New media, old rules

I have to confess that I had a little chuckle when I heard that Labour's twitter tsar and Bristol East Labour candidate, Kerry McCarthy (@kerry4mp) had got in a bit of trouble for blabbing about postal vote openings. Her online hubris is a wonder to behold.

It was she who claimed that Labour didn't need any money, or volunteers, or electoral support because they had twitter! Her belief that micro blogging is a game changer may or may not be true but the more important point is that whatever the technology most of the old rules apply.

"Mean what you say and say only what you mean" is a pretty good starting point. If it is rude, insulting or illegal to say something out loud then it will be rude, insulting or illegal to put it on your blog or on twitter. Assume that if you say it or write it could be on the front page of the papers so that if you don't want to see it there, don't say it or write it.

By the way, if my blogging has been a bit light recently it's because I've been spending quite a bit of time stuffing envelopes, delivering leaflets, knocking on doors, talking to voters etc. because when it comes down to it that's how you win elections. New media is the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

Immigration caps, quotas and points systems

I'm watching the London Debate and was interested to hear Tessa Jowell describe Labour's immigration system as one that was "like Australia's points based system but without the cap".

I can't see how that system could possibly work. Let us say that a points threshold was set and there just happened to be 1 million people in the world who met that threshold. Would we happily admit all 1 million of the if they chose to come? We might well need people with their skill sets but couldn't possibly deal with a sudden influx at that scale.

"Ahh that would be easy" I hear you say, we could adjust upward the points threshold so that most of the 1 million would not qualify. "Good idea" I reply, "but how high should the threshold in this sector be?". Without knowing how many people the points based system was designed to admit it would be meaningless to set a threshold.

A points system is a means to an end not an end in itself. There would have to be an overall limit on numbers which, funnily enough, is the Conservative policy.

By the way the Lib Dem policy in this area is a joke. They say that you can come to the UK but only if you work in Blackpool (for example), if you lose your job in Blackpool, then what? Are you allowed to look for a job elsewhere in the UK? Would you be deported? Would you have to apply for jobseakers' allowance even though you could see job adverts in Manchester for the job you are looking for?

And what effect would their ban on labour mobility have on the salaries of immigrants in those areas? I suspect that a "I know you can't get a job anywhere else so you'd better take this pay cut" type conversations may become fairly common.

The Conservative proposal is really the only workable one being put forward.

More and better schools

One of the most exciting elements of the Conservative manifesto is the plan to increase the provision of and quality of state education.

I have long felt that there will not be widespread and consistent improvement in education while the current system exists. Parents cannot really have choice while there is a shortage of school places, what will be the drivers to improvement is parents have to send their children to failing schools?

The Conservative proposals to dramatically increase the supply of quality school places will mean that parents will no longer be faced with the prospect of sending their child to a school that they're not happy with. I still find it remarkable that in the modern world of choice, where trivial things can be so personalised and tailored that we still expect something as important as education to be rationed on a like it or lump it or buy yourself out of it basis.

It is clear that I'm not the only one who is impressed with Michael Gove's plans either.

London Waste and Recycling Board Business Plan 2010/11

The London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) has approved its Business Plan for 2010/11, which has been developed to align with the Mayor of London's waste priorities as detailed in his Draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2010.

LWARB's Business Plan 2010/11 provides greater focus on the delivery of waste infrastructure
using the pipeline of projects that has been created through Expression of Interest (EOI) submissions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final call for infrastructure projects

Having recently passed its second year business plan, which details an allocated £28 million to help develop waste infrastructure, the Board will now identify a preferred pool of projects over the next few months which meet these requirements.

The Board are aiming to support delivery of:

- 3 materials recovery facilities
- 2 anaerobic digestion plants
- 1 one mechanical biological treatment facility
- 1 thermal plant

(For more information around this proposed infrastructure, please refer to page 11 of the business plan below).

All projects that propose to deliver these specific types of infrastructure that have not yet submitted an Expression of Interest (EOI) to the Board are encouraged to do so by close of play 30 June 2010.

To submit an EOI, download the form from related documents below, and follow the notes to applicants. Competed forms shoulds be sent to info@lwarb.gov.uk


* Please note that bids for reuse will not be considered as this area is now fully subscribed.

Deadline for submission: Close of play 30 June 2010, no further EOIs will be accepted after this date.

Political donors

Vince Cable is once again the face of car crash TV.


While quizzed by Jon Sopel about the £2.5 million donation from convicted fraudster Michael Brown Cable attempts to say that it's OK because all parties have had trouble with donors. To be clear neither that Labour party or the Conservatives have funded their campaigns with money that has been stolen from other people.

While it might seem like the Lib Dems are being ganged up upon it is simply the case that they are now getting the much overdue scrutiny that they deserve. That said the Mail's obsession with Clegg's family heritage is unpleasant and irrelevant.

If you look back through my Liberal Democrat tags you'll see that I've always felt that they has been over-rated and under scrutinised. I'm glad to see the media coming round to my way of thinking.

Armed Forces Manifesto

Yesterday David Cameron and Dr Liam Fox launched the Conservative Party's Armed Forces Manifesto. As you can imagine I'm very pleased to see political commitment to support our troops.

The Armed Forces Manifesto outlines how we will repair the Military Covenant and rebuild the bonds between the Forces and the people. We will:

• Give the Armed Forces clear leadership – we'll hold a Strategic Defence and Security Review to make sure resources match commitments. In the meantime, we’ll protect the defence budget for 2010/11.

• Equip our Armed Forces properly – we’ll reform procurement so our Forces get the equipment they need when they need it, at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

• Support our servicemen and women – we’ll double the operational allowance, improve rest and recuperation leave and establish a tri-Service Military Covenant.

• Support service families and children – we’ll give Forces children extra support in school through the pupil premium, and provide college and university bursaries for the children of Forces personnel who have been killed.

• Support our veterans – with a new mental health screening process and a new ‘Troops for Teachers’ programme to get ex-service personnel into teaching.

"The first duty of government is the defence of the realm, and our most vital asset in that is our people", said Shadow Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox.

"I know from my experience as a Civilian Army Medical Officer that the surest way to have unhappy service personnel is to have unhappy service families. This is why a Conservative government will repair the Military Covenant as a matter of urgency."

Liam Fox reaffirmed that mental health is will be his welfare priority if he becomes Defence Secretary, and said he was "delighted" to announce the mental health screening service for all service leavers (including reservists) and a PTSD treatment programme within the NHS.

The manifesto has been "warmly welcomed" by the Chief Executive of Combat Stress, and the Chairman of the Combat Stress fundraising appeal has said it has "the potential to really help the UK meet the anticipated future demand for high quality mental health services for our Veterans".

Click here to download the Armed Forces Manifesto.

St George's Day in the City

I joined David Cameron and Boris Johnson in Leadenhall Market for their morning walk about. It was packed, not just with people who work in the area but veterans, school children and more journalists and photographers than you could shake a stick at.

At one point the media scrum almost trampled the flock of primary school children as both groups tried to get closer to David and Boris.

Much has been made of the preparations that the party leaders went through prior to the debates, while on the battle bus Boris offered to play Paxman so that David could prepare for tonight's interview. I'm not convinced that either David or Boris really believed that Boris would do a particularly accurate impression of Paxo.

Brown's off the cuff remarks were scripted

The Guardian's election 2010 blog has a cracking photo of Brown's notes from lasts night's leaders debate. Many politicians have speaking notes with facts and figures, names, dates etc.

Brown's notes had none of these things the whole page is full of witty one liners, jokes and put-downs. For the man who claimed that he was all substance rather then presentation it looks more than a little weak.

Happy St George's Day

Here is an unashamed bit of patriotism:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

Hat tip to William Shakespear (happy birthday/deathday)

It's the economy stupid!

The leaders debates are getting all the bulk of the coverage and the departmental debates much less so, which is a shame because there is a lot of good stuff going on there. Andrew Neil is putting all of the potential Secretaries of State under the microscope and it's not pretty.

Watching the would-be-Chancellors debate was an education. It is clear that the media now feel the Lib Dems deserve the same level of scrutiny as everyone else and it is clear that Vince wasn't really ready for that, he got slaughtered, as you can see here:





Clearly this is an edited version so in the name of fairness here is a link to the full debate:

Vote Clegg get Brown

Remember before the last General Election we warned you all that a vote for Blair would get Brown? You didn't believe us and look what happened, one of the worst Prime Ministers in British history.

Now, when we warn you that there is a very real chance that if you vote Clegg you'll get Brown please pay attention. You'll kick yourselves later if you don't.

The hypocrisy of the Hung Parliament advocates

I was at a Young Voters debate in West Norwood on Saturday supporting our excellent candidate for Streatham Rahoul Bhansali. Both the Lib Dems on the panel and the Greens claimed that proportional representation (PR) would be the cure for the problems in parliament and a hung would be good for the country. I made the point that Italy had PR and it didn't stop their parliament being racked by scandal and that a weak government would be hugely damaging for the economy.

The Greens claimed that I only wanted to keep first past the post to protect their belief in a two party monopoly. I find this line of attack deeply hypocritical because as far as I can see the smaller parties only want PR because they think it will get them more seats in parliament.

First past the post (FPTP) isn't a perfect system, but neither is PR, indeed no voting system is. The biggest problem with PR is that it creates very weak executives who have to do back room deals to get a workable majority. This means that far from being fairly representing the views of the bulk of the electorate, the government's actions are dictated by parties with a very small electoral mandate.

Logically a PR derived coalition government should be led by the party with the largest pool of MPs in coalition with the party that has the next highest number of MPs until a majority of created. That would reflect the wishes of the voters more than I minority party jumping into bed with the biggest party.

I'm not sure the Lib Dems, SNP or the Greens would be too happy with that because they would still be excluded.

When minority parties call for a hung parliament in the name of fairness, what they are actually calling for is the chance to wield power far greater than their electoral support justifies. I call that hypocrisy.

David Cameron's message

First leaders debate - my thoughts

Nick Clegg came out on top. I don't think that anyone other than the most devout of the party faithful would try to say any different. So what does last night actually mean, who were the real winners and losers?

Let's start off with Labour. I suspect the Brown team thought that Cameron hadn't been properly quizzed and that these debate would uncover some gaping hole in Conservative policy or in DC's personality. Alistair Campbell has been moaning about the easy time the Conservative leader has been getting from the media and Brown's line about "this isn't Question Time it's answers time" is quite telling. Everyone knows Brown isn't as good in front of the camera as Cameron but his poor poll position meant that it was worth the risk of him being "beaten" by the Tory.

Nick Clegg was the big winner before a single word was spoken just by being an equal player in these debates. The third party has always had the advantage of being able to sound reasonable, put forward a wish list that they'll never need to implement and get less scrutiny than either the government or the opposition. This is exactly what happened last night.

David Cameron went into the debate with the highest expectations and the most to lose. If either Clegg or Brown performed better than expected it would be Cameron who would be seen as having lost ground.

From my point of view Brown was as dire as I expected, Cameron a little more nervous than I would have thought and did not perform to his full potential and Clegg did better than anyone predicted.

I still cannot understand why the debate made no attempt to tease out the Lib Dem's plans in the event of a hung parliament. To quiz them as though they might form the next government is ridiculous, even on their best possible performance they will not get a majority. I don't believe the questioning was biased or easy on Clegg but voters still have no idea what deals they would try to cut or what policies they would dig their heels in over.

The result last night presents each leader with a new position. Clegg now has the toughest job, Brown is clearly trying to woo voters with his constant "I think Nick agrees with me" lines and Clegg will come under pressure to either move closer to Labour or closer to us. He will also go into the next debate with expectations sky high. Might he have peaked too early?

Brown was crap, his gags looked forced, his smile looked painted on and his attempts to reach out to Lib Dem voters was about a subtle as a neon light. He went in with the bar set pretty low and yet he still managed to underperform. A rare gift indeed.

David Cameron could have lost a lot, he didn't. But the truth is he didn't really gain anything either, a neutral end result. He has a decent platform for the next two debates and now has a far easier job.

I'm fairly happy with the result, a big win for Cameron would have been nice but I'm not sure it would have been such good news in the long run. If everything had been the same as last night but with Clegg not quite as strong, but sill coming out on top, I would have put it down as the perfect result.

More rubblish from Saint Vince

The Lib Dems really should shut up and wait for undecided voters to drift towards them because whenever they actually have to come up with policies they screw up.

Take National Insurance. Last week Vince Cable criticised Conservative opposition to the NIC thus "Opposing jobs tax is ‘school boy economics’ " ohh the great economic sage has spoken! Schoolboy economics from George Osborne.

Funny then to read the following statement in the newly published Lib Dem manifesto:
‘…the increase in National Insurance Contributions is a damaging tax on jobs and an unfair tax on employees, so when resources allow we would seek to reverse it.’ (Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010, April 2010, pg. 97)

Schoolboy economics from Vince Cable is it?

Brown admits a mistake, at last

Well it took a long time coming but Brown finally admits that the regulatory framework that he brought in contributed to the financial market failures that we have seen over the last few years.

Naturally he tries to spread the blame, saying that it was a global failure of regulation and he also identifies the wrong solution. He says that there should have been more regulation when the real answer was to have better, more effective regulation.

"More state" is Brown's answer to everything, more intervention, more regulation and/or more taxation.

But, at least he has admitted to one failure. He could have picked a whole range of failures, selling gold at the bottom of the market, removing the 10p tax band, claw-back of tax credits, failure to fund the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan etc, etc, etc.

The question that I would like answered is "What has Gordon Brown actually got right?"

A genuine change

Despite being a candidate in the 2005 General Election I am much more excited about this manifesto than I was about the 2005 one.

The manifesto that David Cameron introduced today is much more than a list of policies it represents a desire to bring about a fundamental shift in the relationship between the people and the government.

Under Labour there has been a significant increase in both the size and the power of the state, the government intrudes into more areas of our lives than ever before and has displaced personal responsibility, philanthropy and initiative in the process.

I have no doubt that this expansion and intrusion has been done with good intentions but it has been financially unsustainable and the results have been undesirable. Rather than being the "enabling state" the last decade has seen state expansion undermine so much of what has traditionally been our strengths.

The new Conservative manifesto looks to rebalance the relationship between the state and the people, the people should be in charge, they should call the shots, they should be the masters.

Be in no doubt it will not be an easy manifesto to implement. There will be a lot of people who currently hold the leavers of power and will not be keen on letting go, they will try tell you that these plans are unworkable, maybe even dangerous. They will say that people are unable to run their own lives, that they need the state's help in all areas.

Don't get me wrong there are plenty of great people working in the public sector and many of the jobs that they do are invaluable, but there are a significant minority who are not doing invaluable work and could/should be working in the private sector helping to power the financial engine of the country.

If David Cameron and the Conservative government he leads are successful in implementing this manifesto we will see a country more balanced, more prosperous both socially and financially and more able to adapt to the fast changing world in which we live.

I commend it to you.

Labour manifesto cover tells it as it is

Labour's cancer scaremongering

I haven't commented on Labour's disgusting attempts to scare people into voting for them because the whole issue has been well covered elsewhere on the net.

The Labour party have form in this area, during the 2005 General Election my the opponent Bridget Prentice sent a letter to local pensioners completely misrepresenting Conservative policy on Winter fuel allowance in order to scare them. This strikes me as a grotesque extension of that tactic.

If you're as disturbed by Labour's crass attempt to manipulate people like this visit http://www.stopthescaremongering.com/ and let Andy Burnham know how you feel.

Vince Cable caught out talking crap, again.

Vince Cable is not a god! There. I've said it.

I've often expressed my frustration with the media's unwillingness to hold him to account in the same way that they do with Darling and Osborne. Just because the Lib Dems can't form a government doesn't mean that they should be given an easy time, they may have a role in a hung parliament and people deserve to know what they really plan to do.

I was therefore pleased to see Jon Sopel finally grill Saint Vince properly on the Politics Show. Vince conceded that, not only did he make up the £389 figure in their VAT attack but that the Lib Dems wouldn't rule out a VAT bombshell of their own.

Here is the transcript from the exchange:

JON SOPEL: I mean let’s leave aside whether or whether not there is a black hole in the Tories' finances. Leave that to one side. You don’t know factually, that they are going to raise VAT. That is your conjecture.

VINCE CABLE: It is a conjecture and it’s a reasonable assumption and I wouldn’t claim anymore than that.


JON SOPEL: And that £389 is a rough figure plucked –

VINCE CABLE: It’s a ball park estimate of what it would require in order to fill that gap, and it seems a reasonable way of expressing that argument."

...

JON SOPEL: Would you rule out raising VAT?

VINCE CABLE: No, I don’t. It’s something –

JON SOPEL: So therefore your position is no different to them."

Thanks to ConHome for the transcript.

National Citizen Service

As the Mayor's Youth Ambassador I saw the positive effect that bringing young people together through demanding, public spirited activity has. As you can imagine I'm very pleased to see David Cameron commit to implamenting this plan.

The aim is that all 16 year-olds will take part in NCS bringing young people from different backgrounds together, to promote social mixing, help the transition to adulthood and encourage community engagement.

The Party has been developing these plans for the past four and half years, and have helped to raise £2 million for, and worked with, independent charities and social enterprises to run pilot programmes in London, Wales and North West in 2006, 2008 and 2009.

You can read more about our plans for a National Citizen Service here or click here to download a copy in PDF format.

Will this election be about YouTube moments?

It looks as though a Mr Ben Butterworth has earned his place as the first citizen celeb of the election campaign by giving Gordon grief about the unavailability of first choice state school places. I'll be interested to see if this incident becomes a YouTube moment and if it does whether it will have any effect on the outcome of the election.

I hope that we don't end up with see a spate of faux "angry citizens" trying to harangue party leaders every time they get out of a car or train. That would get really boring, really quickly.

End of day one

The least surprising news is followed by the least surprising day of visits, interviews and speeches.

The political double acts were in full force each pair showing that despite the cut and thrust of confrontational politics there is a loving partner there to help keep it real, Gordon and Sarah, David and Samantha and Nick and Vince.

David Cameron launched his campaign at the old County Hall, the very same place that Boris used as his campaign HQ, a good omen I think.

Happy birthday Conservativehome

Conservativehome is 5 today and I'd like to thank Tim Montgomerie, Sam Coates and Jonathan Isaby for the work that they have put in over that time.

The importance of Conservativehome is significant, it showed what a small group of passionate people can do with a free blogging platform. It has grown to be one of the most influential political website in the world and is often quoted (and misquoted) by print and broadcast media.

It has been a critical friend to the party and the party leadership and has been the consistent champion of the grass roots, who have often been unfairly caricatured by those outside (and sometimes inside) the party.

The next big test for ConHome come if the Conservatives become the next government. It is easier to blog from opposition than in government and the there will be a balance to be struck between fair criticism and undermining. Tim and the team have got the balance right so far so I feel confident.

Happy birthday.

Who said that irony was dead?

The teaching unions have spent their conference telling anyone who cared to listen how schools should be run. Michael Gove then challenged them to start their own schools which they could run along the lines that they proposed.

The unions said they didn't want to!

I guess it's easier to be a football pundit than a football manager.

Which TV cop would you be?

Having seen the Labour party shoot itself squarely in the foot with its Ashes to Ashes, David Cameron, Gene Hunt poster mash up I got to wondering.

Which TV cop would you want to be superimposed upon for the next Labour party own goal poster and why?

I've always fancied myself as Christopher Foyle in Foyle's War. He's clever, honest and loyal, I've always thought that he's been rather overlooked as a TV police character.

Misdirection

When a conjurer says "I have nothing up my sleeve" he wants you to look at his sleeve and not at his pocket. It is the pocket where the real action is going on, it's called misdirection and it's the secret of most close up magic tricks that you may see.

When Lord Mandelson starts attacking George Osborne's "unfunded tax cut" he is engaging in a classic piece of misdirection. He wants the story to be about the Conservatives, but there is no unfunded tax cut being proposed. What has been announced is our opposition to Labour's tax rise.

The media is only half falling for it. While they are focusing on the Conservatives they are not buying into Mandelson's narrative, headlines like "Ministers on defensive as tax row intensifies" are not what he had in mind.

We need companies to expand, generate income and employ people. An increase in a tax on employment at this point is comically short sighted and people involved in business understand that.

Department of Government Waste

From the Department of Government Waste