How do you sell something you wouldn't buy yourself ?

Whenever I have been canvassing, I have always seen signs on doors saying "We do not buy or sell at this door", or "No canvassers". These people require special thought and some local knowledge before I decide whether to knock or not. If I do, I stress that "I'm not selling", which is a statement of fact whilst also being a little bit untrue, as I am in fact trying to sell the idea of voting for me, or a colleague. The main thing is that I believe in the thing I am selling. I think that is key to any good sales job, that you have to believe in the product you are selling.

So how on earth does Simon Hughes sell a policy to students that he himself did not support ?

Simon is in real danger of making himself look like a fool by choosing to take on the job of promoting a policy which the government have singularly failed to sell to the electorate and to students in particular. It may well be the case that what was passed is better for students than what went before, but this should have been explained and made clear by government. By palming off this job to Simon Hughes, they make the task of Simon holding on to his seat at the next election extremely difficult indeed.

The big issue for me, if I were a student, is how on earth could I be convinced by a policy when the person selling the policy to me didn't support it himself ?

Again, our party is made to look like a bunch of hypocrites. We had half our party break a pledge on student funding a month ago, and now those pledge breakers seek to drag down someone who did keep to his pledge.

Is it any wonder we sit at 8% in the opinion polls ?

I could certainly go canvassing for support for myself in 2010 as I believe in what I am selling. However, I couldn't bring myself to canvass for "the party" in 2010, after all, how can you sell a product you wouldn't buy yourself ?

The local government straight jacket will make roads worse

At the moment, snow, ice and generally dreadful weather are causing havoc across the country. For many people there is a feeling of "What are we paying our council tax for when our roads are not even gritted ?"

Of course, local councils cannot be expected to keep our roads open in the very worst of weather conditions, but the straight jacket the government are forcing on to council from next year, with deep cuts in budgets will only make thing worse.

Philip Hammond MP, the Transport Minister, was suggesting this morning that government, industry and councils might need to consider investing in equipment and infrastructure to ensure that we are better able to cope with bad snow and ice in the future. But how does he think councils will pay for this with a reduced budget ?

There is an argument that people will tolerate council tax rises if they can see the benefits from it. But even that is not an option with council tax levels frozen (poor choice of word) for the next two years.

So we can expect more of the same in future as councils are effectively forbidden from investing in new technology or forced to cut social services or other vital areas in order to get our roads cleared.

The one thing the government does have some credit for is the way they are dealing with ridiculous Labour attacks on them. The government inherited the mess from Labour and the roads were certainly just as bad last year in the bad weather under a Labour government.

Have the police got nothing better to do ?

THIS story is yet again, another shocking example of how the law works in favour of criminals and against ordinary law abiding people.

You will note that the two men who were attempting to break in to the building "were not charged".

How about bringing charges against the people attempting to break in to a building rather than spending three months trying to get evidence against a disabled man who did nothing wrong ?

I bet Ed Milliband is less than impressed

The former Labour defence minister, Bob Ainsworth, has called for the decriminalisation of all drugs, in a move that is likely to incur the wrath of the Labour leadership.

When I studied in Coventry from 1994-97, I lived for a short time in Bob Ainsworth's seat, and he was called by political types I knew as "bloody useless Bob". He never impressed as Defence Minister, and it appears a short spell back in opposition has done nothing to improve matters.

Well done Boris

I rarely give praise to Boris Johnson, but he deserves it for THIS action he has taken.

It's clear that FIFA are utterly corrupt, preferring to talk about the evils of the English Press rather than questioning why in Russia journalists are murdered for speaking out against the government.

Let's ensure Mr Blatter never sullies these shores again, and if he does, let's make sure he's paying for the privilege.

The government just doesn't get it - Why are the middle classes ignored or assumed to be rich ?

As a means of winning over wavering Lib Dem MPs, the government is supposedly offering the possibility of students from poorer backgrounds the possibility of having their tuition fees paid for a year or two.

My simple response is, what about the middle classes ?

An 18 year old who has middle class parents earning £22k a year each (above the limit at which the government would have students repaying their loans) are no better off than students from poorer backgrounds. These middle class parents are not rich, they have no large disposable income, and they certainly do not have the money to bankroll children through university. But because these parents are not categorised as "poor" their children will have to pay out more in fees over three years than either of their parents earn in a single year.

The whole debate over tuition fees has seen the Lib Dems stuck in a ridiculous rut constantly arguing how Vince Cable's proposed system is fairer for the very poorest students, but totally ignores how unfair it is on those whose parents are not poor, but not exactly rolling in cash.

The thought of having £27000 of debts would almost certainly have put me off going to university, and it will have that effect too on many other children who are not loaded, but simple make ends meet.

An object lesson in getting your facts straight before posting to a blog

John Redwood has written what he probably thinks is a witty and topical piece about British industry in the wake of the failure to win the 2018 World Cup. He seems to think the 2018 World Cup bid failure is metaphor for Britain not selling things abroad in general. However, he undermines his whole argument by totally failing to have understood what the England 2018 bid was all about.

John Redwood states

What had happened to our market research? Such a brief meant either we should not compete, as it was not for us, or it meant a different vision for any UK bid. Why didn’t our bid concentrate on how we would spread the word, sell the tickets and the passion around the globe and make the World Cup relevant for countries without a great football heritage? Why didn’t we offer to  harness some of the future  huge UK Overseas Aid budget for football related projects in poorer countries as a central part of the bid?

Erm, now I was highly confused by Mr Redwood's statement. Having seen the presentation from England, it was clear that a fundamental strand of the England bid was the "Football United" project. Since England's bid required such a tiny investment due to the fact that the infrastructure is already in place, England had decided to invest in a worldwide football investment fund, Football United, which would spend as much money as Fifa does worldwide in investing in coaches, facilities and equipment for developing football in parts of the world where that investment would make a real difference.

So in short Mr Redwood, England had done their "market research", England had offered exactly what you suggested they should have done and exactly what FIFA required.

The only problem is Mr Redwood is that you either ;

A) Didn't bother to read what England offered
B) Didn't bother to watch England's presentation
C) Didn't bother to do any (market) research

Oh dear Mr Redwood !

How much does a political website cost ? More than £3000 ?

I note from the publishing of parliamentary expenses that my local MP has charged to taxpayers £3167.67 in respect of his website. The money was paid to a company called ButterMountain who seem (from their website) to exclusively do websites for Conservatives.

It strikes me that this is hellishly expensive, especially when compared to the rates Lib Dems can get from a company that offers a similar service to Lib Dem MPs and councillors.

The interesting thing about the company "Butter Mountain" is that they are very difficult to get information about. They have a basic website that gives no address or fees or explanation as to who the firm actually is, but what is clear, from Tory expenses returns, is that they do seem to charge a very high end price for a product which to me, appears is no better than other providers offer for much less.

Perhaps the parliamentary authorities should not just be publishing expenses claims, but also ensuring that MPs are getting best value and not giving too much money to companies that could appear to be charging a premium rate for a fairly standard product.