Marcus Wood

2010-11-08T12:10:00.000Z

2010-08-17T08:22:00.015Z

4,134 people paid their deposit and stood as Parliamentary Candidates on May 6 - which means that 3,485 suffered the same fate as I did.

People have asked me how I feel about losing the election. Lots of people write about winning, so I thought it might be interesting to write about losing.

Firstly, lets put this in context. Not getting elected is a bitter disappointment - but it's not a tragedy.

Millions of folk suffer and survive far harder knocks every day, indeed as I mentioned at the time some acquaintances of ours suffered a very tragic loss the day after the election and their awful pain and anguish put my selfish disappointment firmly in it's place.

Every day people fail exams, lose the sale, miss the school place, get fired, are gazumped - and not only do they recover, in the end nearly all these situations as one door closes a better one opens. Mind you standing for election has other challenges. Firstly, your disappointment becomes a very public affair. Secondly, you can't manage expectations like you can with, say, exams. You can't speculate about losing, you have spent weeks or even months publicly bigging up your chances to supporters and opponents alike - even candidates for the Raving Loony Party end up convincing themselves they are set to romp home.

It is even more difficult keeping a rational outlook while being the front-runner in a target seat. For months Torbay had been considered an nailed-on Conservative gain, the odds-on favourite. And as such I became the focus of the massed ranks of the lobbying industry keen to impress me ahead of my expected elevation to Parliament. Wads of expensive brochures arrived daily from campaign groups and companies and my email quota steadily grew to 1,000 a week. I had been invited to lavish receptions, regaled by national media, bombarded by calls from PR types keen to know my views. Even the Whips Office had given me a run-down of the likely timetable for the opening Parliamentary session. So I was not alone in mapping out my immediate future with the expectation of being an MP - unwisely I planned my business affairs on the same basis. That involved letting my London flat to tenants (as new MP's expenses rules meant I couldn't have used it for myself), gave notice to my work colleagues, closed off all client assignments and went on an extended sabbatical.

Election days are manic, frenzied affairs that start before dawn. There is a brief rest period for candidates between when the polls close at 10pm and when the counting starts. After knocking on doors right up to 9.45 that evening I went home and changed, taking in the early exit poll numbers from the BBC over a hurried drink. The house was full of friends and helpers and a small gaggle of us walked through the balmy night air along Princess Gardens and across Abbey Park and into the ERC for the count. At this point I was nervous, but still very confident - I knew from canvassing returns that our vote would be up a good deal on 2005, possibly to around 20,000 which in most seats is a winning total. I remained completely oblivious to the awful reality that was quite literally unfolding before shocked Conservative observers inside the hall.

The count runs in several stages. First the ballot boxes are opened and all the papers are counted to confirm the total number of votes cast - this figure used as a control total after the votes for each candidate have been counted. Then the ballot papers are sorted into piles by candidate and thirdly the piles for each candidate are counted. In all our election scenarios we had anticipated that the expenses scandal would impact incumbent MP's - and especially Lib Dem MP's who depend on Labour support. We thought Labour therefore would hold their 2005 figure, and Lib Dems lose votes to the Labour and the Greens - we thought our vote and UKIP would both rise, implying an increase in turnout.

I walked into the room just as the Returning Officer announced the total votes cast - it was up, but by a minuscule amount - just 64.6%. A brief look at the ashen faces of my closest supporters was the next massive clue that all was far from according to plan. It was apparent to those already there that our high profile and optimistic campaign had backfired badly. Being the favourite had meant that the more we looked like winning, the harder winning became as Labour voters responded by shifting to the Lib Dem camp.

The Party HQ decision not to allow attacks against the Liberal Democrats had made matters worse. While we were under strict Queensberry rules our local opponent was wielding a baseball bat. They promptly got stuck in to the negative stuff -that I was campaign manager for the Mayor, that I intended to be part time if elected and that I supported controversial planning proposals- all untrue but they served their purpose - galvanising support for their man in order to keep me out. What was becoming clear inside the hall was that Labours vote had just vanished and that the unthinkable had occurred, while our vote had risen as expected his vote had risen too, and by much more than mine.

What does it feel like to lose an election all your friends, your work and political colleagues and even many of your enemies thought you were nailed on to win? An election that many workers have been building up to alongside you for eight years, that they have toiled to raise the money for, bet the political farm on and expected to succeed?

There is a great scene in the film 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' when Eddy realises he has not only lost the poker game and all his friends stake money but run up a debt of £500,000 to arch villain Hatchet Harry. That is exactly what it felt like as I looked at the growing piles of counted polling slips in the 'Sanders' tray - the stack growing unmistakably faster than the pile marked 'Wood' . The world around goes grey and your vision blurs, you feel sick, people talk to you but you don't hear them - the cold, clammy reality that you have called it completely wrong, the horrible anticipation of explaining to friends and supporters that we didn't win after all, and it's all unravelling in front of the world on live TV.

Comments like "It's still looking quite close..." soon gave way to comments like "How have they done it -again?"

In slow motion the returning officer called us to her corner to notify us of the official result - this is done before the whole thing is re-enacted on stage so that candidates can compose themselves and also to afford a last opportunity for any appeal. She avoids looking at me, a small but important final clue before the worst is confirmed by her figures.

The only nice surprise of that evening was the discovery immediately after the announcement that while I was desperately concerned about how my supporters would feel and react, their main concern was about how I was. Even my opponent, in complete contrast to the bad-tempered comments he made in 2005, was offered some kind words, he said he has lost elections and suffered disappointment too in his time so he knew how I was feeling.

Our election party was a flat affair with a string of friends and colleagues urging me not to make any public announcements about not standing again - it looked at that stage likely that we would all be doing it again in the Autumn.

I sat through the night watching scores of my friends and colleagues being anointed as Conservative MP's and feeling very sorry for myself.

The emails, post and phone calls stopped as if someone has turned off a tap. On May 5th I received 127 emails, on May 7th - eight; by May 12th it was none. In my work I spend a lot of time counselling redundant senior executives: they live on adrenaline with endless calls, meetings, emails and pressure one minute and then within hours of being ousted it's tumbleweed time.

But oddly enough that experience has been very helpful. I took my own advice and by Monday my mind had turned completely to the problem of what to do about money; and within the week I had become totally absorbed into a series of new business projects; as a result the Wood finances are now headed back into health.

I also have my private life back, and what a luxury it is to be able to complain in a restaurant, wear old jeans or not shave for a day and know that nobody cares. It is also welcome break not having to worry about what our MP gets up to as either. He can be as lazy as he likes and I won't notice.

A couple of weeks ago David Cameron and George Osbourne held a reception at Downing Street for unsuccessful Tory candidates and I met up with scores of colleagues who, like me, didn't make it. It was great to go and see the hallowed place on the inside and surreal meeting David Cameron again but this time as our Prime Minister. That is the point really, our small battle here in Torbay may have been lost but the war was won.

2010-05-10T13:16:00.008Z

So the result....

A very emphatic Lib Dem hold. Hats off to Mr Sanders and his team who seem to have really dug in to Torbay now; probably until he retires.

I am deeply disappointed, but resigned to the fact that I am probably never going to be an MP. Unlike a lot of people in politics the thought of sitting on green benches has not been a burning ambition since I was twelve, in fact I became involved largely by accident. So contrary to what some have been saying; I will not be leaving Torbay in search of a seat somewhere else - we are totally settled here and the last thing I want is to disturb my family who have stuck by me so firmly for the last 8 years.

Having studied the results from Thursday it is pretty clear now in a way that was not clear then, that the bay is a clearly divided place politically speaking with the mass on the left outweighing the mass on the right by roughly 20%.

After the build-up when we were so far ahead in the polls and all the positive feedback from our own supporters during the campaign it is perhaps understandable that we thought we were going to win. Unfortunately we picked up no signs at all of the fact that Labour were defecting to the Lib Dems in droves, we wouldn't though, would we?

Adrian Sanders team know exactly what buttons to press to garner support from Labour, and they pressed them.

I wrongly thought Sanders' support would be affected by the expenses scandal but it seems however much voters complained in public, in private they are happy to let him carry on - it seems there are at least 24,000 people in Torbay who still want 'anyone but the Tories' to represent them.

95% of the result in a general election is down to what goes on during the National campaign and 5% is down to the local campaign; I am satisfied we delivered our 5% but I fear the 36% vote share we got in the Nationwide result was nowhere near enough for us to take Torbay. When we used to hold the (current) seat the national vote share was never less than 40%.

We did everything we could, but Politics is never fair and the result is not often connected to the effort expended. I said at the start that main reason we had to work hard and leave no stone unturned was to be able to sleep with a clear conscience if we lost.

The ultimate irony, which will not be lost on many Torbay voters (especially Labour ones) is that we could end up with Adrian Sanders working on our side of the House of Commons voting to support our manifesto - voting for huge spending cuts and a drastic re-drawing of the role of Government.

Quite where that will leave both sides at the next local elections is anyone's guess.

And on a last, philosophical point - it is only politics, after all. The day after the election, while we sat around feeling sorry for ourselves I heard that a friend of a friend had suffered an unimaginable personal tragedy on Thursday - and that really did put life into perspective.

2010-05-03T13:03:00.007Z

Places, everyone!

Three days of campaigning left and it's all down to the process called 'getting out the vote'.

For several years we have been campaigning for one purpose; to make sure we win the most votes on Thursday. A big part of that process is ensuring the people who are intending to support us, actually do so.

Campaigning takes several forms; Firstly holding events to raise money to campaign with. Then we spend years listening to voters by canvassing on the doorstep, holding open meetings and doing postal and on-line surveys. Then as the election comes onto the horizon we define and refine our message, and deliver it to voters by leaflets and mail whilst also seeking to find as many people as possible who want to vote for us, and support and help us.

The most intense part of the process is the election campaign itself, in this case we started in January; we have been knocking door to door, six days a week since the start of the year seeking support and meeting a record number of electors, all the while building up a huge list of voters committed to back David Cameron as PM and myself as their MP.

Now we have to remind those voters to act on the day itself, and political parties switch into frenzied activity in the final remaining hours before the polls close at 10:00pm Thursday, monitoring who has already voted (to cross them off the list) and then basically nagging the rest into going to the polling station; even driving them there when necessary.

As the final preparations for the big day are completed it is feeling a bit like the build-up for a big wedding; everyone knows their places, what to say and how to say it, their moves choreographed and rehearsed to the finest detail; the stationary is ordered, the cars cleaned and prepared, the refreshments ready. And as the candidate I it does feel a bit like being a groom - with all the frantic preparations going on all around all I have to do make sure I turn up on the day, shoes cleaned and hair brushed.

We enter the last few days of this campaign in better shape that at any election in living memory; with more pledges, more helpers and more goodwill than any of us can remember.

To all of those dedicated people who have helped me campaign for what we believe in, whether for some or all of the eight long years we have been at it, I say a hearty thank-you.

2010-05-01T13:51:00.002Z

At a time when their leadership are trumpeting a new kind of politics it is a bit disappointing to note that locally the Lib Dems are engaging in some very old-fashioned negative campaigning. The latest broadside from Mr Sanders team contains more totally untrue allegations, to add to old favourites they put about during the last election.

The first myth is that I am the man from Windsor. Can I just point out that I have never lived in Windsor? My only connection with the place is that my Dad lived there for a bit when my parents split up in the '70's and I was once the Chairman of the Constituency Conservative Association. It is a matter of record that I live in Torquay, and have done so for years. My wife and I work here, my children go to school here, and all our friends live here.

The second myth is that I am connected at the hip to the Mayor. Nick Bye was chosen as our candidate in 2005 - and with everyone else I worked hard to help get a Conservative mayor elected. As the Lib Dem campaign team know full well I do not get involved in the local council political scene, I am not on the council, do not campaign, advise, or work for the mayor or any councillors in any capacity, I do not have a say on policy, planning matters or anything else.

The newest myth has just appeared in the Lib Dems latest leaflet. "The conservative intends to be only a part-time MP" - they shout. This is another wholly untrue allegation. They know full well that I have always made it clear that I intend to work flat out, full time, on being your MP if elected. Indeed the expectation is that the new Parliament will be working through many long nights to try and sort out the mess the last Parliament have left the country in.

And for the last MP to be shouting about the possible work-rate of the next one is a bit dangerous, it might just prompt voters to spot the fact that he and his colleagues spent the least amount of time working of any Parliament for 30 years - despite the worst recession in living memory, and after getting a record pay-rise.

As The Sun newspaper reported earlier this year: "Analysis of the working day at Westminster showed the House sat for just 139 days in 2008-09. Members' average working day lasted seven hours and 35 minutes - meaning they sat for 1,053 hours and 51 minutes overall. That was the lowest total in a non-election year since 1979."

2010-04-25T20:06:00.003Z

More pics from Camerons visit.

VIP Visitors - why they matter.

From my memory, and only since the last election in 2005, we have had the following front bench spokesmen and women to see us here, several of whom have made repeated visits:

Liam Fox, Defence
Eric Pickles, Chairman
Peter Ainsworth, Agriculture
Bob Neil, Local Government
John Penrose, Trade and Industry
Francis Maude, Cabinet Office
Andrew Mitchell, Foreign Aid
Tim Loughton, Children
Tobias Ellwood, Tourism
Anne Milton, Health
Mark Francois, Europe
Andrew Lansley, Health
Chris Grayling, Home affairs
David Cameron, Leader.

These busy people have sat in on Tourism conferences, visited local schools, toured hospitals, launched campaigns, met scores of local businesses and seen pressure groups and charity organisations at work. They have done this at my request, and I have worked very hard to get them here so that in Government they have first-hand knowledge of the problems local people have.

They come here so that we can teach them about Torbay.It has been a central part of my work as Prospective MP since 2002 to work to get senior front bench people from my party out of their London offices and down here; to understand the issues affecting the South West in general and Torbay in particular.

And every single one of these people has been shown the traffic problems we face daily getting in and out of the Bay, on purpose, and as a result all have offered to help us in our campaign to get the road built. This help culminated in Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers agreeing to see me in Westminster a month ago.

And the more front bench visitors from my party we get the more obvious the question. Where are the senior people from the other parties? With the noble exception of Paddy Ashdown who is camped out in Devon for the election there hasn't been a senior Lib Dem in Torbay for years.

2010-04-21T19:33:00.008Z

The Boss Arrives in Town

No election campaign would be complete without at least one visit from the Big Man himself; and our number came up today.

Due to the fact that Cameron is now a security risk the arrangements for a visit are normally left to the last minute and made in secret. This reached new heights of challenge this time when yesterday lunch-time while out canvassing in Preston I got an out-of-the blue phonecall from a senior bod at CCHQ - which went like this:

"David is in Devon, would you like him to drop by".

"Lovely, er, when?"

"Tomorrow, noon."

"Where?"

"No plans, no idea. We have got a team on their way, can you help? Find a location for a big set-piece policy speech to 100 or so people, plus at least another 100 reporters and cameramen, plus our own film crew (another 50), lighting and sound and of course we need room for a stage, and a PA system, power, and parking for three coaches, and about 20 cars. It must be open, but must be secure, must have disabled facilities, must be accessible, must look good on TV, must not be controversial and we must have owners permission to film; oh yes and we need you to find a location, obtain all the permissions and sort it all out in time to invite everyone, so say in about an hour or two?"

"Anything else?"

"Can you also choose somewhere that is iconic for your constituency?"

After a day of racing round the Bay with their location people we eventually ended up selecting the Palace Hotel up in Babbacombe from a very long list of possible locations. In fact the sheer scale of choices became an issue when trying to make a final decision late last night; and the final location was not agreed until long after dark.

It was a miracle to then behold the entire circus roll into town late last night and by early morning the stage was up, lights and cameras ready, sound tested, banners out, invitations sent and everything ready.

Unlike when Michael Howard came at the last election (when every detail had been thrashed out weeks in advance) Cameron people are far more relaxed and informal, to the point of being almost casual and decisions to ch ange things were made as the situation demanded.

It had been intended that Cameron would do his speech and then we would roll into Babbacombe, or Wellswood for a walkabout.

The media are housed on one coach and David's team occupy another. The plan was David would switch coach as the cortège arrived in Torquay at about 2pm, requiring a pull-over in Avenue Road. But the driver got confused and led the group out onto the seafront by Abbey Meadows, where there was no room for the coach to pull over.

Given the event was already running late, and fearing that we may not get our prized walkabout, I suggested that we take David off the coach by the Harbour in Torquay, meet some people there and then put him in the right vehicle to make his entrance at the hotel. It immediately transpired that David Cameron was very keen to have an ice cream while at the seaside (he knows Devon well!) so we d ecided to stop his bus, get off, buy an ice cream, talk to a few folk and then go. How difficult can it be? we thought.

Well immediately the press decided this would make a great 'photo-op' so instead of a simple few moments wander across to the sweet shop it became a media frenzy. The photographers ended up rowing with the TV crews for hogging all the good shots and the journalists scurried round asking perplexed passers by what they thought about David Cameron.

Interestingly though, DC really does stop the traffic. Within seconds the Strand was at a standstill and people were calling and waving from cars, upper storey windows and rushing out of shops and cafe's to see him; not out of idle curiosity, either; people wanted to shake our hands, wish us luck and cheer us on.

So after he bought me an ice cream (complete with choccy flake) we eventually went on our way up to the hotel where we met up with my neighbouring PPC Sara Woollaston, who led us onto the outdoor stage where David delivered an impressive 20 minute speech, mostly from memory (I could see his basic notes and he had a few bullet points, that was all).

He unveiled our seven point plan to clean up politics, which included adopting the kind of open primary selection of candidates we used in Totnes, then giving electors the power of recall for corrupt MP's, abolishing quango's and making ministers responsible for decisions again, opening up Ministerial decisions to public scrutiny.

Great stirring stuff and all great fun into the bargain. Although serious, elections are also theatre and no show is bigger - or more dramatic- than one which changes history.

2010-04-17T16:21:00.004Z

Half way (nearly)

For all those people who keep asking 'how is it going?' I offer a 'half way' campaign bulletin.

I have been doing politics here in Torbay for long enough to have developed a pretty clear idea of which way the wind is blowing.

At this point in the last election in 2005 we stopped talking about winning, and instead the language became 'we will give them (the Liberal Democrats) a run for their money'. This was because it was pretty clear we were not in a winning position at this point. How did we know? Well by the middle of a campaign you have spoken to many hundreds of residents and citizens, from your side of the political fence, from the other side and from the undecided middle ground.

At the last election by now you could see that many on our own side were looking for reasons not to vote Conservative, so when you met them they were critical and fault finding - often blowing up relatively small issues into a big reason why we didn't 'deserve' support. "It's that Michael Howard..." or "I normally vote Conservative but..." There was anger there, and disappointment, and sometimes just a smidgen of guilt.

Those 'on the other side' felt confident in their decision by half way through that campaign; they would be happy to tell me they were supporting the other guy, or voting Labour. Often they would wave kindly when we asked for their support and say "no, but thanks for calling" or say as we left "good luck (you will need it)" They were certain of their intent and comfortable with it.

People in the middle would mostly offer kindly advice; they would look at the posters and the rosette and say 'I think you have a bit of a job on there, mate' - they were still undecided who they would vote for, if anyone, but usually clear that it wouldn't be me!

How is it different this time? Well clearly our own side are in a very different place, electorally speaking. Conservative-minded folk are desperate for a change of Government and ready to do almost anything to bring that about. So supporters who have been absent or 'resting' for years are back with a bang, posters are in big demand, we have more volunteers than jobs at the moment and I get waved at, constant toots of support and thumbs up whenever I wander round with a blue rosette on. Even when I tell supporters about policies they don't like much they wave it away as an irritating detail instead of the deal breaker it once might have been.

Those on the other side are much harder to find now. Instead of looking me in the eye and saying 'I will be voting for X' they tend to say they are still not sure, haven't decided, or 'well, you are all the same.'

And people in the middle? There are more of them this time, more floating voters than ever before and they want policy detail, they want leaflets, and they want the figures and the facts. Above all they want to know what we would DO. What will you DO about immigration? Tax? My benefits? My Bus Pass? My School?

They are interested, really interested. And crucially they are interested in Conservative policy. That is SO different to what the polls and the newspapers are saying - the undecideds are involved, they are engaged and in most cases they will vote.

The polls now clearly say 'hung parliament'. I can't speak for other places and I don't know what the rest of Britain is doing. But I am certain that in this corner of England people more desperately want a change of Government than ever, and they know the only way to get one is to vote Conservative.

2010-04-14T16:19:00.005Z

Another day, another Top Tory...

Hague meets the people of St Marychurch.

The second week of the campaign has brought with it two front bench visits and several walk-about campaign calls. On Monday we had Mark Francois, the Shadow Europe Minister with us, and I took him with us to meet residents living near Watcombe School and also to meet local businesses in the area.

Tuesday saw us in and around Goodrington shops, meeting local traders and residents and then today we were en-masse in Babbacombe and St Marychurch all day. We met shoppers in St Marychurch Precinct, and then we spent a lot of time with business owners and shopkeepers there; talking about the state of the economy and issues that affect them like business rates and the employment tax (otherwise known as employers N.I. contributions).

Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague and Totnes Candidate Sarah Woolaston come along and in all we probably had nearly 50 supporters and activists in and around the whole area for the day.

We made a brief visit to the Conservative Club and then went on to Babbacombe shops to see people there.

There was time for a quick snack lunch at the local cafe (which was completely overwhelmed by the sudden arrival of such a large crowd - though everyone got tea and sandwiches in record time!) .

William and I met a very interesting resident who runs a language school, and she was very keen to make us aware of the potentially disastrous impact on her business of the clamp-down on student visas proposed in our manifesto. She made her case intelligently and reasonably to us both and we were left clear that any new law will need carefully drafting to protect the legitimate and very valuable foreign language teaching business.

Then there was some autograph signing, some press interviews and lots and lots of people to talk to and shake hands with (William Hague was drawing people to him like moths to a candle) with everyone saying 'Oooh my friends won't believe I have just met William Hague if I don't get a picture' we had several posed shots with passers by using their mobile phones to do as well.

I was delighted to hear from Sarah that she was inspired by my public pronouncement on foxhunting to join me, and she now becomes I think the second Conservative Candidate in the South West to rule out voting to support a repeal of the hunting ban.

And then it was time for him to go on to Newton Abbott.

All in all, a lot of fun and though I always knew he was popular, I was still amazed at just how big a popular draw William Hague is.

2010-04-11T14:14:00.004Z

Campaign Progress report

Week 1

This is some of the team on Monday, before the kickoff, when the enthusiasm and the energy levels were at 100%; and as you can see, when the weather was wet and windy.
On current form I'd say energy levels are down to about 85% but enthusiasm levels are over 120% - and that is not just because the sun is shining on us.
The Conservatives opinion poll rating has steadily risen all week as Brown and his team have lurched from one self-inflicted injury to the next. Now even the talk of a hung parliament is fading; seven of the eight main polling firms top men have said in a survey today for the Independent on Sunday that they think the Conservatives will win an outright majority of between 10 and 50 seats. The odd one out, Ben Page of MORI later said his personal view was that the Tories would indeed win an outright majority; making at unanimous from the experts.
The sense of a "popular uprising", which was behind the Blair win in 1997, and in my long-held opinion needs to be there before the British will turf out a sitting Government, is most certainly present at this election in a way that was notably absent in 2005. Whenever we stand still for more than a few moments someone will come over and start telling us why it is vital for the country that we win this time; or that Brown is the worst prime minister in history, or similar.
And to my great relief there is a very clear understanding of the choice facing the electors here in Torbay - a lot of people say things along the line that 'we don't normally vote Conservative .... but the country needs a change.'
Of course all the main parties here in the Bay agree it is a simple choice here between providing David Cameron with a vital extra seat in a fresh, clean and untainted Parliament and thereby providing a new Government ready to start on the massive job of turning Britain round; or keeping the status quo with the existing MP.
We did street stalls on Saturday in Torquay and Paignton and I was reminded of old black and white film of election campaigns of years gone by. At times the stall was almost hidden behind what I can only describe as a small crowd of onlookers keen to introduce themselves and show their support; I have only been campaigning for a few years or so but I have never experienced anything like it.

Look out for our trusty battle bus, if you see it parked in your neighbourhood we are pounding pavements nearby; why not come and say hello?

2010-04-08T15:52:00.007Z

Heavy Paper.

One of the omni-present features of politics is the letters and leaflets we print and deliver to voters pressing our message. Literally tons of paper is delivered in the months and weeks leading up to an election and the above photographs show one leaflet drop being sorted into walks for the volunteers to deliver.
About the only serious snag with our campaign HQ location above Paignton Conservative Club is that it is upstairs; in fact the committee room we are using in this picture is up two flights of stairs. We have sweated some serious pounds off in the last few months, I can tell you.

By now I will be astonished in everyone in Torbay has not had several leaflets from our team.
Although in common with every other political party our delivery network is not quite covering 100% of Torbay we have not had such a well organised and well manned delivery network in 'political living memory ' and certainly not since the dim and distant days of Sir Freddie.
There are several reasons why the network has built up so quickly and become so strong, partly it is because we have heavily concentrated on getting our message to voters directly since before the 2007 local elections; but mainly I think it has just been the willingness of more and more people to help us.
Every time we have planned a leaflet we have pushed the numbers ordered up; the delivery pictured above was an order of 70,000 - one for every individual voter in Torbay - and this entire drop of individually addressed letters was hand delivered by volunteers in a little over a fortnight. And unlike MP's who have a tax-funded communications allowance that allows for the posting of a lot of their propaganda, all the cost of printing and design our leaflets is covered by traditional fundraising and hundreds of small private donations.
Most people appreciate that we are keeping them informed; and the message in all of ours has been solidly positive; we are telling people what we will do, what I am all about, and why they should make us their positive choice. The feedback we have had from people about some of the other parties leaflet efforts has served to remind us what we learned in 2005; that negative campaigning, and simply attacking your opponent does not work and tends to put voters off.

If you would like copies of any of our leaflets you can email me on marcus4torbay@gmail.com and I will send you a full set.

2010-04-07T08:02:00.004Z

Local Campaign Launch

The Shadow Secretary of State for Food, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Nick Herbert helped me kick off our local election campaign with a visit to Occombe Farm followed by a visit to our local headquarters in Preston yesterday.

He was impressed by the numbers and the enthusiasm of our team, and gave us a rousing speech - reminding us that this day is the beginning of a process that we all hope will lead to a change of Government. I reminded everyone that there have only been two occasions when the Conservatives have taken power from Labour in my lifetime and that May 6th is going to be the third.

And with that we were off to start another Bay-wide round of leaflet deliveries and doorstep canvassing.

2010-03-31T08:54:00.004Z

I GOT THIS JOB

WITHOUT AN ELECTION,

VOTE FOR ME

(or not - I'm staying either way)

We have learned from Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell this week that in the event of a hung Parliament Gordon Brown will remain as Prime Minister, even if Labour is not the largest party.

Incredibly this means that Brown, the one Prime Minister who has never won an election, may remain in power even after he has lost.

Labour Cabinet Ministers may be allowed to stay in charge even if voted out of their own seats because the Civil Service fear for economic stability if the Government is in flux for just a few days.

Parliament could be suspended for weeks while behind closed doors the Prime Minister does a grubby deal to cling to power. And there is only one party he will turn to - the Liberal Democrats.

The Lib Dems will try to sit on the fence until after the election, of course - to conceal which way they will jump until it is too late for us to do anything about it. But voters are not stupid. They know the Lib Dems track record; in debates and on TV interviews the Lib Dems side with Labour every time. In Wales, in Scotland and in our British Parliament during the 1970’s Labour coalitions have always been with the Liberals.

Other parties are campaigning for your vote at this election, but none will win seats.

So it is the Liberal Democrats who are blocking the path to stability; Conservatives must win back the seats they lost to them in 1997 if David Cameron is to win a working majority - to get rid of Gordon Brown and start Britain on the road to recovery.

2010-03-02T09:57:00.003Z

I did the first public meeting of this campaign yesterday, a question-and-answer session with the local hoteliers.

The issue that came up time and again was the economy. People have largely been isolated from the ‘depression’ so far - and there was the slightest feeling in January and February that we might escape the worst; in my view this goodwill was directly linked to house prices which had been rising since last summer, but the last weeks news has been about falls. This was reflected yesterday, where we all noticed a sharply downbeat attitude from the people attending the meeting concerning the economy with several questioners openly suggesting that ‘the worst is yet to come’.

What makes this interesting is the nature of the attendees. Hotel owners in March have a pretty good idea of what is coming down the line for the summer. A weak pound and increased security fears are supposed to mean lots of people holidaying at home - so if the recession was ending you might expect a bumper season this year in Torbay. If you were expecting a bumper season you would imagine the first people to know about it would be the hotel companies taking the bookings.

So why are the hoteliers so gloomy?

People have really started to notice rising retail prices, I haven’t heard this as a political issue for decades, but it is firmly on the agenda now; with people saying ‘not only is my pay being cut but the prices in the shops are rising so we just can’t afford the luxuries anymore, can you believe the price of X is now Y?’.

And they have a point. The headline rate of inflation is in the 3-4% range for the first time in years, but the figures are a mish-mash of statistics mixing bills, infrequent purchases such as furniture and clothing with daily consumer items such as food. In the real world food and petrol have been shooting up since the pound dropped last spring. Food shopping in particular is becoming painful; butter is over £1, bread headed for £1 a loaf and even a Mars Bar is now about 70p. I bought a bike magazine at the station last week and that was £4. And yesterdays falls in the value of the £ mean the price pain is set to worsen. Yet for most people their take-home pay is static or falling and has been for over a year.

Recessions initially are just news stories, shops and factories shut but if you are not immediately jobless it is of passing interest. They become a political issue when they affect how *everyone* feels. Once we feel insecure at work, the equity in our home is halved and we are poorer at the shops the recession is affecting us, and that reflects in the polls. That is now happening, the 1980 recession ended in 1981, but the feeling of prosperity and growing living standards took until 1985 to arrive; in the short-lived 1991 recession the 'green shoots' of recovery appeared in 1992, but the accompanying 'feel-good' factor was still missing until 1995.

The thing that struck me most yesterday was the recognition by people there that the Government have already emptied the armoury in trying to tackle the recession, and that if their action has failed (and people agree that it has) the outlook makes them feel very, very vulnerable because the Government has nothing left, and neither do most households.

2010-03-01T10:53:00.002Z

What do you want to be when you grow up Lucy?

Lucy looked at her Dad and said "I want to be the Prime Minister."

"And why do you want to do that?" said her Dad.

"Because I want to make sure that homeless man and his dog in the doorway across the street has something to eat" says Lucy.

"That's my Girl" says her proud father, "Welcome to the Labour Party."

Lucy's mum had overheard the conversation from the other room, and not being quite such a fan of the Labour Party, she came to join the discussion.

"I have an idea" said Mum. "The garden needs weeding and the driveway needs sweeping. If you do that for me Lucy I will give you £10. Then you can go and give it to the man across the street and he can use it to buy some food for himself and his dog."

Lucy considered this offer for a few moments and then a look of puzzlement crossed her young face, and then her eyes widened with inspiration.

"Why doesn't that man come over and weed the lawn and sweep the drive himself? that way you can just give him the £10 - and he will feel better because he will have earned it?" she said, with that faultless logic children often display.

"That's my Girl," said her mother... "Welcome to the Conservative Party" .

2010-02-18T13:20:00.004Z

Will the growing signs of a 'double dip' bring an early election?

The economic news is deteriorating rapidly. Aside from the short-lived 0.1% 'growth' story earlier in the month the economic news has been relentlessly gloomy so far this year with the outlook for jobs, house prices, inflation, economic growth, the exchange rate, Government borrowing and interests rates all turning sharply negative in recent days.

Especially worrying are the Government borrowing numbers for January which reveal that we needed to borrow £4bn in a month that normally has the Governments coffers overflowing. The BBC reports "January typically brings the government a large income from tax receipts, giving it a budget surplus and allowing it to repay some of its debts. But this year tax receipts were significantly lower than expected, the ONS said, with both income tax and capital gains tax income falling sharply. Tax receipts dropped 11.8% compared with January last year, when the government was able to repay £5.3bn."

This is the equivalent of a seaside holiday hotel finding it is making a loss during August.

For most of 2009 the Government were printing their own money to spend, but that process has ended and from now on the Government has to persuade real investors to lend it the mountain of cash it needs to pay the salaries and benefits on which millions of Britons depend.

Borrowing costs will almost certainly rise, very sharply. Unless the markets are convinced that the Government has a plan to deal with its budget crisis even this might not be enough.

That is why speculation is rising again that the Government may not wait for the news to get worse but instead cut and run for the election in March. An early election means that the Budget could be deferred and the election would happen before the 2010 1st Quarter economic figures are published in April (Many analysts believe that the Q1 figures will be more disappointing than the 0.1% 2009 Q4 figure published last month, suggesting either no growth or a tip back into recession).

We cannot go on like this, playing politics while the real economy teeters is the last straw. It is more important than ever that the Government delivers a credible plan for jobs and growth. Labour should take the advice of leading economists and Sir Richard Branson and adopt our plan to tackle the deficit and ensure stable recovery. Instead, Labour are pursuing a path that will undermine confidence, threaten higher interest rates and mortgage rates and put the recovery at risk.

2010-02-10T09:30:00.009Z

Fair Votes-

Has Nick "Mini Me" Clegg made a big tactical blunder?

After weeks of careful positioning by Nick Clegg that his party were not in Labours pocket, last night the entire Liberal Democrat contingent filed through the voting lobby with Labour in a shabby attempt to alter the voting system.

The Liberal Democrats have sought a change to the voting system ever since they were formed but they want Proportional representation. The system proposed by Labour is in many ways the opposite, alternative vote has a tendency to exaggerate the advantage held by the winner, it would have given Labour even more seats in 1997 and 2001 than they already had, for instance.

As Mike Smithson, the Lib Dem blogger from PoliticalBetting.com puts it:

"The general presumption is that Labour hopes that Clegg and his party will now look at Labour more favourably in the unlikely event of a hung parliament. But hasn’t the aim been much more short-term than that?

For the form of what’s described as “electoral reform” that’s represented by AV is an abomination to the Lib Dems. It doesn’t deal with their main concern that the numbers of MPs each party gets should be in line with how the nation voted. In many way AV makes that worse"

Yet Cleggs party went along with the stunt - and apparently this is in the name of trying to repair public trust in politics!

Public anger at the expenses scandal is part of a deeper frustration with our whole political system.

Labour have had 13 years to mend our broken politics. But Gordon Brown is just not capable of doing it.

He has tried to block the publication of MPs’ expenses, he has dithered over reform and it took days of Conservative pressure to force him to take away the whip from three Labour MPs facing prosecution over expenses.

After avoiding a leadership election and bottling a general election, Gordon Brown is trying to fiddle the electoral system to save his own skin, it is as simple as that.

It’s clear he will say anything to cling on to power.

We can’t go on with five more years of Gordon Brown’s old politics. We need change and real reform of the political system.

An incoming Conservative Government will fix our broken politics with a sweeping redistribution of power: from the state to citizens; from the government to Parliament; from Whitehall to communities; from Brussels to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy. We will ensure that MPs can never use parliamentary privilege to evade justice, and reform lobbying laws so ex-ministers can’t use public resources for private gain.

To get real political change we need a change of government.

2010-01-28T10:37:00.002Z

WE CAN'T

GO ON

LIKE THIS

Inequality under Labour has risen to its highest level since World War II.

A report from the National Equality Panel, published today, reveals that after 13 years of Labour Government:

· We have the highest levels of income inequality since soon after the Second World War;

· We have some of the highest overall poverty rates in Europe;

· Social mobility has stalled;

· By the age children start school, there’s a gap of up to year’s development between children with two parents with paid work, and those without;

· Up to age 44, women are better qualified than men but actually earn up to a fifth less.

Families are worse off under Labour.

As George Osborne has written in The Sun today, the latest figures show that the average family is almost £900 worse off than in 2005. Under Gordon Brown, Britain has gone backwards, not forwards.

Ex-Daily Mirror Editor agrees we can’t go on like this.

The former Editor of the Daily Mirror, and lifelong Labour supporter, Mike Molloy, has said that he will vote Conservative for the first time at the forthcoming general election. He says:

‘When New Labour came to power, I was confident they would change Britain for the better. Well, we all know how wrong I was... the experiment with New Labour has ended in catastrophe and this Government has wasted money like no other in history. So I shall vote Conservative for the first time in my life.’

Read Mike Molloy’s full article here.

2010-01-27T10:45:00.004Z

Spot the difference competition.

Yes - the picture on the right shows the shopping centre after the economy has grown by 0.1%, and what a big difference it has made.

Today, new figures show the first signs of economic growth after 18 months of recession – the longest and deepest since the war. Of course, the end of the Great Recession is good news – even though we were one of the first big economies into recession, and the last out. Now we are coming out of recession, Labour’s Debt Crisis is the biggest threat to our recovery.
As the Director-General of the CBI says in The Times today, ‘one of the troubles with the Government’s programme [of debt reduction] is that it’s long on aspirations and short on details, and it’s stretched out over the lifetime of two whole Parliaments.’ We can’t go on like this. We need change and a Conservative government to get a grip on our debt crisis. As any family with a credit card knows, the more we spend and the longer we wait to pay off our bills, the worse it gets.

Five facts about Labour’s Debt Crisis

We’re borrowing money at a rate of around £6,000 every second - every five seconds, the Government borrows more than the average British person earns in a year.
This year, we’re expected to borrow almost 14 per cent of our GDP – almost twice as much as when we nearly went bust in the 1970s
We’re spending more money on the interest on our debt than on almost anything else.
We have the biggest budget deficit of any large economy.
Last week, we had the worst public borrowing figures for any December on record.

However you spin the economy, the V shaped (short, shallow dip and strong recovery) recession promised by the Government is a bad memory. What it looks like we are in is a very deep U shaped recession (steep decline, levelling off for a period of flat or zero growth followed eventually by a climb) in which case as we have had 18 months down, and we may have to have a very long period of flatness before ecomimic activity starts to climb again.

There is a third, less comfortable possibility, which I still personally believe may turn out to be the case. The Government and Bank of England actions, (0.5% interest rates, printing money, pouring cash into banks and cutting taxes) have temporarily stalled the downward slope and as soon as the patient comes of the drugs the downward slope will resume. We will have a W shaped recession, - Mr Boom and Mr Bust brought out of retirement by none other than Mssrs Brwon and Darling.

It is caused by an unbalanced economy; growth is caused not by genuine companies being successful and expanding, but by Government spending, bailing out loss making and old industry businesses to keep people in jobs, speculative booms in property and asset values, and a consumer frenzy. When the debts catch up with everyone the music stops and the country lapses into a recession. The Governent reacts by spending more and the whole cycle repeats.

In the 1950's, 60's and '70's this was called "stop-go" economics and ending it (by making radical supply-side modifications to our economy) was a driving force behind the Thatcher years.

2010-01-20T14:17:00.002Z

Choosing Cadbury
has cost Kraft 30%
less, thanks to Gordon

I got very steamed up last night watching Peter Mandelson shedding crocodile tears over the takeover of Cadburys by the American food giant Kraft.

For while he was bleating about the impact this takeover might have on jobs the simple fact is that it was a 30% drop in the value of the pound, for which his Government is solely responsible, that made this take over affordable for Kraft.

A weak economy leads to a weak currency, and a weak currency makes our businesses cheap pickings for firms based in places where the currency is stronger than ours.

I expect to see many other famous and not so famous British names to join British Energy, Scottish & Newcastle breweries, ICI, Scottish Power, British Airports, Thames Water, Pilkington Glass, P&O, and the Abbey National bank in being sold to overseas owners.

All this is a far cry from the 1980's and 1990's when it was British companies causing controversy by buying out iconic foreign firms like Smith & Wesson pistols, Greyhound Bus' and culminating in the huge takeover by Vodafone of German mobile telephone giant Mannesmann. Back then our companies were strong and profitable, our taxes were low and as a result our currency was worth more, making British firms powerful and opening huge opportunities for the companies and, more importantly, the staff who work for them.

Why do we need strong British companies? Because they are the backbone of the economy.

A good example of the beneficial impact of a successful company is the above mentioned company Vodafone. It was created from scratch by the electronics company Racal in 1985 following the Thatcher Governments decision to licence mobile telephony to private enterprises. Now the company employs 79,000 people and produces £9bn in profits for its mostly UK shareholders, rents shops, call centres and infrastructure across the country, spends billions with UK partners and suppliers on supplies and services like advertising, and of course contributes billions in taxes to the Treasury.

Generally companies are prone to focus their spending in the countries of their origin, British companies operating abroad often take their British suppliers, and service providers like bankers, accountants and advertisers with them creating more work for those firms back in Blighty.

But of course American and Continental European forms tend to do the same, so when British companies fall to foreign hands very often business is lost to their UK suppliers. Kraft will almost certainly prefer to work with their existing American packaging partners, their American ingredients providers, American banks and American advertising agencies, in the process depleting the value of Cadburys to the UK economy; and the UK treasury will have to learn to live without much of Cadburys corporation tax revenue into the bargain.

The only way out of this downward spiral is to make our economy strong again. For ten years Conservatives have been warning that the growing tax and bloated regulatory burden was killing UK competitiveness and endangering the economy. This has now come to pass and the only remedy is a substantial dose of de-regulation and eventually, substantial tax cuts.

2010-01-06T09:27:00.004Z

... And now we know why.

I was puzzled last winter by the apparent eagerness for many schools to close down at the slightest sign of bad weather.

This cold snap has once again led to thousands of schools closing across Britain. While in many cases the closure is logical and expected in many places, where the snow is not that bad, I have been surprised to see schools close anyway.

Many of us remember trudging to school as children in all weathers, indeed I can remember being forced to carry on playing outdoor sport in freezing conditions regardless, and one wonders where this relatively recent trend to close schools whenever their is bad weather comes from?

Cynical parents have suggested it is just an excuse to give staff the day off, others suspect it is a cost-saving measure to avoid putting the heating up!

Well part of the reason head teachers really are keener to close their schools than they used to be did eventually emerge today. During an interview on radio 4 this morning between Stephen Alambritis, chief spokesman of the Federation of Small Businesses, and Mick Brookes, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, it emerged that some head teachers might have more than one eye on their attendance records when deciding about keeping their school open or not.

Pupil attendance records are a key Government target, and make up part of the performance tables that define a school heads record. A day in which hundreds of kids won't arrive at at school would be disastrous for this 'key performance indicator' - whereas if the school is closed by the head the attendances aren't counted for that day.

So head teachers have a strong incentive to do the absolute opposite of what the targets are supposed to achieve.

This is a classic case of unintended and undesirable consequences from badly drafted laws and poorly considered management targets for which our Government have become legendary.

Schools need targets, and parents are entitled to information about their schools performance, but the challenge is to make sure that the tail does not wag the dog.

2010-01-05T17:15:00.002Z

And they are off....

Yes and it's a slightly wary welcome to the start of the Twenty Ten General Election hurdle; run over a record long distance of four months, this historic contest has been started at a record pace and far earlier than usual. Will the crowd grow bored of the race long before the runners and riders reach the finish line? That all depends on the twists, turns and hurdles that lie ahead.

The horses have left the start and after a sharp getaway it's an early lead for favourite David Cameron riding Oak Tree, a length ahead of Gordon Brown on the second favourite Red Rose Spinner. Rank outsider Yellow Peril ridden by the young Nick Clegg stumbled out of the start but has since picked up the pace and lies a shoulder behind Red Rose Spinner. These three have already opened up a significant lead over the rest of the field.

This is going to be a very long race on a slow course in soggy conditions, and the risk for the riders is keeping a steady pace through the early jumps - Cameron missed his footing at the first and lost a few paces to Red Rose Spinner but then a slip up by Red Rose at the infamous Dodgy Dossier corner means the gap has opened up again.

And barely past the first jump and Red Rose Spinner is reported to be facing another Stewards Enquiry; the owners are reported to be in talks to replace the jockey after the race has started!

And we have maybe another 150 days of this before the finish line.

2010-01-04T16:00:00.003Z

That message from David Cameron in full:

"We can't go on like this. We need change to get the country back on its feet. And that change must be based on the values of responsibility and aspiration.

We can't go on with:
· The same irresponsible economic policies that gave us the biggest boom, the biggest bust, and now threatens our recovery with higher debts, higher instability, higher taxes, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.

· An old-fashioned left-wing class war on aspiration from a government that has seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We can't go on with the old style of politics that divides our country instead of uniting it.

· Labour's bureaucracy, running everything from Whitehall, denying people control over their lives and undermining the professionals in our public services.

· A weak Prime Minister and a divided government.

This is no time for more of the same. And it's the modern Conservative Party that has the plans, the ideas, the energy, the people, the unity and the leadership to bring that change.

Our plans are not timid - but the truth is they can't be. The problems of today demand more. They demand real change: a better NHS; an aspirational economy; a big society; a new politics.

We have a four year track record of delivering change in our party. Now we are impatient to change our country. We are determined to make a difference. We are all in this together, and we know that if we all pull together then this country can have great hope for the future. So let's face this New Year with confidence, optimism and hope. And let's make 2010 the year for change."

2010-01-02T16:11:00.000Z

A happy new year to everyone. I was busy with a family bereavement before Christmas and have not been updating the blog. But we will be back to normal now.

2009-12-15T15:15:00.007Z

We are making cars more efficient, but what about houses?

I have been chugging round in my Smart Diesel for a few days now.

My previous carriage of choice was twice as long and had an engine five times as big.

It is definitely not as luxurious as my petrol Mercedes was, but in all other ways it is a lot less of a compromise than I was expecting.

For one thing it is amazingly comfortable on long trips - just been to London and back - and I found the seats fine. Being a turbo diesel means it has a lot more urge than Karen's Daihatsu on the motorway - and it is quiet.

The biggest incentive was at the pumps. A return trip in the Mercedes was never less than £90 in fuel and about another £100 in maintenance and wear and tear. The trip in the Smart cost £30, about half the cost of going on the train.

I am not a convert to the global warming theory and remain a sceptic about the evidence that mans activity is causing the planet to warm up.

But in many ways whether there really is global warming or not is irrelevant; the balance of probability says we should try and be more fuel efficient. If the climate scientists are right then it will help prevent warming, and if they are wrong it will preserve our natural resources for future generations. This is a win-win.

If each of us tries to do something less harmful then there is no obvious downside and there could be a benefit for future generations.

The main plus of the public concern about the environment so far is a change in perceptions, turning up for an important business meeting in a small car like a Smart, or a Fiat 500 would until very recently have been seen as at best eccentric, and at worst as a career-damaging move whereas now it is seen as reflecting a responsible attitude.

What a pity that the realism in the business community that means my Smart is now seen as a perfectly acceptable form of transport for a senior executive has not spread to the world of Government Planning Inspectors and English Heritage.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the housing sector account for 27 per cent of the UK's carbon footprint while passenger cars account for only about 12%. There are 375,000 listed buildings in the UK of which 92% are the least important Grade 2 type, all of which are stuck in a 100 year old time warp and excluded from much new building material technology.

Take for example our home in Torquay. It is Grade 2 listed and under current legislation we cannot replace wooden sash windows and doors with more thermally efficient modern replicas even if they are indistinguishable to look at from the originals. We could not take advantage of the South facing aspect of the house to fit solar panels nor could we have a wind generator on the roof even though they would be invisible from the road. In fact after already fitting a condensing boiler and a lot of loft insulation there is little we can do to improve our homes thermal rating.

This is a classic case of a lack of 'joined up' thinking in Government, where one department sets rules and laws that directly conflict with another. On the one hand we want more efficient homes yet we actively prevent homeowners from making desirable improvements to bring their houses up to date, thermally speaking.

I agree that classic buildings need protecting from inappropriate modernisation but we should modify the listed buildings legislation to encourage thermal and efficiency improvements when new technology allows it to blend in, or when it is hidden.

The Georgians, Victorians and Edwardians made great buildings by embracing new building materials and technologies. What would they have made of our modern obsession with keeping thousands of buildings inefficient and wasteful - all in the name of purity?

2009-12-09T15:08:00.018Z

Just how much is the Government Borrowing?

The sheer scale of National borrowing it so utterly enormous it is hard to comprehend.

Understanding clearly the enormous difference between a billion here and a trillion there is almost impossible to do; so I thought I would borrow an excellent illustration from an American site (http://www.dailycognition.com/) which tries to show just how much space this kind of money would take up if it was piled up in cash.

These illustrations are based on tightly packed brand new $100 bills, and of course the biggest note we have is only £50 so at current exchange rates the amount stacked if it was in in sterling amounts the same would look half as big again.

Here is what $100,000,000 (£60m) looks like:

Packed tight in bundles it would fit on a single pallet. Cliff Richard is worth about £60m. It is about enough to build half the Kingskerswell bypass, buy two Eurofighter jets, pick up a second-hand Boeing 747 or completely rebuild a city centre shopping mall.

Torbay council spend this much annually on running all the schools in Torbay.

Here is what $1bn (£600m) looks like:

It's half a lorry full of money. Very few individuals have this much worth: Richard Branson, maybe Sir Paul McCartney.

For £600m you could buy the famous Gerkhin building in the City of London, or build a second Wembley Stadium.

Torbay Council spends this much over the four years of it's electoral cycle. It is what the Government will be paying out every week on interest on the national debt next year and beyond.

Here is what $1 trillion (£600bn) would look like:

The man in the red shirt is shown for scale again, but you can hardly see him down in the bottom left-hand corner, the pallets are stacked two high and yet still the picture can hardly fit on my blog. This amount is - roughly - the same as the current national debt figure of £730,000,000,000 shown on my debt counter above.

According to projections in the Budget, public sector net debt, the accumulated stock of outstanding Government borrowing, will reach £1.37 trillion in 2013/14. This is roughly $2 trillion, in other words this picture shows just half the money that Britian will eventually owe under this Governments plans.

At the moment the Government is quoting an annual overspend of 12.5% of national product. What that means is that the Government, who spend about half the national output, is borrowing about a quarter of the money it is spending every year. Alistair Darling has said he wants to 'half the deficit' by 2014 - which some lazy reporters state as 'halving the debt' but what that means is that the annual amount by which the government is short will fall from 25% to about 12%; the debt will pile up but half as fast as it is at the moment.

This is like a loss-making business CEO saying 'in five years I will halve our losses' - no chief executive would be given that long by his banks, and neither will Britain PLC.

When Labour came to office the country owed £350bn, exactly one quarter of the debt we will end up with when they leave. The taxpayer will have to service this enormous debt pile and then, sooner or later, make an effort to pay it down. Even then we will probably have higher taxes and borrowing costs and a weaker currency than any other European country for decades ahead. And the depressing thing is that even now the Government feel no need to accept that this is a problem, in today's pre-budget report the Chancellor came up with hardly any cuts and virtually no new tax-raising measures; he fools no-one.

Consumer and business confidence will not return for as long as the prospect of either economic collapse, runaway inflation or skyrocketing taxes and interest rates hangs over our heads; and that threat won't go away until this massive debt burden is faced up to.

Above all enormous national debts make this country weak, the foreign investors -Chinese, Indian and Arab Governments, overseas bankers and Sovereign Funds who have lent the money will be calling the shots here for years to come.

2009-12-01T11:58:00.004Z

Could May 2010 be Feb 74?

Why is a hung Parliament a threat to be afraid of ?

The political pages have been awash with stories concerning the possibility that the General Election could result in a hung parliament, this is when no single party has a majority in the House of Commons.

This last happened in 1974. During the oil crisis endless political strikes by militant miners and dockers threatened to bring our democracy down. Ted Heath called an emergency election to establish 'who governs Britain'. The totally unexpected answer was: 'not you, mate'. Labour were returned to power as the largest single party though with a minority in the House, eventually going into a disasterous formal coalition with the Liberals in 1976.

The press have been full of speculation about a similar outcome when the election is held next year. The reason is a recent fall-off in the very large Conservative leads in the polls - from 17% to 10% or less in recent reports. Converting national vote shares into actual seat shares is very difficult in these days of target seats and the like but some pepsologists have suggested that the Tories need more than a 10% lead in the national polls to be sure of an overall majority, hence the speculation about NOC (No Overall Control).

The Liberal Democrats and the Nationalists in Scotland and Wales are dreaming of the goodies they will might extract if they hold the balance of power; but they are the only ones.

Everyone else is terrified.

No Overall Control is a turn of phrase that for most foreign exchange dealers and Gilt salespeople gives them nightmares even when times are good. When a Government like ours needs to borrow trillions from foreigners just to stay afloat the letters NOC equal the kiss of death.

In 2009 the Government has spent nearly 30% more than it has raised in tax, the difference this year - £180bn - has been covered by the sale of Government bonds (gilts) to investors. However all year the Bank of England has been printing new money (Quantative Easing) which it has spent buying up existing gilts, forcing investors to buy new ones from the Treasury.

QE is now ending and next years budget deficit will have to be financed without it. The funding crisis that a massive increase in borrowing like ours might have been expected to cause has simply been delayed by QE until next year.

If you add in the uncertainty of a possible hung parliament a currency and funding crisis early next year looks a real possibility. What this would mean is a loss of confidence from international investors needing drastic interest rate rises to lure them back, perhaps credit and currency exchange controls to stop British residents taking their wealth overseas and ultimately the possibility of our Government, like Russia a few years ago, not having enough money to pay it's own wages bill.

International investors will only lend money to a state that has a clear plan to repay its debts quickly. Because of the political chaos in 1976 we were unable to demonstrate this and the country instead had to turn to the IMF for emergency aid.

That fate looks unlikely to me, I don't agree with the pepsologists and I think a 10% Conservative lead will give us a workable commons majority and the mandate to make the changes that will maintain investor confidence.

I also think there is a paradox to hung parliaments: the possibility of having one makes actually ending up with one less likely.

2009-11-23T19:45:00.000Z

Dinner with David Trimble.

We had David (Lord) Trimble down in Devon this weekend for a fund raising dinner for my election campaign.

Held at the Orestone Manor Hotel, our palates were stimulated with a gourmet dinner of ribeye steak with Merlot sauce or fillet of guilt head bream, while our intellects were stimulated by a Nobel Peace Prize winning politician.

I have hosted or arranged many scores of these events both here in Torbay and formerly as the Chairman of Windsor conservatives.

Usually the guests are all dedicated political activists and the speech is often simply a tub-thumping call to arms.

To be fair pitching the speech at the right level is difficult at the best of times. Most experienced politicians can 'read' the audience mood, and give them what they want (but not all, - I remember in particular an excruciating 'We are on the verge of a great victory' monologue from Jeffrey Archer at the Windsor Guildhall in 2001 shortly before we went down to our second worst election result in history and he went off to prison.)

What made Friday evening so very different was that it was not a members event, so many of the guests were not necessarily Conservative voters. Although he now takes the Conservative Whip in the Lords David Trimble was there to talk about his time as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and his negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement which paved the way for the lasting peace enjoyed by the province ever since, and it was not a party political speech at all.

The early foundation of these talks was laid while John Major was PM and the deal was done with Blair so uniquely for one of our dinners Trimble could tell us about the workings of both a Conservative and Labour administration.

There were fascinating behind-the-scenes anecdotes about discreet direct talks with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinnes which were in places both amusing and revealing.

What came across the most to me about him is the incredible courage and determination he showed in leading his very reluctant Unionist peers from supporting confrontation and violence to instead supporting the talks that led to peace.

Weak politicians merely parrot the prejudices of their electors, strong politicians show us that there is a better place; but it requires a truly great politician to actually lead you there.

Like Churchills Tories in 1945, he paid a high political price for his historic achievement, the UUP were routed by the DUP and in the 2005 election David Trimble lost his seat.

He has not stopped working to embed peace in the Province. He believes that the next phase of normality in Northern Ireland politics will come when the political choice is framed the same there as it is in Scotland, Wales and England.

He is optimistic that the merger deal recently announced between the UUP and the Conservatives in Northern Ireland will for the first time enable voters there to focus on the same question as the rest of the British Isles at the General Election namely: do they want Gordon Brown or David Cameron for PM?

If Northern Irish voters feel able to vote freely - on issues like lower tax, better education and investment in our hospitals - and not on religion - it will be the very best evidence possible that normal life has returned for good.

I am very grateful to him for coming down to see us, it was a brilliant and very illuminating evening and a great success.

2009-11-19T15:20:00.002Z

Summing up Labour in a single phrase.

"The state would be the ultimate authority in allocating resources to the population" - this is a direct quote from my opposite number David Pedrick Friend in todays local paper. He claims this is what his Labour Party stands for.

It says in elegant simplicity what Labour represent, the view that 'the population' are to be the passive recipients of resources from the all-powerful state; that we are all here as mere cogs in the mighty state machine.

It's everything I went into politics to oppose.

In my view the state should be there to serve it's citizens, not the other way round as envisaged by Mr Pedrick Friend.

Gordon Brown went to elaborate lengths yesterday via the Queens Speech to create a political divide, to draw the battle lines for the next election with a plethora of meaningless bills.

But his local representative has summed it up far more elegantly, and truthfully.

He also said "Labour's 1945 government signed a contract with the British people that for the first time in British history the era of the rich man in his castle and poor man at his gate would end."

But under this Labour Government the gap between rich and poor has grown, the number of jobless has risen, the opportunities for young people fallen, and the burden of debt tripled.

Socialism serves only to impoverish everyone.

2009-11-16T15:27:00.009Z

The War of
misinformation
begins....

This is a snippet from a Labour Party leaflet doing the rounds in a by election constituency recently. Politics doesn't get much less subtle than this.

The whole question of fox hunting has been in the news again because it is five years this week since the hunting ban was passed. The decades of bitter protest against hunting followed by years of equally bitter protests in favour have largely been put behind us. Much of the Armageddon promised by the pro-hunt lobby has failed to materialise, thousands of dogs were not put down, the countryside has not become an economic desert and we are not overrun with packs of marauding foxes. Some animal rights activists continue to complain that the law is being abused, and the Countryside Alliance continue to vociferously campaign for restoration; but drag hunting has become an acceptable subsititute, and most people seem content with the new status quo.

Our opponents are trying to show the offer to hold a free vote by David Cameron as a party political divide, as the Labour poster above clearly demonstrates. The Lib Dems, too are trying to indicate that a Conservative Government will definitely support the re-introduction of fox hunting (and by implication, suggesting I support it, too) as this snippet from a local Lib Dem leaflet shows.

Labour devoted several hundred pointless hours in debating this topic for years and ended up with a class-based divisive law that pleased no-one. I am certain Conservatives will not make that mistake, David Cameron has rightly offered a fresh debate on a party free 'vote with your conscience' basis because he respects that passions run very high on this question.

I think many members of the public will think us wrong to re-open the debate at a time of economic and social crisis like this, but if the hunting issue is debated as part of the much wider issue of our loss of freedom and liberty in many areas of our life, or as part of the questions surrounding protecting our countryside way of life, that objection would not be fair.

If I am elected I have said that I will not vote to re-instate hunting. This caused disbelief (or was it -perish the thought- disappointment?) when I was approached and asked about it by the League Against Cruel Sports earlier this year. I have since found out that several of my fellow PPC's across the country are inclined -like me- not to vote to abolish the ban now that we have one. Some people are surprised by this, wrongly imagining all Conservatives to be supporters of hunting as the kind of stereotype put about by our political opponents.

While it is true that in the current Parliament a majority of Conservatives have rural constituencies where many residents are passionate supporters of the sport, if we win in 2010 we will be adding hundreds of new Conservative MP's from urban and city constituencies where opinions may differ.

Until we know the make-up of the next House of Commons, and know the terms and details of a future Bill to legalise hunting with dogs, guessing the outcome of a vote is pointless. But the slogan Labour put on the poster above is both misleading and dishonest.

2009-11-09T12:05:00.002Z

A sobering moment

As usual I attended the rememberance day service in Torbay yesterday.

As usual it was a sobering moment.

While the service calls on God to give wisdom to our leaders and politicians we are standing in rememberance of the terrible aftermath of collective failure of wisdom which is modern warfare.

Most wars in modern times have been the result of a failure of leaders (often, on all sides) to lead wisely.

Even the Second World War, where we had a clear moral purpose and an urgent need to go to war to defend ourselves is a conflict that Winston Churchill thought could have, and should have been prevented. In his own memoir of WW11 written in 1947 (Volume 1 The Gathering Storm) , he makes clear that he felt that had the Western leaders shown more determination in the 1930's to oppose German re armament, and also resolve to ensure their own defence remained strong, Hitler would have not had the confidence or the military ability to set out on his deadly course.

Even then, had the leaders of Great Britain and France stood resolutely against his early incursions and aggressions it is highly likely that the world war could have been avoided.

But much more on every one's mind yesterday - and the reason the number of attendees was sharply up this year - is Afghanistan.

Incredibly this conflict has now outlasted not only the two World Wars but also post-war conflicts in Palestine, Malaya, Korea, Suez , Kenya, Cyprus, Borneo, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar, The Falklands War and the two Gulf Wars.

After so long it is hardly surprising that the public are confused and vague about just why our soldiers are there. The purported reason - that otherwise the streets of London will be awash with terrorists - not surprisingly fails to strike with people and the secondary reason, that the alternative is 'instability in the entire Middle East' prompts the question 'Just when was the Middle East stable to begin with?'

The conflict is hard for soldiers because the Labour Government have become so mistrusted by the public on this (mainly because of the mess that was the argument for going after Saddam and the whole WMD fiasco) that declarations by ministers that we need to stay are just not believed by even senior military people any more.

The Government need to establish with us all that we are not there simply as a fig-leaf to the Americans. We need to be reminded that being dragged into this conflict was not simply a knee-jerk revenge action caused by the 9/11 attacks but a properly though out strategic move to introduce democracy and in so doing hopefully eliminate Muslim extremism.

The snag is that even if we succeed in delivering elections the problem is not ended. Extremists flourish when democracy fails people. Leaving President Karsai in charge of Afghanistan looks increasingly about as sensible as leaving Leslie Phillips in charge of a girls boarding school sixth form.

When citizens think their politicians are corrupt, self interested, tribal and inept they can easily become attracted to the ideologue, the zealot and the bigots that spring up offering clear cut alternatives. One reason that the political and religeous extremists are flourishing is the collective disillusion with the honesty, integrity and wisdom of the existing, usually elected, politicians of many countries.

And that -very sadly- includes this one.

Which is why we urgently need to put our own political house in order.

2009-11-03T13:20:00.007Z

We were told
the truth in 1975 -
but did not hear.

It is fascinating doing some research into the whole EEC/EU debate from the early 1970’s as I did as part of yesterdays post and the likely announcement by David Cameron tomorrow (that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty means we won't be having a referendum on it).

So much of the ire about Europe today is based on the modern 'fact' that people at the time ‘weren’t told’ that the project was to create a federal superstate.

I get this from UKIP people on the doorstep all the time, they say that Heath ‘misled the nation’ over the EU. I have always believed they were right, I have said many times that people thought we were just joining the a free trade area, not a superstate.

In common with the majority of the British People I was not able to take part in the debate at the time, so I cannot say I can remember. But the documentary evidence still available that I have turned up this week flatly contradicts this sentiment, much to my surprise.

On holiday recently I read Heaths autobiography and in that he says he always made clear what the scope of the project was. In just a few days searching I have found scores of references in speeches and leaflets at the time from both proponents and opponents of the EEC that we would indeed be agreeing to become part of an eventual single, unified 'United States of Europe' with ambitions to unify and have one currency as far back as 1969.

"At the Hague Summit, on 1 and 2 December 1969, a decision was taken, on a proposal from the German Chancellor and former Finance Minister, Willy Brandt, to draw up a step-by-step plan with a view to creating a European economic and monetary union. On 6 March 1970, the Council instructed the Luxembourg Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Pierre Werner, to chair a committee mandated to pinpoint the fundamental options for the gradual creation of an economic and monetary union among the then six Member States."

I knew we tried and failed to agree terms to join the EEC in 1962, but I didn't know that Wilson had begun talks again in 1967, and yet again failed to find enough common ground.

Here is the climax of a speech Ted Heath gave in 1972 in Brussels at the ceremony to mark the end of negotiations, and before Parliament debated and then ratified the accession treaty :

“What design should we seek for the New Europe? It must be a Europe which is strong and confident within itself. A Europe in which we shall be working for the progressive relaxation and elimination of east/west tensions. A Europe conscious of the interests of its friends and partners. A Europe alive to its great responsibilities in the common struggle of humanity for a better life.

Thus this ceremony marks an end and a beginning. An end to divisions which have stricken Europe for centuries. A beginning of another stage in the construction of a new and greater Europe.”

This makes it abundantly clear what Heaths vision for Europe was - he saw the EEC as a building block for a much wider, and much closer union.

And in the leaflet that went to every home in Britain in 1975 the very main page stated in bold print:

The aims of the Common Market are:

* To bring together the peoples of Europe.

* To raise living standards and improve working conditions.

* To promote growth and boost world trade.

* To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.

* To help maintain peace and freedom

The fact is people were told it was going to be a union that went far beyond a trade area, but weren’t worried about this in 1973 or 1975 when we were nationally bankrupt and an international laughing stock.

Politicians and the voting public of the time had seen Britain win a war and promptly lose an empire and then slide from the worlds main power to a third-rate and still contracting economy by the early 1970's. They thought a 'merger' was the best way to stay relevant on the world stage.

No-one foresaw that possibility that we would soon elect a Government that would reshape Britains economy and make the country independently powerful enough to manage outside the EU if we wanted to.

That is why the debate has emerged in the way that it has, not that we were misled in 1973 or in 1975 but we joined the EU at the very nadir of our national fortunes, and had we not joined in 1973 we probably would have remained independent to this day.

Either way I remain of the view that the public are overdue to have a say on our EU membership, whatever we were or weren't clear about in 1973 we have the information now and a new generation of Britons, brought up in a different era, need to have a voice on this.

2009-11-02T11:11:00.002Z

Lisbon, now we have arrived at the bridge - are we going to cross it?

It looks almost certain that the Lisbon Treaty is about to be ratified.

From that moment onwards it becomes binding on all the members, ourselves included.

Up to now David Cameron has been relying on his promise, made 26 months ago to Sun readers, that if the treaty wasn't ratified by the time of the next election we would offer the public a referendum on the treaty if elected. The big issue has always been 'yes, but what will you do if the treaty has been ratified by then?' and the answer has been 'we will cross that bridge when we come to it'.

Well here we are, the Treaty is about to be ratified and we have arrived at the bridge. In the next few days my party has to say what we are going to do about Europe if we are elected.

Many Conservatives feel that we should go ahead and have a referendum on the treaty anyway - but in my view this would be meaningless, we can't leave just the treaty we would have to leave the EU entirely. The referendum would in the end be about staying in or leaving the EU - the Liberal Democrats proposal. This is the most appealing option on the surface, we would have a vote and put the issue to bed for the next thirty years or so.

Why won't there be a vote like that? because all research showns that voters are very afraid of leaving (or being chucked out) of the EU. It looks very likely that an 'in or out' referendum would overhwelmingly say 'in' - and of course that would also then validate Lisbon - which is why the very pro EU Lib Dems suggested it in the first place.

The real challenge for those fighting the growing EU octopus is to win the hearts and minds of the British public over to the fact that all would not be lost if we left. They need to establish that far from having something to fear from leaving the EU there could be economic advantages, as evidenced by two of of the worlds wealthiest (per head of population) nations -Norway and Switzerland- neither of whom are in the Union. But that is not where we are today and a referendum that endorsed the status quo would in effect make the EU influence over British policy even greater than it already is.

So I am reliably informed that Cameron will instead propose that we pledge in our next manifesto to repatriate several important powers from Europe, possibly returning the opt-outs that John Major negotiated for instance, which backed with a win at the general election would give him the authority to go in and give the EU a Mrs Thatcher style hand-bagging.

ConservativeHome the very Euro-sceptic website run by Tim Montgomerie says "One member of the shadow cabinet told me that 'we don't need a mandate to renegotiate from a referendum... A manifesto mandate will be just as good'. CCHQ is worried that a referendum could easily become about issues other than Europe. 'Imagine,' said one key official at CCHQ, 'if we are in the middle of very, very difficult budget cuts. The unions and our political opponents would urge voters to use the referendum to kick the Tory government in the teeth. A manifesto mandate is safer, cleaner, less distracting."

If this does turn out to be the strategy it is a high risk one, but it might work. It will provide just enough to push the issue past the General Election (though it will add to suspicions amongst the UKIP tendancy that Cameron may - like many predecessors - fudge the Europe question and it will do nothing to encourage their support).

Everyone knows how explosive the EU issue has been for the party in the past and there is little appetite for a fight now, however the next generation of Conservative MP's looks likely to be the most Eurosceptic ever, and in the longer term they may well be unhappy with any Government that is not going to fully and openly consult with the British public over the whole Europe issue.

I believe that for this plan to work it will need some pretty instant results. If David Cameron as Prime Minister turns out to be as nationally self-interested and hard-nosed as Mrs Thatcher was and if he wins a big mandate at the election and then wins big concessions from the EU then much of the heat on this topic will probably dissipate. But there are a lot of 'ifs' there.

2009-10-21T15:54:00.003Z

Big Dave looks a step nearer No 10.

Three different polls have come out in the last 24 hours all showing a very big lead for my mate Dave*.

The three polls came from different organisations, interestingly all using their own techniques (the days when they all just used to ask 1000 people 'who will you vote for' are long gone, now they use the internet, telephone canvassing and a lot of complicated correction formula's to represent a proper cross section of people).

Anyway, MORI said it was Con 42: Lab 26: Lib 19.
ICM then said it was 44, 27, 18
and new kid on the block, Canadian outfit Angus Reid Strategies said it was 40, 23, 20.

A regional analysis by MORI said that in just England the figures are Conservatives 47, Labour 24 and the Lib Dems 21.

At this point in the electoral cycle it is becoming hard to see how the Labour party can pull things back.

Even if they change leader (which they won't) and even if they had a superstar replacement in the wings (they don't) it is an almost unbridgeable gap to claw back enough support to win outright.

Why has Labour support dropped back? Only a week ago the papers were talking about the gap closing, a Labour fightback and the prospect of them winning enough support to deprive the Conservatives of a working majority - even of Labour still being the largest party in a hung parliament.

The reason is simple. The public famously hate the prospect of a hung parliament, as soon as it looks likely or is openly talked about Labours vote share plunges. This is very bad news for them and suggests that whatever they do the public mind is made up.

They want out of this Labour Government.

* Honesty Alert. Dave is not actually my mate. We have shared a beer, but only because he got stuck with me in Torbay for hours the last time he came here when his helicopter couldn't take off.

I am away from tomorrow for a week. If I get time to update the Blog I will - but it will be via my Iphone so expect even more errors than usual!!

2009-10-19T10:17:00.005Z

Just wait a moment.

I have decided to publicly support the Scotts Meadow campaign to protect green space in Torbay from being built on as a result of Government dictat for 15,000 new homes. The campaign has ferociously re-ignited following publication of the draft strategy of the Torbay Local Development Framework for consulttation, which earmarks this green space and several others for potential future housebuilding.

Torbay has a massive amount of run-down and dilapidated property which could and should be redeveloped long before we consider building on what little amount of virgin space is left in the borough. Even then, I can see no basis for building over any of the Scotts Meadow land and fully support their campaign to protect this space.

If there is a change of Government next year the decision making ability for this will return to local politicians who will have to decide whether local people actually want 15,000 more homes, 30,000 more cars and maybe 60,000 new neighbours in the next few years. I would guess, given the strength of public opinion about this when I am out canvassing, that if the Conservatives win the next General Election this plan will be dropped pretty quickly.

Nobody doubts that some local families are urgently in need of improved accommodation (which is itself damning evidence of Labour failure) but simply forcing developers to concrete over the last few scraps of green space left in the Bay is not the answer. Even if you agree that the 6,000 people on the waiting list for subsidised social housing all need a new home (which I don't) 15,000 dwellings represents a near 30% increase in the size of Torbay housing stock, either we would have acres of empty 'old' homes or we are talking about a substantial influx of new residents. The figure was in fact hastily arrived at by civil servants reacting to Gordon Browns foolish 2007 promise to build 3,000,000 new homes across the country by 2020 and then passed down through the Regional Development Agency to councils.

Much work has been done by the council and the Mayor to identify existing 'brown field' industrial sites that could be redeveloped for social housing. The council have identified that about half the number of homes having to be planned for could be incorporated into existing urban developments over the period, but they cannot find any alternative sites for the other homes demanded by 2026 other than virgin green space.

Local residents know better than anyone what their community needs, and they know full well that the only person who thinks Torbay 'needs' 15,000 new homes is currently a resident 200 miles away in 10 Downing Street.

The option not on offer, not being discussed and not being planned for is anything less than 15,000 new homes. What kind of democracy is that?

The council must delay any further work on the development programme until both the economic and political situations become much clearer.

2009-10-15T08:32:00.005Z

MP's should shut up and pay up.

Some senior MP's are publicly challenging conclusions reached by former civil servant Sir Thomas Legg, who has been leading a review of all MP's expense claims dating back to 2004. I think the time has come for them to shut up and get their chequebooks out.

It was clear to anyone who knew anything about the expenses regime at Westminster that it was a very lax system, and that some MP's were exploiting it to the full. The MP's created this system themselves an 2001 and have failed to address the behaviour of some of their colleagues, indeed it begins to look as if the majority of MP's have claimed for more than they should have.

I think Adrian Sanders has done the right thing to put his hands up straight away and promise to repay the amount he has over claimed, I hope others will do the same. The public think the very least MP's can do to put this right is get their chequebooks out, although I expect we will wait in vain for an apology from any of them - Mr Sanders included.

Using taxpayers money to fund property speculation and to furnish a luxury lifestyle is totally unacceptable to the public - as is employing family and friends and using taxpayers money for political campaigning.

It is very hard when people think that candidates like me are on the taxpayer gravy train as well. People regularly assume that we are all paid from their taxes. In fact candidates don't get a penny from the Government - we are all volunteers, working for nothing - we fund everything we do ourselves mostly from donations. This is as it should be, I would resist any attempt for Government funding of political parties.

The widespread practice of MP's claiming hundreds a month for food when the canteens and restaurants in Westminster are already heavily subsidised is just the final insult. People I talk to on the doorsteps are dangerously angry about it; they feel completely let down by people they are supposed to be able to trust.

Before becoming the Torbay Parliamentary Candidate in 2002 I was chairman of Windsor Conservatives. I have been an ardent campaigner against the current system of MP's allowances ever since I learned that my then MP Micheal Trend was misusing the system. I led a successful campaign to force the MP to stand down and I have repeatedly and very publicly called for reform. It was clear to me that MP's have been treating the allowances system as an additional source of funding for their own lifestyles or for their political campaigning.

The current parliamentary system for expenses and housing allowances was arrived at following a major review of the system shortly after the Labour Party came back into power in 2001.

In addition to the Legg report into past claims by all MP's standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly is due to issue new recommendations for future expenses, pay and allowances before the end of the year. These recommendations will still be subject to vote by MP's although David Cameron has promised that Conservative MP's will adopt the report in it's entirety.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions about the whole sorry saga, and new safeguards are needed. But today's Parliamentarians are not the one's to do it, at every opportunity they have baulked and evaded proper reform. What we need is an election, which will lead to a new House of Commons dominated by untainted public representatives who must then ensure that this never happens again.

We hold public Enquiries into national disasters to establish the causes and avoid a repeat when buildings collapse or bridges fail, such as the Ronan Point flats collapse illustrated here; and we also hold them when organisations suffer catastrophic failure, such as the Victoria Climbie child abuse case. Part of the reason for holding a public enquiry is to restore public faith and confidence.

Personally I think the right way forward for our Parliamentary system is to hold a full public enquiry into the expenses regime created by MP's - not to hound people, or to apportion blame, but to understand how we ended up in this situation and make sure it never happens again.

2009-10-13T12:52:00.002Z

Cleaning Lady
puts PM
in a
right mess.

So Gordon "I have a moral compass" Brown has been required to repay £12,400 in expenses for cleaning costs he paid to his brother for a the services of a cleaning woman.

This money was claimed for the cleaning of his London flat, in spite of the fact that as Chancellor he was at all times living in free accommodation at No 11 Downing Street and since 2007 he has had two grace and favour homes to choose from, as well as his main constituency home in Scotland.

Mr Brown bought the third floor apartment in Great Smith Street, near Westminster Abbey, from the administrators of the Robert Maxwell-run TV polling firm AGB Research in December 1992 for the bargain price of £130,000 - a price well below what estate agents at the time thought the property was worth - in circumstances that have always aroused suspicion.

Gordon Browns then closest associate was Geoffrey Robinson MP, who had been a director of the parent company of AGB Research Ltd until 1990.

Many felt at the time that it could not be a coincidence that one of the failed Maxwell companies, chaired by Geoffrey Robinson MP, went bankrupt, and one of its properties, a flat in Westminster, was bought by Gordon Brown MP, also a close friend of Geoffrey Robinson MP, and who was later made Paymaster General in the Treasury.

Today the flat is thought to be worth £700,000.

Gordon Brown assured the media when the expenses row first became public that the arrangement whereby he paid his brother thousands of pounds to sort out the cleaning and maintenance of the flat was within the rules.

But the real embarrassment must surely be that an independent commissioner - appointed by Mr Brown himself - has decided that the arrangement made by our Prime Minister is not acceptable and should not have been going on.

If there was the slightest smidgeon of integrity or honesty left in public life this would be a resigning matter.

2009-10-04T12:57:00.004Z

Nothing new
about an
environment crisis

I am just old enough to have been on this earth during the first of what have been three main post-war envirmonmental awareness surges.

The Suez crisis of 1956 shut the eponymous canal and created a significant oil shortage - leading to the return of petrol rationing. The public probably for the first time began to appreciate the unsustainable rate at which we were consuming the earths resources, at least in Europe. Consumers reacted by buying smaller, more economical cars - a market dominated by German car manufacturers like Isetta and BMW, and this ultimately led to the design of the British Motor Company Mini and other super economy cars like the Renault 4.

In 1973 the oil crisis led to another step-change in consumer behaviour when war in the Middle East caused a slump in supply and a quadrupling of the oil price by the Arabs.

This created a huge boost to demand for super economical cars and electric vehicles which, although failing to create an all electric future as some had thought, did cause car manufacturers to place fuel economy at the top of the design criteria for new models - where it remains to this day.

And now we have entered the third phase of consumer awareness - this time mostly brought on by the growing concern about the possibility of man-made global warming, allied to a huge increase in the real price of oil.

And as a direct result, consumer habits -including mine- are changing. Yesterday I joined a growing list of others when I part exchanged my comfortable, fast, quiet and very luxurious Mercedes for the worlds most economical and least environmentally harmful volume manufactured car, a Smart Diesel.

I know lots of other people are doing the same thing because the dealer made quite clear that demand for my old large car was close to zero, as was its resale value!

Powered by the worlds smallest and most efficient diesel engine the Smart Car is proof that the internal combustion engine has a role to play in future personal transport. 85mpg and less than 88kg/km means that my energy use and emissions will reduce by over 80% without the need for expensive and heavy batteries, without having to plunder the world for rare metals and without needing to create new power stations to charge up an electric car.

I was pleasantly surprised at how little comfort I was sacrificing actually, the car is beautifully made, well equipped, as quiet and comfortable as a far larger car and although expensive compared to other small cars, cheap when you take it's good resale value into account.

90% of my journeys are made alone, we still have Karens five door Daihatsu for the (increasingly rare) family trips we make and so I felt losing rear seats was a worthwhile trade for increased economy.

I didn't take up the scrappage scheme (my Mercedes will go to a new owner, presumably someone who does a low mileage!) and I did not need a state hand out to persuade me to do this, although the zero car tax is a welcome plus.

There is a waiting list for delivery so I have about a month before my new transport arrives, I will keep you posted as to have it works out in practice.

I am still not convinced about Global Warming, by the way. But I am and always have been convinced that wasting resources is irresponsible - we do have a duty to make what we have go as far as possible.

I should add my kids say it's because I am a skinflint.

2009-09-30T11:16:00.006Z

.... Is it just State-sanctioned prying?

Two female police officers are at the centre of a row this week over the legality of their childcare arrangements. Mums Leanne Shepherd and Lucy Jarrett had a reciprocal arrangement by which they would look after each other's child while the other was working in their posts as detective constables with Thames Valley Police. When pregnant they had agreed to go back to work part time under a jobshare scheme - an arrangement that suited them and their employer.

However, an Ofsted inspector visited DC Shepherd to explain that the plan constituted illegal childminding, as it constituted a "reward" of free childcare for looking after each other's children.

The alleged offence arises from the Childcare act of 2006, apparently and now the mothers are told they have to register as if they were professional child minders. Clearly this is very onerous and makes the whole plan unworkable and both mothers have had to find full time childcare and return to full time work.

The main story in the media focused on the lunacy of this law, the fact that it restricts mums from finding work in flat contrast to statements made by the Government about helping mums back to work, and the jobsworth culture of most Agencies and Government departments.

Although I share these concerns I was even more worried by one aspect of the story. How did anyone know about this arrangement? How did the Ofsted inspectors find out about it and why did they decide to call - when they could have simply written a letter?

The whole episode was deeply unnerving, the thought that a schools inspectorate had the manpower and the will to spy on a private arrangement by two women and then to send an inspector to call sums up how far the surveillance powers granted by this Government are being abused.

It also highlights overmanning on a grand scale. You would have thought the inspectors might have been more efficiently employed, er, inspecting schools.

2009-09-24T10:06:00.004Z

No friends at home,
and no allies abroad.

Spurned by Obama and under more friendly fire at home Gordon Brown is sinking to depths of unpopularity unseen for a PM in living memory.

So, the man from Illinous says "no".

What a desperately low state this country is in. Bankrupt and now marooned internationally. Frantic efforts by Foreign Office officials failed to secure even a five minute formal meeting between the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern ireland with the President of the United States while both men were in the same building, Gordon Brown had to apparently make do with tugging the great mans sleeve whilst waiting in the kitchen. Oh dear.

The world of international politics and diplomacy is a cold, hard place. As the BBC's Nick Robinson says: We simply don't know if it was down to carelessness - as with the cack-handed reception given to Team Brown at the White House; or political calculation - "why invest time in a foreign leader who could be out of office soon?" or simple pragmatism - "we have a lot to do and we're too busy to fix meetings to help anyone else".

Politicians fear unpopularity is infectious like a particularly virulent plague. Gordon Brown is being seen as a loser -yesterdays man- and being seen to identify with him is increasingly toxic, so the international movers and shakers move gently away from him when he enters the room -especially if the cameras are running.

Then the Telegraph had this story - that Gordon Brown was spurned by American Bankers (hardly surprising given that he has heaped blame on them for everything and then tried to cut their pay) who stayed away in droves from his convention. "Although invitations to a number of Wall Street's biggest banks are known to have been sent, only one senior US banker, 52-year Citigroup veteran Bill Rhodes – who stepped down as chairman of Citigroup North America in July but remains on its board – attended yesterday's economic roundtable."

Brown has brought his office to a new low and it is not just at home that much work needs to be done to repair the reputation of our Government. I can't think of a time in the post-war era when we have had a serving prime minister held in such open distain both at home and abroad. There is something deeply embarrassing for us all in seeing the leader of our country humiliated in this way.

Gordon will have to get used to it, though. The Labour Party Conference next week is known to have such a low attendance that party officials have been offering last minute free tickets to anyone from Brighton who wants to come along.

Nobody is interested in what the Prime Minister has to say, not even the press.

The story at Conference will instead have to be all about the leadership, (again) and what the future holds for the Labour Party in opposition.

Favourite Charles Clarke was first out of the stalls last night with another call for Brown to 'do the decent thing' and in the shadows any number of off the record briefings are already underway from the so-called 'friends' of various cabinet members keen to let it be known that if the unthinkable did happen their man (or woman?) may be persuaded to throw their hat in the ring for a leadership contest.

Expect the action to all be in the fringe meetings debating the future of left-wing politics. Just like the Lib dems this week, Labour have discounted losing and are thinking of a future in opposition.

2009-09-21T09:16:00.003Z

Wherever next
for the
Lib dems?

The Lib Dem conference is always a bit of fun for political watchers, there is the feeling that they are the warm-up act for the Conference season proper.

In past times they have exploited this opportunity to float the kind of really 'reasonable' policy ideas that have most people saying 'what a good idea, why don't any of the other parties do that?' - these are usually policies that sound great coming from a party that will never be in Government but wouldn't stand up to five minutes scrutiny if they were put forward by anyone else.

However this year the gift seems to have completely left them. Their policy announcements so far have been contradictory, deeply divisive and electorally daft.

So far this year the Lib Dems have talked about the need for 'savage' cuts in public services yet while offering tiny cuts in services have two single proposals alone that would cost an extra £25,000,000,000 to implement:- abolishing student fees and raising the income tax threshold to £10,000.

To 'fully fund' these pledges they have proposed a 'super tax' on houses worth over £1m. This astonishing idea comes from the party that has fought four elections on a promise to abolish the 'unfair' council tax and replace it with a local income tax. Even Lib Dems admit this would 'only' raise £1bn.

And even the briefest analysis of the proposal leaves a stack of questions, who would value the property? What would you do about people who happen to have a valuable property but who are income poor (common amongst pensioners, especially in high value property areas like London and the South East), how much would the tax cost to collect?

Recognising the lack of credibility in their positioning Nick Clegg has volunteered that the pledge to abolish student fees may have to go, causing uproar and an intervention from his popular predecessor Charles Kennedy.

So far Nick Clegg has annoyed students, pensioners and public service workers - three of the most important sectors of the community for his party.

So far this Parliament nine Lib Dem parliamentary candidates have switched to the Conservatives. Listening to Clegg on the Today programme this morning I did wonder for a fleeting moment whether he might be about to make it ten.

2009-09-17T13:05:00.002Z

The Lawyer in trouble with the Law

Red faces again in Government circles today as the story of how Baroness Scotland - the highest lawyer in the land - has broken immigration laws she herself voted for by employing an illegal immigrant.

Incredibly the Attorney-General looks to have fallen foul of exactly the kind of 'innocent until proven guilty' laws I was railing on about in my last post.

It is a requirement under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act that employers see proof that migrant workers have rights to work legally in the UK - but not only that, the law says they must copy the documentation and keep a record.

It is not enough for an employer to believe that an employee had the right to work in the UK when they were taken on, to comply with the law you have to be able to prove it. This neatly shifts the burden of proof from the authorities to the employer, unless you can prove you checked you are guilty.

Baroness Scotland assured everyone she had seen proof that the employee, Loluahi Tapui, a resident of Tonga, had the right to be employed here; but has so far ignored a request from the Sunlight Centre for Open Politics to provide the proof the law says she must have kept.

I would imagine that she did see proof but like thousands of very small businesses and individuals was not clear that there was such a strict obligation on her to keep records.

Perhaps she will now appreciate the dangers of passing laws that can make people guilty by default.

She might also like to reflect on the fact that employment law has become an unbelievable minefield for very small businesses - a problem that means many won't take employees on any more.

2009-09-17T08:43:00.005Z

'Thought Crime' Britain.
1984 is here at last.

The two Manchester schoolboys accused of plotting to blow up their school were acquitted in 45 minutes, but not before spending months behind bars. I once plotted to shoot my school headmaster, should I be charged,too?

My children are always bringing up the story I told them of when, as a thirteen year old, a gang of friends and I plotted in some detail how we could assassinate our school headmaster; we had even worked out exactly how to steal a rifle and ammunition from our Shooting Club. This teen fantasy evolved from an intellectual game to think up 'the perfect crime'. The crimes involved quickly graduated to murder, and the target promptly became the school head. Each of us would cook up a plot that we believed would be unsolvable by police - and the others would then find ways in which the crime would be detected.

This is a common theme amongst schoolboys, the Hitchcock film 'Rope' and the Sandra Bullock film Murder By Numbers are both based on the same idea.

So the fact that two Manchester schoolboys should be charged with conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions, and then held on remand for months for cooking up just such a plan is in my view an absolute scandal, and the jury's decision to acquit after just 45 minutes deliberation clearly demonstrates what a farce this trial was.

Under this Government we have become obsessed with 'stopping' crime happening - with scant regard for the dangers this causes to civil liberty. Common sense and the rights of innocent citizens to go about their business are now clearly second place to the 'possibility' that one might be about commit an offence.

We now have house arrest ('control orders') for people who have committed no crime but who are considered to be 'at risk' of doing so. The Government wanted to increase the amount of time citizens can be held without charge from a few days to three months, and succeeded in getting a longer detention without charge regime than Russia or Zimbabwe. We are one of the few democracies in the world where you can be arrested and held because someone thinks you 'might' be considering committing a crime.

This issue permeates so much of our lives. The need to have 11m adults undergo a CRB check has caused a fuss this week, and is another symptom of the potential felon paranoia - everyone is a potential child molester, and apparently, unless you can prove you aren't one you won't be allowed near children.

The same State suspicion applies to your personal financial affairs, since everyone these days is a potential money laundering terrorist you cannot deposit your savings in a bank, instruct a solicitor or even rent an office without providing proof of identity.

And the whole approach of the inland revenue and customs service has shifted so that the onus is on the accused to prove innocence rather than the authorities to prove guilt, again the assumption being that we are all 'at it'.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act clearly takes this line, too. It's apparently not enough to have more serious penalties for racially motivated crime; we now need a special offence which again jumps to a false conclusion, that people are prone to racial or religious hatred and with a bit of a prod, we will all become violent bigots.

Perhaps if the authorities focused on respecting and trusting it's own free citizens a bit more it might find that the public reciprocate by respecting and trusting those in authority.

I know being the victim of a serious crime is a terrible trauma, and I believe that any Government has a duty to do all it can to prevent crime. One of the best ways of preventing crime is to make sure that those who commit offences are always caught, and punished in such a manner as to deter others and prevent habitial criminals from repeat offending.

The really frightening thing is, whilst the authorities constrain the civil liberties of millions of innocent citizens in the name of 'the war on terror' or the 'fight against crime' those who really do break the law have never had it so good - crime clear up rates, even after considerable massaging, are at an all time low.

And if and when they are actually found guilty the chances of going to prison are lower than ever. Because the prisons are full judges are under huge pressure to rely on community based punishments in an ever wider range of cases. Even then, when and if a criminal is unlucky enough to actually be incarcerated, they will be considered for parole or early release frighteningly soon.

"Tough on Crime, Tough on the causes of crime'? - Surely one of the most cynical and hollow promises ever made by a modern politician.

2009-09-16T10:41:00.004Z

The ol' Good Cut Bad Cut routine...

Welcome to Brown Land, where a 9.3% cut in public spending is an 'Investment' and a 10% cut is 'slash and burn'.

Gordon Brown has once again made a complete idiot of himself by finally admitting that a Labour Government will make spending cuts if re elected after months of taunting 'It's a choice between Tory cuts vs Labour investment'. At the TUC conference yesterday he mumbled into his microphone that there would be, er, cuts in spending under a future Labour Government.

The Prime Ministers discomfort was ratcheted up a notch this morning by disclosures that while he was busy saying 'Tories will cut by 10% nahh nahh" his own Government have been drawing up detailed plans to cut by .... 9.3%.

Now, apparently it's a choice between Labours 'good' cuts and the Tories 'bad' cuts. The main difference according to Frank Dobson on Newsnight the other evening is that Tories are 'slavering' at the prospect of cutting public spending whereas Labour are dreading it. So that's all right then.

Making public spending cuts is easier to argue about than to do, however. As business owners and many consumers know only too well, signing up for things is easy, getting out of the contract later is much harder. Cutting staff anywhere has huge redundancy and enhanced pension cost implications, big capital projects are agreed years, sometimes decades in advance and swathes of a Governments financial commitments are not in their immediate short term control. When a person or a business has legal finacial obligations that exceed their ability to pay for them they are forced into bankruptcy as the only way out. The Government cannot do this, and instead is forced to borrow more and more money at higher and higher interest rates - money that will have to be serviced via growing interest payments and which will eventually have to be repaid.

Within a year or two interest payments on Britains ballooning national debt will become Governments third largest overhead behind Health and Welfare. It will be more than we spend on education - and roughly equal to the budgets of the Transport, Home Office, Culture & Sport, Foreign Office, Energy & Climate Change, Business and Enterprise, Agriculture and Rural Affairs and International Development Departments added together.

And interest is not a discretionary payment, forcing an even bigger squeeze on those few budgets that can be easily and quickly reduced. And then on top of this you need to find a way of keeping some income spare to try and reduce the debt otherwise the problem just gets worse every year.

For ten years Conservatives have been warning about the hazards of growing public spending. As the economy expanded through the 1990's the Governments income grew even before they increased taxes. Instead of using that growth to reduce borrowing the Government spent it, and worse, they made massive financial commitments far into the future by way of the Private Finance Initiative and by hiring millions of public sector staff directly -all of whom now qualify for enhanced pension entitlements.

Turning the taps on is popular, quick and easy; stemming the flow is a very long and slow slog indeed.

And nobody is going to enjoy doing it.

2009-09-09T11:14:00.004Z

Labours
Green
Shoots of
desperation

Why Labour spinners
are so desperate to talk up
the economy.

A major factor prolonging a recession is a lack of confidence. Consumers and businesses who feel that bad times still lie ahead will tend to spend less - creating economic conditions of poor demand in which recovery becomes very difficult. As a result of this leaders, the media and most business institutions have an interest in 'talking the market up' even when often there is no uplift at all.

Norman Lamont famously got into trouble for talking up the economy even as the 1990's recession was just getting going (In October 1991, based on CBI and Institute of Directors business surveys, he said "what we are seeing is the return of that vital ingredient - confidence. The Green shoots of economic spring are appearing once again).

In January this year Labour spin doctors were forced into a massive rescue operation when Baroness Vadera claimed there were 'green shoots' of recovery in the air. The remarks came on a day when UK firms announced large-scale job losses and share prices slumped by almost 5%. The economy then plunged into a record second quarter recession, a steeper faster decline than any recession since the 1930's depression.

Of course for Labour there is another reason to talk up the economy - an impending election. Labour have built their entire election strategy on the basis that if the public can be persuaded that the 'recession has ended' they might just get some credit for it come polling day.

Dr Pedrick Friend has joined in this week through the local newspaper, here he is making utterly ludicrous statements about the economy which, even though the claims are so wrong they insult our intelligence, cannot be allowed to go uncorrected.

He says in his letter : "Economic green shoots are all around, economic confidence is surging as the stock market rockets, house prices recover and the manufacturing sector see more orders."

House prices have not recovered - they lost at least 20% last year and are stagnant.
Shares have not 'rocketed' either - the stock market has climbed back to where it was in 1997 when Labour came to power
Manufacturers are not 'seeing more orders' The CIPS monthly index of manufacturing orders fell in August.

The problem with calling the bottom of a recession is that often the pain is felt by people long after the technical period of economic contraction has finished. Although Vadera was wrong, Lamont wasn't. The 1990 recession ended -as he said- in 1991. But it was 1996 before there was a return of 'the feel-good factor' and consumer confidence came back.

But another issue is going to make this recession much harder to call anyway. 1990 and 1981 were recessions that had a distinct beginning, middle and end. They were 'U' shaped where economic activity fell, stabilised for a bit and then grew again.

But in the 1950's and 1970's we had a series of 'W' shaped recessions, where economic conditions meant that the recovery created another overload, creating another recession. We used to call this 'stop-go' economics and it's main cause was inflation. Every time the economy started to expand prices and then wages shot up, then the pound would fall as its value become less compared to other currencies, then interest rates had to go up and the whole economy ground to a halt again.

Pedrick-Friend refers in his letter to the Governments actions being ' a sensible Keynesian fiscal boost'. In fact their plan involved devaluing the pound, doubling the national debt and then printing £200,000,000,000 to fund a Government spending spree. The inevitable inflation this policy has unleashed will devalue savings and drive interest rates upwards. Higher interest rates will impact on the economy at just the wrong moment, causing pain to millions of home owners, it will also divert billions that could have been spent on public services into paying interest on the trillion pound National Debt we have accumulated.

Maynard Keynes will be turning in his grave.

2009-09-07T15:25:00.004Z

Have the media written Labour off?

There is a new trend emerging in the media when it comes to discussing politics. More and more of the thousands of articles, news items and features written in newspapers and on telly are increasingly working on the assumption that Labour will be out of office next year.

I first noticed this on Newsnight a few weeks back in an interview when Paxman dismissed a cabinet members plans for next year with a rather extra sneery 'well it won't be you in office by then, will it?'- but it has now become the language of interviewers and commentators across the media.

Of course with time running our before the election and with Labour still polling in the mid 20's it is hardly surprising that people are beginning to take a Cameron victory for granted. But what is interesting to me is that Labour seem to be doing so little to dispel the idea, it is almost as if the media are being given the impression by the Cabinet and senior party officials that Labour know their time is up.

This comes back to leadership. Even in the dying days of his premiership John Major continued to motivate and drive his party, as did Callaghan when defeat looked likely in 1979; whereas it seems that Gordon Brown has neither the energy or the oratory to give his troops the morale boost they need.

Just in the last 24 hours:

Peter McKay of the DAILY MAIL: “Why Gordon Brown could walk before he’s pushed out”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1211580/PETER.html

GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON, Political Editor of THE SUN: “Ministers believe Gordon’s doomed”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2625058/Cabinet-ministers-say-Gordon-Brown-cannot-cling-to-power.html

Andrew Porter, Political Editor of the TELEGRAPH : “Gordon Brown warned he’s ‘meekly’ accepting defeat” :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6146193/Gordon-Brown-warned-hes-meekly-accepting-defeat.html

Jackie Ashley, of the Guardian "A Tory dystopia looms, yet ministers meekly sit and wait"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/06/election-conservatives-labour-recession-brown

It is particularly fascinating to watch the leftwing media (including the BBC) seamlessly move from 'will Labour win a fourth term?’ in 2005/6 to ‘can Labour win a Fourth term’ in 2007/8 to ‘what will happen to Labour when it loses?’ in 2009.

Never mind that there is a whole new right of centre agenda going on which is fascinating, genuine news, and could have massive implications for social and economic policy for twenty years or more, the BBC are far more interested in inviting several left-wing commentators into the studio to argue amongst themselves about the future of Labour.

And even as Cameron settles in to No 10 and ushers in an entirely new chapter in British political history I expect the Guardian/BBC will still be agonising over ‘can Labour ever win again?’

2009-09-02T08:11:00.007Z

Weasel words on Lockerbie

I am still reeling from the interview with David Milliband on the Today programme this morning.

Not since Michael Howards notorious Newsnight clash with Paxman in 1997 (when he simply would not give a straight answer to the question 'did you threaten to over-rule Derek Lewis ?' even when asked by Paxman thirteen times) have I heard a politician evade, swerve, obfuscate and ignore a perfectly simple question put by an interviewer.

What Evan Davies was asking was simple enough. In papers released yesterday it became clear that foreign office minister Bill Rammell had told the Libyans that Gordon Brown and Milliband 'did not want to see Al Megrahi die in prison' all he was asking was 'is this true?'

Milliband wriggled and wriggled, he darted this way and that but he would not give a straight answer.

I wonder why?

The statement was lifted from minutes of a meeting between Scottish justice ministers and a Libyan delegation on March 12. These recorded how Abdulate Alobidi, the Libyan minister for Europe, had relayed details of a visit to Tripoli the previous month by Bill Rammell, then a Foreign Office minister, to discuss a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA).

“Mr Alobidi confirmed that he had reiterated to Mr Rammell that the death of Mr Megrahi in a Scottish prison would have catastrophic effects for the relationship between Libya and the UK,” it stated. “Mr Alobidi went on to say that Mr Rammell had stated that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison but the decision on transfer lies in the hands of the Scottish authorities.”

What is abundantly clear is that the Libyans were applying a great deal of pressure over Megrahi - implying that trouble would follow if he died in prison. Clearly the Government were absolutely convinced that this would be a problem and were desperate to get the ailing man home as quickly as possible.

Aside from the accusations of giving way to threats from Libya, general bungling, double dealing and various 'oil for terrorsts' consipracy accusations there is something else that troubles me even more.

This is a Government that has infringed our civil liberties like no other in peacetime. British citizens are routinely being bugged, monitored, investigated and imprisoned without trial -and occasionally tortured abroad, or shot dead on the tube, and all in the name of a 'war on terror'. Yet the one man we have so far managed to catch and prosecute for actually carrying out an international terrorist murder was released after a derisory ten years in prison.

Labour has a lot of form on this. Early release of prisoners has been a constant activity since 1997. No other Government in British history has released as many criminals before their sentence has been completed. No other Goverment has been responsible for unleashing unrepentant violent offenders onto our streets to offend again. No other Government has such a shameful record of releasing murderers and rapists out of custody early who have gone on and murdered and raped again.

This is New Labour. "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - but soft as butter on the criminals and terrorists who are responsible.

2009-09-01T08:23:00.005Z

Back to work today (for some).

September 1 marks the end of the Summer Holiday period and a return to work for millions of people who have either been on summer leave, or working in half empty offices and factories as their colleagues take time off.

However this autumn there will be a lot fewer returning to work than last year (and last year was the worst for a decade) and many people will be working in offices half empty as a matter of course from now on as the recession creates more and more empty desks and vacant workspaces.

The Government admits unemployment is rising, but is still in denial about the scale of the problem.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is keen on broadening who is included in UK unemployment figures. They argue there are large numbers of people who should be counted because they say they would like to work but are considered ‘economically inactive’. If they were included in the count the figure for UK unemployment would rise to more than 4.5m. Even official figures agree that already nearly two million children now live in workless households, shattering Gordon Brown's pledge to halve child poverty by 2010.

The Government claimant count, which measures people who are actively claiming Jobseekers Allowance (JSA), as opposed to the unemployment count that includes people who are unemployed but not signing on, is the published measure of unemployment.

The two different ways unemployment is calculated in the UK relates to the different people included in the counts. Key to this is the group considered ‘economically inactive’ and so not included in the 'official' figure of 2.43m.

In the three months to June, unemployment rose by 220,000, but in July the number of people signing up for unemployment benefits and contributing numbers to the claimant count rose by just less than 25,000.

On this basis there are more than 2.1m “hidden jobless” who when surveyed say they want to work but are not claiming JSA. On top of this there are around a million people currently working part time because they can not find full time work.

Of course every obstacle imaginable is put in the way of people trying to claim jobseekers allowance to keep the numbers down, and in many cases other benefits become available that pay more and encourage people to 'sign off' the register. These include various training programmes, and sickness and disability benefits.

There is a lot more prosperity about than the 1930's and general living standards are far higher on average, so I doubt if we will see soup kitchens, but in my view this recession will create unemployment unprecedented in scale - perhaps as many as 7m Britons capable and willing to work will be without a job at the peak.

And unlike the unemployment of the 1980's which affected the country unevenly (some areas where coal and steel had been the backbone of the economy were blighted where other parts of the UK were relatively unscathed) this unemployment will affect the whole country.

One part of the solution to this is to create a lot more flexibility in the labour market, particularily for very small businesses. Currently the most daunting leap any business makes is when it goes from one employee to two. The hurdles a small business needs to leap in order to employ their first person is mindlblowing, ranging from the need to set up an expensive and hard to operate PAYE system through providing pensions and then navigating what is now a minefield of unfair employment legislation.

Hardly suprising therefore that a record number of one man businesses are staying one man, but if every sole trader employed one young person as a trainee our youth unemployment crisis would end overnight.

2009-08-24T12:28:00.004Z

Not a good time to be Scottish.

Before I write another word I must point out that while I am not Scottish, many of my best friends are, and I can never remember a time when they are less proud of the fact.

As one of them said to me this weekend, "I am surprised you will even still talk to us, much less want to keep us in the Union. First we demanded and got extra MP's, then special treatment by way of devolution and then extra money from you so that our old people get care your old people do not. Then we foisted on England a Scottish Chancellor and Scottish Prime Minister who between them have ruined a perfectly good economy and run up debts you English will be paying back for 100 years, then our greedy and stupid bankers bought out your Nat West and the Halifax and promptly bust them, too; requiring an expensive bail-out by another Scottish company, Lloyds TSB which then also needed billions from English taxpayers to avoid going bust."

"Then, if all that were not enough, at a time when the 'war on terror' has enabled the Scots run English Government to take unprecedented levels of invasion into your private lives, take record amounts from you in tax to pay for it and caused the death of nearly 500 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan we decide to release the highest profile terrorist ever convicted, making British justice a laughing stock."

"I think you could fairly call us the neighbour from hell actually."

What is clear is that the Union is under strain because the English are indeed beginning to resent the privileges and extra benefits their neighbour is granted, especially when the net result is to embarrass and humiliate the whole country.

If Al Megrahi was innocent he should have been freed on appeal, if he was guilty he should not have been freed at all. Any British prisoner found guilty of multiple murder would have been left in prison to die, that was certainly the fate of the Moors Murderers, for example, why should he have special status?

2009-08-16T23:11:00.004Z

Japan
becomes third
major economy
out of recession.

So what does this mean for "Mr No-more-boom-and-bust" ?

The ne ws this morning is that Japan is officially out of recession, joining France and Germany who confirmed last week that growth had returned to their economies in the second quarter of the year; and Hong Kong also recorded growth of 3.3% in the three months from April to June. If Japan's latest quarterly rate were maintained for a full year, the economy would grow 3.7%.

In January 2008, Mr Brown said:

“By being prepared to take difficult decisions about pay, about being prepared to take difficult decisions about the public spending round, we’ve put ourselves in a better position to withstand a global turbulence that is affecting every economy.”

This is, was and remains a complete lie. British national income continued to shrink by 0.8 per cent over the same period, although the performance was an improvement on the 2.5 per cent contraction in the previous three months.

The International Monetary Fund have always forecast that Britain will be the last major economy out of recession, and most international commentators agree that because our economy was in a worse condition to begin with we will suffer more than most economies as our over borrowed and overheated property and financial markets unwind.

Separate data earlier this month showed unemployment in the UK rose by 220,000 in the three months to June to a total of 2,435,000, the highest figure for 15 years.

Leading economist David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England monetary policy committee, has said: “Unemployment is going to increase for many months to come. There is a huge amount more to do.” Some estimates put unemployment in the UK peaking in 2010 /2011 at over 4m.

In the UK unemployment has risen by 1.3 per cent in the last year, whereas in Japan it has only risen by 0.6 per cent and in France by 0.7 per cent. In Germany it has actually fallen by 0.4 per cent ( Labour Market Statistics, March 2009, Office for National Statistics)

The facts are pretty bleak; as usual Britain's 'economic good times' have been built on little more than asset price inflation financed by borrowed money, (Rising house prices and lot's of remorgaging for you and I, and rising share prices and lots of take-overs for the City). Our economic growth for much of the last ten years has been a mirage based on speculation whereas in France, Germany and Japan economic fundamentals remain based on sound money, real industrial output growth and increasing productivity gains.

This crisis has been caused by a loss of confidence in the long term sustainability of the level of borrowings and lasting confidence and stability will not return in Britain or America until the level of borrowing by Government, companies and individuals has been reduced significantly.

This can happen only one of two ways, either the debts have to be paid off, or they have to be inflated away, or more likely a bit of both. In any event this will take decades, not months and the British Economy will be constrained to very slow growth or face rampant inflation and a currency crisis - just like we were for the first three decades after the war - for a long time yet.

We remain a nation of speculators. Successive Governments have allowed people to believe that the best way to make money was not to start a business making something, or to buy shares in industry, but to invest in property.

Gordon Brown certainly didn't start that problem, but his ten years at the Treasury and especially his tax treatment of pension funds (which was a huge deterrent to people making pension contributions and drove people into iether spending their money or investing in other assets) was a huge contributing factor.

2009-08-10T14:23:00.004Z

I don't believe it!

No, really. I dont believe it - this is a story that has done the rounds in hours today, a report that people close to Brown are saying that he has become resigned to losing the next election. This was sparked off by a report in todays FT concerning the lack of MP's prepared to come forward to replace the many parliamentary private secretaries who resigned this summer - something that would normally cause great irritation in camp Brown; but apparently not this time. The FT reports various sources giving a variety of reasons for this, one of which reads: "One Downing Street insider said the prime minister was more relaxed because he now realised that he was certain to lose the next election and was powerless to defy political gravity.""

You can't access the FT story without paying a subscription but the Spectator Coffee House Blog has a second-hand report on it here.

The speculation is running that Brown has come to recognise the futility of his situation and that defeat is inevetable.

I simply don't think this is credible on two counts.
Firstly, to accept the possibility of defeat would give Brown a level of humility that is completely absent from his personality - I could imagine Jim Callaghan being resigned to defeat in this way - even John Major; but Gordon Brown?
Secondly it would suggest that Gordon Brown was reasonably in touch with public opinion such that he knew the level of anger and mistrust and the appetite for change that exists in the country at large, something that is in my view utterly inconceivable. Gordon Brown was not exactly a man-of-the -people type politician to begin with and for twenty five years has gone out of his way to avoid meeting the people who elected him. His fascinating biography by Tom Bower also demonstrated that he prefers to keep in touch with the public via a small cabal of loyal acolytes who filter public opinion to make sure what the Leader hears, he likes.

As I have said before, far from accepting defeat Gordon Brown thinks that he is poised for a historic victory based on the grateful hoardes thanking him for a heroic turnaround in the World Economy that he, Gordon mastered last year.

He may well be the only person alive who thinks this, but he really and truly believes it.

2009-08-03T08:12:00.004Z

Lib Dems in call for yet another ban.

As 'on the money' as ever the Lib Dems pop up this morning calling for yet more bans, - this time they want to outlaw Photoshopped images.

The Independent has this today:

"The party is calling for a ban on the use of altered or enhanced pictures on publicity material aimed at the under-16s as part of a wider drive to boost the self-esteem of young girls. It also wants the introduction of new rules insisting that advertisements aimed at adults disclose how much images have been airbrushed or digitally enhanced."

Well before I go any further, and for the avoidance of any doubt and to make sure the self esteem of young politicians everywhere is not 'damaged' I should point out immediately that this picture of 'Calamity Clegg' is digitally enhanced. It is not really Nick Clegg, it is his face pasted over an old photograph of the actress Doris Day in the film Calamity Jane.

Being a bit less sarcastic the Liberal Democrats continue to display an alarming aversion to showing any Liberal tendencies at all. I thought this Labour Government were bad but compared to this lot they are saints.

The Liberal Democrats would, if allowed, outlaw an awful lot of things, far too many to list on here. Clearly all Governments need to ban things, most laws are in effect a ban on something or other; but the Liberal Democrats have turned 'calling for a ban' into an art form.

If you type "Liberal Democrats ban" in Google you get 814,000 results ranging from the crazy to the laughable. Among things that would become banned in Lib Dem land are: the Billy Smarts Circus, MacDonald's, carrier bags, Range Rovers, flying the Union Jack, all alcohol, all second homes, happy hours, Convents, Evian water, white vans, cigarette machines, patio heaters, light bulbs, petrol cars... the list goes on, and on.

And like today's call for a ban on airbushed photographs they all share one thing in common, they treat the public as idiots.

I don't doubt that some young teenage girls suffer low self-esteem when they see Keira Knightley looking slender and perfect, but as the father of two teenage girls my experience of their age group is that far from low self esteem the opposite is true; because of the 'all must win prizes' culture in our schools many young people have totally unrealistic high expectations of their abilities which their eventual attainment in real life can only fail to live up to.

And if either gender is especially at risk of suffering low self esteem it's boys, not girls, they are the ones being forced to occupy a world where society is trying to strangle their natural instincts such as aggression and competitiveness and where their traditional role of breadwinner for their family is being increasingly supplanted by the State.

No-one is suggesting nothing should ever be banned, but the balance has to be struck between what may or may not be good for us, and freedom.

And anyway I use up all my carrier bags as rubbish sacks.

2009-07-30T16:20:00.004Z

The Totnes Primary
Are Lib Dems foolish to interfere?

This is a screenshot from Newsnight on Tuesday, who ran a long feature on the Totnes selection for a candidate to replace Anthony Steen as the next Conservative MP there, featuring an interview between bay MP Adrian Sanders and editor Michael Crick.

Sanders was repeating much of what he said in his newspaper column the previous week - which I found equally surprising. What he said was that he urged Lib Dems to vote for Nick Bye as he believed Nick would be the easiest person for their candidate to beat at the next election.

Firstly, it is a high risk strategy for any MP to interefere in the business of neighbouring constituents and one that most MP's run a mile from. To be blunt, there are no votes in it.

Secondly, presumably if Mr Sanders believes that Nick Bye is an electoral liability he must think that Nick Bye will lose the next mayoral election if he fights it. As a Lib Dem therefore the last thing he would want would be for Mr Bye to be selected in Totnes and then not stand for Mayor next time in Torbay opening the way for someone new.

On the other hand it could be that perhaps Mr Sanders is trying a double bluff? Is he hoping that if he publicly urges Lib Dems to vote for Nick Bye then Tories might do the opposite in droves, depriving Nick of the nomination and forcing him to stay on as mayor?

A third and much more intruiging possibility is that Mr Sanders is hoping that Nick does get picked for Totnes, wins the seat and then has to resign the mayoralty - creating a juicy well-paid political job vacancy immediately after the next election, suitable for an unemployed local man with political experience to try and get elected into.

I wonder who could be up for that, then?

Either way trying to gerrymander in the internal politics of another constituency is a very high risk activity, it made the Lib Dems seem unusually petty and party political, something they usually go out of their way to avoid. But then personal ambition and what is good for the party have never been happy bedfellows with the Torbay Lib Dems.

2009-07-28T11:56:00.006Z

A long history of pain in Afghanistan

How many times have Imperial powers been vanquished in Afghanistan? Well the British Army was defeated twice during the Victorian era (as the first picture above illustrates).

For a simply and very well written account of the First and the Second Afghan Wars go here, (and note how depressingly familiar the problems sound to us today). It's a shocking tale of death and destruction with very little upside for the British. We invaded to impose order, unify the country, and install an Empire sympathetic Government and we ended up with a fragmented and deeply hostile tribal wasteland - and a massacre.

But in spite of this had another go at invading the country in 1921 and once again we were comprehensively beaten in battle and forced to withdraw.

Then in the 1980's Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets - the same Red Army that we had feared invading Europe for 30 years - in a similar ill-fated attempt to impose a single Government across the whole country, this time a communist one. For ten years they suffered massive casualties and continuous military humiliation. Eventually they also had to pull out, with even more loss of life; events that so traumatised the Russian population that many people believe it was the catalyst for the downfall of the Soviet Empire. Afghanistan ended up even more inhospitable, ungovernable and lawless than before.

Various accounts and explanations have been given by the invaders of the reasons for their ultimate failure and all of them still apply. The inhospitable terrain, the lack of resources and above all the ruthless nature of the enemy.

I am a great believer in accepting that people make honest mistakes. What is unforgivable is not to learn from them. The idea that an invasion by the Americans or anyone else from the West could impose any kind of order on the Afghans was flawed from the start; Bush and Blair's crime was choosing not to learn from the lessons of history.

I do not believe that Britain is safer as a result of invading Afghanistan, the people who have attacked us have all done so since the invasion - and all of them have links with Pakistan.

What we need now is a good excuse to withdraw with what little remains of our pride intact. Then what we need to do is agree not to make any more military commitments anywhere in the world until we have equipped our forces to do the job properly.

2009-07-21T09:19:00.015Z

Increasing Social Mobility - the answer is staring us all in the face

I have sat through the news this morning in utter disbelief. Today the Labour Government task force on Social Mobility published it's report conclusions. Theories abounded about rich people buying extra opportunity through private education, about the professions being prejudiced against working class applicants and about a lack of encouragement and lack of ambition amongst many working class children, who undeniably face a reduced chance of reaching the upper echelons of society than their parents or their grand-parents did.

For an hour or more on the Today programme various well meaning people agonised over the dismal failure of social mobility in recent years, yet not one of the mentioned main the reason why this has happened.

After three 'golden decades' of social mobility after the war from about the late 1980's the ability of people born on or near the bottom to rise to the top has been reducing sharply in a fairly continuous trend.

Now what could have happened during the 1970's to so reduce the next generations chances of going from the bottom to the top I wonder? Oh yes, we closed all the Grammar Schools.

The biggest cause of a reduction in life chances for working class people is of course the closure of Grammar Schools. It's obvious - supported by all the evidence, and everyone knows it to be true; and yet neither the Labour members of the committee mention it, nor do the Conservatives advocate restoration.

Why?

Well the problem was never with Grammar Schools, it was with the rest.

Questions have always existed over the quality of general education in Britain and the fear has always been there that we just don't produce enough high quality teachers. Grammar Schools undeniably tended to cream off the best teachers leaving many schools dangerously weak.

The decision to call all the other schools by the damning term 'secondary modern' didn't help much by reinforcing the impression that these schools were second-class, as indeed too many of them were. Any system that meant that three quarters of children 'failed' was bound to run into problems in a democratic country sooner or later, and so it proved.

So with the kind of perverse logic that permeates Government the solution was not to improve teaching standards, or to incentivize good teachers to take up posts in non Grammar schools, or to widen the scope of school selection to include sporting or artistic ability but to close the Grammars and average everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

And here we are thirty years later, scratching our heads and wondering why social mobility is back to pre-war levels.

Some form of selective schooling is the only answer - streaming has been tried and was the promise of Comprehensives, it failed because what makes a really successful school is a culture of excellence and achievement; and by definition you can't get that in every school.

What would help would be to have not just excellence in academic subjects. In the modern world artistic or sporting ability may well turn out to be of equal or greater value than an brilliant academic mind and these talents need to be selected out, too. I'd make selective 'county schools' available to every child with talent - sporting schools selecting on agility and fitness, artistic schools selecting on artistic aptitude and technical colleges selecting pupils demonstrating technical ability, as well as grammar schools.

But in any event we have to face the fact that some would not get into a specialist school. The facts of life cannot be changed, we are not all born equal. The function of education should not be to simulate that we are; but rather to allow people to maximise the ability nature provided them with and help everyone to have an equal opportunity to go for whatever opportunity exists. Unfortunately the current education system in many cases does the opposite - simulating equality by depriving any opportunity at all.

What is fascinating about this debate is that it goes to the heart of the ideological debate in British society today. Do we want to forever be a society that obsesses about those at the bottom - even if they made their own way there? A country that always mitigates failure - even by those who make no effort? A nation that hands out opportunities on a buggins turn basis and in doing so eradicate any last vestiges of personal ambition? A place that 'simulates' equality by banning success, dragging everyone down to the level of the lowest achiever?

And if we carry on down this path who loses out the most? Is it the rich or the well connected? Is it the feckless and lazy? No, its the people in the middle who don't want to stay there, the aspiring and the hard working; the people who in doing well create the wealth in which we all share eventually.

Oh the irony of it all. Britain's declining 'social mobility' (in other words the block on poor people attaining high achievement) - is a direct result of social engineering by those who claim to have the interests of the poor at heart.

2009-07-20T14:39:00.006Z

A Primary Masterstroke?

I think the Totnes Associations decision to hold a fully open primary election to pick their next Candidate is a brilliant move that I hope heralds a new beginning for British democracy.

One of the only major drawbacks with the First Past the Post electoral system we have in this country is the problem of 'bed blockers' - long established veteran MP's in very safe seats who having been selected years ago simply get re-elected time and time again because of an inbuilt one party majority in an area. These people often become out of touch with their electorate because they simply don't have to maintain the aggressive level of electioneering and campaigning that is required in seats that are closer fought each time.

Various potential cures for this have been cooked up over the years and none have worked. One cure was the introduction of the need for sitting MP's to be formally re-adopted by their parties each Parliament, unfortunately all that happened is that long-serving MP's weren't challenged and simply got re-adopted unopposed.

Cameron's hope is that if the idea of primary contests takes off there will be eventually a choice of candidates from each party offered to the electorate of each seat in between elections. A long serving MP who is good, like Ian Gibson, would be reselected by the whole electorate; whereas a 'donkey with the right colour rosette' might find some stiff competition for the job from within the ranks of his own party. This would give a modest level of choice to all the electors, even if the demographics of the seat make it overwhelmingly a one-colour likely outcome in the end.

Totnes is very much the test-bed for the system so here's hoping it all goes well next weekend.

2009-07-16T11:20:00.007Z

Why aren't politicians covered by the Advertising Standards Authority?

I have reproduced a fabulous and now iconic advert that I remember as a child seeing in American comic magazines (trash mags, as they were called by teachers at my school)- adverts which we knew even as schoolboys were a pack of lies. (Some of the best of these - a real trip down memory lane - are reproduced here).

These days adverts like this are not seen because laws and rules have been introduced by most Western countries that outlaw misleading advertising. In Britain most of this process is overseen and managed by the Advertising Standards Authority (another one of those famous Quango's we are all talking about) although certain types of advertising activity such as online and in-store displays are covered by other regulations.

The Advertising industry realised that flagrant lies and misleading claims in some ads risked creating cynicism and thereby damaging the integrity (and worth) of all advertising and they self-regulated to prevent this.

According to the ASA site:

Self-regulation of non-broadcast advertising as we know it today began 40 years ago when the Advertising Association established what became the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), the industry body that sets the rules for advertisers, agencies and media. As the foreword to the very first edition of the British Code of Advertising Practice explained: “The function of advertising is the advocacy of the merits of particular products or services … and this Code seeks to define practices considered undesirable by the organisations which have subscribed to it.”

That was in 1961. The following year, the industry established the Advertising Standards Authority under an independent Chairman, to adjudicate on complaints about advertising that appeared to breach the Code.

"When challenged, advertisers must prove their claims are true. If they cannot prove it, they cannot claim it."

Ever since then the advertising industry has been increasingly strictly controlled, and although strengthened with a number of consumer laws is still largely self-regulated. These days you can be pretty certain that if a definite claim is made for a product (or against a competitors product) in the UK, the facts are there to back the claim and a third party independent adjudicator has passed it for publication.

But not if that advert is made for, or published by, a political party.

From the start the ASA specifically excluded political advertising and political claims, mainly to avoid having to be drawn into political fighting.

The ASA today divert any enquiries about misleading advertising by politicians to the Electoral Commission. The EC's stated aim is to encourage " integrity and public confidence in the democratic process" and although they list a large number of things they promote and monitor on their website honesty in political promotional material is not among them.

So today the most outrageous claims, lies, laughable misinformation and misleading charts and pictures can all be found in the leaflets and posters put about by politicians of all colours. And because party A lies about party B in one leaflet, human nature dictates that party B then makes even more blatant lies about party A in their next publication.

So you see 'X cannot win here' bar charts that wildly exaggerate the relative states of parties, utterly misleading figures on the economy and daft claims about spending cuts/tax rises (delete as appropriate) which serve to simply turn voters off completely.

And before anyone gets too sanctimoniously irate, I specifically include my own party in this - we had some very unsubstantiated claims on posters at the last election which would not have got past the ASA had they been covered by the regulations.

Occasionally someone names names, and makes a claim about an individual candidate rather than his party, and the public are then treated to the unedifying sight of a libel action between two squabbling politicians making claim and counter claim.

This escalating arms race of misinformation is becoming very dangerous, especially at a time when the public are already seriously concerned about the trustworthiness of this Government in particular and all politicians in general.

In allowing false claims to pass unchecked we are creating the very kind of cynicism and disbelief that the advertising industry was wise enough to see the danger in 50 years ago.

The answer is simple. Either the laws and regulations concerning advertising products should include all advertising, including political ones, or new regulations should be introduced forcing the same burden of proof.

Politicians need to be more 'legal decent, honest and truthful' than any advertiser.

2009-07-13T14:13:00.008Z

Is it Time
to end
this
TV TAX?

Is there a better way of funding the BBC?

I have just had another reminder for the TV licence in my flat in London. I am not an MP and don't have this luxury paid for by the taxpayer, so I have to pay a total of £285 to be able to watch TV all week and all weekend; regardless of the fact that we prefer Sky and ITV.

The current fee of £142.50 represents a rise of over 50% in the last ten years. The BBC argue this increasing amount is necessary because of the extra costs of providing new technology and the growing number of new channels they have. Currently they say the fee provides:

the television channels BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News, BBC Parliament, CBBC and CBeebies;
five network radio services, plus BBC Asian Network, and digital radio services BBC 1Xtra, BBC Radio 7, BBC 6 Music and BBC 5 Live Sports Extra;
regional television programmes and Local Radio services in England;
national radio and television in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
BBC Red Button, BBC Mobile and the BBC website (bbc.co.uk).

This is a very long way from the original purpose of the BBC which was brought into existence in 1922 as a non profit making corporation owned by it's founding shareholders (including Marconi, Vickers and General Electric) to experiment with public broadcasting. Later, in 1923, it was given a Royal Charter and financed from 1927 via the licence fee "to enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain."

Sadly the basic service has been allowed to mushroom and complicit Governments have voted for the BBC licence fee to balloon to keep up. From a few pounds in the 1970's the fee is now a substantial chunk of many homes entertainment income, and while the politicians of the left go on about poverty, latterly 'energy poverty' and now even 'water poverty' none of them seem keen to address the fact the for many poorer households the TV tax is a serious and growing expense they should do without, but can't.

The House of Lords reviewed the charter in 2004 and their Lords report says "Using television receiving equipment without the appropriate licence is a criminal offence subject to a maximum fine of £1,000. In 2003 a total of 96,872 people were prosecuted in the UK for licence fee evasion. No-one can be imprisoned solely for licence fee evasion. However, if an evasion fine is not paid, then magistrates have the power to impose a prison sentence. In England and Wales, 28 people were imprisoned in 2004 for non-payment of licence evasion fines (the average sentence was 14 days). In Scotland 18 people were imprisoned in 2004."

Every time I raise this subject someone pops up and says 'but the BBC make good programmes' and I always reply the same, the BBC don't, the people who work for them do. Those people work for the BBC but could and would work for another broadcaster if the BBC wasn't there. I have never agreed that the BBC is somehow essential, it might have been in the 1950's when it was BBC1 or ITV but today when there are 900 channels I just don't see that it deserves special status.

Having to pay for the BBC is even more galling for those of us who subscribe to Sky or Virgin, it's the equivalent of being obliged to pay for a Jaguar first if you want to buy a BMW, just to keep the firm going.

The time has come I believe to radically review why the BBC exists and consider new ways of providing the public service output that some people say would not be made if there were only commercial channels (still wondering why we need special 'public service' broadcasts but not 'public service' newspapers or magazines, but there you are) .

I have a suggestion. Firstly, we could make the licence fee optional to people who want to watch the BBC, possible now with digital technology. Second, sell off the corporation except radio 4 and BBC2 , estimates vary hugely but SKY - with half the viewers and none of the valuable TV archive material- is worth £8bn, so the money raised from a partial BBC privatisation could easily top £15bn.

Properly invested £15bn would yield enough to finance a decent news and public service broadcast service on one national radio station and one TV channel in perpetuity, without costing you and I a penny, and without needing the expensive TV licencing service, and without cluttering up our courts and prisons with thousands of unfortunate fee dodgers.

If you still wanted to watch Eastenders, Strictly Come Dancing or Holby City then you'd have to pay the BBC subscription; but if you wanted to be "enriched with public service programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain" you could do so on radio and TV for free, forever.

2009-07-08T11:54:00.007Z

A picture is worth 1000 words, (part2)

I am grateful to the UK Public Spending.com website ( here ) for supplying this revealing chart.

The Government is on course to control more than half the economy by the end of 2011.

Government spending as a percentage of the total economy has only gone beyond 50% during wars. Even during the disasterous 1970's the ratio remained (just) below the half way mark.

Why is this important? The long-term fastest growing economies in the world are all those with the lowest percentage of Government spending in the economy, places like China (27%) and America (37%). The long term low growth countries have the highest general levels of taxation and Government spending, culminating in the Soviet Empire which collapsed through economic failure. Also the lowest growth ( or most recession-prone) periods in our own history have been when tax-and-spend is at it's highest.

Non-Government economic activity is what drives growth in an economy because private economic activity creates profit, thus creating larger enterprises making and selling more goods, employing more people who then buy yet more goods with the money thay have earned.

As the Government spends more the productive economy is squeezed, and with a smaller pool of profit to create future economic growth from the potential for growth is reduced; as we found to our cost during the 1960's and 70's.

A way of illustrating this is to compare a private motorway with a Government one. When roads are built as business ventures on a pay per mile basis a successful (busy) motorway like the M6 extension makes it's owners lots of money and they have both a huge incentive and the income to finance improvements to increase traffic flows and revenue. On the other hand when the Government owns a busy road there is no profit and funding for growth is not created, in fact the reverse happens- more demand creates wear and tear problems and we soon end up with the M25.

When British Rail was wholly state owned in the 1970's Sir Peter Parker, it's chairman, acknowledged that when the trains got too busy his only solution was to increase fares to 'put people off' because new trains would have cost the Government millions that it didn't have.

But there is more bad news, Government spending is also inflationary. The countries with the highest long-run average inflation rates tend to have the highest levels of public expenditure and Government debt.

When the Government spends more it creates other forces that create inflation and suppress future economic growth. When the Government expands spending it goes into competition with the private economy, for example it competes for labour - driving up wage costs. And because Governments run on debt they also compete for money - in borrowing more of the finite money supply they are reducing the capital available to private business, constraining their growth and eventually pushing up interest rates.

The Economist Keynes believed that temporary Government intervention in a recession could prevent deflation and mass unemployment. His theories were born out of the Depression but economists remain split on whether his theories actually work. It is claimed that Keynsian policies followed by British Governments of all colours after the war led to chronic inflation and our relative economic decline until Mrs Thatcher turned her back on his theories in 1979. His fellow economist and critic Hayek claimed that what starts as temporary governmental fixes usually become permanent and expanding government programs and that keeping taxes low and Government spending moderate were the key to expanding economies. History -and the chart above - prove Hayek to be right.

Labour are claiming that their trillions in spending is a 'return to Keynes' and will prevent a recession and unemployment - I believe the reverse, that a deep but short recession has been swapped for a prolonged period of economic instability, inflation and stagnation as the bloated public sector stifles the private sector and civil society.

It's time to dust off the flared trousers and the platform shoes, the 1970's are back.

2009-07-06T08:28:00.008Z

Scrap Idea

The problem with democracy is that elected people are drawn to grand schemes that try and address more than one problem at once, and in doing so fail to properly address any of them.

Environmental concerns are a classic case in point. Tapping into fears about the sustainability of current levels of industrial activity is too tempting for many politiciansto avoid. And now there is a recession and ministers see opportunities all around to tap into fears of unemployment too. So we end up with bonkers initiatives like the car scrappage scheme.

According to the Government this will:
a) replace polluting old cars with environmentally friendly new ones - saving the planet
b) increase sales of new cars, saving lots of jobs

Now I must confess to having a special interest in all things motoring and I know a lot about cars; and this scheme is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever heard.

For a start it is a myth that buying a new car is ever environmentally friendly even if the new car is massively more economical than the old one. Manufacturing a car is hugely energy consumptive, estimates vary but according to research by Argonne National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy research facility actually making a Toyota Prius uses roughly the same amount of energy the car consumes in 60,000 miles of driving. So even if your new Prius used half the fuel of your old car it would still take 120,000 miles of motoring to get back to square one in planet- saving terms.

What about CO2? Well it's a bit of a myth that new cars are always more CO2 efficient than older ones. Sure old cars like Ford Cortina's are disasterous environmentally but we aren't talking about taking classic cars off the road, the scrappage scheme is aimed at ten year old motors, all the cars on this page are qualifying for scrappage under the scheme. These are cars designed in the environmentally conscious 1990's and which must pass a stringent emission test every year.

New versions of a car model are usually bigger, faster, better equipped and heavier than the old model and often the CO2 figure goes up with the newer car. And in any case the scheme is not linked to CO2 emissions so you could scrap a 1 litre Ford Fiesta and use the money to buy a 5 litre Range Rover if you wanted to.

From an environmental point of view the last thing you should do is encourage a new car to be born. Keeping your old car properly serviced, tyres fully inflated, driving carefully and using it as infrequently as possible is infinitely better for the planet than trading it in.

So if it isn't good for the planet it must be good for British jobs. Well, not necessarily. The truth is that only 15% of the cars sold in the UK are made here, and many of the components they are made from are imported. From a jobs point of view keeping your existing car running is probably more worthwhile, the numbers of people employed in making new cars in Britain is dwarfed by the number of people repairing and making and supplying replacement parts for old ones.

Aside from the environmental issue and the jobs issue there is another important reason why this plan sucks. At a time when consumers are already burdened with too much debt why is our Government spending £300m encouraging people to run up yet more debt?

Good quality marques just don't wear out, rust, or break down like they used to. A ten year old car from a maker such as Mercedes, Toyota, Volvo, VW and BMW is probably only half way through it's design life, even with 100,000 miles on the clock. To encourage perfectly good cars like these to be scrapped while encouraging consumers to pile into a new HP agreement is utter madness.

Trust me, your ten year old car is probably in far better shape than you think. There are some people who believe that this is the real reason car manufacturers needed the car scrappage scheme in the first place.

2009-07-01T12:57:00.003Z

'A picture tells a thousand words' caption contest

This is a frame capture from Prime Ministers Questions today at the House of Commons. Ministers are becoming accustomed to their man comprehensively coming second in his weekly contests with Cameron but today was spectacularly bad by any standards.

Here Mr Brown has just blurted out that his forecast for Government spending growth is 0%, seconds later the House erupts into laughter but look at the stony expressions from Harman and Jowell.

I think Browns expression is a classic as well. I think he looks like a bloke who has just called his new girlfriend by his ex-girlfriends name; but what do you think he is thinking?

2009-06-30T20:58:00.001Z

Engine Room to Bridge

"Its worse than I thought, Captain"

The Times has this tomorrow:

"The economy slumped at its fastest pace for 50 years in the first quarter, plummeting by 2.4 per cent, according to revised figures released by the Office for National Statistics yesterday. This is far worse than previous estimates which had showed an already savage 1.9 per cent decline. "

It might be worse than the Treasury thought, but not to those of us operating in the real world.

My business is executive recruitment, we manage jobs in the £50-£150,000 salary range. On-an-off I can trace the history of my firm back to 1964 so we have plenty of other recession experience to fall back on.

The number of speculative unsolicited CV’s sent to us has gone up eightfold in the last 18 months. Traffic to my website pages offering ‘redundancy advice’ is up 288% on this time last year, which was already up 200% on the year before.

We have become blase about listed companies going bust recently, but until last year it had never happened to us. I can think of at least four of my own clients -all major plc’s- that we used to do business with who have gone bankrupt last year alone, and I know of several others in retail and the pub/leisure sector who are a gnats whisker from closure.

One of my biggest clients trades in residual (unsold) FMCG stocks. They buy all the unsold batteries and cleaning materials and sweets and crisps that manufacturers made but can’t sell, and sell them on to bargain stores. Their business is dependent on a supply of excess stock being available. Last year was all all time record (they have been going since the war) because manufacturers had record unsold stocks; they expected a slowing of availability this year as manufacturers slashed production while demand levelled.

Manufacturers have indeed slashed production, as we know by the unemployment numbers, but very worryingly for the economy residual stocks are still piling up all over the place and my client is breaking new records week after week. This means only one thing, as fast as production is falling demand is falling faster.

New Labour have been the most nakedly partisan Government this country has ever had. They set out with a clear mission to stamp out the Conservatives forever and they damn near succeeded.

And now the strategy has failed they are operating a scorched earth policy in the vain hope of destroying anything and everything that could aid an incoming Conservative Government.

They are like the tenants from hell who having already wrecked the flat and stripped it's fittings when they were finally evicted stuck rotting fish under the floorboards to contaminate the place for years afterwards.

2009-06-29T09:49:00.008Z

Are minorities self-segregating?

For all of my adult life the goal of Governments of all political persuasions has been to encourage social cohesion by integrating all citizens into a single, classless, British Society of equal opportunity. In my book this means encouraging all British citizens to live alongside each other regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion or colour; giving them an equal opportunity to make the best of it, and then celebrating success on merit.

Great efforts have been gone to over the decades to ensure that no minority suffers discrimination, or that no-one is disadvantaged or prejudiced against. By and large this is a job done, in law at least.

In our own English way this has led to many politically-correct rules and tortured language designed to avoid embarrassing anyone by highlighting a difference, but it has also led to an infinitely better quality of life for many minorities, whether you are a disabled person needing the loo or a black person needing a job.

In recent times we seem to have moved on to a new stage, though. The buzzword when talking about minorities has been a classic New Labour phrase: 'celebrating diversity' which by my reckoning seems to be a short step away from saying: 'staying different' .

An example of this is Gay Pride events. It seems to me that having told the world how proud you are to be gay you are inviting the population to treat you differently to someone who is straight. Having spent 100 years demanding the right to be treated the same as everyone else some gay people are creating a gay society that demands not just equal, but special treatment.

The National Black Police Officers Association was formed in 1998 with the express aim of promoting the interests of Black Police Officers. This is creating a distinction that up to that point didn't exist (there has never been a White Police Officers Association in this country thank God) and has subsequently led to a far greater resentment and tension amongst officers than ever existed before because some white officers now feel that Black officers have special advantages.

Make no mistake I don't think there is anything wrong with being different, nor about celebrating it. Where I have an issue is when people choose to celebrate being different and then complain whenever anyone notices. There are lots more examples, the BBC's Asian Network and 'Miss Black Britain' contest are two more that come to my mind of where 'celebrating diversity' comes dangerously close to segregation. The acid test is would it work the other way round? What would be the response to a 'Miss White Briton' contest for instance?

Some of the more belligerent pressure groups have been the tail wagging the dog for a long time - there is a very real danger that this Governments total inability to say 'no' to any minority campaign will end up creating the very state in society we have spent the last 40 years trying to get rid of.

2009-06-23T16:14:00.008Z

"You want to sit down during your flight? That will be £30 extra, Sir."

I have had yet another irritating experience booking a flight on line with a local well known budget airline. Imagine my surprise when the credit card debit was £30 more than the quoted price because, it turns out, I had been charged an extra £15 each way for..... my seat.

I have always seen the need for businesses to treat consumers fairly and honestly and I am becoming concerned that many are failing to do so, although they are obeying all current legislation.

I am specifically concerned that a large number of online and call centre based commercial activities including financial services, online booking sites and air and train travel booking services are creating a new class of 'unfair trading'.

One example is the practice of quoting 'typical' APR in finance adverts. There is now widespread blatant misleading going on, a very low 'typical' APR quoted on adverts to draw applicants who then find a much higher interest rate quoted "in their case" - by which time they are already partly committed (having agreed to a credit check) creating unreasonable conditions for a fair deal to be struck in my view.

The whole area of variable pricing as pioneered by budget airlines like Easyjet and now frequently employed by hotel companies, train operators, car hire firms and especially credit card and loan companies is also becoming a minefield for consumers in my view. I accept the principle that some firms may want to create bargain basement fares by charging extra for regular services (like going to the toilet!) on the basis that those who don't want to pay for these luxuries(?!) shouldn't have to subsidise others that do but at all times the pricing needs to be fair and clear.

The basic principle of the open and transparent price offer enforced by the earliest consumer legislation is now being routinely bypassed and that many consumers simply aren't able to make comparisons, or even determine accurately what price they will be paying for a service, especially when booking or buying on line, before making a binding commitment.

I also have a concern over the practice of making additional charges to change or cancel bookings even when the customer may have either made a simple mistake, or not quite have clicked all the right buttons. I suspect that some organisations are now routinely making their booking procedure unnecessarily complex in order to catch out the unwary and increase their margins in this way. There should be an opportunity for consumers to change or amend online bookings without charge after they have received confirmation of them.

I have taken this up with the Trading Standards Institute but their main focus seems to be on rogue traders and criminal activity, they complain of not having the resources to deal with campaigning for fair trading legislation as well as trying to enforce the existing law.

They have a point, fair trading rules were written originally to protect local people from local rogue traders, and the law is enforced via local authorities with town hall sized budgets. This is wholly inadequate for policing multi-national companies often operating via call centres on other continents or virtually on the web.

In the meantime, 'buyer beware' remains the best advice.

2009-06-16T11:10:00.004Z

Vital Matters of State.

Ever wonder why your MP needs a staff of five?

Here we are in the middle of the most important economic crisis for sixty years, with unemployment skyrocketing and many local residents facing financial ruin.

Our local economy is desperate for a share of the dwindling Government economic stimulus package. The EU seems hell-bent on ignoring our fishermens plight and forcing even more of them onto the dole, and what industry we do have left is being strangled by high taxes, low skills and red tape.

What many people want to know is what is our MP doing about it, and so I was somewhat surprised to find out that Adrian Sanders thinks that the plight of rabbits (yes, those white furry things with big ears) is the most pressing issue on his constituents minds just now.

The MP for Torbay asked this of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs yesterday:

(1) what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of regulations governing the welfare of farmed rabbits; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what recent research his Department has conducted and evaluated on the rabbit farming industry;
(3) if he will bring forward proposals to increase the minimum requirements for space allowed to farmed rabbits

And his reply?

"The welfare of farmed rabbits is adequately provided for by way of the general provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, which has a specific schedule relating to rabbit welfare. DEFRA also has a welfare code for rabbits which provides good husbandry advice, which producers have by law to be familiar with and have access to. DEFRA has not carried out any recent research on what is a relatively small rabbit farming industry. The Council of Europe's Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes is currently developing recommendations for the welfare of farmed rabbits, which will include provision for space allowances."

By the way, the cost of our MP, his staff, office, housing and allowances has been in the region of £4,000,000 since he got elected in 1997.

2009-06-16T10:05:00.003Z

The Labour recipe for disaster:

What you will need:

Several student politicians who have gone straight from university to Westminster with nothing in between.
A very large quantity of spin
A sprinkling of spite
One or two ready divided opposition parties
A thriving economy left over by a previous Government

The method:

1) Make your economy hopelessly uncompetitive through high taxes and ant-business legislation
2) Mask this by inflating property prices and encouraging a consumer boom financed by credit
3) Disassemble your banking regulator so that the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, thus allowing your banks to recklessly expand
4) When it all goes bust borrow trillions against future tax revenues, nationalise the banks and print lots of money
5) Fall out with your colleagues, split the party from top to bottom and render the government completely paralysed by internal feuding and positioning for power.
5) Fight a series of increasingly pointless and bitter battles with public sector trade unions causing widespread disruption and bringing what is left of the economy to a grinding halt
5) Quickly leave office so that someone else has to clear up the resulting hyper inflation, unemployment and public debt.
6) Spend twenty years in opposition
7) Repeat endlessly.

2009-06-15T08:32:00.004Z

EU shame.

This is how 'democracy' works in the European Parliament.

Since becoming leader in 2005 David Cameron has stuck to the decision he made at the time to pull our MEP's out of the centre-right European Peoples Party coalition in Europe.

The EPP is a convenient grouping for Conservatives, the largest (and therefore controlling) coalition is made up of the right and centre right parties of all the main EU states like France and Germany, most of whom are currently running Government in their own countries. You would imagine that Conservatives would share much with them; and by and large in national politics we do. However a founding and central principle of the EPP is a commitment to ever closer European Union leading to a single, federal state. David Cameron felt that remaining in the EPP was incompatible with our party's belief in decentralised Government and an EU made up of independent nation states co-operating for mutual benefit so he declared that unless that part of the EPP's constitution could be changed, we would be leaving.

The EU are, frankly, terrified of the implications of this. At the moment virtually every mainstream political grouping in the EU is pro-federal. The one thing that the European Parliament never says when facing a new piece of legislation is "actually is this a power that we should give back to the nation states" because none of the groupings oppose the march to centralise power in Strasbourg and Brussels.

On our own there is little that British Conservatives can do. However many in Europe recognise that their own polulations are heavily split over the direction the EU is taking. In France and Germany significant minorities of the population oppose greater integration but their views are not being represented by their mainstream political elite. The fear amongst the European political class is that if Cameron goes ahead there will be a large number of MEP's from all over Europe and spanning the political spectrum, who may be sympathetic and tempted to join the fledgeling group eventually creating a proper 'opposition' in their midst to the relentless drive to centralise power.

So everything is being done to prevent the Cameron project. Firstly there were the scare stories about some of the initial potential partner parties being 'extremists' - when that didn't work they changed the rules. Standing orders requiring politicians from six countries to be in a grouping for it to qualify for official recognition were upped to seven as soon as Hague found six partners, for instance.

Now we read, according to press reports, that even this may not be enough. The Observer had this yesterday:

Leading figures in the EU assembly said he would not be allowed to form the group unless he could show that its members had a deep political "affinity" and shared the same basic principles. Martin Schulz, chairman of the socialist group in the parliament made clear Cameron could not expect to cobble together a group of disparate rightwingers and claim its members were broadly of like mind in order to secure group status. "We will be looking carefully at the formation of this group. It is very early and I do not have a clear view as to what they will do. But the contraditions on the right wing are obvious."

So never mind that democratically elected politicians want to form a group of their own. Consensus politics obviously means in Europe that unless there is a consensus amongst the cosy cartel already there to 'let you' form a new group or do something new you will 'not be allowed to' go ahead and do it.

And people wonder why we get frustrated at the lack of democracy in Europe!

2009-06-08T14:47:00.002Z

Labour, RIP

I have been reflecting on Labours performance last night down here in the South West. Perhaps someone better at maths should check this but from what I can see:

Labour were on 7.7% - that is just one in thirteen voters - but only a third of eligible voters turned up and bothered to vote.

Which means Labour secured only about 2.5% of the voters eligible to vote.

So of the people who *could* have voted Labour on Thursday only one in 40 actually did so; to support the party that is running the country.

2009-06-05T09:19:00.009Z

Is it the end?

Many cruel comparisons have been drawn between the way Gordon Brown operates and the manner in which dictators grab and retain control.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Tito, I have heard Gordon Brown compared to them all (for dramatic or humorous effect, of course, in reality Brown is nothing like them) but in recent days I think Gordon Brown is beginning to resemble ( in more than just appearence) Rumanian president Nikolai Ceauşescu.

Wikipedia says this about the last days of that regime:

"By 1989, Ceauşescu was showing signs of complete denial of reality. While the country was going through extremely difficult times ... he was often shown on state TV entering stores filled with food supplies, visiting large food and arts festivals where people would serve him mouthwatering food while praising the "high living standard" achieved under his rule.

Some people, believing that Ceauşescu was not aware of what was going on in the country, attempted to hand him petitions and complaint letters during his many visits around the country. However, each time he got a letter, he would immediately pass it on to members of his security. According to rumours of the time, people attempting to hand letters directly to Ceauşescu risked adverse consequences, courtesy of the secret police."

Labour Veteran Barry Sherman was on the radio this morning complaining that, having yesterday called on Labour backbenchers to demand a secret ballot vote of confidence in the PM, his constituency committee were bombarded with phonecalls from No 10 Downing Street overnight urging them to take action to get rid of him.

The resigning cabinet members and anyone else who has dared to publicly criticise the PM have been subjected to vicious and repeated character assasinations and hostile media briefings, and then of course there was the secret 'McBride' smear unit until fairly recently.

Of course the Ceauşescu regime came to a sudden and decisive end:

"On December 21, the mass meeting, held in what is now Revolution Square, degenerated into chaos. The image of Ceauşescu's uncomprehending expression as the crowd began to boo him remains one of the defining moments of the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. "

Is it possible the dear Gordon is as out of touch and uncomprehending as Ceauşescu was in his final days? Or is it that his iron grip on the Labour Party has not weakened sufficiently and the party will fail in it's bid to unseat him, in which case there may be genuinely hideous retribution meted out to the revolutionaries and 'enemies of democracy' who have dared to show their insolence?

Either way, the Labour Government is headed for oblivion. Sooner or later the party will face the voters and as things stand today they may well be facing the kind of once in a generation wipe-out that could really change the political landscape. Gordon Brown might not just make history as the shortest serving Labour Prime Minister ever- he could be the last.

2009-06-02T09:20:00.004Z

What can we expect on Thursday?
Will we be celebrating or commiserating?

The European elections loom this Thursday and we have been busy for weeks canvassing for votes.

Have we been 'stirring up apathy' as Willie Whitelaw once said in a famous gaffe?

I think the appetite to vote at all for the European Elections is very low indeed. It's never a particularily passionate election and since the PR system was introduced, breaking the remaining link between the voter and candidate, it has become even more uninteresting.

This time we have the added disincentive of the expenses scandal, which has meant that votes are currently simply turned off all politicians. We have had a good team out canvassing and when we talk about national politics and the next General Election we are getting an exceptionally good response, but if the conversation is based on the Euro's (and for obvious reasons at the moment it is) we get mostly apathy.

To be honest that is hardly suprising. The European Parliament seems completely irrelevent to most voters. It's powers are limited, it's debates boring and the place hardly ever makes the news, and when it does it usually falls into the 'Euro madness/straight banana' category.

The only people who seem to get excited about the EU elections are -bizarrely- anti EU campaigners like UKIP. Why on earth do people who oppose Britain being in the EU want to spend millions of pounds and hours of campaign effort to get elected to it's Parliament?

Even the count is a huge washout. As a political activist finally getting to the count is one of the best bits, seeing the slow but steady emergence of the result - the judgement of your work - is exciting and invigorating even if you lose; but the Euro count is a complete let down.

Firstly it doesn't happen after the election on Thursday, but on Sunday when the rest of Europe have finished their voting, and then the 'result' is not announced here in Torbay but a hundred and fifty miles away in Bournemouth by TV link, meaning that all that has happened locally is an administrative function.

And in the end most of us who are there just don't care what the result is, the PR electoral system uses a complicated mathematical formula that means, unless there is a revolution, the outcome is a certainty, the winners and losers long ago pre-determined by their rankings in their own party hierarchies.

I suspect for the record that UKIP will do well on a dismal turn out. I doubt either as a vote share or vote number they will come close to the 12,000 or so they racked up in Torbay in 2004 but then I don't think we will come close to our 2004 figure either.

The Lib Dems locally and Labour nationally will once again be humiliated and once again dismiss their poor showing as irrelevant - citing previous years when they did abysmally at the Euro's and then went on to win the General Election that followed.

The real political action in Devon this week is on the County Council side, where Conservatives are hoping to take control of Devon, but we in Torbay are standing on the touchline of that particular battle.

2009-05-30T13:15:00.003Z

South Africa

I have just got back from a short business trip to Johannasburg, a part of the world I have never been to before.

I was hugely impressed with the place, the people and the atmosphere; it is a city that seems at ease with itself, and as often turns out to be the case, feels a million miles away from the image given to us by the media.

There is huge inequality there, as is common throughout the world, but there isn't the kind of unsettling quality to it that you see in some other parts of Africa. The Government of SA really do seem to be trying to do the best for all their people - even the shanties are looking as if serious money is being invested to improve the properties and provide sanitation and electricty for everyone in the city.

I had long talks with people (S Africans are so friendly and open, it's hard not to get chatty with everyone you meet!) and the problems they do have ring strangely familiar. One of my drivers told me about the fact that millions of immigrants have flooded SA from other parts of Africa looking for work "lot's of our people are lazy" he said "so the Somali's come here and get the jobs because they are willing to work hard, and then our people say they are taking all the jobs, but there is work and money here if you are prepared to get up and do the work"

Johannasburg is a wealthy city which looks and feels very American, it's mostly low-rise and very wooded, with spread-out modern gated industrial and residential developments connected by big freeways interspersed with gigantic shopping malls. The only difference is that at most junctions there are scores of animated traders dicing with the cars hawking anything from sunglasses to clothing.

And as a European who grew up at a time that South Africa generally seemed to be a hotbed of racism and inequality I was expecting to see remnants of that today. I thought all the rich would be white and all the workers would be black. How wrong can you get!

I felt truly humbled and astonished at how comfortably the people live with each other today, no resentment on either side, white and black South Africans seem utterly passionate about their shared country.

Quite puts some of our local feuds into perspective, really.

2009-05-22T17:21:00.002Z

Anthony Steen

As Anthony Steen disappears into retirement many people have asked me what I think of his behaviour because I haven't commented on him earlier.

This is because for a few days before his standing down became public knowledge there was a very great deal of discussion about what the Totnes Association could, or should do if Anthony refused to go. I felt that weighing in publicly in the affairs of a neighbouring constituency would neither be appropriate or terribly helpful while that process was going on, although in private all along I have been saying that he must go .

Now that he has done the right thing and decided to step down I can say what I think, which is that however hard he has worked, however many constituents he has served well over the years it is not enough to justify the morally indefensible and I think his claims were just that, morally indefensible.

Anthony is a wealthy man in his own right and cannot possibly have needed the money so what on earth was he thinking? Perhaps the lawyer in him couldn't separate out the legal right from the moral wrong. Either way he has been the sole architect of his own downfall.

It is not legally possible to force him to repay the money as some have suggested because, as with most of these cases, he was acting entirely within the rules and therefore has committed no offence and breached no agreements, so unless he makes a goodwill gesture (hardly likely, judging by his public comments) there is no way the money can be returned.

But the main thing is -along with two others he is going; and hopefully a few other disgraced Conservative MP's will go as well this weekend because I really do think that this is the best way out of this for Parliaments sake.

But what of his neighbours? I learn that Tory Gary Streeter and Labour MP Alison Seabeck have posted all their own expenses on their websites today, so is clearly nothing to hide there.

Younger Ross is guilty of exactly the same 'offence' as Steen - and as much money, too. No doubt there will be howls of protest from some that he wasn't as 'bad' as Anthony but why? Because he doesn't live in such a big house? Because he used the money to buy fancy mirrors and expensive furniture rather than tree surgeons and water pipes?

And what about our MP? Will he now do the right thing and get on and publish his own expenses? And if not, will his own party take tough action against him?

Somehow I doubt it. Clearly -in spite of Nick Cleggs fine words- they don't have the determination and guts to act and that won't be forgotten by voters at election time.

2009-05-18T18:01:00.002Z

Relics, on life support.

Conservative Politicians aren't supposed to be radicals. Tradition and maintianing the status quo are supposed to be hard-wired into our DNA.

So I would imagine that I might be a bit of a lone voice in suggesting that the entire Palace of Westminster is dangerously close to making itself unfit for purpose.

The trouble with all great institutions is that over their very long lives they can become self-serving, and obselete. Over the years traditions and customs that were introduced in response to a particular need become pointless and anachranistic and yet our obsession with past greatness means that we hang on to them regardless. We are not alone in this, of course, the great Christian religions suffer exactly the same affliction and as a result suffer exactly the same fate - dwindling engagement by the modern public.

Much that goes on in the House of Commons falls into this category. The place is a labrynthine building filled with obscure and equally labrynthine customs - in many cases that now inhibit free debate and restrict the Parliament from doing what it is supposed to do.

Ordinary members of the public who occasion to watch the proceedings on TV or even more infrequently -visit to watch their law makers at work- see an ancient ritual couched in 19th century language that seems utterly alien and unrelated to their lives.

Like Tower Bridge our Parliament building is a bit of a fraud. It was built in the 1830's, the Georgians created some of the finest archetecture since the Romans but Pugin designed Parliament to look like a building hundreds of years older, a dark forbidding church-like monolith.

Compare and contrast our Parliament with Holroyd House, or the London Assembly Building both modern debating places made for the 21st century. Here you will see (easily- because unlike the unward-looking Westminster- both buildings are light, open, accessible and made of glass) normally dressed people talking to each other in language that you will understand, they sit behind desks, in a semi circle and have modern tools to hand, computers, phones, email to do what they are supposed to do, represent their constituents views.

When the Germans bombed the Commons chamber in 1942 there was a decision to restore the building brick by brick rather than modernise it, more recently another opportunity was missed. The recently completed Portcullis House was built in exactly the same style as Parliament itself, secure and closed - inward looking and private. A modern castle designed to keep it's occupants safe from the hoardes of peasants at the gates. What a pity the authorities didn't form a new light, and open debating chamber when they had the chance.

But the fabric of the structure is less an issue than the activity that goes on there. Because of the raw anger against almost all sitting MP's I have a feeling that the next Parliament will have a record number of freshmen and women taking their place. A new Parliament made up of a majority of new MP's might just be able to bring itself to modernise the practices of the place in a way that no Parliament has done for nearly 200 years, in the process proving to a sceptical public that what happens there is important and relevant to their lives.

I hope so because change has to come. Whatever happens to Speaker Martin this week, whatever they current House decides to do about expenses, mere tinkering at the edges is not enough.

2009-05-17T16:10:00.003Z

Expenses Row. Why did no-one act earlier?

I have been watching the slow car crash that is unfolding before us that is the expenses scandal.

As MP after MP finds the grubby details of their domestic shopping and furnishing habits splashed across out national and local newspapers they trot out the same lame excuse 'it was a rotten system'.

Well it wasn't as if they didn't have plenty of opportunity to change things. Some of us have been telling them it's rotten since 2002.

After the rules were radically overhauled (read that as 'made much more generous') by the newly re-elected chamber in July 2001 my then MP Michael Trend came to see me. I was, at that time, the Chairman of his local Conservative Association in Windsor. He wanted to discuss using the new allowances to improve the constituency operation which, at that time, was run entirely on donated and privately raised funds, about £500 per month of which came from the MP himself towards the costs of work done by our staff on his non-political constituency business. Using what he told us was a new office costs allowance Micheal said we could enjoy the benefit of having another full-time secretary on site, £12,000 towards the costs of the office premisis and a new computer system all on the taxpayer.

However it quickly transpired that he intended the new secretary to be his wife, a proposal which was immediately vetoed by all of us on the management committee, because we felt it could create intolerable pressures if there was ever trouble between the MP's wife and our long-serving agent Jackie Porter and also because it was a practice we all found unacceptable .

This led to a deeper curiosity about how the new rules worked, we were frankly curious about some of the claims Mr Trend was making for the new system and noted that the Government payments would replace the voluntary donations he traditionally made from his own resources. In short, we smelled a rat.

Weeks of wrangling went by as we tried and tried to get legal clarification as to what the rules were - and to be honest we never did. The green book, any record of expenses and the rules were all still completely secret to non-parliamentarians at that time and we were invited merely to accept the advice of hour Honorable Member, whom we suspected had a hidden agenda. Every time we raised questions about how lax the system appeared to be we were fobbed off or even more often told it was basically none of our business.

Two things then happened which broke our trust. One, we were told that the MP had been employing his wife ever since the new rules had come in and two, we found out that he was trying to force his long-serving veteran Parliamentary Secretary to retire from her job, which she did not want to do.

This was in August, the very month when I was in the process of being selected for the job of PPC here in Torbay. Although none of us imagined I would be selected for the first and only seat I had ever applied for we did agree that if I was, I would hand over the chairmanship to my deputy David Hilton and he then took the reins in September.

As some people may remember within weeks of this details were leaked to the Mail on Sunday of Mr Trend claiming for a second home when in fact he lived and commuted from his house in Windsor.

There was an emergency executive, at which I urged members to take a hard line. The Conservative Party was still only five years on from the sleaze of cash for questions and this scandal would, in my view, have gifted the seat to the Liberal Democrats if Mr Trend were allowed to contest the seat in 2005. Others agreed and when the mood of the local party became clear the MP voluntarily agreed to stand down.

His defence was 'but everyone does it' - and not one of the people in that committee room believed him. How wrong we were!

From that point on I have been a vociferous, public and frequent critic of the whole expenses and allowances regime at Westminster. Every time a scandal has been uncovered, about MP's employing their wives, about MP's claiming for non existant homes, about MP's using our money to fund luxury lifestyles I have warned that the system needs changing before trust in politicians is fatally damaged.

Time and again I have askedMP's to be open, really open, about what they have claimed and what they have spent our money on most of them doggedly refused to do so.

Well as the truth slowly and painfully emerges I can see why.

2009-05-12T11:54:00.002Z

Who would want to be an MP now?

The expenses row seems to go from strength to strength as the general public find out what some of us have known for a while, the Westminster expenses system is rotten to it's core.

Complaining about it (and believe me, PPC's have been!) has got nowhere, the MP's have simply failed to recognise that the system they settled for in 2001 is wide open to accusations of corruption and abuse.

The essential problem is that most MP's believe they 'should' be being paid a lot more than £64,000. Way back in the mists of time the House agreed to link Members pay to a civil service grade to avoid unseemly accusations of gravy train activity; but then every time the civil service review board recommended a pay rise it was politically inconvenient, so MP's voted against.

Many MP's now privately believe they would be earning nearer £100,000 - and the allowances have become a convenient way to make up the difference.

It's dishonest, if MP's believe thay are worth £100,000 then they should stand up and defend it openly, not hide behind expenses and hope to get away with misleading the public.

Now the whole lot of them are tarred. I went to a wedding this weekend and all anyone said was 'I bet you are looking forward to getting a place in the trough' - and who can blame them for thinking this?

I cannot see any way that this discredited House of Parliament can sort this out and restore public trust. We need an new election, and freash mandates for every MP and then the new Parliament needs a bonfire of the expenses, and not just the housing costs - MP's have appointed themselves a huge staffing liability with some MP's having four or five members of tax paid staff -this is madness, when several MP's manage with one good PA.

It's all got to go, the communications allowance, the office costs allowance, the postage allowance, the IT allowance, the first-class travel, the central London parking costs paid for, the curtains and the CD holders.

Only by proving value for money for itself can any future Government call on the rest of the civil service and public sector to take care of our money.

2009-05-03T09:54:00.001Z

It was 30 years ago .....

The 3rd May 1979 was a watershed in British political history, not only the first women PM but the first time in a generation that the direction of political travel changed.

Since before WW1 the country had been travelling steadily leftwards, regardless of the political party in charge. The role of the state in society has grown exponentially after the two world wars, to the point by the 1970's that most people felt things had gone too far.

Mrs Thatchers government was ground-breaking in several other ways, for the first time since Disreali the Conservative party adopted a political dogma - instead of being simply the party of the status quo we became committed to actively rolling back the state and taking Government out of whole areas of British life, car manufacturing, running airlines and telecoms businesses became once again things that people, and not Governments, did.

The BBC ran the election night coverage from 1979 in real time all day yesterday on the Parliament channel.

I did not watch all of it but even in the bits I did see several things became clear:
1) Labour - indeed no-one, had any idea that the Tories would be in office for nearly 20 years.
2) The men of the Left were marginally less keen on the reality of upcoming gender equality than the men on the Right.
3) Everyone looks old for their age.
4) BBC left wing Bias - perhaps journalistic left wing bias, was more obvious then than now.
5) The country was in a worse condition then than now - and yet people seemed less aware of how bad it was, compared to public opinion today.
6) “Who” mattered a lot less than “what” in peoples minds when voting.

But the big lesson for me from 1979 is not the result, it is the quality of politicians and the calibre of their debate.

We absolutely have to restore a functioning democratic debate based on issues and competing solutions if democracy is to have a purpose - and for the population in 2040 to look back and be able to be see a relevance in the 2010 election night.

Too much of modern politics has become about spin and presentation, threats and intimidation about what the altenative might mean, challenging the integrity of one's opponents and digging dirt rather than an honest debate about alternative visions.

That is another, less welcome, Thatcher legacy. New Labour didn't invent spin they simply refined it to a new level.

2009-04-28T08:36:00.002Z

Welcome back Kevin...

In a plot line that the scriptwriters of Dallas would be proud of Kevin Carroll is back at the helm of the Conservative Group at the Town Hall barely seven months after being voted out of the job by the narrowest of margins.

Having discovered that they have the power to sack him at will I am glad that the councillors have also discovered that he also their best choice for the job, someone who clearly has the leadership qualities that they need.

Much of the goings-on at Castle Circus look daft to the outside world and this twist probably adds to that appearance; but as I have posted on here before much of this is connected with the local political system adjusting to an entirely new form of local Government.

The leader of the local Conservatives in Torbay is not the leader of the group, it is the mayor Nick Bye who is directly elected. The councillors on all sides have grappled with the implications of this power shift for two years or more - and many still don't fully get it, particularly on the Lib dems side.

The role of councillor is changed in the mayoral system - and their chosen leader has to be the link between councillors and executive, a role that is closer to chief whip in the Parliamentary system than leader of the council under the old system.

Kevin is well suited to the job, and he knows I wish him well.

2009-04-26T22:53:00.000Z

Is a Lib Dem revival underway?

I reproduce a chart from Anthony Wells' excellent ukpollingreport website showing all the poll figures from every polling organisation since the last election.

Two things strike me as interesting about 2009 to date, the catastrophic drop in Labour support and the recovery in support for the Liberal Democrats.

Nick Cleggs leadership had not been giving the Lib Dems the bounce they might have hoped for. With all the usual caveats - Lib Dem vote shares being lower in the polls than in elections, - Lib Dems always do better during an election campaign than the other parties -etc, the Lib Dems have been struggling to maintain mid teens throughout most of last year which suggested a very dire General Election performance indeed, perhaps halving their representation at Westminster.

However so far in 2009 their polling averages have picked up markedly, late teens at least, which would be enough to preserve maybe 40 existing Lib Dem MP's and gift them a score of new ones from Labour.

The polling suggests that Conservative support begins to top out at around 45% and any further loss of Labour votes seems to be transferring to the Liberal Democrats.

Could it be that we will see at least one poll this year that has the Lib Dems scoring higher than Labour?

2009-04-23T08:31:00.004Z

Budget Day.

Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

If you drive a car - I'll tax the street;
If you try to sit - I'll tax your seat;
If you get too cold - I'll tax the heat;
If you take a walk - I'll tax your feet.

Written by George Harrison in 1966 - revised version by Alistair Darling in 2009.

2009-04-22T16:41:00.001Z

Dumb Politics.

My opposite number in neighbouring Totnes, Liberal Democrat PPC and councillor Julian Brazil, has found himself 'in trouble' following allegations that he bullied a council officer and breached a national code of conduct.

He faces a potential six-month ban from representing the people who freely elected him if he is found 'guilty' by the non-elected Standards Board, a situation I think is grossly undemocratic regardless of the political allegiance of the councillor concerned.

At best the very expensive Standards Board has become little more than a way to slur opponents and at worst it risks crushing democratic accountability which is why the Conservatives have pledged to do away with it.

Liberal Democrats will surely agree with my view that it should be for voters to decide if the behaviour of their elected representatives is to an acceptable standard or not. The Leader of the Lib Dems in Local Government Cllr Richard Kemp (pictured) certainly does.

He called for the closure of the Standards Board for England in February this year, saying "The standard of decisions that are made by officers inside and outside councils relating to standards issues is diabolically low ....Officers make arbitrary decisions based on a whim about what action to take in what circumstances."

So it was really dumb politics for Liberal Democrats here in Torbay to seize on a Torbay Conservative councillors recent one-month ban (for doing exactly the same thing as Mr Brazil is accused of) and plaster lurid headlines about it across their leaflets.

Either dumb, or shockingly Hypocritical.

At the request of the person who made them, I have removed some comments from the comment section.

2009-04-20T10:43:00.005Z

New Labour - The Goodwill gauge is empty.

The Easter weekend has been extra-ordinarily bad for the Government in general, and the New Labour project in particular. For weeks the papers have been hammering away at MP's and cabinet members in particular for mean-spirited and in some cases very questionable expenses claims, culminating in the Mail openly accusing a serving British Home Secretary of being a thief and a liar and challenging her to sue them (she hasn't).

The bank holiday weekend then opened up with revelations that Gordon Brown has employed a man who spends his tax-paid time concocting made-up slurs against senior Tory MP's to anonymously spread them round the internet. This was bad, but the further revelations about the nature of the slurs enraged the press and led to an avalanche of further stories from senior Labour figures who said that they, too, had been the subject of attacks and innuendo from the same 'hit squad'.

A lot of my non-political friends wonder why this story has qualified for day-after-day coverage for two weeks, the reason is that it exposes the squalid core at the centre of the New Labour project for the first time. One of the main complaints about the New Labour project has always been that it relied too much on the dark arts of rubbishing enemies and not enough on having a decent plan to run the country. They have been rightly accused of being stuck in opposition mode ever since 1997 - relying on spin rather than substance.

Not only that but it has re-opened the old wounds between the Brown camp and the Blairites who always complained of dirty tricks against them when this lot were working for the Chancellor in his ten years at the Treasury.

And this morning the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson as good as called Ed Balls a liar for playing down his relationship with Damian McBride; it is obvious that people at Gordon Browns right hand were in this mess up to their necks - Labour would do well to remember with Watergate it was the denials and the cover-up that cost Nixon the White House, not the bugging of his rivals.

The reason this is all very important is that the public are scathing of politicians who they think are more worried about their own jobs and careers than with running the country properly. The Government have suffered a humiliating collapse in their poll support just weeks after the world's media were being told that Gordon Brown had saved the world.

Watching Labour deteriorate into an unseemly scrabble for the post-election job of leader of the opposition while Britain slowly becomes once again 'the sick man of Europe' is frustrating and depressing.

Sadly we have another year of this to go.