On positive and negative politics

Who would lead the Lib Dems after Nick Clegg is deposed is discussed by Nicholas Watt over on the Guardian Blog, it's titled "Vince Cable in renaissance as Lib Dems embark on battle for soul of party" and is well worth a read.

Vince Cable has had one of the toughest transitions to government, having tripped up over his comments about BSkyB and News International, his possibly not voting for his own bill, the U-turn over university tuition fees and the public money spent on burnishing his image all of which have led to him being described as "gaffe prone". What strikes me is that his political renaissance has come about not by turning around a government department or by proposing innovative and effective policies but by a series of very public attacks.

The Guardian blog post is illustrated with a picture of Vince Cable captioned with the words "Vince Cable is returning to the political frontline after well received attacks on Tory cabinet colleagues".

I often hear that people don't like negative politics but I am struck by the last seven words of that caption "well received attacks on Tory cabinet colleagues".

Costs of AV from someone who knows what they're talking about

Anthony Mayer was Chief Executive of the Greater London Authority (GLA) for eight years and was the Greater London Returning Officer who ran the Mayoral and London Assembly elections.  He knows a thing or two about non-FPTP elections.

He has written a letter to The Times explaining why London brought in vote counting machines for the Mayoral elections.

He writes:

A first-past-the-post election nearly always requires one count and one validation. An AV election nearly always requires successive rounds of counting, each needing validation.

If the political classes want results early on the Friday after the 22:00 Thursday closure of polling stations then with AV there is no choice but electronic counting. If the political classes are relaxed about results coming in over the weekend then manual counting is feasible, if more costly on account of more counting staff hours.

There are those who say that the cost of elections shouldn't be a factor and while I have some sympathy with this view I don't believe that AV is a step in the right direction, paying more for a worse system defies logic.

1925 Sunbeam 3 Litre

Yesterday I was driven around the sunny roads of Suffolk in a 1925 Sunbeam 3 Litre, similar to this one:

I have only just stopped smiling.

The Lib Dems need to mind their language

The Lib Dems are starting to slip into personal attacks in a desperate attempt to salvage their AV campaign.  We have had Chris Huhne sling around the word "liar" against both George Osborne and Sayeeda Wasi, and now Nick Clegg has new accused David Cameron of being part of a "nasty right wing clique" and being party to "lies, misinformation and deceit".

Not only are these words very poorly chosen but people in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.  The AV cmapaign which Nick Clegg supports is riddled with lazy untruths, even the official name of the campaign is disingenuous.  The No campaign is called No to AV, clear and straightforward, the Yes campaign call themselves Yes to Fairer Votes.  When an organisation has spin woven into their very name you should think seriously about how honest the rest of their claims are.

The AV campaign claim that AV will end jobs for life, it is the main argument that Clegg used to support his "right wing clique" statement.  I'm at a loss as to how AV would do this, and it has never been successfully explained by any of the pro AV team.  Currently around 200 MPs have over 50% of their constituents' vote, they are the so called safe, "seats for life" MPs that Clegg so despises.  AV will have no effect on them at all, so how can it end "seats for life".

The Yes to AV also claim that having to attract 50% of the vote will make MPs work harder, this argument ignores the fact that MPs and candidates in marginal seats (where AV would make a real difference) work hard to try and make their seats safer.  If Nick Clegg believes that fear of losing a job is the only motivator for people to work hard he might want to run that idea past the unions who have fought for centuries to end that mindset.

And as for trying to suggest that there is something sinister in the fact that the BNP are also campaigning for a no vote I find that something of an own goal.  The BNP are saying no to AV because the feel that it is a miserable little compromise and what they really want is Proportional Representation.  Now where have we heard that before?

Boris on target to plant 10,000 street trees

And what did Livingstone ever do for the squirrels?

Thanks to Boris' scrapping of the "Londoner" tax payer funded newspaper money has been made available to plant more street trees in London.  Boris said he would plant 10,000 extra trees in his first four year term and working with organisations like Trees for Cities he is set to hit that target.

These trees not only look pleasant but act as natural air filters, both beautifying and cleansing the local environment.  So extra trees is good news for all of us, not just the squirrels.

If Gordon Brown doesn't like being an MP he should stand down

Gordon Brown hasn't really been taking his job as an MP particularly seriously since he stood down as Prime Minister almost a year ago.  He has been seen in Westminster only rarely and has hardly been in the Commons chamber at all.

Last week it came to light that he was sniffing around for a position at the IMF, rather comic considering his abysmal handling of the UK economy.  Now we hear the news that he is to take up a Chairmanship role at the World Economic Forum.  There isn't anything inherently wrong with politicians having outside interests but it is clear that Gordon Brown's outside interests are becoming his only interest.

If Brown wants to become an international financial figure, best of luck to him, but he shouldn't be pocketing his MP's salary while he's attempting to do it.

Cost of AV, Chris Huhne's inconvenient truth

I've just watched Chris Huhne call Baroness Wasi a liar on Newsnight.  Strong stuff. 

He claims that Sayeeda Wasi lied when she said that AV would cost around £250 million per election, that the figure was based on the assumption that counting machines would be needed for AV elections and counting machines aren't used in Australia, where they use AV.

Let's just assume for a minute that Chris is right and Sayeeda is wrong and counting machines will not be used.  I think that even in this situation it is wrong for Chris to claim that Sayeeda was knowingly lying.  But putting that to one side for a moment it is interesting to look at the relative costs of elections in the UK and Australia

The 2005 UK General Election cost about £80million for 27.2 million votes cast costing £2.94 per vote.  The 2007 Australian Federal elections cost $163million (£105million) for 12.7 million votes cast costing $12.83 (£8.27) per vote.  Australian AV elections cost almost three times (x2.81) as much as British FPTP elections.

Now for a bit of simple maths:

£80,000,000 x 2.81 = £224,800,000

Even if we choose not to use electronic counting machines (which we have done in every non PFTP election that I've been involved in) we are still looking at a cost very close to the £250,000,000 figure that Chris Huhne was getting so angry about.  I now think it's about time he apologised for likening Sayeeda to Goebbels and addressed the real concerns that many people have about the cost of AV.

Love this video!

Eddie Lister to join City Hall team

The death of Sir Simon Milton last week was a shock to everyone who knew and worked with him.  It was well known that, having battled against leukaemia, Simon's health wasn't the best.  He was often hit hard by the colds and flus that most of us shake of quite easily, but when I heard on Monday evening that Simon had passed away after a short illness I have to confess to feeling a little numb.

Once the initial shock and sadness subsided it became obvious that we would need to find someone to carry on the invaluable work that Simon undertook.  He was expert in turning ideas into reality, negotiating with borough leaders and government ministers alike.

The simple truth is that it will not be possible to replace Simon but I am greatly reassured by the announcement today that the current leader of Wandsworth Council, Eddie Lister, will come on board as Boris' Chief of Staff.

Like Simon, Eddie has many years of experience running a successful London borough, is well liked and respected by London politicians of all parties and is delivery focused.

Boris is right when he says that the greatest tribute that we can pay to Simon is to carry on delivering for Londoners, I believe that with Eddie working with the Mayoral team we will continue to do just that.

What speech is Vince Cable talking about?

I wonder if Vince Cable read David Cameron's speech before he said that he thought it was "unwise" and that the language "risked inflaming extremism". I've read the whole speech and I cannot find any language that would inflame any reasonable person.

Cable said that the PM should have talked about "the very positive contribution that a lot of people coming in from outside the EU make to our country's economy". Funny, I thought that this section of the speech did that rather well.

Our country has benefited immeasurably from immigration. Go into any hospital and you'll find people from Uganda, India and Pakistan who are caring for our sick and vulnerable.

Go into schools and universities and you'll find teachers from all over the world, inspiring our young people. Go to almost any high street in the country and you'll find entrepreneurs from overseas who are not just adding to the local economy but playing a part in local life.

Charities, financial services, fashion, food, music - all these sectors are what they are because of immigration.

So yes, immigrants make a huge contribution to Britain. We recognise that - and we welcome it.

David Cameron is right in one of the other points that he made in the speech, we cannot ignore an issue which is a very real concern for many people, from a range of races and backgrounds, and we mustn't write off those people as racists just for having those concerns.

If mainstream parties are not seen to be thinking and talking about immigration and its positive and negative effects then we shouldn't be surprised if some of them run into the arms of extremists.

Green London Mayoral candidate says that squatting is an excellent thing to do

It really takes some doing to be on the wrong side of the argument on almost every important issue but Jenny Jones of the far left Green Party seems to manage.  We've already had the £50 per day London-wide congestion charge idea, demands that Boris support the illegal occupation of Parliament Square and now the claim that squatting is an excellent thing to do.

I can only assume that even Jenny, who is generally fairly unrepentant, has realised that her comments were at best naive and at worst damaging and counterproductive.  This afternoon I was booked onto BBC Radio London to debate the issue but Jenny was strangely incommunicado, Eddy Nestor the show's host made the point that in his eight years of covering London issues he had never known Jenny to avoid the airwaves.

I suspect that Jenny is learning that you can't say the kind of nonsense that she is used to saying when you are a candidate for a real executive office.

GPs and Councillors put forward alternative to NHS Trust's plans to sell-off QMH

At the beginning of the week plans for new services at Queen Mary’s Hospital were forward to NHS London by local GPs and Bexley council. The proposals include more and better services for older people and those with long-term conditions, services that help people avoid emergency hospital admissions and would build on the remaining services to include a comprehensive range of diagnostic services, community services and education and training facilities to help patients and their carers and families better manage their own conditions.

If plan is approved by NHS London it will go out to wider public consultation. Ultimately the services on the site will be commissioned by local GPs and the London Borough of Bexley and will include a range of primary, community and hospital services, closely linked to GP surgeries.

The GP/Council proposals compare with the plans for major land sell-offs being considered by South London NHS Trust and exposed in the News Shopper last week. It is becoming increasingly clear that the current trust see QMH as a way out of their woeful financial situation rather that the site for a thriving local hospital and health hub.

I have written to the Chair of NHS London in support of the expansion plans and will be writing next week opposing the plans to sell off major chinks of the QMH site.

LWARB to invest £4million Bexley's green economy

The London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) has announced it is awarding a £4 million loan to Orchid Environmental Ltd to set up a new plant in an existing industrial area in Belvedere that will turn household rubbish into renewable fuel and create 52 permanent green technology jobs.

Every day we put potentially useful resources in our rubbish, Orchid’s low carbon fuel production plant will turn those resources into something useful. This not only reduces our reliance on fossil fuel sources, it will also create green jobs for South East London and divert up to 160,000 tonnes rubbish from entering the waste stream.


The plant will process waste from both homes and businesses by removing recyclable material and transforming the rubbish that is left over into different types of low carbon fuel. The facility, which is due to be finished and operational in early 2013, will be capable of handling 160,000 tonnes of rubbish, turning it into a range of fuels that can be then be used in renewable energy plants and by industrial heat users.

Discount on lower emissions vans

This morning Boris was in Erith, North Bexley, announcing a deal that he has has secured giving significant discounts for new vans and minibuses for drivers set to be affected by changes to the Low Emission Zone (LEZ).

I have long felt that the LEZ was at best a blunt tool and I was pleased that the Mayor understood the difficulties that small businesses faced getting their vehicle fleets to comply with the new emissions standards.  Last year Boris delayed the implementation of phase 3 of the scheme to give businesses extra time to convert or replace their vehicles. 

This morning he has taken another step to help businesses to avoid fines when changes to the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) come into effect in January 2012.  In his usual style Boris said

‘Vans are the lifeblood of this city. Their drivers are knights of the road, an army of entrepreneurs who decorate our homes, fix our plumbing and generally provide all the vital goods and services essential to the smooth running of our city. This noble bunch is mostly small business owners and independent traders who are focused on grafting hard to support their families and build a better future.

'The vast majority of people who are affected by these new changes have upgraded their vehicles and need not take any action. But for those remaining people I know these are difficult times and that their vehicles are essential for their livelihoods.

'I want to do all I can to help. I have already given extra breathing space during the depths of the recession before these standards are introduced. But pollution remains a serious health issue and although we have seen off large fines that were looming from Europe, this remains a real threat unless we take drastic measures.

‘So I am pleased to announce I have secured a hefty package of discounts with major van manufacturers which will help Londoners trade up their vehicles to new, cleaner models. Now is the time to help us tackle dangerous emissions to help those who most deserve our protection. The health of our children is too important to put at risk.’

The manufacturers who are offering deals are: Ashwoods, Citroën, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot and Volkswagen.

The £9,000 tuition fee level

The news has come out that most universities will charge the top level £9,000 next year.  Some are claiming that this undermines to Government's position on tuition fees, I don't agree.

Now that students are more focussed on the real cost of a degree course they will also take more interest in the perceived value of those courses too.  It is understandable that no university wants to admit that it isn't as good as the top universities, setting a tuition fee less than the maximum might be seen as just such an admission.  But potential students have always graded their preferred universities and an institution that gets a significant number of its students through clearing will not be charging £9,000 for very long.

The first year of the new system isn't going to tell us very much, it will be interesting to see how many universities are still this bullish this time next year.