Norfolk Blogger

According to the Telegraph the riots are all down to teachers

2011-08-10T16:14:00.002+01:00

I was left open mouthed, but not entirely surprised this morning when headlines started coming in that a teacher had been in court for looting. As a teacher myself I tweeted that I hope this person would no longer be able to work with children, and that I hoped they would be properly punished by the courts. It is now known that the person in court is not a teacher, but works with children at a school. This did not, however, stop David Hughes, a man who is apparently the chief leader writer for the Telegraph publishing on his blog an absolute rant against the teaching profession.

This is what he wrote

A teacher is charged with looting – why am I not surprised?

By David Hughes Politics Last updated: August 10th, 2011

57 Comments Comment on this article

One’s capacity for shock has been rather depleted by the events of the past few days but a riot-related item this morning did manage to raise the eyebrows. The BBC is reporting that the first person up at Highbury Magistrates Court on looting charges was a 31-year old school teachernamed Alexis Bailey. She pleaded guilty to being part of the looting of the Richer Sounds store in Croydon. If this is what teachers get up to, is it any wonder that children have been queuing up to ransack shops? It prompts the question of just when was it that schools stopped punishing theft and instead started turning a blind eye to it? You can date this profound shift to the time youngsters started to heave all their books in and out of school each day in gigantic rucksacks because they could not leave them in their desks in case of theft. The difference between right and wrong became blurred. Before the change, theft was severely punished in all schools: teachers would come down like a ton of bricks on any light-fingered pupils. Then for some reason they simply threw in the towel and told children to protect their own stuff because the disciplinary system could not. Such moral ambivalence has helped spawn the rampant criminality that has had us all so transfixed.

One wonders how such an ill educated fool gets to be a chief leader writer for a national newspapers when virtually everything he has written is either rubbish, or if true, largely been done not because teachers have asked for it but because governments have sought to impose it, in and in the main that has been Tory governments.

Note his main argument that

You can date this profound shift to the time youngsters started to heave all their books in and out of school each day in gigantic rucksacks because they could not leave them in their desks in case of theft.

So breaking down his argument, this stems back to when children have to take their books around with them (and home) and the end of each day, in case of theft. So we are talking about after school hours, in evenings, at night ? In essence his claim is that the fault is that teachers failed to protect schools after school from thefts and break ins. Is that a teacher's role ? If so, what an utterly ridiculous argument.

Many people on the left have sought to blame the riots on cuts, EMA and tuition fees. They are wrong, as can be clearly seen by the type of people going before the courts.

But equally the right are wrong to turn to their usual targets, which as we've seen since Michael Gove because education secretary, always seems to involve attacking teachers.

Now you can't access the blog any more written by David Hughes, but you can access the cached version HERE.

Next time David Hughes writes about education, remember what he wrote and see what his real agenda is, which is basically to blame teachers for the nation's ills, even riots.

Is Lib Dem education policy simply "Let Michael Gove do what ever he wants" ?

2011-06-26T16:11:00.000+01:00

The Lib Dems were for many years seen as having the most sensible and well thought out policies on education. Be this pledges to cut class sizes, a commitment to reform key Stage 2 SATS, a properly thought out policy on higher education funding and, [particularly under the stewardship of the excellent Phil Willis, the brilliant former Lib Dem education spokesman who stood down from parliament in 2010, teachers felt that there was someone who understood the problems in the education system.

So what the hell has happened to this ? Where has the Lib Dem influence of education gone since May 2011 ?

We all know the debacle over tuition fees. and irrespective of whether it is fairer or not, the failure of the party to get the Tories to admit that it could be called a "hybrid graduate tax", which would have got the party of the hook with many voters, showed a total lack of influence over education policy the Lib Dems have.

Of course the party nationally like to raiser the "pupil premium" as a Lib Dem successs, ignoring the fact that this was in the Tories manifesto also, so can hardly be hailed as a policy which the Lib Dems won as a concession from the Tories.

Since May 2010 all we have really seen on education is a succession of rants from Michael Gove, almost always seeming to put down the teacher profession, make threats, and tell us that what we are doing is wrong and can only be solved by creating new academies or free schools. On top of this if you work in Key Stage 2, the government arbitrarily put up the schools targets just weeks before the SATS tests. No reason was given other than that it was to raise standards. If Gove really thinks that raising targets without allocating any new funds will raise standards then he has no idea of the real world.

Yet even today, the teaching profession is being told that if we strike on Thursday, it could "Damage teachers' reputation". No Mr Gove, you've been doing that all by yourself for the last 14 months by constantly criticising the whole profession.

I'd love to see or hear a Lib Dem MP come out and offer an alternative narrative to the one put out by Mr Gove, but sadly we seem to have no influence whatsoever.

Danny Alexander - SHUT UP !

2011-06-18T23:03:00.002+01:00

In the local elections in my part of the world we (the Lib Dems) highlighted a regular concern that people have that the local Tory Council see consultation as a process to be gone through in name only and after the decision has already been made. Nobody in their right mights would consider it to be consultation or negotiation when the person leading these talks has already made his or her mind up. SO WHY CAN'T DANNY ALEXANDER SHUT UP !

He is doing exactly what people dislike most, and he is doing it over and over again. Watching an old episode of "Have I Got News For You" tonight, they talked about Danny Alexander leaking figures of how many public sector workers would lose their jobs, and for the last 48 hours Danny Alexander has been going around like the worst type of Tory MP telling anyone who will listen to him that the public sector "Will have to accept ...". Where the hell is the negotiation Danny ?

Since when has the Chief Secretary of the Treasury had to speak to the press so much ? In previous government's the Chief Secretary has been a background figure, but no, in this coalition, Danny Alexander has decided that he wants to be the hard man, the face of the cuts, as if people are going to somehow reward or credit him. Stop seeking publicity for doing unpopular things and get back to doing your job for the sake of the of us in our party who remember when we were here to do Lib Dem things, not the Tories dirty work !

At a local level I am proud of what the Lib Dems do to represent local people in their wards and county divisions in Norfolk. But the way some members of our party behave in government, and don't even got me on to the subject of education where Michael Gove comes up with increasingly stupid comments and ideas by the week, whilst the Lib Dems say absolutely nothing, is nothing less than shameful !

Why David Laws should NOT return to government

2011-05-15T10:07:00.001+01:00

There are many who like to think that the ills the Lib Dems are suffering will, in some way, be fixed by a returning David Laws being thrust back in to the political front line. They are wrong.

Firstly, we should examine what David Laws is like.

I know people who know David, and they tell me he is extremely quit witted, he "gets it" very quickly, and is a real talent. this any be true, but as a voter, and outsider, I view David as an intellectual and bright, but not charismatic or exciting in any way shape or form. Would his return excite the electorate ? Would it er-energise the Lib Dem vote ? I very much doubt it. I think Charles Kennedy might, but not David Laws. So lets kill the myth that David Laws will somehow revive our electoral fortunes overnight.

There is, of course, the argument that having David Laws in cabinet will somehow make the coalition more than what it is, and will then given the Lib Dems credit. The truth, as we've seen, is that the more successful the coalition is in any given area, the Conservatives get the credit, and the things that the public despise are blamed on the Lib Dems. To say "We need him back" is also to say that one of our cabinet members is not up to the job. I'm sure the Tories would love to see Vince or Huhne go, after all, they are providing the only credible opposition to the Tories whilst Nick Clegg has been utterly useless in providing any liberal vision or future for the party.

But for me, the most important reason for David Laws not to return is the simple fact that he showed a total lack of judgement in what he did over claiming for a second home owned by his partner. Last year in the general election we rightly claimed that we were the party who were the cleanest on expenses, how we had called for reform and more rigour in the system whilst Gordon Brown did nothing, and we mocked the Tories for continuing to back those friends of David Cameron who had been caught with their hands in the expenses till.

How could we face the electorate if David Laws returns to cabinet ? Forget that he did it for "personal reasons to protect his private life". He is a wealthy man, he didn't need to claim second home expenses, he didn't need to claim above the market rate, and he could have claimed on his Yeovil home, not his partner's London home. There were numerous ways he could have protected his private life without having to fiddle his expenses, but he chose none of those options, which stands in stark contrast with the perception the party hierarchy has that he is an intellectual who will find solutions to the problems we face a a party, as a partner in coalition and as a country.

The public will not thank us if we bring David Laws back, they'll probably hate as more and we'll get tarnished further as a party that cannot be trusted to keep its word. What do I think will happen ? I think Nick Clegg will bring him back next year because the Tories want him back. Of course they do, it will make us look silly and they will get the benefit of any successes he may achieve in government. but whatever the Tories want, Nick Clegg gives them.

Throw a stick. Go on Nick, fetch boy, fetch !

One year on, what have we done ?

2011-05-08T18:18:00.001+01:00

Twelve months of Lib Dems in government, and what has been achieved in the areas of policy that really matter to the public ?

Many senior Lib Dems and those who are regularly wheeled out to defend the party like Evan Harris and Simon Hughes, together with the uber loyal blogs and websites that defend the party at all costs, read out a long list of achievements which are, in truth, utterly unimportant to the man on the street or the voter on the doorstep.

Having just gone through a local election campaign as a sitting councillor, I thought it a good idea to summarise the arguments and issues that people wanted to talk about on the doorstep.

Forget arguments of presentation, style and spin. The fundamentals are that we have failed to deliver anything concrete ourselves that people can genuinely say will make them vote Lib Dem.

Education
Free schools (a Tory policy), a pupil premium (again Tory policy) with little in the way of new cash, and the pointless bashing of schools with thee arbitrary raising of floor targets for Key Stage 2 SATs, with no rational reason given to schools why targets would be raised JUST 8 weeks before the SATs tests. the cuts in school sports funding, which were ill thought out, are already biting deep.

Further Education
Budgets for 6th Form colleges under pressure. Less places available, EMA scrapped, no Lib Dem achievements.

University Education
Tuition Fees raised (Tory Policy). No acheivements for the Lib Dems to crow about.

NHS
Reforms announced that are neither supported by the Lib Dems or the medical profession. Hardly looks good to suddenly notice you have a policy that is hated by everyone except the Tory Party.

Local Government
Extremely difficult cuts for many council, rather easier cuts for many Tory councils.

Defence
Although left a legacy of stupid purchases by the Labour government, it seems odd to be cutting conventional forces like aircraft carriers when there is a real need for them at the moment, whilst keeping the option of a Trident replacement on the table (again, a Tory policy).

Tax
Whilst some of the poorest have been taken out of taxation (the only Lib Dem success that anyone told me about on the doorstep), this is balanced against the rise in VAT which the Lib Dems campaigned against last year. Are those shouts of hypocrisy I hear ?

Deficit Reduction
We argued last year that if we cut too fast and too deep, it would damage the economy and might cause a double dip recession. The fact that we have abandoned this view and backed the Tories deeper faster cuts cuts no ice with voters. Those who support this policy give credit to the Tories. Those who oppose it blame the Lib Dems.

Voting Reform
We got a referendum on a system we didn't want, looked silly for backing AV which we didn't like, then lost anyway. Stupid, hapless and incompetent.

Overall
We treat politics like a debate at the Oxford Union and in doing so treat the electorate like fools. The party cannot keep blaming style or bad publicity for the public's failure to give us a pat on the back for our role in the coalition. The public GET what we have done, we should not take them as fools. The truth is, voters in the main, don't like it. The only ones who do like what we are doing, which in essence is to be a Tory Party lite, are Tories, and why should they go for the lite version when the normal full version of the Tories is available ?

Tories desperate to save their fall guys

2011-05-08T12:19:00.000+01:00

Iain Dale writes on Lib Dem Voice today an article that attempts to point the way forward for the Lib Dems in the wake of catastrophic election results. Sadly, despite the fact that Iain is actually a rather nice guy, he fails to understand the problem, and his solutions are very much what is best for the Tory Party, not the Lib Dems.

Vince Cable, who has long been on Iain's list of Lib Dems who need bashing, comes in for some tribal abuse from Iain. The fact that Iain then brings up a quote from a campaign manual from more than a decade ago, long since abandoned, but still copied and circulated as a truth by the Tories actually serves to highlight the very point Vince Cable was making about the Tories.

But where Iain really loses is is his view that the Lib Dems need to stick with the coalition. The need to join was to avoid a Greece style meltdown. This has been avoided, so the need for the Lib Dems to remain has gone. Iain says we face the prospect of the Lib Dems losing many MPs if we walk away from the coalition now. What he does not say is that if we go now, we lose. But if we wait four more years, we take all the flak for the Tories, allow them to pick off our council base, degrade our ability to campaign and show our independence, and by the time 2015 comes around, we will be in a worse state, whilst the Tories will be strengthened.

Iain's final analysis that the Lib Dems position would improve by bringing back David Laws his hopelessly at odds with what I found on the doorsteps in March, April and May. Iain likes to quote canvassing in Norfolk. I can assure Iain that bringing back a discredited right wing Lib Dem who has long been suspected within Lib Dem ranks as being on the extreme right wing of the party (admittedly though still to the left of Iain), is not what people want on the doorsteps of Norfolk.

What people told me is that they want those who broke promises to stop lying, apologise and for the Lib Dems to once again develop a back bone, which was so obvious in the Iraq war.

We do need to re focus and decide what we stand for, and what we want to be as a political party because we have abandoned our voters. Tories like this government, and as I warned a year ago, why should anyone who likes the government vote Lib Dem ? If they like this government, which is essentially a Tory one with a little Lib Dem garnish, they just need to vote Tory, You don't order a meal because you like the side salad, and that is what we are.

Nick Clegg is political poison. I turn the TV off when he comes on because he makes me want to shout at him. When he was in Norwich a couple of weeks ago, I told Lib Dems I would NOT like an invite to his meeting for fear I would say what I think of him.

The Tories love him, he's their fall guy. The fact that Tories are coming to his defence is reason enough to know we are not doing the right thing.

Let's stop referring to us being damaged by "an anti government protest"

2011-05-07T21:40:00.000+01:00

I heard Evan Harris on Radio 5 earlier referring to us suffering as the party of government being punished by the electorate because we are making unpopular decisions. I read on the internet that we are suffering "an inti government backlash".

Let's stop glossing over some basic facts.

This is NOT an anti government backlash.It is an anti Lib Dem backlash. The Tories, who LEAD the government MADE NET GAINS ! This excuse, parroted by Lib Dem MPs on TV and radio does not hold water.

The simple truth is that Tory voters like what the government are doing, so will back the Tories. Our voters don't like what we are doing because it is, in the main, not what our voters want.

Abandon our principles and we abandon our voters. Learn the lesson and learn it fast.

Wake up and smell the coffee

2011-05-07T19:10:00.002+01:00

Yesterday, I made the point that I predicted the Lib Dem meltdown 12 months ago. So I'd like to summarise, without links, what my arguments were last year.

1) Junior coalition partners always get punished without PR
I made clear that we would be the Tories scapegoat, we'd take the flak , and the Tories would get off scot free. In that, I've been proved right. The argument people gave last year was that "Of you believe in PR, then you believe in coalition". Indeed I do believe in PR, and accept that this may lead to coalitions (but not in Scotland), but by having PR, the smaller party gets some protection, and a guarantee that they will not suffer electoral wipeout. That's a prospect we are facing more and more, and delaying the inevitable for four more years (at which point we'd be several thousands councillors down, and many activists long gone), merely delays our recovery.

2) We won't get AV
I said we wouldn't, and we didn't.

3) People will no longer trust us
Most of the things that made people want to vote for us, our concerns about raising VAT, our clear view that cuts shouldn't be too fast so as to damage the recovery, and our opposition to tuition fees, have all been trashed. Taken with our opposition to Trident and new nuclear power, the things that really made people want to vote for us, have largely been abandoned.
We need to forget all the spin about "75% of our manifesto pledges being in the coalition agreement", if those 75% were the bottom 25%, not the top 25%. People voted for us because of the big marquee headline policies, not the ending of child detention. However, noble that might be, nobody has ever told me they voted Lib Dem because of their party's pledge to do that.

4) The Tories can't be trusted
I was told I was too tribal for suggesting it. Not even Vince Cable agrees.

5) We didn't need to go in to a coalition
I made the point that a minority Tory government was viable and could work. See Scotland for evidence of this where the SNP obviously made a good fist of things.
If it was an imperative to get the markets to see there was some stability, now we have avoided a Greece style meltdown, we can surely withdraw from the coalition ?

In truth, the coalition is killing our party. We are going to lose activists, lose thousands more councillor, and will by the time we are thrown in to oblivion in 2015, lack any ability to rebuild in many constituencies.

Nick Clegg is a total liability. For every person I canvassed when I stood for election on Thursday who liked the coalition (usually Tories), I found 10 who didn't, and Nick Clegg's name is mud and he has no credibility with the public.

For the sake of our party, we MUST end the coalition and Nick Clegg must go.

Sadly I've been proved right on the coalition

2011-05-07T00:35:00.000+01:00

I wrote last year that we wouldn't get AV. I was right.

I wrote last year that we would be the whipping boys, taking the pain for the Tories. I was right.

I don't like always being right.

Semi Retirement

2011-04-10T08:16:00.000+01:00

I've simply got to much on my plate to blog. I started blogging a few months after stepping down as a councillor in 2007 as a way to keep my hand in politically. But since being elected in March of last year as a councillor on Broadland District Council, I simply do not have the time or inclination.

I certainly won't be deleting this blog, but updates will be very rare from now on.

Thanks for all the comments and interaction with so many people.

Government moving the goalposts ? Fair ? Liberal ? Principled ?

2011-03-07T23:15:00.000Z

Primary schools have found out in the last few days that their targets for this year's KS2 SATs tests are to be upped by 5%, just a few weeks before the tests are to actually take place. Anyone with any common sense would accept that waiting until just 8 weeks before the tests is a ridiculously late time to change school targets, but that is not the worst of it.

In know there are some target nuts who think that by raising targets schools will suddenly achieve more, but that assumes that teachers, or anyone for that matter, only respond to targets and actually don't care about doing the very best job they can anyway. Changing my target at school wont make me do more for the simple reason that I am already doing as much as I can. Nobody actually becomes a teacher for an easy life, but the government seem to think we do it to meet targets, not to teach children.

But for many schools, and this is the real kick in the teeth, the government have not only changed this year's targets, they have also backdated the targets, meaning that schools who achieved their target last year are now being written to and being told that they have not achieved their target after all because the government have backdated the new target to last year's results.

Considering the SATs tests last year were carried out the week after the General Election, there will many people in the education sector, and society as a whole, we will be wondering if they can backdate and retrospectively change their vote. I doubt the government would see this as fair, so why is it okay for them to do this to the education sector ?

What a shambolic government response

2011-02-25T14:36:00.000Z

The problems in Libya have been brewing for several weeks, so what has happened in the last few days should be no surprise, yet our government, has shown itself to be utterly useless in its response.

The UK government decided to hire a plane, that was broken, then their utter failure was compounded by the fact that a UK oil company beat the UK government in getting a flight out to Libya.

Meanwhile, whilst all this is happening we have a Prime Minister peddling arms dealers around the Middle East, and a Deputy Prime Minister (where are you Mr Clegg) who was on holiday ! Couldn't they see this coming ? We all could !

And if you read on the BBC website you can see stories from British nationals holed up in remote desert bases, many of which have airstrips, saying that they have contacted the UK government, their families have contacted the UK government, and nothing is being done.

Of course, perhaps we could have sent an aircraft carrier, if we had one with aircraft on it. Ooops, another government mistake !

Useless, utterly useless and shameful.

Worst road repair ever ? - How Norfolk County Council fix the roads in Taverham

2011-02-16T22:00:00.000Z

This road “repair” was done by Norfolk County Council outside the police station in my Taverham North Ward in Thorpe Marriott.

Rather than doing a proper repair, all the bits of broken road were simply put back in the whole like a jigsaw. The “repair” was broken again within days. Is this what we pay council tax for ?

I wonder if they fought over who put the last piece of the jigsaw in place ?

I highlighted how the MPC got it wrong last time. Will they learn their lesson ?

2011-01-18T18:19:00.000Z

I'm going to show off a bit here, but I wrote, at length, three years ago about how the Monetary Policy Committee were totally wrong to keep raising interest rates before we went in to recession, in a fruitless and bizarre attempt to bring down inflation. As I wrote in June 2008

"Inflation has today risen to 3.3% from 3% last month. This is 1.3% above the government's target and is 1.2% up on last year. However, in the Monetary Policy Committee's own report they state that 1.1% of the 1.2% inflation rise in the last 12 months is down to rises in electricity, gas, petrol, oil and food. In effect, the MPC admits that the rise is because of a rise in the prices of the basic necessities of life and not because of extravagant spending.

So why are the MPC talking up the prospects of having to raise interest rates again ?

It is an absurd situation that an economy which looks to be heading for a recession might be tipped over the precipice because the MPC might raise interest rates in order to stop people spending money on luxuries when the MPC's own figures show that only 0.1% of the rise in inflation is down to spending on non essentials."

And before that in April 2008 I highlighted the total folly of raising interest rates when I explained

My circumstances are that our three year fixed rate mortgage comes up in the Autumn and it will mean an increase of around £100 per month to out mortgage repayments. Yet if you look at my pay rise for the last three years added together I am now earning just about exactly £100 a month more after tax than I was three years ago. Meaning I will have effectively had three years worth of pay rises wiped out.

Now multiply this across the country, with millions of people's fixed rate deals all coming to an end and more and more people having to pay more for their mortgages, and what's more, tying themselves down to a set rate for three or five years. In effect, this means that we are not only going to see a recession in this country because of the effect of people paying more for mortgages (to pay for houses that will be dropping in value), but the system ties people in to paying recession prices mortgages for some years to come, thus stopping the cycle of money that might kick start a growth out of recession.

So where are we now ? Inflation has risen to 3.7%, because of "rising fuel, energy and food prices". Its June 2008 all over again. Will raising interest rates and removing money from people's pockets stop people buying food, fuel and energy ? Of course not, they are basic essentials and not excessive consumer spending.

Will the MPC have learnt a lesson from 2008 ? You'd hope so, but some of the same clowns from 2008 still sit on the committee, so I wouldn't put it past them to make the same mistakes again.

Will Ed act or will he posture (again)

2011-01-16T21:45:00.000Z

Ed Miliband has criticised unions for threatening to strike on the day of the Royal Wedding.

My question for Ed, since he's trying to woo Lib Dems (and if there is any leader who is as ill suited to wooing as Ed Miliband, I've yet to see them), perhaps he could tell us when he will break Labour Party links with those Unions, should they go ahead. Will he ask his MPs to leave the ASLEF group of MPs, should ASLEF go ahead with their strike, and will he fore go any money these unions would wish to throw the way of the Labour Party ?

After all, we would all like to know that Ed Miliband actually backs up his words with action.

The sad death of Margaret Davie

2011-01-09T22:24:00.000Z

I was saddened to learn of the death of Margaret Davie, a former Broadland Councillor, school teacher, and fine Lib Dem councillor for Spixworth from 1993 to 2002.

Margaret taught at Hellesdeon High School for many years, and was a school governor of many local schools. She was elected in 1993 in a by-election in August 1993, an election which saw me take charge for the first time of designing leaflets for a campaign. Margaret won by about 160 votes, and was then re-elected the following year by over 400 votes (she asked me to be her agent, and it was certainly a proud moment for me to steer a campaign that won by such a big margin, but also a very easy campaign, because in less than 12 months Margaret had built up a massive following and showed just how good a councillor can be.

In 1998 Margaret was re-elected, but she stood down in 2002 to pursue other interests, with a particular fondness for raising money for animal charities at the top of her list of good deeds.

Margaret's funeral will be in four weeks time (yes, that's a shockingly long time to wait, but there is a shortage of trained pathologists in Norfolk !) She will be missed by many people.

Keeping regressive taxes, scrapping progressive ones

2011-01-09T17:13:00.000Z

David Cameron announced today that the regressive rise in VAT, which hits the poorest hardest will be kept, but the progressive 50% tax rate for high earners (something that was for many years a Lib Dem policy) will be scrapped as soon as possible.

What does it say about this government's priorities that taxes that hit the poorest worst will be kept but the rich will be given more money back ?

Proud to be a Lib Dem ?

2011-01-07T19:14:00.000Z

Not a day to feel proud of this government.

Today the government announced plans to privatise and sell off vast tracts of the country by selling off Forestry Commission land. In addition to that, the Public Accounts Committee announced that the "culling" of the QUANGOs had no value for money criteria in the decision making meaning that closing many of these QUANGOs will cost us more, and in some cases duties and money previously in the hand of QUANGOs that were at least accountable to parliament, are now in the hands of private organisations that are unaccountable to the electorate.

Not a day to be proud of being a Lib Dem.

No, I'm not going to Oldham.

Saying one thing on Flu when in opposition, doing another when in government

2011-01-03T18:05:00.000Z

The Tories (and let's not forget the Lib Dems) are the government of the day, but have learnt nothing from the swine flu pandemic of last year and have allowed flu to become a problem again this year when it could so easily have been dealt with.

I blogged last year that I thought the Tories were showing some good common sense on flu, asking important questions. The problem is, now they are in power, they have shown that this was all flannel, intended to garner coverage in the press, and that they meant none of it.

The level of infect amongst under fives is 184 per 10,000. It is classed as an epidemic if the figure reaches 200, so we are only just short of epidemic levels within this age group. yet can you get your under five vaccinated against flu ? The answer is no you can't.

This government, like the last one, has a ridiculous policy of refusing parents the option of getting their under fives vaccinated unless they are in an at risk group. What this ignores is that under fives are an at risk group !

The government only believe you are at risk as an under five if you are suffering from an underlying medical condition. But this list of underlying conditions is very selective, as we found out last year when out asthmatic two year old was told by the doctors that he had "the wrong type of asthma", so was not entitled to a swine flu jab. So on 23rd December 2009, my son came down with swine flue, and what followed was a pretty awful week of timetabled pouring of Calpol and Calprofen, in rotation ever three hours, in an attempt to reduce his sky high temperature whilst keeping him properly hydrated.

So what happened this year ? He was refused a flu jab, because at the age of three, he is not "at risk".

Why doesn't the government offer jabs to any child under 18 whose parents want them to have it ? Because it wants to save money.

Why didn't the government advertise the flu jab campaign this year ? Because it wanted to save money.

Why are people dying needlessly this year from flu ? Because the government want to save money.

This government know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

Let's end the discrimination against the English

2011-01-03T13:11:00.000Z

As a party, the Lib Dems are supposed to want to make Britain a fairer place. Perhaps 2011 is the year the party could start this by addressing the discriminatory way in which the English are taxed and charged in comparison to those living in parts of the countries with devolved governments.

If you live in Wales, you children won't pay for University tuition fees like English students will, similarly you won't pay for prescriptions and I, as an English license fee payer will see certain services that I enjoy on the BBC cut in order to fund your Welsh language channel (which most Welsh people watch).

If you live in Scotland, you too won't see your kids paying the tuition fees my children will pay, whilst your government provides more doctors and access to services which we in England don't get.

Northern Irish people apparently pay no water bills, I was shocked to hear this week, whilst again, your devolved government ensure that Northern Irish people received benefits we in England do not get.

Now there will be those who will jump in and immediately see what I am writing as an attack on the Northern Irish, the Scots and Welsh. It is not. What I am doing is pointing out that it is the English who are more highly taxed but receive the least back. We are the discriminated against majority.

Let's see the Lib Dems in government tackle this in the same was as the party has become obsessed with stopping control orders on potential terrorist suspects.

Perhaps the obvious answer to this is that we need and English parliament.

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

2010-12-30T09:23:00.000Z

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

2010-12-20T12:53:00.000Z

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 ?

2010-12-18T12:18:00.000Z

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

2010-12-16T07:21:00.000Z

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

2010-12-05T16:24:00.000Z

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 ?

2010-12-05T12:09:00.000Z

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

2010-12-04T16:56:00.000Z

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 ?

2010-12-03T18:52:00.014Z

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.

How have the party let this happen to Simon ?

2010-11-27T21:07:00.000Z

Neil Woollcott gives a very accurate summary of a letter he received from Simon Wright MP this week in his blog, but I really want to know how the party has come to put Simon Wright in this position.

I should declare that I consider Simon a friend. I went to his wedding, he came to mine. I've know him for 9 years and whilst I disagree with the coalition, I have always felt in the past that Simon shows good judgement. I feel though that at the moment, he is losing public sympathy over the student fees issue.

The policy on tuition fees has not changed or been overhauled in the last week, so the fact that Simon is yet to make a decision has allowed the opposition (and Labour in Norwich are already doing door to door campaigning it and using) to paint Simon as a ditherer. People like politicians who can pick up issues and make decisions. We don't want politicians to rush in to wrong decisions, but with this policy being clear to read and subject to virtually no amendment, students might be forgiven for feeling that lobbying hard to make Simon stick to his pledge is actually a worthwhile activity.

The quandary for Simon now is, if he sticks to his pledge, he looks like he has caved in to the student campaigns. but if he votes with Nick Clegg he looks like he has caved in to party pressure and can almost certainly kiss goodbye to any chances of holding his seat in 2015.

For me, the question is how party managers, both whips and those in Cowley Street have allowed this to happen. With 10,000 students in Norwich South, this issue will be a defining issue in Norwich South at the next election. The party and senior MPs should have found a way very early on to allow Simon to stick to his pledge. It is shocking mess that the party has become some under the thumb of the Conservative Party that they have failed to recognise the problems Simon faces.

Simon was my ward colleague in Fakenham North in 2003 to 2007. He is honest, decent and thoroughly like able. He will always try to do the right thing, and the fact that the party in the run up to the general election allowed, indeed encouraged people like Simon to sign a pledge that Nick Clegg himself says was unrealistic, is, I believe why Simon is still undecided. Does he stick to a pledge that was, in hindsight silly, or support a policy that is better than the previous Labour policy, but still a real slap in the fact for students.

If I were Simon, I'd say stick to your pledge. In the meantime, whilst he decides, his reputation amongst voters will sadly suffer, in my view unfairly. How has it comes to this ?

Unbelievable selfishness

2010-11-27T20:39:00.000Z

This morning three of us in our road went out and with shovels and brushes and cleared snow from the whole of our road. We cleared the driveways of some of the more elderly in our road and did the good neighbourly thing. I am obliged to my neighbours apposite and adjacent to me for the sterling efforts they put in.

Despite all our hard work, the road that leads to ours, which is on something of a hill, had seen no efforts from locals to clear the road. So again, we did it and cleared a driveable route through the road, clearing most snow on at least one side of the road, and then put down some salt and grit grit.

We assumed because there is a grit bin at the bottom of the hill, leading on to the main road, that people down that end of the road would, at the very least, put some grit down and ensure the ice at the bottom would be melted.

An hour or so later, I walked to the shops. walking along this bit of road, and saw someone filling up a bucket of grit from the grit bin. Good, I thought to my self, he's going to clear the bit of road that is outside his house that was, by this time, sheet ice. However, upon my return from the shops I witnessed that he had in fact laid down all this grit, from the public grit bin, on his own driveway (and it was thick with grit and salt in piles) but not put one single bit on the path outside his home or the road.

Big society ? Some people don't even do the basics of helping their neighbours or showing common sense when it comes to helping out on a snowy day.

Losing the education vote

2010-11-26T20:52:00.000Z

A whole plethora of education policies has been foisted upon us this week, and you might expect that at least one of the policies, even one small chunk would garner some support within education circles. Sadly not.

In each and every sphere of education, tried and tested ideas, policy backed by evidential proof, has been axed or scrapped to be replaced by a succession of politically inspired dogmatic policies based on only the evidence of Michael Gove's eyes.

When challenged on the radio about the comments that Ofsted made about the successes and achievements of university based teaching courses, something Mr Gove wants to axed, his response was "I haven't seen that evidence". Instead, he was basing his policies on what he has seen himself.

Again, the Lib Dems like to make out that they have "toned down" the Tories in government, yet I see nothing in Mr Gove's polices that are there because of Lib Dem influence. Instead, I got another email from the Lib Dems banging on about the "pupil premium" again. The Lib Dems are falling in to Labour's trap of re-announcing the same policy over and again, whilst ignoring the fact that the pupil premium was also a Tory policy.

In truth, if the Tories had wanted to reform education they could have reformed Ofsted, turning it back in to a proper inspection system instead of an operation in ticking boxes.

The lack of anything Lib Dem, and the apparent capitulation of the Lib Dem party in allowing the Tories to get total control of education policy (whilst quite ridiculously a Lib Dem MP sits as schools minister), has lost the party many votes from people in education.

Let's ban these referees who want to be the star of the game - Yes Michael Oliver, I'm talking about you !

2010-11-13T18:56:00.000Z

Having watched Norwich City be robbed this evening by a 25 year old "fast tracked" referee, who isn't fit to ref a Sunday league pub game, you have to ask what is wrong with the way referees are trained that this man is refereeing a Championship football match.

What was a competitive, but one sided match, was turned on its head by an abysmal decision by Michael Oliver, England's youngest top flight referee, to send of Norwich striker Grant Holt, and in turn see a 3-1 Norwich lead quickly turn in to a 3-3 game, with a dubious penalty given to Reading to aid their cause.

After this game, who are we talking about ? The ref. Well done Michael Oliver. You're the star, You must be very pleased when in truth you should hang your head in shame !

At least Nick Clegg has been exposed for what he is

2010-11-11T18:57:00.000Z

A few months ago, in the wake of the ~~capitulation~~ coalition agreement with the Tories, I said in an interview with Gavin Esler on the the Today programme on Radio 4 that "Nick Clegg has made us look like liars and fools".

At that time I felt it to be true, and I still do because within days of telling people that the Tories would be a disaster, how only the Lib Dems would oppose a rise in VAT, how only the Lib Dems would oppose further nuclear power, how only the Lib Dems would oppose a rise in tuition fees, we sold out on these policies for the chance of a voting system our leader publicly criticised, and a few other scraps from the Tories table.

So for the last few months I have been an embarrassed and ashamed Lib Dem given the way Nick Clegg and his cronies have hailed every Tory policy as a Lib Dem triumph (an example of this was seen again in the weekly email Nick Clegg sends out), whilst ignoring the fact that policies claimed as Lib Dem successes are peripheral to most people (voting reform), do not reflect party policy (privatisation of the Royal Mail) or were in fact policies in the Tory manifesto anyway (the pupil premium).

I have felt personally to blame for misleading people in my area when I delivered so many leaflets hailing what the Liberal Democrats would do in parliament. I felt the policies were good. I was told they were costed. In short, and call me deluded, I believed what Nick Clegg told me. But today, I have some hope of redemption. Nick Clegg told ITV regarding his broken pledge to students that

"You need to be careful. I should have been more careful perhaps in signing that pledge at the time. At the time I thought we could do it."

If I am putting my own spin on this statement, it appears to me that he is saying he was foolish to sign it. Or in hindsight perhaps he was an idiot to sign it ?

Either way, it's not me who was the liar and fool.

Labour MPs defend and stand by a liar found guilty in court

2010-11-09T18:28:00.000Z

What do the electorate make of Labour MPs in "rebellion", as it was put by one reproter today, because they feel the Labour Party should have stood by Phil Woolas, the labour MP stripped of office for being found guilty in court of spreading lies about his opponent ?

It's a ridiculous decision for Labour MPs to make that they feel the electorate want them to stand by someone found guilty in court.

Don't let the next generation pay for our mistakes

2010-11-07T19:32:00.001Z

Yes, that's a phrase used over and over again by coalition MPs to justify their deep and excessive cuts.

So why is it that the next generation are the ones being asked to pay for our mistakes ?

If we weren't making the next generation pay why is funding being cut to High Schools who are PE academies ? Why is funding for School Sports Co-Ordinators (SSCOs) being threatened ? Why is funding for studying at our of school study centres being cut back ? Why are news school building programmes being halted ?

We all accept that some cuts are necessary, but can we please stop all the rubbish about protecting education, and saving the next generation from suffering. Most schools I know about are having severe budget cuts, and the ones who are suffering are the children.

New government, same old bull.

The coalition is picking on the wrong targets for cuts

2010-11-05T17:26:00.000Z

I was very lucky this week to have gone along to the Norwich City Football Club Study Support centre to see 10 children I teach get presented with awards for the extra work they had done over a series of weeks at the study support centre. This centre, attached to Norwich City Football Club, is linked with the football club, but is funded in the main by central government money, with the aim of targeting children who need extra support in an environment which is exciting, and providing them with real life tasks and practical activities.

The children I teach had been asked to design a new product for the club shop. They spent a lot of time in the club shop, asked employees what sort of things sold well, did some work on pricing, and came up with a range of ideas. They then designed a product, explained how it would be used, came up with a marketing campaign, and then pitched it in a Dragons Den style to the club shop manager and other staff.

The whole process was exciting for the children and very beneficial to their education.

So the big question is why on earth is their central government funding being taken away ?

Across the country hundreds of thousands of children have benefited from this extra support at various sports clubs, ranging from football and rugby clubs to indoor ski centres. Yet despite this extra curricular boost children are getting being supported, it is to lose its funding from next year.

Yet again, the short sighted and ridiculous cuts the coalition are pushing (far too quickly) are affecting schemes that do genuine good for very little money.

Why even Labour supporters should be (and are) applauding Woolas losing his seat

2010-11-05T16:16:00.001Z

Phil Woolas has today been found guilty of knowling telling fibs about his primary opponent at the last general election. A special court met and found that he told lies and that he knew them to be untrue. So why on earth did Mr Woolas then say

"It is vital to our democracy that those who make statements about the political character and conduct of election candidates are not deterred from speaking freely for fear that they may be found in breach of election laws”

Is Woolas so stupid as to to be unable to tell the difference between knowingly telling lies and asking legitimate questions ?

Does Mr Woolas think free speech means you can slander anyone you want ?

Can he not see that you can win an election by reporting facts ?

Remember, Mr Woolas fought the 1995 by-election in Littleborough and Saddleworth, as most of this seat was previously known, using a caricature of his Lib Dem opponent as a druggie.

Peter Mandelson, who ran Woolas' campaign in 1995 said “After the campaign was over, not only our opponents but some in Labour would denounce our ‘negative’ tactics in highlighting Lib Dem front-runner Chris Davies’ support for higher taxes and a Royal Commission to liberalise drugs laws. For tactical reasons, I felt we had had little choice.”

Lord Mandelson went on: “Labour was starting from third place, and especially in a by-election, the bulk of Tory tactical voting was always going to flow to the Lib Dems. If we were to win, we would have to make that option as distasteful as possible.” That “highlighting” of those views on drugs led to the memorable slogan that Mr Davies was ‘high on taxes and soft on drugs.’

In another Labour leaflet they led with the story "By-election latest: Lib-Dems drop candidate after drugs vote.”. This story actually related to a candidate in Winchester and had nothing to do with Oldham.

In the same election, the Daily Mirror distributed a special edition for free within the constituency, with plenty of pro-Woolas material in it. Ironically, this was later found to have broken election law, although prosecutors decided it wouldn’t be in the public interest to pursue the case.

In d double dose of irony, Mr Woolas claimed in 2005 that Lib Dem opponent Tony Dawson was "unfit" to be an MP because he claimed that the Lib Dems had altered a photo that appeared in a leaflet. This was never proved and the Lib Dems denied that this had happened. Yet this was one of the charges made against Mr Woolas in 2010, and was something that was proven in court.

It only takes a short visit to http://www.politicalbetting.com/ to see the comments from Labour supporters who welcome the court's findings. Many ordinary Labour voters have found the campaigning from Labour in Oldaham to be distasteful and counter productive. There is a line which many people in politics push against, but few so blatantly step over it (although I feel the Dr Death leaflets distributed in Oxford West and Abingdon - not by Labour - in May 210 against Lib Dem Dr Evan Harris were equally as shameful).

I know some are arguing that this is a pointless by-election because Labour will easily hold it. This may be true, but more important than this, it gets rid of Woolas. I would argue that any new MP would be an improvement on Phil Woolas.

Labour will also be pleased of a by-election which will highlight their objection to the coalition's policies so far. A bad loss too for the Lib Dems would put down a marker to those Lib Dem MPs who have become too obsessed with the trappings of office rather than being Lib Dems.

Perhaps the one question mark is over Ed Miliband. You do have to ask, with the court verdict yet to be heard, and knowing the way Woolas had won his seat, why was he appointed to the Shadow Cabinet ?

What do you have to do to have "succeeded spectacularly" ?

2010-10-30T01:04:00.002+01:00

I am something of an anomaly in the Lib Dems. I don't support the coalition and I am no fan of the EU. So David Cameron's capitulation to the Eurocrats today came as a ruther disappointment o me.

Apparently, according to David Cameron, he "succeeded spectacularly" when he managed to negotiate an increase in UK payments to the EU of £450m a year. It does make me wonder what else he might describe in such terms.

Presumably England "succeeded spectacularly" when getting hammered by the Germans 4-1 in the World Cup.

I would love to read your suggestions as to what else David Cameron use the term "succeeded spectacularly" to describe.

Where is the Lib Dem influence when it comes to DLA ?

2010-10-27T11:17:00.001+01:00

We have read much in the last few days about how the benefits system, is about to undergo a radical overhaul. What we are just starting to hear about though is the poor way in which this overhaul will be delivered.

The last government (yes Labour people, that is you) started to look at disability living allowance (DLA) and made the system, "tougher" on people. This toughness though was done on the cheap, with non medically trained people doing one hour assessments on people on DLA to ascertain whether they were entitled to continue claiming DLA. Quite how a non medically trained individual can make an assessment on someone's mental health by following a tick box approach to checking claims it beyond me.

On Radio 5 this morning they were discussing this issue, and focussing in heavily on Burnley, an area that will be targeted by the government to see how many people can be got off benefits and back in to work.

The fact that Burnley is something of a unemployment blackspot and is hardly fertile ground for a jobseeker at the moment is by the by for the government. So focusing in on Burnley they reported that of those people being denied DLA and other similar benefits after a one hour interview, hundreds were appealing their decisions, with 85% of people winning their appeals. Apparently there is a backlog of over 300 people awaiting their appeal to be heard.

According to Radio 5, the appeals involve seeing a proper doctor, with a full and appropriate examination, followed by proper questioning and a removal of the tick box approach to checking the claimant. One caller said the initial one hour interview had seen her score just three points, well short of the fifteen required to claim the allowance she was one. When she went to an appeal, she scored nineteen points !

My question is, surely we have a Social Security Minister who can do something about this issue ? How on earth can we have a system where 85% of people who appeal have been wrongly labelled as fit for work when they are clearly not. How can we have a system where non medically trained people are making medical judgements on the health of individuals ? In short, where is the Lib Dem influence that Nick Clegg and other lovers of the coalition keep going on about, because if this is happening and we are supporting it, then nobody should be proud of the coalition.

No road improvements for Taverham this year - More potholes on the way ?

2010-10-24T14:24:00.000+01:00

The planned road improvements and resurfacing that Taverham was promised a few short months ago by Norfolk County Council has, sadly, been delayed until the next financial year at the earliest, because of an "overspend" on other projects.

Parts of Taverham and Thorpe Marriott have not had their roads repaired or resurfaced for since they were built (twenty years ago) and the roads are literally disintegrating across the whole of my council ward. One more bad winter and the costs will be even higher for the repairs.

I know we are in difficult financial times, but it will not save money to delay the road repairs until next year, it will, I am certain, cost more due to the rate at which the roads are deteriorating.

When out campaigning with one of my key helpers, Carole Ward, the other day, she commented as someone who runs their own business, that if the County Council were a business it would go out of business due to its overspending and wrong priorities when it comes to spending money. I couldn't help but agree with her.

I wasn't go to vote in the Lib Dem Presidential elections until ...

2010-10-22T23:32:00.000+01:00

I wasn't going to vote in the Lib Dem presidential elections until I saw the Tim Farron video linked to below on Paul Walter's blog.

I have voted now and I have voted for Tim. I urge you to watch the video too.

Wrong priorities for a councillor ?

2010-10-22T23:25:00.000+01:00

There are a few occasions as a councillor when you are torn between doing your council work or doing your job. There are times too when family issues take precedence. However, there are other drains on our time which really ought to come second, on each and every occasion, to doing your council business.

So I was bemused to hear about a councillor in Norwich who put party politics before council business recently.

When Norwich City Council were meeting to discuss the mess left after Connaught collapsed, leaving 320 employees in Norwich out of work and a big question mark over local services in the City, one senior Labour councillor was apparently at the party conference, not in the council chamber defending Labour's actions over awarding the contract to Connaught.

I guess if you are desperately trying to get selected as a parliamentary candidate, attending party conference means you tick the right boxes with your political masters. But it should raise a few eyebrows amongst the electorate who don't hold politicians in high regard at the best of times.

Having their cake and eating it over the BBC

2010-10-19T18:39:00.002+01:00

The Tories have got their way and emasculated the BBC by forcing through what will be a 16% fall in funding over the next six years whilst ensuring that the cost of minority channels like S4C are now paid for by License fee payers across the country, not just Wales.

So where will the BBC gets it money from in order not to become a second class broadcaster ?

There is a simple answer to this. BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial make a very good profit each year, helping subsidise the BBC. But whilst the BBC makes money from BBC worldwide, those very MPs who so want to see the license fee cut are at the same time calling for BBC worldwide to be sold off.

Ridiculous.

Schoolboy error in spooks

2010-10-18T21:32:00.000+01:00

Can you spot the schoolboy error in Spooks tonight ?

Where on earth is Stanstead ?

Do governments and councils ever realise the market value for their assets ?

2010-10-18T19:59:00.001+01:00

On a report on the BBC East "Inside Out" programme tonight they featured the number of councils locally who own high value number plates, some estimated to be worth several hundred thousand pounds. The presumption of the article was that in these difficult times, councils ought to be selling these private plates, in order to cover the deficits councils are now facing.

I am no lover of council frivolities, and would certainly back the idea of councils selling off high value number plates. However, the "Inside Out" story also highlighted the poor value for money that council's sometimes get when the fail to understand the market in to which they are selling.

The example of Essex County Council selling their "F1" number plate was shown as a massive undervaluation of the number plate. Just two years ago Essex County Council got around £400,000 for the plate. The owner of this number plate has, in just two years, seen the value of this plate go up by more than 1000% with him reportedly turning down a bid of £5 million.

You would have assumed that it might be realised that an "F1" plate not only attracts interest from people who's names start with "F", not only people who want a plate with "1" in it, but also people who have any interest in Formula One racing. Whilst I am sure Essex County Council did everything by the book, did they achieve best value for council tax payers ? It appears not.

But it is not just councils who show a total lack of understanding of the value of an asset. The sale of Qinetiq, the defence and IT contractor, sold off for tens of millions of pounds less than its true value by the Labour government is a classic example of government failing to know the market value of an important public asset. Whilst almost every privatisation handled by the Thatcher government saw a small fortune thrown away meaning taxpayers missed out so that speculators could main a quick buck.

I'm all in favour of review of what council's do and own, and feel that councils need to become much better at their core services and worry less about peripheral activities and owning expensive assets and artwork which give no benefit to taxpayers. But lets see councils and government getting full value for assets, and if it means holding on to some assets in the short come so as not sell at a low point in the market, then I would support that. But council must show more common sense in their actions, and so must the government.

What is the point in becoming credible if you lose your credibility by breaking promises ?

2010-10-17T10:16:00.000+01:00

Those who support the coalition argue that perhaps the greatest thing about it from a Lib Dem point of view it makes the party relevant, shows that we can be a party of government, and that voting Lib Dem puts Lib Dem policies on the statute book.

These points are all well and good if you then use your power responsibly. However, there is a real danger that by voting and supporting tuition fee increases, the party may destroy this credibility in one fell swoop.

The party cannot argue "A vote for us is a vote for our policies" , when in truth, when we get in to government we actually legislate to introduce policies we pledged to oppose.

If I lived in a Lib Dem held seat, I'd find it very difficult to vote for any Lib Dem, even if they were my MP, if they voted to break a pledge made before the election. Many Lib Dems will not forgive the party for the line it is taking, the voters too will rightly question what out party stands for. The only people that can save the party from the abyss is the 30 or so back bench Lib Dems who can keep their promise and vote against Vince Cable's suicidal plan.

We can all argue that "the country is in a financial mess left by Labour", and this is the excuse constantly given by Lib Dems in the government. But when it comes to student fees, we knew the score, and an assumption must have been made back before May this year that this policy was a line in the sand, an issue the party would defend at all costs.

Quite how the party got to the position that a large number of our MPs are supporting raised tuition fees is ridiculous. But what is absolutely incredible is that those negotiating with the Tories allowed a Lib Dem, in the person of Vince Cable, to be the minister introducing this policy.

Only a bunch of fools could possibly have arranged for the Lib Dems to get a cabinet position we wanted to abolish (Scottish Secretary), the Minister for Nuclear Power (Chris Huhne), Ministry for Cuts (Chief Secretary) and Minister for Tuition Fees (Vince).

All hail our negotiating team. Next election, if we have any MPs left, we'll get the Teletubbies to negotiate on the party's behalf !

Reason for starvation in Korea is clear - Someone ate all the pies !

2010-10-10T22:24:00.000+01:00

After a meeting of the leadership of North Korea, it was officially announced that Kim Jong-Un was responsible for the food shortages in Korea, and it was him who ate all the pies.

Why Lib Dem MPs MUST use power to show their pledges mean something

2010-10-10T10:04:00.001+01:00

Over 500 Lib Dem candidates at the General Election signed a pledge to the NUS to vote against any increase in fees for students. Now, in power, surely the Lib Dems will have no greater opportunity to show that having Lib Dems in power really means something.

It is easy for the Nick Clegg to argue that those of us who oppose the coalition deal with the Tories to claim we are oppositionalists, scared of power, but the reverse argument is true also. It can be argued that there is little point in holding power if you vote against your own pledges made in opposition.

How many students voted Lib Dem because they felt they could trust us ? How many of them will abandon us if we abandon our pledge to them ? Remember what Nick Clegg said to the NUS about increased student fees.

“We will resist, vote against, campaign against, a rise in tuition fees."

That's pretty unequivocal and cannot be misconstrued.

If it is the case that the coalition agreement does not allow for Lib Dem MPs to keep their pledges, then it is a very poor negotiated agreement. If the agreement does allow for Lib Dem MPs to keep their pledges to students, then now is the time for out MPs to show that we do not make shallow promises to the electorate that we have no intention of keeping.

New sign "blocked" by Parish Council

2010-10-04T23:41:00.000+01:00

I am extremely unhappy tonight, so much so that my emotions took over and I stormed out from a Parish Council meeting before I bust a gasket !

In my area, Taverham North, around 85% of the houses fall in to the area known far and wide as Thorpe Marriott. This area, which features on road signs, is not a separate Parish, but is known by taxi companies, local radio, and delivery firms far and wide as Thorpe Marriott, even if it falls within the Parish of Taverham.

The Thorpe Marriott sign, which was placed by a consortium of developers more than 20 years ago, is in a state of disrepair, and urgently needs some work. But try as I might to get a council interested in repairing or replacing the sign, nobody has been prepared to take responsibility for it.

So after many months of trying, I thought I should lead by example. I decided to negotiate a deal with a local signwriter to get the sign replaced, and I would pay for it myself.

You'd imagine the local Parish Council would be delighted wouldn't you ? But no.

At tonight's Parish Council meeting, the Parish voted to ask the householder (whose wall it sits on) to remove the existing sign, and voted to "stop", even though the have no jurisdiction over me, a new sign being placed. I was prevented from speaking despite the fact that I was the only person present who had spoken to the owner of the house whose wall it is fixed to, and despite the fact that I had further information that would have clarified a number of "what if ..." questions that were put against my offer, at no point was I allowed to address these points.

It seems ridiculous to those of use who get elected to get things done that when you want to do something positive you are prevented in doing so.

What are the Tories doing about high pay for Chief Executives Mr Pickles ?

2010-10-04T18:52:00.000+01:00

Eric Pickles spoke at Tory Party conference today about the fact that council chief executives should take a pay cut in the current financial climate, to ensure that they can look their workers straight in the face and share their pain. This would be a good message were it not for the fact the the Tories seem more willing than any other party to lavish large pay rises on to chief executives of Tory councils.

The leaders of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex County Councils, all Tory run, each earn more than £200,000 a year. The leader of Suffolk County Council, Andrea Hill earns £220,000 a year – more than the Prime Minister. Her salary is 18 per cent higher than two years ago.

But looking below the level of Chief Executives, Tory councils seem quite happy to splash taxpayers cash on large remuneration packages. Take the £182,000 for a council "head of communications", or Spin Doctor, as the Tory supporting Daily Mail described her role.

Perhaps though Mr Pickles own Tories in Brentwood and on Essex County Council could answer the question why their Chief Executive, who shares the roles of overseeing both these councils, is the fourth highest paid chief exec in the country ?

The answer given by the Tories when pressed on matters regarding high pay for officers in Tory run councils is that "you have to pay that rate because they save the council money through the efficiencies they make". The question is for Mr Pickles, is he calling these Tories liars when they make such statements ? For if it is, isn't it a false economy ?

Personally I cannot see why any chief exec should earn more than the Prime Minister.

No greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his brother for his own advancement

2010-09-29T18:38:00.000+01:00

If I were David Miliband, I'd have made the same decision he has today. Not from any sense of pride, but for other reasons.

The way David was knifed in the back by his brother, particularly in the way Iraq was dredged up over and over by the Ed Miliband team to attack his brother David was a low tactic. Anyone who believes Ed miliband would have acted any differently from David had Ed been in parliament in 2003 is surely living on a different planet. For Ed Miliband too to decry the last government, a government he was a minister in and one in which his brother was a leading light, stunk too.

To rip off a quote made about MacMillan, "No greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his brother for his own advancement"

Whilst I don't think it wrong that Ed stood against David, for Ed's team to attack David's decisions and record seems reprehensible.

Whilst we might all feel happy in our casual clothes ...

2010-09-27T22:47:00.000+01:00

I like a pair of jeans and a football top. I admit it. It's a fair cop. To me there is nothing more comfortable than jeans, my Adidas Samba trainers and a football shirt in which to potter around the house or, as I did for three years at University, to go out in or attend lectures. In short, I think most people feel more comfortable in their casual clothes.

What's this got to do with politics ? Stick with it and you'll find out.

In direct contrast to the football top, trainers and jeans, I sometimes have to wear a suit for important council meetings, very occasionally for work, or for a wedding. When I am putting it on, I don't feel that comfortable. I feel a bit awkward, in short, I prefer my jeans and football shirt. But when I've got it on, and pass a mirror, I take a sideways look and think to myself, hey, I'd but a car from that man !

Now call me vain, but I don't think I am much different to anyone else. Looking smart is less comfortable, but actually pays dividends in terms of the image you give, and the way you feel about yourself.

So what has this to do with politics ?

Looking at the Labour leadership, Labour appear to have gone for the jeans and football shirt. Ed Miliband is comfortable. He re-assures the Labour party that they still might be left wing. He allows them to forget Tony Blair and New Labour, he is in many ways, despite starting from some way back, the easy option.

David Miliband is, however, the smart suit. It feels less comfortable initially, but when you've got it on, people look at you and listen. Yes, it might feel a bit less relaxed, but it's impressive and people will nod at you in appreciated for the effort you've made. That is exactly what David Miliband is. He is the smart suit.

Watching the Milibands on TV today, one oozed class and sophisticated, one sounded nasal and looked like his clothes didn't fit.

Yes, it's a long analogy, but at the end of the day, the electorate don't want to vote for the jeans and football shirt. They want a suit, and the sharper and more made to measure the suit, the better. This was show in the period up to election day this May when Cameron, the sharp suit, was for some years taking the "sharp suit" vote until people suddenly saw Nick Clegg, the new sharp suit in town, and suddenly, irrespective of what he was actually saying, people were impressed. Yes, the Nick Clegg effect wore off to some extent, but it save the Lib Dems from a mauling and got Nick Clegg in to government.

Look too at Brown compared to Blair. Was Brown any worse ? No. Was he any less of an ego than Blair ? No. But his suits appeared not to fit, and he was the easy option for Labour, the only option for Labour. Brown was the pair of jeans and the football top.

I think Labour have made a dreadful mistake. Despite my natural antipathy to Labour, David Miliband, the smart suit, impresses me and other I know. Ed Miliband, the jeans, does not.

It doesn't matter how much money you spend on jeans, they are still jeans.

If you read all this, thanks for sticking with me.

How the BBC could save a small fortune without compromising programme quality

2010-09-26T22:23:00.002+01:00

I am a big fan of the BBC. Yes, it is hopelessly biased politically with the two years before the general election consisting of any story involving David Cameron instantly being the number one story of the day, but in general terms, the BBC raises the standard of TV programming and sets a benchmark by which we compare others. However, it is clear in the current climate that the BBC needs to cut its cloth according to the difficult economic times, and I have an idea where they can save a small fortune.

Trailers.

Take a look at these two recent trailers that have been aired on the BBC.

Each of them look like they have been created in order to enter the BAFTA Short Film prize at the BAFTA Television awards, but in each case, I can see no justification for the cost involved in creating these trailers.

This trailer for BBC weather, that's right, BBC weather, is a masterpiece in itself. Very stylised drawings, beautifully executed in every way, but it's clearly not been made on the cheap. Now if this was being used to promote a major new series, there might be some justification, but in order to make people watch a weather forecast ? Ridiculous.

There were others that I was not able to get on YouTube. Most notably the special effects laden trailer for the BBC Schools season, which features a boy in a spacesuit floating out of his house in to space to the sound of David Bowie. However, the biggest waste of time and money at the moment has to be the ludicrous trailer/advert for the BBC iplayer.

If you already know what the iPlayer is, this trailer will not make you use it. If you don't know what iPlayer is, then this advert does nothing to explain it. The trailer is self indulgent rubbish.

I don't object to trailers being made. The BBC trailer involving flying penguins made a couple of years ago was clever and provoked a good deal of discussion. But to make trailers that are this expensive in order to promote things that really do not need promotion is a waste of money.

Dubious Lib Dem blogs

2010-09-26T16:08:00.001+01:00

Whilst looking through the Lib Dem blogs aggregator today, I came across THIS rather unusual blog.

I am totally confused how a blog that is run by someone who voted for and canvassed for Ed Miliband can qualify as a Lib Dem blogger.

I note in particular the comment on one story which said

"I will still remain, for now, with Labour until it seems clear that there is another party that is more firmly rooted in the labour movement. I see it as the continuing story of enfranchisement of the dispossessed. Will there ever be a time when I sign up wholeheartedly for the Liberal Democrats? Perhaps, time will tell."

I have my issues with the coalition, but remain an active party member, campaigning for the party and staying true to the manifesto the party fought on. Yet somehow this blog now qualifies as Lib Dem

Answers on a postcard please ...

If the answer is Lembit Opik ...

2010-09-25T09:55:00.000+01:00

Its a much used phrase, but as a party we would have to ask ourselves if Lembit Opik is the answer, what is the question ?

If the question is who should be our London Mayoral candidate then the answer cannot be Lembit Opik.

It is important for any politician to be more famous for their work as a politician than their outside of work activities. As Iain Dale points out in THIS article, Boris Johnson has just about managed to do this. Whilst Boris has a shady private life and seems to find it difficult to remain faithful to his wife, he is more famous as a politician. He makes the headlines for the occasional gaffe, but they are political gaffes in the main.

Compare this to Lembit.

Lembit Opik was selected before the 1997 General Election for the relatively safe seat of Montgomeryshire with a reputation as a fearsome campaigner, a vibrant and sharp debater, and was seen as a future star within the party. But over the course of the next 13 years, he became a pantomime character, drawn, almost magnetically attracted to various celebrity partners, seemingly willing to appear in any old Z list celebrity TV show, in short, most Lib Dems I knew winced with embarrassment every time he appeared on TV.

And what of Lembit's parliamentary seat ?

Since ditching his weathergirl girlfriend, getting engaged to and then splitting from a Cheeky Girl, getting pictured in with various other models, appearing regularly on Ant and Dec with various other minor celebs who we'd long thought had left out screens for good, a majority of over 7000 votes was destroyed with the Tories winning by over a thousand votes.

This was one of the biggest turnaround in votes from Lib Dems to Tories in the whole country in 2010. Given that this result was massively different from other constituencies, it says that the main factor why people didn't vote Lib Dem was because of Lembit.

As I say, if Lembit Opik is the answer, the question is probably "Which Lib Dem MP appears to have spent too much time trying to be a a celebrity and being on TV whilst seeing his majority go up in smoke ?"

Don't criticise Tory policies you don't agree with ? Oh do shut up !

2010-09-18T18:39:00.003+01:00

Apparently we should show "responsibility" and not criticise Tory policies we do not agree with. Presumably turning the party in to liars who say nothing on issues they fundamentally disagree with and campaigned against just months ago is the price Nick Clegg is willing to pay in order for him to be David Cameron's best mate.

The preamble to the Lib Dem party constitution states

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

Obviously conformity is not an issue any more ?

If the party leadership's advice is to be followed the Lib Dems are consigned to political stagnancy, left only to trumpet policies our MPs and our leadership abandoned (STV, reforming prisons, mansion tax, etc) whilst being left impotent to attack the Tories in Tory seats. Ridiculous.

Let's stop trying to kid ourselves about what the Lib Dems have achieved as part of the coaltion

2010-09-18T11:09:00.001+01:00

If you are reading a Lib Dem press release, Lib Dem Voice or any number of Lib Dem MPs writing articles for the press this week ahead of the party conference, you could easily be fooled in to believing that the Lib Dems are responsible for the majority of what the new government has pledged to introduce. But the truth of the matter is that the Lib Dem influence is limited and strictly confined to areas of the government that do not affect the ordinary person on a day to day level.

Let's get one of the lies out of the way straight away. The "Pupil Premium" is not a "Real Lib Dem achievement", as Sarah Teather claims in this week's edition of Local Government First. It is a coalition achievement, but it is just as much a Tory achievement as it is well known and was widely published that the Tories supported the Pupil Premium. This policy would have happened with or without the Lib Dems being involved. It undermines the Lib Dems whole argument about the coalition to imply that the Pupil Premium wouldn't have happened without the Lib Dems.

I was interested to see a policy diagram that the Daily Telegraph produced before the General Election.

If you break it down in to what the Lib Dems have actually achieved from the yellow part of the diagram, the party has achieved just one of its policies. This being a partial move to a £10,000 income tax threshold.

If you look at the Orange area, the Lib Dems have achieved just one of these goals, with a fixed term for the next parliament. But in a major reversal, one of these goals, to continue spending until 2011, has seen a total about turn and this policy being abandoned. Nick Clegg likes to tell us that he knew that spending had to be cut earlier 10 days before the General Election, but it didn't stop the party putting out leaflets from Cowley Street warning that early cuts would lead to a double dip recession. This was the issue that made me feel back in May that we had been turned in to liars and fools by the way Nick Clegg had acted.

So in terms of what we have "added" to the coalition, it seems clear that we've achieved two things of note.

Some would argue that we've achieved much more because we are going to have a referendum on AV. Of course anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows AV is usually less proportional and was derided by Nick Clegg before the General Election. In AV the Lib Dems got a system them neither liked, supported or wanted. Much like the last prize in a raffle, its better than nothing, but only just.

The other policy trumpeted by Lib Dem bloggers as a Lib Dem success and reason to put out the flags and party is the ending of the detention of the children of Asylum seekers. However, the Lib Dems influence over this decisions was called in to question just a week ago with the announcement from Tory Minister Damien Green that the government would "minimise" child detention, not end it. Clearly when even our successes are reversed by the Tories, our influence on this government has been minimal.

We were told by the Lib Dem leadership that the Lib Dems would be a moderating influence on the Tory party, but a closer look at the Telegraph diagram of Tory policies shows very much the opposite.

In the blue and Purple areas of policy, those areas highlighted as being Tory policy not supported by the Lib Dems, the Tories have managed to introduce or announce
- A cap on non EU migrants
- Deep cuts in the first year
- Elected police commissioners
- Free schools
- Local referendums
- Toughen teaching qualifications
- Keep voting at 18
- National Youth Volunteer Service to be rolled out
- No cancellation of Trident.

What is galling for Lib Dems is that these policies are bitterly opposed by Lib Dems, but they are the sorts of policies affecting the police, schools and employment that affect people on a daily basis. They are to do with social policy and are visible policy areas, yet the Lib Dems are the ones saddled with voting and taxation. Where is the Lib Dems "voice of reason" toning down the Tories in coalition ?

The truth of the matter is that the Lib Dems have achieved very VERY little in government so far. A referendum on a voting system we don't really want and our one saving grace, a move towards a fairer tax system. But with the likes of Vince Cable already this week highlighting that the Tories policies are not working, where can the party go accept further down in the polls except down.

If people are to be convinced that the Lib Dems are making a difference as part of the coalition then the party and its leadership need to stop claiming credit for things the Tories would have done anyway and show what is happening that would never have happened under a Tory government. If it transpires that we are having no influence, then we should all ask the question, why are we in coalition at all !

Was the senior Catholic attacking the UK or multiculturalism ?

2010-09-15T16:46:00.000+01:00

I was a little surprised to see that a senior aide to the Pope has described Britain as "third world", with the Catholic Church trying to justify his comment as being about the UK's "multicultural society".

Either way, it is hardly the sort of comment we want to hear from the Catholic Church. When you imagine all the names that decent law abiding people who enjoy our multicultural society might want to say about the Catholic Church, it is probably as well that this aide to the Pope has suddenly developed severe gout that will keep him from our shores.

I am sure the Pope, a famously reserved and more circumspect man, will be much more polite and diplomatic and that his visit is a great success.

Ofsted seeking to please the government and offer cuts on a plate

2010-09-14T22:54:00.000+01:00

Ofsted did their usual today, producing another report which seeks to slam the teaching profession rather than point out all the good work that is being done. As a teacher I know that getting a child with genuine Special Education Needs to be registered as SEN and get a statement is like trying to jump through flaming hoops, it requires much work and effort, and is not the easy option. However, Ofsted instead chose to simply blame teachers and claim a quarter (a gross distortion) or pupils are registered as SEN incorrectly.

There are those that will jump on this straight away and use it as another stick to beat the teaching profession, but those people nearly all reside within the ranks of the Tory Party, and thus the whole Ofsted strategy is laid bare.

The fact is that when the government are asking for suggestions about where cuts can be made, the massively under performing Ofsted are prime candidates for a budget cut. With their tick box approach to grading schools criticised, an obsession with grading lunch boxes over learning, their lack of judgement in giving Haringey Council a clean bill of health just months before the Baby Peter scandal, backing poor teachers and numerous other examples, it is clear Ofsted is an organisation in need of reform. So a return to the Chris Woodhead style of Ofsted, attacking the teaching profession, blaming teachers, pandering to the right wing, is just the deal that might save them, and provide the ammunition the government are looking for.

Today's Ofsted report is just the sort of news the Tories want (forget what the Lib Dems want, those in government will toe the Tory line). It now gives the Conservatives an excuse to make it harder for children to be registered as SEN. It gives them a chance to impose cuts with Ofsted as their justification. In short, Ofsted has offered up SEN children as the sacrificial lambs to save their own necks.

Note - My own personal experience of Ofsted has been positive, but I am graded a "good" teacher, and my school is progressive and moving forward. I do, however, tire of Ofsted's "press release" culture, where they lecture the teaching profession through the pages of the Daily Mail instead rather than abandoning their tick lists and engaging with those who work in education.

Let Norwich serve as a warning to Nick Clegg

2010-09-10T22:41:00.000+01:00

The deferred elections in Norwich yesterday were clearly a great success for the Labour Party, and an unmitigated disaster for the Lib Dems.

It would be easy to put this down to poor campaigns, poor leaflets or a lack of organisation, but none of these things are true. I know that Norwich has a young, energetic, enthusiastic and well organised campaign team who know how to win (after all, they gained the parliamentary seat in May of this year), and these deferred elections saw in some wards our best campaigns for many years. Yet despite this, our share of the vote was down across the city. We missed out on winning in Lakenham, a ward we had won in for the last two years, and failed to hold on to second place in the ward we last to the Greens. But most worrying was the party slipping to 4th place in wards where the party had previously been the main challenger.

Just take a look at the results in Norwich compared to last year.

Norwich North Constituency

   Catton Grove

  2009 CC result - Con 724 Lab 606 UKIP 449 Gre 416 LD 257
  2010 City result - Labour 835 Conservative 650 Green Party 208 Liberal Democrats 135 UKIP 123

Analysis - Lib Dem vote almost halved. This was a Tory target (they hold all the other seats in the ward) and the candidate is also the county councillor for the ward (and also a district councillor in another borough).

  Crome

  2009 CC result - Lab 811 Con 712 Gre 518 LD 381
  2010 City result - Labour 1,085 Conservative 543 Green Party 199 Liberal Democrats 137 UKIP 100

Mile Cross

  2009 CC result - Gre 620 Lab 614 Con 547 LD 318
  2010 City result - Labour 797 Liberal Democrats 455 Conservative 266   Green Party 238 UKIP 90

Analysis - Lib Dem vote up on the back of a through campaign which in any other year would have seen this become a Lib Dem gain. Lots of Lib Dem posters up, lots of leaflets, canvassing, letters, etc. Disappointing for the Lib Dems given the campaign.

The funniest thing about this campaign is that the Greens slipped from 1st last year to 4th this year.

  Sewell

  2009 CC result - Gre 826 Lab 676 Con 553 LD 477

2010 City result - Labour 792 Green Party 604 Conservative 333 Liberal Democrat 168 UKIP 103

Analysis - A better Lib Dem campaign here this year than last, but the Lib Dem vote more than halved. A disappointment though for the Greens who failed to win this seat by some margin.

So the analysis of the Norwich North results shows Lib Dems down and actually polling less votes despite better campaigns.

Norwich South Constituency

Bowthorpe

2009 CC result - Con 926 Lab 670 LD 626 Gre 379
2010 City result - Labour 862 Conservative 816 Green 225 Liberal Democrats 184

Analysis - An absolute crash in the Lib Dem vote. There was a by-election here just before the 2009 elections which saw the Lib Dems almost take second place, which accounts for the good Lib Dem showing here, but this result speaks volumes.

  Eaton

  2009 CC result - LD 1688 Con 1501 Gre 527 Lab 351
  2010 City result - Liberal Democrats 1,356 Conservative 937 Labour 549 Green Party 431

Analysis - The only ward in Norwich where the Lib Dems run a proper local Focus on a regular basis. Regular leaflets, full canvass and local candidates do make a difference.

  Lakenham

  2009 CC result - LD 877 Lab 743 UKIP 437 Con 361 Gre 353
  2010 City result - Labour 899 Liberal Democrats 652 Green Party 608 Conservative 243 UKIP 113

Analysis - Lib Dems have gained this seat for the last two elections but fell some way short.

  Mancroft

  2009 CC result Gre 1123 LD 525 Lab 510 Con 315
  2010 City result Green Party 813 Labour 673 Liberal Democrats 371 Conservative 305

Analysis - This used to be a Lib Dem ward until 4 years ago. Lib Dem vote down significantly again.
  Nelson

  2009 CC result - Gre 2103 Lab 421 LD 420 Con 355
  2010 City result - Green Party 1,297 Labour 535   Liberal Democrats 198 Conservatives 186

Analysis - Lib Dem vote down, even on a lower turnout. This was a Lib Dem ward last held in 2002.
  Town Close

  2009 CC result - Gre 1528 LD 859 Con 716 Lab 476
  2010 City result - Green Party 983 Labour 560 Liberal Democrats 550 Conservatives 479

Analysis - Taking in to account the turnout was down by one third, the Lib Dem vote still fell. This ward had a really good Lib Dem campaign and a great candidate. But we slipped to third !

  Thorpe Hamlet

  2009 CC result - Gre 1371 LD 620 Con 573 Lab 406
  2010 City result - Green Party 859 Labour 412 Liberal Democrat 409 Conservative 401

Analysis -Taking in to account that turnout was down by one third, Lib Dem support was broadland unchanged, but this seat was a Green gain from the Lib Dems.
  University

  2009 CC result - Lab 1047 Gre 914 Con 342 LD 271
  2010 City result - Labour 1,164 Green Party 409 Liberal Democrats 123 Conservative 140

Analysis - This seat was a Lab/LD marginal from 1990 to 2005. The Lib Dems won this seat in 2002 with more than 1500 votes !
  Wensum

  2009 CC result - Gre 1260 Lab 561 Con 442 LD 285
  2010 City result - Green Party 887 Labour 743 Conservative 233 Liberal Democrats 172

Analysis - Lib Dem vote slightly down.

We can no longer blame the Greens for our decline in Norwich. They have "topped out" in Norwich, failing to win seats they won last year, and seeing formerly safe seats like Wensum now look very vulnerable.

The Lib Dem vote was down in almost every ward, despite some really good campaigns and an effective local MP who is already building a reputation as a good constituency representative.

Anyone who visited the Norwich campaign HQ during the campaign would have known that the Lib Dems did not fight a losing campaign, but what is clear is that local campaigns will count for little in the face of people seeing us a betraying our election promises in order to get a taste of power as the Tories sidekicks.

Yes, I know that this is not a sign that Labour will automatically win Norwich South next time as they did well yesterday on a low turnout. But it is a sign to Lib Dems, particularly in areas where Labour are the main opposition, that people are deeply unhappy with the Lib Dems and we can expect to see our council representation decimated next May in the local elections.

The problem with English Football is ...

2010-09-03T18:14:00.001+01:00

With the England versus Bulgaria match tonight, and the possibility of more bad headlines for English football should England fail to win the game, it was slightly shocking to recently find out that the way players are selected as youths to be coached at local academies is not what you would expect.

A friend of mine has a close friend whose son recently got in to the under 10s academy at an established Premier League club in the north of England. This sounds as if it is some great achievement, and of course, he must be proud. However, the methods used to select him really do leave a big question mark about the way footballers are developed in this country.

Apparently, the guys sone was barely watched when he turned up to the evaluations. Instead, the football club spent most of their times measuring his height, his feet, and asking questions about how tall his parents are. He later found out that players are filtered out as young as 8 years old if they believe they will be shorter than 5 ft 10 inches, and if they are likely to have big feet, which is considered a hindrance to footballers.

In short, they were more concerned about the physical build of the player than they were about the mental attributes or skills the player has.

Doesn't it tell you everything you need to know about English football that skill is not considered the first and most important reason for choosing a player who could be developed in to a professional footballer.

A worrying development

2010-09-03T18:05:00.000+01:00

According to the vote-match website, if I were a Labour voter, they think I should vote for Diane Abbott. I guess it shows just how poor some of these online questionnaires are as I would rather eat my own trousers than vote for Diana Abbott.

How can this story get so much coverage when other things are not being reported ?

2010-09-02T20:04:00.000+01:00

Quite why THIS STORY has got so much coverage on the TV and radio today is a mystery to me given what is not being reported.

I am as big a football fan as you will find, but this sort of rubbish denigrates real news.

Cameron's judgement and Coulson

2010-09-02T17:47:00.002+01:00

If the broadcast media start reporting what is being reported worldwide, that there are serious questions to be answered by Cameron's top political aide, former News of the World Editor Andy Coulson, it would place David Cameron in something of a predicament.

As can be seen from the depth this story is being written about in the USA, this is no story without substance, yet the BBC, ITV and Sky seem scared to touch it. This does beg the question as to why this is being ignored by our broadcast media. The BBC may be rather scared of the response they might get from Downing Street whilst we know why Sky News won't report on this story with it being very difficult for News International to report on a scandal involving News International.

If this story does get "legs", and there is any truth in the widely reported allegations against Mr Coulson (which he denies), that he knew of the attempts to hack in to the Royal Family's phones, then it will say a lot about the judgement of David Cameron.

We await the result of any court case that might happen in the future.

Stunning hypocrisy from William Hague ?

2010-09-02T00:17:00.000+01:00

Craig Murray writes on his blog about attempts to smear the man behind Wikileaks, but finishes his article with a comment about how he himself has tried to clear his name of accusations and smears put across by the Foreign Office.

To quote Craig

Yet, even to this day, the FCO has refused to acknowledge in public that I was in fact cleared of all charges. This is even true of the new government. A letter I wrote for my MP to pass to William Hague, complaining that the FCO was obscuring the fact that I was cleared on all charges, received a reply from a junior Conservative minister stating that the allegations were serious and had needed to be properly investigated - but still failing to acknowledge the result of the process. Nor has there been any official revelation of who originated these "serious allegations".

Now today William Hague has released a statement making clear that false allegations made against him are untrue and have no basis in fact. This must be very upsetting for William Hague. So why won't William Hague or his department do the same for Craig Murray and clear his name ?

Isn't this a case of absolutely stunning hypocrisy ?

The problem with one man blogs as highlighted by ...

2010-09-01T22:59:00.000+01:00

Blogging is, in general a good thing. It gives people a voice, it bypasses the mainstream media, and in many cases it gets news out in to the open which in other cases would not be heard, for example, after the attempts by Trafigura to muzzle the mainstream press with injunctions or the case of Oligarchs trying to stop criticism of them. But today, the shortcomings of the one man blog was highlighted for all to see, in my opinion, today.

One advantage that the main stream media has over bloggers is that there are sub-editors, lawyers, and people who stand aloof from a story, who can act as a critical friend or a knowledgeable expert, who can stop things being published.

The one man blogger does not do this. It relies on one person making all the decisions and one person making all the judgement calls. As Iain Dale says on his blog today, rather well in my opinion, what has been published elsewhere today does nobody who blogs about politics any great credit.

The online voter registration site with no security certificate

2010-08-28T22:44:00.001+01:00

I received a letter today from Broadland District Council encouraging me to register as a voter as part of their annual canvass of electors.

The form, which is actual rather confusing, seems to be encouraging me to register online if I have no changes to make to my details. The website itself is oneI have never heard of before called http://www.register-online.co.uk/.

The problem is, this website has no security certificate and Internet Explorer is encouraging me not to access this website, as can be seen by the screen shot below.

The issue of companies phoning local residents in an internet scam, claiming to be able to clear viruses from computers but actually downloading spyware on to PCs is something I have recently taken up with a local resident, so I am shcoked that the council should be encoraging me to use a website without a valid security certificate.

How many other companies are using http://www.register-online.co.uk/ as well as Broadland ?

Do dirty tricks justify dirty tricks ?

2010-08-28T14:49:00.000+01:00

A couple of days ago Mark Pack highlighted that the leader of the Taxpayers Alliance (not an organisation I have much time for as they claim to speak for me with no legitimacy at all), who is also heading up the anti AV group campaigning against a Yes vote in the referendum next year, has registered the yes2av.org domain name. This clearly is underhand and speaks volumes about the Taxpayers Alliance of the head honcho uses these sorts of tactics. It's hardly open and transparent is it.

Anyone who cares about the state of politics, you would imagine, would decry these tactics, no matter who does it. But not Tories it appears. Yesterday Dizzy Thinks sited examples of underhand Labour campaigning, as if it is some sort of justification for what the "No" campaign are doing.

Do dirty tricks justify dirty tricks ? I hope not.

Personally, I am genuinely unconvinced by AV, and wonder also whether a "NO" vote might cause some Lib Dem MPs to make it clear to Nick Clegg that they are not prepared to work with the Tories anymore. This then leaves Clegg with the dilemma whether hea joins the Tories with a handful of other Lib Dem MPs, or does the decent thing and goes in to opposition. However, when I read of dirty tricks by the "No" campaign, it makes me more inclined to be "Yes" and to campaign for it.

Time for a Labour Conspiracy ?

2010-08-27T23:26:00.000+01:00

I read only today the rather manipulated (in my opinion) story of Sunny Hundal, the man behind Liberal Conspiracy, joining the Labour Party. I note he wrote the article last week, but the picture of his online application was from five weeks ago (stage managed ?), leading me to believe that everything I have ever thought about the Liberal Conspiracy site is right.

For starters, it has barely ever been Liberal. Its ethos is always to support Labour. The biggest conspiracy is the name itself, which was always a misleading title seemed to me to be aimed at getting hitswhilst there was a Labour government, where the title Labour Conspiracy would have been a turn off.

Now that Mr Hundal has left, I am sure it will do his media work the power of good, and if it stops him turning up and speaking to the media as a liberal, that is certainly no bad thing, as I rarely felt he was ever someone who could speak for those of us who are liberal in persuasion.

So Mr Hundal, enjoy your time in a party that starts illegal wars, runs its fiscal policy by spending money the country does not have, and enjoy being in a party that introduced some of the most authoritarian powers every introduced. Liberal ? I think not.

So how about a name change for your blog ? How about a bit of honesty ?

Norwich traffic chaos gets worse

2010-08-27T12:07:00.001+01:00

Yesterday afternoon I had to go in to Norwich. A five mile journey took 55 minutes at 1.30 in the afternoon (not exactly a rush hour). When I got there, virtually every car park was full, and to be honest, the hassle meant I would go elsewhere to shop if I possible could.

Now I explained why Norwich's roads are in such a mess at the moment a few weeks ago with both Norwich City Council and Norfolk County Council seemingly conspiring to make every journey in to Norwich impossible from the North of the City. Since the, however, things have got worse. One of the main routes in to Norwich from the North, the Fakenham Road, is closed both ways. This means that buses from Fakenham, Drayton and Taverham (my area) have to be diverted, adding a lot of extra time to the journey and in doing so putting lots of people off using the bus (me included). On top of this though, they authorities have made things even worse by closing Castle Meadow in the centre of Norwich. This road is almost exlusively used by buses, with there being dozens of bus stops along this road. This means bus routes have been altered, again causing people to given up on buses and go by car instead. This explains why there is vitually nowhere to park in the city at the moment.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that doing four major road closures, all at the same time in Norwich is ridiculous, but seemingly Norwich City (run by Labour) and the the Coutny Council (Tory run) can't work it out !

The oft repeated lie for lazy journalists

2010-08-27T10:29:00.002+01:00

After the kids TV finished on FIVE this morning, I forgot to turn over and was suddenly presented with the a programme called "The Wright Stuff". This programme supposedly looks at "The stories of the day" and has a couple of generally ill informed, so called "experts" with no discernable qualifications to speak on the topic of current affairs other than the fact that they appear to be not exactly "A" list names.

This morning, the programme had on an American, who I have never seen before or heard of, who repeated the common line from journalists at the moment, a line that if they all repeat often enough, they start to actually believe. When discussing the government, this American said, as a statement of fact, "Lib Dems are leaving in droves to join the Labour Party !" .

On what basis is he making this comment other than he heard other lazy journalists saying it ? I gather (to my surprise) that there was a surge in membership after the election and I cannot think of anyone who has joined Labour since the election.

Isn't it another case that lazy journalists like to make up stories about the Lib Dems in the hope that it will be true, and then cannot discern between their own lies and the substance ?

Note - For clarity, I am not a supporter of the coalition and I did consider leaving the Lib Dems after the coalition deal. If I had, I would not have joined Labour as I don't like parties that start illegal wars.

Why would Charles Kennedy resign ?

2010-08-23T20:43:00.000+01:00

The silly season is upon us and Labour politicians, desperate to breathe some life in to possibly the dullest leadership campaign in history are trying to make a story out of the possibility of Charles Kennedy defecting to Labour.

There are many reasons why CK would be unlikely to defect to Labour. These reasons have been discussed at length elsewhere in great detail, but for me, the main reason why Charles would find it hard to join the Labour Party is Iraq. Iraq was the defining issue during Charles Kennedy's leadership of the Lib Dems, and whilst Kennedy was putting his head above the parapet, Labour poured scorn upon him. This derision from Labour would be difficult to forget.

But more important than Iraq, Charles, like me, almost certainly feels that he still is a Lib Dem, its just that the parliamentary party doesn't look like the Lib Dems anymore. Charles, like Simon Hughes, are still true standard bearers of the Lib Dem cause, and we need them desperately to keep the Liberal Democrats true to the values we campaigned for at the General Election.

It's not Charles who should be leaving the party, it's that a number of Lib Dem MPs need to remember that they are Liberal Democrats, not Tories !

Ed Miliband plays the anti Lib Dem card

2010-08-19T10:11:00.000+01:00

PoliticalBetting.com http://www6.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/08/18/would-edm-prefer-being-in-opposition-rather-than-government/ ran a thread yesterday about the statment from Ed Miliband that he would demand Nick Clegg's resignation if he were the Labour leader seeking to negotiate a coalition deal with the Lib Dems.

The is political postuing on a grand scale, but says more about Ed Miliband and Labour's very tribal, bearing grudges, style of politics andfails to address the realities of being a responsible politician.

As is well known, the Lib Dems said Gordon Brown would have to go if the Lib Dems were ever to form a coalition with Labout after this year's General Election, and this seems to be the basis on which Ed Miliband is now making his rather petty comments. But it ought to be remembered that Gordon Brown lost his majority. Some of his back benchers were calling for his resignation on the night of the election, and at the end of the day, he himself felt he should resign as Labour leader, meaning any claims that the Labour Party felt he could stay on as Prime Minister were undermined by his resignation.

But what about the circumstances after the next election ? What about if the Lib Dems pick up a few more seats. this is no improbable given that nobody seems to be able to accurately predict Lib Dem performance. A matter of a year ago Tory bloggers and activists were claiming the Lib Dems would be chopped down to a rump 25-30 seats, and in April of this year polls were predicting the Lib Dems would get 85-90 seats. The reality saw the Lib Dems lose a handful of seats by a handful of votes on a slightly increased share of the vote. So if the Lib Dems do better in 2015 than in 2010, what would Ed Miliband do ? Demand the resignation of a man who has proved to have done well ?

I think the statement from Ed Miliband speaks more of his desperation as the Labour leadership election gets closer. He knows he is behind his brother and is now seeking to be seen as the anti Lib Dem candidate. It might work, in the short term, but he will be pushing himself in to a corner politically that he might not be able to get out of.

Note - I write as a Lib Dem who is not a supporter of the coaltion agreement.

Where would the Lib dems be without Simon Hughes ?

2010-08-15T17:11:00.000+01:00

I wonder how many activists and campaigners like me remain comfortable in the Lib Dems because Simon Hughes dares to say what many of our MPs are unwilling to say or actually have bought in to the coalition with the Tories so much, they actually don't want to say.

Today Simon says we will not enter in to an electoral pact with the Tories. We will stand candidates against the Tories, and it is part of our constitution that we have to field candidates.

Of course, this is not to say that the Tories will field candidates against Lib Dems, indeed, it probably suits the Tories more to step aside in seats where Labour could get back in. But from a Lib Dem point of view, and for those of us fighting Tories in local government, it is very nice to know Simon Hughes is fighting on behalf of activists.

Deluded Norwich labour - Any depths, any lie will do !

2010-08-13T14:35:00.000+01:00

In Norwich we are in the unique position of having local elections this September because the labour Government decided, unlawfully as it turned out, to cancel the elections this May after they decided (unlawfully as it turned out) to impose a Unitary Council on Norwich which was contrary to all the criteria laid down under which a Unitary Authority should be created.

I don't want to go in to all the details, but Norwich's Unitary bid cost the Labour run council millions, no cost benefit was clearly identified that would justify the unitary council and the option the Labour Government went for was in contradiction to the rules the Labour government had made clear at the start of the process. So when the Labour government decided, pretty much on a whim to cancel the local elections this year in Norwich (without a hint of complaint from either the labour Party locally or the Green Party), Norwich's fate seemed set.

The thing is, what the Labour government did was actually unlawful, and their actions were struck down in court after an appeal by Norfolk County Council against he decision made by the government.

Now you would expect some humility from a person if they had acted unlawfully, perhaps some contrition ? but no, not from the Labour Party. Instead in their leaflets they try to whitewash the fact that the Labour government broke the rules, rode roughshod over democracy and the law of the land, and instead they seek to claim the moral high ground and blame everyone else for the fact that the Labour Government acted without following the rules.

Read the statement on their leaflets going out in Norwich.

Notice the phrases "Norwich people have been lumbered with the costly and unnecessary by-elections in all 13 wards".

These elections would have been considerably less costly if they could have been held on the same day as the general election, which is what would have happened if the Labour government had not cancelled the elections in May of this year. Do Norwich Labour mention that ?

They also claim the elections are "unnecessary". Why is this ? Do Labour think some councillors should be allowed to stay on the council for five years ? This statement is utterly ridiculous, but highlight why labour have gone from having two MPs in Norwich to zero in less than a year.

Nationally we see the Labour leadership hopefuls blaming everyone else for the mess the country is in financially. and locally in Norwich the Labour Party seek to blame everyone else for the mess the government made of local government in the City.

Come on Labour, show us you have changed. Put your hands up, admit you made errors and mistakes and stop blaming everyone else.

Double Dip Recession ? We were warned !

2010-08-10T22:35:00.000+01:00

The US has downgraded its forecasts for the US economy and markets there are now planning for a double dip recession. Likewise, houseprices have again stalled and spending on the high street is down in latest figures released in th UK today. All the signs point to a raised liklihood of a double dip recessions.

Now a few months ago the Lib Dems were warning against cutting too deep and too early because of fears of a double dip recession, yet in coalition with the Tories, this is exactly what we have done.

So if we do get a double dip recession, what should I say ? We told you this would happen but ignored our own advice.

Agreeing with the Catholic Church

2010-08-08T15:40:00.002+01:00

I've been very critival of the Catholic Church over issues such as shielding child abusers from arrest and standing in the way of equal opportunities, but it is nice to heap praise in them for the words spoken today by the Roman Catholic leader in Scotland.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien has spoken out against the USA for their line of attack over the Al Megrahi release and accused the Americans of keeping bad company in their liove of the death penalty (keeping them more in line with Saidi Arabia and Iran then with free democratic states), but the bit I liked was the quote
"We shouldn't be crawling out to America, or having them come here and questioning us on our own territory."

Indeed yes.
Let's not remember that the USA refused to release information that would have given a clear understanding to a proper inquest result in to "friendly fire" deaths in Iraq. The USA also refuses to give any evidence to the Iraq enquiry, yet the USA expects us to send our elected representatives to speak to their Senators regarding decisions made in the UK. This is quite ridiculous, irresepective of the rights and wrongs of the decision.
Of course the biggest factor that is being ignored about the who Al Megrahi case is that by releasing him it prevented an appeal which would almsot certainly ahve shown him to be not gulty and highlighted much of the flawed evidence the US provided and undermined the USA contention that Libya was behing the attack when everyone knows the bombing was directed from Syria.

Remember folks, we went in to coalition with this man

2010-08-02T11:18:00.002+01:00

This says it much more politely than I could.

I have not bought the Cameron myth that some Lib Dems have fallen in to, and these sorts of comments collowing on from his diminishing of Britiain's role in World War Two show Cameron to be less a thinker, more a plonker.

Not a campaign slogan I would wish to use

2010-08-01T23:14:00.001+01:00

I am not the only Nicholas Starling who gets mentions on Google, with the head of the Association of British Insurers being called Nick Starling causing some confusion amongst children at my school when it is reported on the news that "We will be speaking to Nick Starling later about... " with children coming in to tell me "They said you would be on TV last night but it wasn't you", which is always quite funny.

However, Google brought my attention to Nick Starling, an Iraq war veteran who despite no doubt being brave, clearly has the sort political policies most ordinary people would run and hide from.

This particular Nick Starling is running for the position of Assessor in Nevada, and uses the slogan

" VOTE FOR NICK STARLING, THE NEW REPUBLICAN FACE THAT BLED FOR FREEDOM."

A slogan I shall not being using in my re-election campaign next year ! Likewise, voters in UK elections really do get turned off by campaign photos featuring people waerting sunglasses holding a machine gun.

Who decided to mess up traffic in Norwich North ?

2010-08-01T00:18:00.001+01:00

You have to marvel at the stupidity of those responsible for scheduling major road works on three separate junctions and roads in the North of Norwich all at the same time as each other.

On the Fakenham (A1067) in to Norwich, traffic can come in to Norwich only (not out), whilst they have also decided to close access to Norwich from the alternative Aylsham (Cromer) Road (A140) at St Augustines (putting in a new route which is causing major traffic problems), and also reducing the number of lanes at Mile Cross Road from two to one.

In short, they have introduced three roads schemes all at the same time ensuring maximum disruption.

I suppose there might be those who argue that it is better to wreck traffic movement in Norwich at one time rather than stagger the road changes, but each of the changes in themselves are manageable, but put together they are ridiculous.

Isn't the Tories criticism of Labour over voting reform just the slightest bit hypocritical ?

2010-07-29T17:28:00.000+01:00

There are plenty of people in both the Labour and Conservative Parties who have long sought to label the lib Dems as political opportunists over the issue of voting reform because a more proportional system favours the Lib Dems. However, the ignore the fact that the Lib Dems are the only party who have ever stood on a platform, of "elect us as a majority and we'll introduce a voting system that will ever prevent us from having a majority government again", which if STV ever gets introduced, will be the result. However, we have seen in recent week s the very worst political expediency from members of both the Tory Party and Labour over the proposals to have a referendum on AV.

Now let's be quite clear here, the Liberal Democrats are not cleaner than clean when it comes to being politically expedient. the very nature of coalitions is to compromise, but in my opinion (and certainly any study of psephology will show this), AV is an inherently less proportional system than FPTP, so claims that AV is more proportional are not true. But this does not get the other parties off the hook.

Labour, who were committed to AV before the election, now say they will vote against the AV referendum bill because it also includes a call to reform the inequalities in constituency size. Now this current inequality favours Labour quite dramatically. So it is clear that Labour are voting to oppose a reform which will see their electoral advantage removed. In effect, the current electoral system gifts a number of bonus seats to Labour, effectively live a Formula One car being given a one lap head start. Nobody would in any way describe that as fair, but for Labour to so completely vote against one of their manifesto pledges (AV) because part of the same bill threatened their constituency advantage is the very worst kind of political posturing.

The actions of the Labour Party have been widely criticised by the Lib Dems and Tories, but it is the Tories that I really do have an issue with in their criticism of Labour.

The Tories want Labour's electoral advantage removed, claiming that they want a fairer distribution of constituency seats. However, if they are so keen on fairness, why not scrap plans for a referendum on AV and introduce a truly fair system of voting, which brings us back to the Single Transferable Vote (STV), the system the Lib Dems favoured in the first place ?

It is true that Labour want fairness, on their terms, and with s system that favours them. But the Tories too only want fairness for themselves, not for everyone. Whilst Nick Clegg may have been fooled in to believing the Tories are converts to reform, it remains clear to me that the Tories have not changed, and neither have Labour.

Party politicisation of the police ? Ridiculous

2010-07-26T09:20:00.000+01:00

The coalition government (yes my fellow Lib Dems, we can't escape the rap for this one) are to introduce elected police commissioners, who will be party political. In other words, the police force and its policies are to become politicised in a way we have never seen before in this country.

In so many ways this an affront to the independence of the police force and digs away at the principle that the police force enforce the law by consent from the public.

It will be so easy now for people to blame the police for being political servants, enforcing the will of a given political party, and it will do nothing to raise confidence on policing.

Moreover, the principle of another (yet another) election to elect a police commissioner does little to set any pulses racing. When was the last time you heard someone on the doorstep say "What we really need around here is an elected police commissioner, an extra layer of bureaucracy, and as a result less cash for front line policing". Because this is another lay er of bureaucracy and as we all know, elections do not come cheap either !

An utterly pointless policy that heaps more expense on to the police, and inevitably means less money for front line police.

The wrong time for Norfolk Tories to be cutting funding to the careers service

2010-07-24T15:58:00.001+01:00

In good economic times I am sure there are many who just walk in to jobs straight from school or university who never have to seek advice from anyone before joining the working population. In hard times, many people, but especially school leavers need to know they are getting the right advice. That is why it is beyond comprehsnion that Norfolk County Council Tories are to half the Connexions career service in a mass cull of jobs.

The EDP has more about the Tory cuts HERE.

We know the County has to make cuts, but why not start with cutting perks to councillors, perhaps halving the entertainment budget for the ~~leader~~ Chairman of the council (which the Tories raised by tens of thousands a few years ago). It seems illogical to hamper the future of Norfolk school children finding the right courses and jobs in order to save money. This is short term in its savings as it will have a long term effect on the county. But its typical of the Tories to think about the short term, not the big picture.

Tories to ignore Lib Dems graduate tax ideas

2010-07-21T21:44:00.001+01:00

A few days ago Vince Cable launched his ideas on student finance, in many ways gaining favourable coverage in the press and from the NUS. It appears Vince had done the impossible in garnering support for a new method of student finance which was supported by voters, graduates and the NUS.

Now, a few days later, a senior Tory has declared the policy to be a non starter.

Isn't it nice to know that the coalition is a two way street where Lib Dem ideas and policies are accepted with the same amount of zeal as Tory ideas.

Labour conspiracy ?

2010-07-18T18:28:00.000+01:00

I looked at the Liberal Conspiracy website/blog today. How do you report a blog for misrepresenting itself ?

Articles by Chukka Ummana (Labour MP), Ed Balls (Labour MP), Jon Cruddas (Labour MP), Diane Abbot (Labour MP) and numerous other articles about Labour. Where is the Liberal content ?

I would link to the site, but I wouldn't want to give it any credit.

More reasons to be proud of the coalition ?

2010-07-18T15:51:00.000+01:00

The Observer lists today a number of things that we are implementing, as part of the coalition, that I cannot see anyone taking pride or pleasure in, unless you are a right wing Tory.

It's worth a read HERE.

Did you vote Lib Dem to help the Tories dismantle the BBC and the NHS ?

2010-07-18T10:49:00.000+01:00

Nick Clegg attempted to to sell the idea of the coalition to Lib Dem members on the basis that the Lib Dems would be a moderating influence over the excesses of the Tory right, but it seems clear that far more policy coming from the coalition is Tory, and only a tiny party of it is in any way Lib Dem.

This week we have seen the Tories announce a major overhaul of the NHS. Indeed the plan has been described as the most radical overhaul of the NHS since it was created. It essentially removes any democratic control of the NHS, it removes much of the strategic planning that currently exists across areas, and with the removal of the PCTs it eradicates the economies of scale that are clearly evident in a Primary Care Trust that covers, for example, a whole County. Instead, we are to have groups of Doctors (this weeks government buzzword is "consortia" who will have their own admin staff, their own accountants, their own HR people, their own IT staff, who will run what services they want to provide locally.

Anyone who knows anything about economics can see that this is going to save absolutely no cash at all. Indeed, Paul Burstow, the Lib Dem MP wheeled out by the Tories this week to justify the Tories latest insult to the intelligent, argued that many PCT staff who will lose their jobs will find themselves employed by the new consortia. So no doubt having received a redundancy pay off (from out taxes) these people will then get the same job back with the doctors. Now that really is saving cash !

At present we have PCTs who can refuse to prescribe certain drugs (particularly life saving cancer drugs). Whatever will happen now if a local consortia have a cancer patient who needs an expensive cancer drug ? Do we think that a local doctor is more likely to give this from their budget ? Don't be so stupid.

Of course, it wouldn't be so bad had any of this been in the party manifestos. According to the Lib Dems own health policy, the party pledged;

We will scrap central targets and guarantee that you get your treatment on time. We will give people the power to stop hospital closures in their area through elected local health boards. And we will put doctors and nurses back in charge of their hospitals and wards.

Clearly handing power to Doctors removes any vestiges of control away from people and democratically elected officials, so clearly the Tories have got the better of the deal.

Did Liberal Democrat voters vote Lib Dem in order to see the Tories introduce a much more divided, less democratic system which is at odds with Lib Dem policy in so many areas ?

Then we read that the BBC is to be cut back in order to show that the BBC must take its share of the pain in the recession. I don't buy this for one moment.

We all know that the Tories have for a long time wanted to see the BBC become a pale shadow of what it is. There are many Tories who would rather see 150 channels of the rubbish produced by SKY, Living TV, Challenge TV, and the many other cable and satellite channels, which cost the consumer up to £70 a month, rather than see the BBC set a standard not only for British TV and Radio, but also to the rest of the world, and all this for only two months of a full subscription to SKY.

Of course, there are the other reasons for the Tories wanting to attack the BBC. Firstly, the Tories got the full backing of Murdoch. Murdoch hates the BBC and has attacked it for years. The other reason is that the BBC is the very antithesis of Conservatism. It does not make a profit, but it provides a valuable service. This is something the Tories don't get. For all their talk of regret over making cuts, we all know that Tories loathe anything that does not turn a profit.

So in a few years time we are faced with the prospect of an emasculated BBC as the price the Tories are willing to pay for the support of The Sun and Murdoch, and the Lib Dems will have played their part in ensuring that this happens.

Is this why you voted Lib Dem ?

It's not why I voted Lib Dem.

Shameful FIFA

2010-07-11T13:40:00.002+01:00

Whilst the World Cup in South Africa has in many ways been a success, it has again highlighted that World Football is run by a bunch of self satisfied cronies who care little about the game, and more about money.

Firstly, because of an exclusive agreement, a finanical agreement with Adidas, FIFA agreed to use the new Jabulani ball, which has been widely seen as making the matches worse and preventing some of usual long range goals that light up so many games. It is interesting to note that even the ex Liverpool player Craig Johnson, inventor of the Predator football boot (which was developed with Adidas) has described it as the worst ball ever).

To compound the problems with the ball, FIFA allowed this special ball to be used by the German FA, in the Budesliga, for the last six months, thus giving the Germans a massive advantage over other teams. If FIFA are to introduce comedy balls in to matches, it does seem the be a basic principles of fairness that one team should not be given an advantage. I know the Bundesliga also has a deal with Adidas, but FIFA should have made sure that they had exclusivity over the new ball. Of course, the head of FIFA, Sepp Blatter is German speasing, so we can draw our own conslusions for the German advantage.

They there is the issue of goal line technology. Trials a couple of years ago proved that goalline technology works, it gives referees an instant "yes/no" answer as to whether the ball has crossed the line, and it can be provided at no cost (with the makers seeing it as good marketing). But FIFA, still said no. They claim that football has a "universality" and that is must be the same, whereever it is played in the world. This is, of course, ridiculous.

On a Sunday morning in parks across the UK, matches take place with substitutes running the line as linesman, and in many cases, managers acting as referees. Football pitches are not all the same size and some have potholes. In short, football in different countries and football played at different levels is always very different. There is no universality in football. It is ridiculous for FIFA to stand opposed to to gaolline technology for so long, only to change their minds when confronted with a blatant goal that makes the game look like a throwback to previous decades. Every major sport makes use of technology. Tennis has "hawkeye" on certian courts, but not on others, and this causes no problems. Yet football, and Mr Blatter, make themselves look foolish and out of touch. Well done FIFA.

Then there is the issue of of "infrastructure", FIFA like to mona about the cancellation of flights to South Africa leading to passengers missing matches, but did nothing to stipluate top the South African authorities that scheduled flights hsould have precedence over the celebrities flying to the matches in their private jets. the problem is that FIFA are the ones who want to see the celebs at the matches. how were these celebrities able to get last minute tickets if it was not without FIFA's help ?

Now, to top things off, we read that FIFA are presuurising Nelson Mandela to attend the final tonight. The 92 year old is said to be unwell and very frail, and still mouring the recent death of his granddaughter, yet FIFA again seem to care not one jot. After all, a photo call between Mr Blatter and Nelson Mandela will look good on Mr Blatter's mantelpiece ?

Shame on FIFA.

Stop the "Government by Press Release" culture

2010-07-08T22:36:00.000+01:00

I was sick of the contempt Labour showed for parliament. They did nothing to reform it in any meaningful way in 13 years, hired hordes of spin doctors to speak in behalf of ministers and "brief" the press, and in general, treated parliament with disdain. So I had hoped things would change under the coalition. Sadly, I have seen no evidence of this.

Every day we hear the headlines "Ministers are expected to announce in parliament today that ...", with in recent days news of election referendums, withdrawals of troops from parts of Afghanistan and and ending of the school building programme all being announced in the morning, usurping the role of parliament and treating the institution with disdain.

What is wrong with a minister going to parliament without having briefed the press first about what they intend to announce ?

I had hoped for much better.

The best time to hold a vote is on election day

2010-07-05T21:59:00.000+01:00

A bunch of Tory MPs are complaining that the referendum on changing the voting system is to be held on the same day as the English local, Welsh and Scottish parliamentary elections.

What a bunch of losers these Tory MPs are.

At a time when the government is trying to keep costs down, are they really suggesting that the referendum be held on a different date, thus costing millions more to administer ?

The date makes sense on every level.

Update : I am pleased to see Iain Dale agrees too.

Do you believe the right wing press ?

2010-07-03T19:13:00.000+01:00

The right wing gutter press have been printing ridiculous stories all week claiming the EU want to ban the sale of eggs by the dozen.

If you read this story HERE on Liberal Burblings, you'll see the story is made up poppycock. But satill people believe these gutter rags when the print such rubbish !

Taverham Summer Fayre

2010-07-03T19:10:00.000+01:00

I've been helping out at Taverham Summer Fayre today, and the day couldn't have been better.

Thankfully (or sadly as the case may be) England did the Fayre (and many others) by losing last week and avoiding a TV clash with Argentina on the afternoon of the fayre, so the number of people attending was high and the weather was warm and pleasant rather than been scorching.

I was asked a few weeks ago if I was interested in helping, so got their bright and early at 7am to help set up and was impressed at the small but dedicated team of helping on the organising committee who turned the village hall field in to a traditions British summer scene of stalls, gazemos, raffles and show rings, with the ubiquitous straw bales, bunting and booming PA system in a matter of two and a half hours.

Upon arrival I was thanked for doing more to help in one morning that my Tory predecessor did in 7 years as a councillor. I know I shouldn't be shocked given that my predecessor had an awful attendance record in turning up to Broadland Council meetings, and was invisible at Parish meetings, but to serve as a District Councillor for this area is an honour, but it comes with a responsibility to give something back to the community. So when I was asked to be involved with the organising committee for next year's fayre, I said I will do whatever I can. So hopefully I can help make the fayre just as good next year, although I cannot guarantee the weather will be so good !

My favourite school day of the year !

2010-07-01T19:57:00.001+01:00

Today I have been enjoying my favourite day of the school year, our trip to the Royal Norfolk Show !

For those who do not know, the Royal Norfolk Show is one of the biggest agricultural and trade shows in the country, attracting tens of thousands of visitors, including many thousands of school children from across the county.

For me, the highlight still remains getting stickers and freebies from the stands, and I make something of a competition of it to see who can get the best stuff. I would like to think I did well with frisbees and baseball caps amongst my haul.

I did see a couple of celebs, with Mike Liggins from BBC East wandering around and a Big Brother winner (I was assured by a 9 year old). But my personal highlight was seeing my friend Simon Wright, now MP for Norwich South wandering around in a very official capacity.

Of course, the show is not just a nice day out. It is a fabulous learning opportunity for children too. Children were able to learn about road safety, lifesaving, healthly eating, and of course, something of the farming heritage of Norfolk which many city dwellers may know very little about.

All in all, a great day and one I will look forward to next year.

Falling in the polls ? Nobody should be surprised

2010-06-27T21:57:00.001+01:00

As many no, I am no fan of the coalition deal. But it appears that my worst fears might be proved right about the capitulation of Lib Dem MPs to David Cameron when you see that Lib Dem poll ratings are falling whilst those for the Tories are increasing.

It is an obvious and logical conclusion for electors to decide that if the coalition does it a good job then they should support the larger partner in the coalition because as the larger partner, they deserve more praise than the junior partner. Similarly, it is hard for the Lib Dems to claim that people should not vote Tory as the Lib Dems are backing the Tories.

Don't be surprised to see Lib Dem rating fall further in the near future.

All set up for disappointment

2010-06-27T14:21:00.001+01:00

I am all set for the football this afternoon with the final piece of the jigsaw complete.

We had already sorted what we will do, where we will watch the game and we now know the team, So what is the final piece of the puzzle ? Belief.

Yes, like every England fan, I have convinved myself that man for man, on paper, as things stand, England have 11 better players than Germany and that we will win.

Now all I have to do is be ready fopr the disappointment.

I can't get too excited about that !

2010-06-24T07:11:00.000+01:00

It appears that I am in something of a minority about England's display against Slovenia yesteday.

Whilst everyone else is getting excited, I remain deeply concerned aobut the makeweights in the England side (and I include Lampard and Rooney in this group) who add nothing to the team given their poor form, and I am deeply concerned about the lack of goals. Remember, just one more goal would have seen us playing Ghana in the next round followed up by a game against either Uruguay or South Korea. Instead now our next three games will be against Germany, Argentina and Spain !

So whilst we rejoice in beeintg a country with a population of 2 million which only has 30,000 registered footballers, lets remember that we should be doing much better.

Any other Lib Dems feeling the slightest bit hypocritical today ?

2010-06-22T22:02:00.003+01:00

I was looking back at the poster launched by the Lib Dems at the start of the election campaign less than three months ago and, from my own moral compass, I feel something of a hypocrite having delivered leaflets with this message on only to find three months later that a Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury was presiding over the "VAT Bombshell" the Lib Dems were warning about.

Taking a more measured view, I do find it hard to argue against a large chunk of the budget today. Quite clearly Labour have been running this country on the basis of chucking everything on to a credit card, which in many ways was the reason this country got in to such a mess in the fist place with the proliferation of cheap credit and a lack of control on spending and lending.

However, the fact that the Lib Dems are now having to share power ought to make Lib Dem strategists think twice in future elections about the kind of messages they want to put out during an election and to what extent these campaigns (as in the VAT Bombshell posters) cheapens politics. I know all parties do it, but we need to be honest enough to say we won't in future.

For those who are unaware of my stance towards the coalition, I have been clear in my view (and expressed this to MPs, the printed press and in Radio interviews) that I am no supporter of the coalition deal with the Tories. I don't want to go over the old ground of this, but I thought I should make this clear.

Just why the Green Party don't get economics

2010-06-19T15:30:00.000+01:00

The printed version of the Eastern Daily Press has a small story about the County Council Greens demanding that Norfolk County Council's Pension Scheme should no longer hold any investments in BP following the oil spill in the Mexican Gulf.

This is typical Green Party grandstanding with no concept of the economics involved.

Aside from the fact that The Green Party has very much taken the US line of "attack BNP" rather than accept that whilst BP have ultimate responsibility, the Rig was owned and run by Transocean, a US firm, it is worrying that the Green Party in the first instance choose to attack a UK based firm rather than look in to the facts in more detail. But as we know from the Iraq War, the Green's chose to attack the Lib Dems for supporting a motion in parliament which offered the support of parliament to UK troops, even if the Lib Dems did not support the war. So we shouldn't be surprised to see the Green Party putting Britain last.

But what about the economics of the Green Party's policy on BP. Is it really good sense for the Norfolk County Council Pension Fund to sell off their shares in BP when the value of those shares has tumbled ? As a "blue chip" stock that has in the past paid out very good dividends, we should assume that BP forms a large part of the pension fund's investments. If they sold now they would make a huge loss with no hope of making up this loss. So who will then pay for the hole in the Council's pension fund ? No doubt when taxes rise to find this black hole, the Green's will attack this tax rise too ?

It just goes to show that the Greens know little about economics but a lot about rabble rousing.

Is there a more unfriendly experience than the Apple Store ?

2010-06-15T18:10:00.000+01:00

I quickly dashed in to Norwich this afternoon after work to get a few things I needed, and suddenly aware that I was next to the Apple Store, I decided to pop in and ask an iPhone related question. Big mistake.

Now I've never been to an Apple Store before and obviously I simply do not understand the rules or know the code.

Nowhere in the shop is there a desk stating the simple words "We're here to help" or "Customer Services", nor does there seem to be any clear or organised system for getting help. At the back of the store is something that resembles a bar with lots of stools and very few staff, with people sat looking bored staring in to space presumably waiting for a member of staff to help them. Having wandered round the store for a good ten minutes trying to catch the eye of a member of staff to no avail, I saw a stand marked "iPhone Connection point". So I waited next to it as some staff went back and forth, again ignoring me. Now having wasted 20 minutes, having no idea who to ask, how to get to speak to someone, where to queue, indeed whether you even have to queue, I left none the wiser and at a loss as to the answer to my question.

Would I go there again ? Not if I could possibly avoid it.

Tory County Council to increase adult education costs by 20%

2010-06-14T20:43:00.000+01:00

The EDP reports that Adult Education fees are set to rise by 20% next year, with a resulting possible fall in uptake of these courses by 2000 people next year. For me, this is a really easy target for the Tories to attack, but also the wrong target given the current economic climate.

In difficult economic times, people ought to be encouraged to retrain, get better qualified, and be better equipped for the upturn. Sadly, cost is a very important factor in whether people will take up adult education classes, and this will inevitably put people off.

I myself did my A levels at evening class, so I know the value of being able to do evening classes. Whilst the report talks about the sort of activities which are less academic being hit, this is the thin end of the wedge.

We shouldn't be surprised though that the Tories are cutting classes like this rather than the very generous expenses system at County Hall. After all, it was the Tories who only a few years ago put the entertainment budget for the council up by about £100,000 a year ! How many classes would that pay for ?