Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg - I doubt it !!!) or I am voting NO just to spite whoever decided to run such an expensive waste of time just as the rest of country is bracing itself for cuts. Honestly - I know I'm a Conservative but is this really the best that the "new politics" can do?
Pearson quits as UKIP Leader
Recovering from the earthquake news that Lord Pearson has quit as UKIP Leader, I found myself wondering if anybody could name any UKIP Leader other than Nigel Farage? Some bloggers are getting very excited today about a Farage comeback, others claiming huge names like David Campbell-Bannerman (against whom I once debated) will stand. Either way I can't see this contest setting the political (or real) world on fire. Let them get on with it in peace.
Oh, and for your interest the previous leaders were:
1993-1997 Alan Sked (who then quit the party claiming it was on the political fringe)
1997-1999 Michael Holmes (who was forced to quit after claims he was too pro-European - he went on to quit the party in 2000)
1999-2002 Jeffrey Titford (probably the only person to come out of this well)
2002-2006 Roger Knapman (who was found to be employing Polish immigrants and spent much of his leadership being undermined by Robert Kilroy-Silk)
2006-2009 Nigel Farage (who ended up challenging the Speaker and begin humiliated in the 2010 General Election but just survived death after being involved in a plane crash)
Oh, and for your interest the previous leaders were:
1993-1997 Alan Sked (who then quit the party claiming it was on the political fringe)
1997-1999 Michael Holmes (who was forced to quit after claims he was too pro-European - he went on to quit the party in 2000)
1999-2002 Jeffrey Titford (probably the only person to come out of this well)
2002-2006 Roger Knapman (who was found to be employing Polish immigrants and spent much of his leadership being undermined by Robert Kilroy-Silk)
2006-2009 Nigel Farage (who ended up challenging the Speaker and begin humiliated in the 2010 General Election but just survived death after being involved in a plane crash)
Thanks for the cheque, Mr Blair
I have been a little frustrated today by the response to the news that former Prime Minister Tony Blair is to donate all of the money from his autobiography to the Royal British Legion. Even he admits it is to support the amazing work done by those who serve in our armed forces. And so the media ask - an act of amazing generosity or a plea for forgiveness?
In my view those who oppose and opposed the war will never forgive Blair. If this is his way of making up for what he did, it won't work. And why would a man which such political skill as Blair think it would? I know we live in cynical times but ...
So it leaves me to conclude that, just for once, I want to give Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt. That he wishes to do some good with his auto-biog and for it not to be seen as a way of cashing in on his political career. Just think fo what that money could do for the RBL and all of our service people that it works with.
I haven't lost a loved-one in conflict so I cannot imagine how they feel. But would they really want the RBL to go without what could be a £4m+ donation?
I know it's hard but can't we just thank Mr Blair, cash the cheque, and get to work providing for those people who have made sacrifices for our country?
In my view those who oppose and opposed the war will never forgive Blair. If this is his way of making up for what he did, it won't work. And why would a man which such political skill as Blair think it would? I know we live in cynical times but ...
So it leaves me to conclude that, just for once, I want to give Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt. That he wishes to do some good with his auto-biog and for it not to be seen as a way of cashing in on his political career. Just think fo what that money could do for the RBL and all of our service people that it works with.
I haven't lost a loved-one in conflict so I cannot imagine how they feel. But would they really want the RBL to go without what could be a £4m+ donation?
I know it's hard but can't we just thank Mr Blair, cash the cheque, and get to work providing for those people who have made sacrifices for our country?
Monday, August 16, 2010
Guest Post: Is there life after UEA?
The biggest interest in this election, for election nerds like us, is not if the Greens can take control or even if a bizarre ConDem pact can seize control of City Hall - but just what will the City election results be without the UEA student voting?
Don't for a moment believe this is limited to just University Ward itself - these days students impact greatly in Bowthorpe, Nelson, Town Close, Wensum and to a lesser extent in Sewell, Thorpe Hamlet and Eaton too. I know that turnout isn't great (where is at local election time) but when the student vote is so Green-Lib leaning, could their absence leave the Tories smiling and Labour frustrated?
You see, UEA automatically registers all first year student on campus - but now they've gone. So the politically motivated learners have to get postal votes or tramp back to their common rooms to vote at a time when the university isn't even open for the new term. Similarly those who have moved off site seem unlikely to have registered yet. Third years who were registered may have buggered off, never to return (let alone to vote). Basically there is a UEA student shaped hole in canvass sheets across the City.
So what of the impact then? Well, it should make Bowthorpe safe for the Tories (a cheer from OGH there?) and also University safe for Labour, where Bert Bremner's opposition tends to come from campus. It will dent the Green majorities in Wensum and Nelson but not so far as the wards could be lost (although the Green candidate in Wensum - who served one year as Mancroft Councillor then quit doesn't inspire confidence). The most interested impact may be in Town Close, where the Greens had 42% to the LibDems 24% and Tory 20% last time. Without the student vote in the Golden Triangle, that may just be closer than it seems.
So, as I said, a game for political nerds that we leave us pouring over the exact stats on 10th September, but for what its worth I don't think the lack of student votes will actually tip any wards whatsoever. It'll make some safer, some less so but I don't see any of the big student area seats changing hands ... yet.
The author is a volunteer who responded to my previous request for articles. He is not a member of any political party (at the moment) but wishes to remain, in the spirit of these posts, anonymous.
Don't for a moment believe this is limited to just University Ward itself - these days students impact greatly in Bowthorpe, Nelson, Town Close, Wensum and to a lesser extent in Sewell, Thorpe Hamlet and Eaton too. I know that turnout isn't great (where is at local election time) but when the student vote is so Green-Lib leaning, could their absence leave the Tories smiling and Labour frustrated?
You see, UEA automatically registers all first year student on campus - but now they've gone. So the politically motivated learners have to get postal votes or tramp back to their common rooms to vote at a time when the university isn't even open for the new term. Similarly those who have moved off site seem unlikely to have registered yet. Third years who were registered may have buggered off, never to return (let alone to vote). Basically there is a UEA student shaped hole in canvass sheets across the City.
So what of the impact then? Well, it should make Bowthorpe safe for the Tories (a cheer from OGH there?) and also University safe for Labour, where Bert Bremner's opposition tends to come from campus. It will dent the Green majorities in Wensum and Nelson but not so far as the wards could be lost (although the Green candidate in Wensum - who served one year as Mancroft Councillor then quit doesn't inspire confidence). The most interested impact may be in Town Close, where the Greens had 42% to the LibDems 24% and Tory 20% last time. Without the student vote in the Golden Triangle, that may just be closer than it seems.
So, as I said, a game for political nerds that we leave us pouring over the exact stats on 10th September, but for what its worth I don't think the lack of student votes will actually tip any wards whatsoever. It'll make some safer, some less so but I don't see any of the big student area seats changing hands ... yet.
The author is a volunteer who responded to my previous request for articles. He is not a member of any political party (at the moment) but wishes to remain, in the spirit of these posts, anonymous.
View from the Camps
I've now had offers from people in all political parties to write reviews ahead of the by-elections on 9th September. I am very grateful but still interested to hear from anyone who isn't connected to a party - get in touch if you can do this for us. I will post the predictions / analysis when I get them!
Friday, August 13, 2010
Night Off
I'm having a night off from campaigning (the first since the election began) to go to a wedding reception. I have to say that the campaign so far has had a sort of unreal feel to it. Large numbers of people are away at the moment and an even larger number don't know or care about this poll. We're getting lots of good support in our target wards, including Bowthorpe, but somehow I'm not sure this one has caught fire yet! Maybe the protests from council tenants (see here) will enliven the campaign and remind people about Labour's record in office.
The irony is that this campaign may just change the face of City politics for the next decade; control of City Hall is uncertain and we have some big issues to address particularly with regards to the budget. I'd love people to get a bit more into this campaign because this really is a crucial time for the City.
For what its worth I don't think we've picked up much changed voting behaviour since the General Election, most people are sticking with their choice from May - of course the lack of students may really impact - so it may come down to turnout, or lack of.
p.s. I usually carry an independent assessment of candidates, predictions etc but my usual source has gone off on holiday! If there is anybody who would like to write a review let me know and I am happy to publish!
The irony is that this campaign may just change the face of City politics for the next decade; control of City Hall is uncertain and we have some big issues to address particularly with regards to the budget. I'd love people to get a bit more into this campaign because this really is a crucial time for the City.
For what its worth I don't think we've picked up much changed voting behaviour since the General Election, most people are sticking with their choice from May - of course the lack of students may really impact - so it may come down to turnout, or lack of.
p.s. I usually carry an independent assessment of candidates, predictions etc but my usual source has gone off on holiday! If there is anybody who would like to write a review let me know and I am happy to publish!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Tories announce by-election slate of candidates
Press Release from Norwich Conservatives Campaign HQ:
A former city Tory Leader, a leading member of the business community
The Executive Committee of the Norwich South Conservative Association
Bowthorpe - Antony Little - former City Councillor, Conservative Group Leader & High School Teacher
Eaton - Tak-Man Li - married with 3 kids, Tak runs a Chinese restaurant on the Prince of Wales Road and lives in Eaton
Lakenham - Chris Benjamin - standing for the third time in the ward. Chris lives locally.
Mancroft - Suzie Pulford - Suzie, 21, is a part-time charity worker who
Nelson - Stefan Rose - Golden Triangle resident Stefan is also on his second attempt to win the Nelson Ward. Stefan works in a business on the Unthank Road.
Thorpe Hamlet - Hannah Feiner - 20 year old Hannah is standing because she believes more young women ought to be involved in local politics. Hannah works in the Castle Mall.
Town Close - Eileen Wyatt lives in the heart of Town Close and understands what really matters to local people. Eileen is retired and has lived in Town Close for 40 years.
University - Nick Hindley - Nick lives in university ward and is a member of the TA during his spare time
Wensum - Stephen Karanicholas - UEA Student Stephen is a first time candidate for his home ward where he and his family live.
Commenting on the selections, Conservative Group Leader at City Hall Cllr. Andrew Wiltshire said:
"We have an incredible and diverse group of candidates of all ages, backgrounds and interests. The Conservatives are proud to have a slate that includes businessmen, students and public sector workers. We also have candidates with a wide variety of other interests such as the Territorial Army."
"Too many Councillors are professional politicians; the Conservatives at this election offer local campaigners with their community interests at heart. They are a fresh, new and young alternative to the Labour Party at City Hall."
"We are also immensely pleased that our former Councillor, Antony Little has decided to stand again for re-election. His experience, passion and knowledge are invaluable in holding Labour to account and in fighting for local people."
"The Conservatives will fight a vigorous and positive campaign over the summer and look forward to serving the people of Norwich."
In addition, Norwich North Conservatives have selected Chris Baxter (Crome), Oscar Pinnington (Mile Cross), Dave Mackie (Sewell) & Charlotte Casimir (Catton Grove)
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Labour blames Tories for by-elections; so not the High Court or, oh, themselves then...
According to the Labour Party Website:
As a result of expensive legal action by the Tory-controlled County Council (paid for out of your council tax), costly and unnecessary by-elections (paid for again out of your council tax!) have been forced on the citizens of Norwich.
Norwich Labour Party believes this money would have been better spent keeping day-care centres for the elderly open and keeping our street lights on after midnight
It might have been more accurate to say:
As a result of THE GENERAL ELECTION by A COUNTRY ANNOYED WITH GORDON BROWN (paid for out of your council tax), costly and unnecessary by-elections (paid for again out of your council tax!) have been forced on the citizens of Norwich BY THE HIGH COURT AS A DIRECT RESULT OF LABOUR'S UNITARY BID.
Norwich CONSERVATIVE Party believes this money would have been better spent IMPROVING OUR ZERO STAR HOUSING SERVICE and ACTUALLY PROVIDING BASIC SERVICES SUCH AS CUTTING THE GRASS VERGES.
;-)
As a result of expensive legal action by the Tory-controlled County Council (paid for out of your council tax), costly and unnecessary by-elections (paid for again out of your council tax!) have been forced on the citizens of Norwich.
Norwich Labour Party believes this money would have been better spent keeping day-care centres for the elderly open and keeping our street lights on after midnight
It might have been more accurate to say:
As a result of THE GENERAL ELECTION by A COUNTRY ANNOYED WITH GORDON BROWN (paid for out of your council tax), costly and unnecessary by-elections (paid for again out of your council tax!) have been forced on the citizens of Norwich BY THE HIGH COURT AS A DIRECT RESULT OF LABOUR'S UNITARY BID.
Norwich CONSERVATIVE Party believes this money would have been better spent IMPROVING OUR ZERO STAR HOUSING SERVICE and ACTUALLY PROVIDING BASIC SERVICES SUCH AS CUTTING THE GRASS VERGES.
;-)
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
What happened to the class of '06?
There can be few entry year of councillors who have had a more uncertain or difficult time than that of 2006. Looking at the fate of each of them makes for interesting reading considering 7 out of the 13 has led their party or served on the Executive;
Bowthorpe - Antony Little, Conservative Leader - restanding
Catton Grove - Brian Morrey, Labour Deputy Leader of the Council - de-selected / standing down
Crome - Jenny Lay, Labour - restanding
Eaton - Brian Watkins, LibDem Leader - no news yet
Lakenham - Mary Cannell, Labour - standing down
Mancroft - Howard Jago, Green - standing down
Mile Cross - Linda Blakeway, Labour Executive Member - standing down
Nelson - Claire Stephenson, Green Leader - restanding
Sewell - Sue Sands, Labour Executive Member - restanding
Thorpe Hamlet - Joyce Divers, LibDem - standing down
Town Close - Janet Bearman, Green - standing down
University - Bert Bremner, Labour Executive Member - restanding
Wensum - Tom Llewelyn, Green - standing down
Having only 5 of the original cohort re-standing is incredible and most of those going were only first elected in 2006.
Bowthorpe - Antony Little, Conservative Leader - restanding
Catton Grove - Brian Morrey, Labour Deputy Leader of the Council - de-selected / standing down
Crome - Jenny Lay, Labour - restanding
Eaton - Brian Watkins, LibDem Leader - no news yet
Lakenham - Mary Cannell, Labour - standing down
Mancroft - Howard Jago, Green - standing down
Mile Cross - Linda Blakeway, Labour Executive Member - standing down
Nelson - Claire Stephenson, Green Leader - restanding
Sewell - Sue Sands, Labour Executive Member - restanding
Thorpe Hamlet - Joyce Divers, LibDem - standing down
Town Close - Janet Bearman, Green - standing down
University - Bert Bremner, Labour Executive Member - restanding
Wensum - Tom Llewelyn, Green - standing down
Having only 5 of the original cohort re-standing is incredible and most of those going were only first elected in 2006.
Notice of Poll
Well, it's started again with the issuing of the "Notice of Poll" and the beginning of the most bizarre set of by-election perhaps in electoral history. For those of you who missed this one ... in March the government canceled the Norwich elections because it wouldn't be worth the money to elect for one year if we were all going to be abolished pending unitary elections in May 2011. Now, the decision to cancel the elections were tied up with the unitary law, so when that law failed ... you guessed it, the election were back on!
So today has been a flurry of nomination papers, leaflets and canvass cards - like the good old days of, erm, 10 weeks ago ...
And now we're getting ready to hit the streets again tonight, in Bowthorpe, Eaton, Thorpe Hamlet and Town Close ... I deeply suspect we are more excited than the public but these are important elections and its our job to engage and get that turnout up.
As always, predictions welcome!
So today has been a flurry of nomination papers, leaflets and canvass cards - like the good old days of, erm, 10 weeks ago ...
And now we're getting ready to hit the streets again tonight, in Bowthorpe, Eaton, Thorpe Hamlet and Town Close ... I deeply suspect we are more excited than the public but these are important elections and its our job to engage and get that turnout up.
As always, predictions welcome!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Standing Again
Well, the decision has been taken and I have decided that I will be seeking re-election as Councillor for Bowthorpe Ward.
You might remember the little issue of being removed from office by the High Court after the quashing of the Unitary verdict, but I have now applied to the Norwich South Conservatives to be the candidate for Bowthorpe at the 9th September by-election. The final decision will be made at a special meeting in late July.
The decision to remove the Councillors came as a huge shock but the time it has given me, because I could no longer do council duties, has given me the space to consider my personal future.
I would be lying if I said I had not been tempted to stand down and take a few years out of politics to catch my breath.
I am very grateful to all of the local people in both Bowthorpe and Earlham who have been urging me to re-stand and their voices have helped me to make my mind up.
I first stood for the City Council because I believe in public service and feel I could make a difference for the people of Bowthorpe and Earlham.
Fundamentally, I believe that residents ought to make the decision if I have been a good local Councillor and if they wish to give me another term in office, rather than it being the decision of an unelected judge.
I still have a lot more I wish to do for the people of Bowthorpe and Earlham, so I have decided to give it a shot at winning their trust to serve on the council.
I am grateful to the support of my family, my council colleagues from all parties and local people in helping me make this decision.
So let's get down to it - campaignin' time again!
You might remember the little issue of being removed from office by the High Court after the quashing of the Unitary verdict, but I have now applied to the Norwich South Conservatives to be the candidate for Bowthorpe at the 9th September by-election. The final decision will be made at a special meeting in late July.
The decision to remove the Councillors came as a huge shock but the time it has given me, because I could no longer do council duties, has given me the space to consider my personal future.
I would be lying if I said I had not been tempted to stand down and take a few years out of politics to catch my breath.
I am very grateful to all of the local people in both Bowthorpe and Earlham who have been urging me to re-stand and their voices have helped me to make my mind up.
I first stood for the City Council because I believe in public service and feel I could make a difference for the people of Bowthorpe and Earlham.
Fundamentally, I believe that residents ought to make the decision if I have been a good local Councillor and if they wish to give me another term in office, rather than it being the decision of an unelected judge.
I still have a lot more I wish to do for the people of Bowthorpe and Earlham, so I have decided to give it a shot at winning their trust to serve on the council.
I am grateful to the support of my family, my council colleagues from all parties and local people in helping me make this decision.
So let's get down to it - campaignin' time again!
Monday, July 19, 2010
Balls to the Treasury?
There has been a call today to whoever the next Labour Leader not to appoint Ed Balls as their Shadow Chancellor. I think that the leadership election has shown that Balls runs an effective attack-dog operation but I do agree that his attitude would not suit the Treasury. I believe that, whoever wins, Yvette Cooper will be the next Shadow Chancellor (Darling will, IMHO leave the frontbench). However her husband would be an effective Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office - it would leave him a free hand to roam around government and be horrible to the coalition; say what you like about Balls, he's a good opposition man.
Should Speaker Bercow have no tongue to speak?
In my weaker moments I still enjoy watching both the debates and question times from parliament. Those who do so regularly will know that the most regular feature of any session in the Commons is the sight of the Speaker of the House, John Bercow, having a go at MPs for questions (and answers) that are "too long". At the beginning this seemed like a great idea for getting through more questions. However, Speaker Bercow seems to mistake a good session with one where the maximum number of MPs speak. "We've heard enough," he snapped at one LibDem MP recently.
Speaker Bercow is on very thin ice. The job of the Speaker is not the "lead" the Commons, let alone dictate to it. He would do well to remember what Speaker Lenthall once said: "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here."
It seems that Speaker Bercow is running the place as he sees fit rather than representing the views of the House - both sides of the chamber. The sight of him determining how long an MP's question should be is wrong, so long as it's one question and doesn't constitute a speech!
In fact, Speaker Bercow does do rather a lot of Speaking really including pontificating on what the public would or would not like to see. What qualifies him for this role?
He is there to run the place smoothly and ensure the rules are kept to - not to control the debate and questions in his tight-fisted way. Maybe he'll loosen up as time goes on, but if I were an MP being cut off from asking a question it would make me wonder what agenda the Speaker really has and if really is the man to preside over the Commons.
Speaker Bercow is on very thin ice. The job of the Speaker is not the "lead" the Commons, let alone dictate to it. He would do well to remember what Speaker Lenthall once said: "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here."
It seems that Speaker Bercow is running the place as he sees fit rather than representing the views of the House - both sides of the chamber. The sight of him determining how long an MP's question should be is wrong, so long as it's one question and doesn't constitute a speech!
In fact, Speaker Bercow does do rather a lot of Speaking really including pontificating on what the public would or would not like to see. What qualifies him for this role?
He is there to run the place smoothly and ensure the rules are kept to - not to control the debate and questions in his tight-fisted way. Maybe he'll loosen up as time goes on, but if I were an MP being cut off from asking a question it would make me wonder what agenda the Speaker really has and if really is the man to preside over the Commons.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Question for the Pollsters
So ... the latest YouGov poll sparked an instant question for me about voting intention work versus approval ratings.
Of the respondents, 43% would vote Tory if there were an election tomorrow, 34% for the leaderless Labour party and just 15% for Clegg's LibDems; the missing 8% must be for the other parties.
However the government approval rating was +8%; 44% to 36%.
Good news for Cameron; I assume pretty much all of Labour's supporters would disapprove of the coalition so that leaves just 2% opposition from the Tories, LibDems and others. This strikes me as quite a low figure.
Bad news though; 44% either represents most of the Tories but a fraction of the LibDems or more worrying a lower portion of the Tory vote and more LibDems. Why isn't this figure higher? The government has 58% of the combined vote with only 44% approval.
I know both CCHQ and Downing St will have noted this.
Of the respondents, 43% would vote Tory if there were an election tomorrow, 34% for the leaderless Labour party and just 15% for Clegg's LibDems; the missing 8% must be for the other parties.
However the government approval rating was +8%; 44% to 36%.
Good news for Cameron; I assume pretty much all of Labour's supporters would disapprove of the coalition so that leaves just 2% opposition from the Tories, LibDems and others. This strikes me as quite a low figure.
Bad news though; 44% either represents most of the Tories but a fraction of the LibDems or more worrying a lower portion of the Tory vote and more LibDems. Why isn't this figure higher? The government has 58% of the combined vote with only 44% approval.
I know both CCHQ and Downing St will have noted this.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Labour's Comeback Kids?
Even though she was utterly wrong, the strong performance of former Communities Secretary Hazel Blears on Newsnight tonight actually left me wondering if she is angling for a Shadow Cabinet comeback - which leads to the question of what the Labour frontbench will look like after the new leader is elected.
One thing is for certain - if Diane Abbot doesn't win (!) she won't serve the new leader. But it does ask the question about what you do with the other failed leadership candidates; the Milibands, Andy Burnham or Ed Balls?
Hazel is one of a number of ministers who quit under Brown who could be brought back into action. What about Caroline Flint - is she ready for the Shadow Cabinet?
There is a question about some of the outgoing cabinet and if they would either want to serve or if a new "change" leader would want them - such as Bob Ainsworth (Defence) or Liam Byrne (will he survive that note?), Alistair Darling (would he want to stay on)? What about Jack Straw?
Then there are the young guns who'll be looking for promotion - Douglas Alexander, for example, will expect a leg up from International Development. Yvette Cooper could also expect a big new job.
There are the safe pairs of hands - Hilary Benn, Nick Brown, John Denham, Peter Hain, Alan Johnson, Jim Murphy, Shaun Woodward will all be on the roundabout.
And what about the golden oldies - might they wish for one more pop, either to help balance the Shadow Cabinet & offer experience ... or do they walk away? So, for example, what will Margaret Beckett, former Foreign Secretary, do? David Blunkett, former Home Secretary, may also be tempted?
Ed Balls is a tricky move for any new leader who isn't Ed Balls; but his recent pitbull attitude to the Tories would suit a more free-ranging role.
The other name that it would interesting to see if any leader could get them to serve is Jon Cruddas; it would be a coup if they could and a healing moment for the party.
And then there are the young bucks trying to make their shadow cabinet breakthrough - Rhondda MP Chris Bryant, Tooting's Sadiq Khan, Tottenham's David Lammy, . Former Minister Chris Leslie, who returned to the Commons as Nottingham East MP is also touting himself about the House. Ditto Stephen Twigg, back as one of Liverpool's MPs.
Plus of course you get to keep Deputy Leader Harriet Harman as a bonus; will she try and get Margaret Hodge to come with her? Can Pat McFadden keep his position? What about Stephen Timms? Or Rosie Winterton?
Of course the big thing will be that this Shadow Cabinet will be subject to an election and may look very different depending on who takes the helm!
One thing is for certain - if Diane Abbot doesn't win (!) she won't serve the new leader. But it does ask the question about what you do with the other failed leadership candidates; the Milibands, Andy Burnham or Ed Balls?
Hazel is one of a number of ministers who quit under Brown who could be brought back into action. What about Caroline Flint - is she ready for the Shadow Cabinet?
There is a question about some of the outgoing cabinet and if they would either want to serve or if a new "change" leader would want them - such as Bob Ainsworth (Defence) or Liam Byrne (will he survive that note?), Alistair Darling (would he want to stay on)? What about Jack Straw?
Then there are the young guns who'll be looking for promotion - Douglas Alexander, for example, will expect a leg up from International Development. Yvette Cooper could also expect a big new job.
There are the safe pairs of hands - Hilary Benn, Nick Brown, John Denham, Peter Hain, Alan Johnson, Jim Murphy, Shaun Woodward will all be on the roundabout.
And what about the golden oldies - might they wish for one more pop, either to help balance the Shadow Cabinet & offer experience ... or do they walk away? So, for example, what will Margaret Beckett, former Foreign Secretary, do? David Blunkett, former Home Secretary, may also be tempted?
Ed Balls is a tricky move for any new leader who isn't Ed Balls; but his recent pitbull attitude to the Tories would suit a more free-ranging role.
The other name that it would interesting to see if any leader could get them to serve is Jon Cruddas; it would be a coup if they could and a healing moment for the party.
And then there are the young bucks trying to make their shadow cabinet breakthrough - Rhondda MP Chris Bryant, Tooting's Sadiq Khan, Tottenham's David Lammy, . Former Minister Chris Leslie, who returned to the Commons as Nottingham East MP is also touting himself about the House. Ditto Stephen Twigg, back as one of Liverpool's MPs.
Plus of course you get to keep Deputy Leader Harriet Harman as a bonus; will she try and get Margaret Hodge to come with her? Can Pat McFadden keep his position? What about Stephen Timms? Or Rosie Winterton?
Of course the big thing will be that this Shadow Cabinet will be subject to an election and may look very different depending on who takes the helm!
Unthank Tesco Opens
I agree about the point regarding local democracy, planning rules and the whole shabang. However the way to deal with this issue is using people power; will the good people of the Golden Triangle now vote with their feet and their purses and boycott Tesco's (after all, thousands of them signed petitions against it) and force to store to close within weeks or months?
Or will they pop in for their shopping after all and make the store a success?
I know one Golden Triangle who has already popped in for her pint of milk - and whom told me that it was OK because she was never against the store after all; I wonder how many people will think like her?
Or will they pop in for their shopping after all and make the store a success?
I know one Golden Triangle who has already popped in for her pint of milk - and whom told me that it was OK because she was never against the store after all; I wonder how many people will think like her?
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Not One But Many
It isn't one bad teacher in a school that we ought to be worried about, but when there are many bad teachers in a school.
A good friend often reminds me, that bad teaching by a teacher means they can go back and improve next year. But a bad year of teaching for a pupil, and they never get that time back.
A good friend often reminds me, that bad teaching by a teacher means they can go back and improve next year. But a bad year of teaching for a pupil, and they never get that time back.
Gove should be congratulated ...
... not for announcing the wrong list of schools for the BSF cuts, but the way in which he handled it.
Under the old fashioned notion of "Ministerial Responsibility", the Secretary of State takes all of the credit and blame for everything which goes on in their department. It would have been easy for Gove to take the Labour way-out and blame some anonymous Civil Servant for the balls-up and to suspend a junior official or two. After all, he didn't do this - all he did was read the information he had been provided with out, which turned out to be wrong. He could have dodged the whole issue.
But he didn't do that. He took responsibility, came to the House of Commons and owned up. He said sorry.
This government hasn't been great so far in terms of re-establishing the power of the legislature - the elections for committee places has been a good start, but government by press release has appeared to have clung on even after the departure of New Labour.
However this move by Michael Gove has given me faith that at least one senior minister respects parliament and is prepared to adhere to Ministerial Responsibility.
Under the old fashioned notion of "Ministerial Responsibility", the Secretary of State takes all of the credit and blame for everything which goes on in their department. It would have been easy for Gove to take the Labour way-out and blame some anonymous Civil Servant for the balls-up and to suspend a junior official or two. After all, he didn't do this - all he did was read the information he had been provided with out, which turned out to be wrong. He could have dodged the whole issue.
But he didn't do that. He took responsibility, came to the House of Commons and owned up. He said sorry.
This government hasn't been great so far in terms of re-establishing the power of the legislature - the elections for committee places has been a good start, but government by press release has appeared to have clung on even after the departure of New Labour.
However this move by Michael Gove has given me faith that at least one senior minister respects parliament and is prepared to adhere to Ministerial Responsibility.
Why are my cuts different to those of the Government?
The ongoing announcement of government cuts, designed to pay back Labour's massive national debt, have been getting the left hot under the collar. Partly this is because of disasterous PR decision to announce the cuts one-by-one and day-by-day which allows the left to harangue each decision. (Which, of course, does give the people of this country a chance to analyse each cut and hold their MPs accountable - take, for example, the differing reaction of teachers to the GTC cut versus the BSF cut - it wouldn't have been right to roll this all up together). But more so, they are concerned because most cuts will hit associated industries and employment.
The Tories often argue that government spending is like household spending, however, and today I have had to prove this correct. Today we've gone through our spending and made some decisions to cut back in certain areas because - I've, for example, cancelled a magazine subscription and also my beloved wine club has bitten the dust. Should I have continued to pay these in order to keep the printers in business or the winemakers in profit? I doubt it, so why should the government be any different?
The Tories often argue that government spending is like household spending, however, and today I have had to prove this correct. Today we've gone through our spending and made some decisions to cut back in certain areas because - I've, for example, cancelled a magazine subscription and also my beloved wine club has bitten the dust. Should I have continued to pay these in order to keep the printers in business or the winemakers in profit? I doubt it, so why should the government be any different?
Monday, July 05, 2010
Former Councillor
Following the decision of the High Court to quash the orders to create a Unitary Council for Norwich, 13 City Councillors who had their terms of office extended have been removed from office but with no date set for the mass of by-elections.
I am amongst those - so too are Claire Stephenson (Green Leader & Chair of Scrutiny), Brian Watkins (LibDem Leader), Sue Sands (Lab Exec Childrens Services), Bert Bremner (Lab Exec Community Safety), Linda Blakeway (Lab Exec Neighbourhood Dev), Brian Morrey (Lab Deputy Leader of the Council & Exec Sustainable Development).
This is a typical mess at the end of a dogs dinner of a process. The Courts have not given the council or the people of Norwich the certainty we need. As the council faces the biggest cuts we have ever made, we shall be doing so with only half of Labour's Executive in place and with all 3 opposition leaders not in place. And all of this with no idea when new elections can be held. It is a disgrace.
I am, of course, not against standing for election (!) but leaving us high and dry with only 2/3rds of a council, a swathe of senior politicans out and no date for the election when we face this economin crisis in unacceptable.
I am amongst those - so too are Claire Stephenson (Green Leader & Chair of Scrutiny), Brian Watkins (LibDem Leader), Sue Sands (Lab Exec Childrens Services), Bert Bremner (Lab Exec Community Safety), Linda Blakeway (Lab Exec Neighbourhood Dev), Brian Morrey (Lab Deputy Leader of the Council & Exec Sustainable Development).
This is a typical mess at the end of a dogs dinner of a process. The Courts have not given the council or the people of Norwich the certainty we need. As the council faces the biggest cuts we have ever made, we shall be doing so with only half of Labour's Executive in place and with all 3 opposition leaders not in place. And all of this with no idea when new elections can be held. It is a disgrace.
I am, of course, not against standing for election (!) but leaving us high and dry with only 2/3rds of a council, a swathe of senior politicans out and no date for the election when we face this economin crisis in unacceptable.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Friday, July 02, 2010
AV if you want to ...
So the news is out (we think) that the referendum on changing the electoral system will be held on 5th May 2011; a little bit surprised that yet again a major issue has been put to the press before parliament.
Anyway, I'm not totally against a referendum but I also think that the voting system will never catch the enthusiasm of people in the way its supporters believe it will.
The Press will now spend a lot of time looking at the views of Tory MPs and the impact it will have on the coalition - for example, if AV loses will Nick and the LibDems pack up their toys and go home? Or, should Labour campaign against AV just to irritate the coalition?
If I were a Tory MP now there would certainly be 2 things that I would look at -
Firstly the date. I am not in favour of combining this with the local elections (and devolved authority elections) because of the potential for confusion and the in-built bias that the will exist in areas that are having elections. The Electoral Commission said it should be held on a totally different day and I agree - this is a major change and people ought to be clear what they are voting for. The worst thing would be for AV to win narrowly and then have voters claiming they were confused which undermines the result.
And secondly is the issue of a threshold; which comes into sharper focus when you consider how low the turnout might be (electoral reform ain't that sexy). Can you really justify this change on 50.01% of a, say, 30% turnout? I'm happy to discuss what the threshold ought to be, but there should be a clear measure of support for people before the change is made.
I hope some MPs take these ideas forward and the House of Commons gets a chance to vote on them - this isn't some LibDem obsession, nor a bargaining chip for the coalition, but the fundamentals of our democracy. This is important and should be taken seriously.
Anyway, I'm not totally against a referendum but I also think that the voting system will never catch the enthusiasm of people in the way its supporters believe it will.
The Press will now spend a lot of time looking at the views of Tory MPs and the impact it will have on the coalition - for example, if AV loses will Nick and the LibDems pack up their toys and go home? Or, should Labour campaign against AV just to irritate the coalition?
If I were a Tory MP now there would certainly be 2 things that I would look at -
Firstly the date. I am not in favour of combining this with the local elections (and devolved authority elections) because of the potential for confusion and the in-built bias that the will exist in areas that are having elections. The Electoral Commission said it should be held on a totally different day and I agree - this is a major change and people ought to be clear what they are voting for. The worst thing would be for AV to win narrowly and then have voters claiming they were confused which undermines the result.
And secondly is the issue of a threshold; which comes into sharper focus when you consider how low the turnout might be (electoral reform ain't that sexy). Can you really justify this change on 50.01% of a, say, 30% turnout? I'm happy to discuss what the threshold ought to be, but there should be a clear measure of support for people before the change is made.
I hope some MPs take these ideas forward and the House of Commons gets a chance to vote on them - this isn't some LibDem obsession, nor a bargaining chip for the coalition, but the fundamentals of our democracy. This is important and should be taken seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)