Let Norwich serve as a warning to Nick Clegg

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 ...

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

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 ?

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

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 ?

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 ...

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

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 ?

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 ?

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

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

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 ?

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

PoliticalBetting.comhttp://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 ?

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 !

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 !

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

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

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

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 ?

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 ?

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

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

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

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 ?

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 ?

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 ?

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

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

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

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 ?

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

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 !

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

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

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 !

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 ?

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

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 ?

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%

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 ?

How to save money for the taxpayer

The government say that want to take on ideas from ordinary voters on how they could save money, make cuts, and avoid duplication and pointless exercises which produce no benefits but use up lots of cash.

So I have an idea.

Why not scrap plans announced just this week that every council will be required to publish (presumably on the internet), every piece of expenditure which exceeds £500.

Your typical council must spend amounts in excess of £500 several times a day, and this will have to be logged, reported, passed on, duplicated, scanned and accounted for by a member of staff. It could easily be a job that could take up 100% of a member of staff's time. So Taking in to account National Insurance, the printed, duplicating, wages, and other associated costs, you can assume this will cost a council around £18000 a year.

If we extrapolate these costs across Norfolk (8 councils), we can assume that this decision will cost Norfolk taxpayers around £150000 a year, each and every year.

So come on Mr Pickles, abandon your plans and save taxpayers the money.

New Focus - A new deliverer

For the first time since the general election I have called on my team of deliverers (taking them my new local ward Focus) and, of course, took the time to thank them for all the effort they put in during the election. I was expecting some sort of fall out from the coalition, but the very opposite seems to be the case.

All my deliverers I have spoken to (there is one more away) seem pleased, all were keen on the idea of a Focus outside of election time, and when delivering one delivery round myself, I found a new deliverer whilst chatting to a resident about issues on the door.

Now this doesn't mean I am a signed up supporter of the coalition, far from it, but it seems that many people are prepared to be positive about it and are broadly supportive.

How dim do people think we English are ?

I have no problem with people displaying England flag from every part of their car, every corner of their house or any orific of their wish. Howver, I am totally perplexed by all the flags of St george flying this year which ahve, in large letters across them "ENGLAND". How dim do Tesco and the other sellers of these flags think we are ?

Surely our flog is pretty recognisable ? It's not the world's most complicated flag, and unless you are from Georgia, it is unlikely to be mixed up with any other nation's flag, so why do we along need to ahve ENGLAND written across the flag in case we forget ?

Do these same sellers have their spouse's name written across their wedding photos lest they forget ?

I don't do talking up the coalition stories, but if I did ...

I would say well done to Michael Gove for axing the General Teaching Council. The GTC was set up with no support from teachers, no campaign asking for its creation, no support fro the unions, and with no clear purpose.

The GTC is supposed to fight for teachers interests, but is no more than a chocolate fireguard. It has achieved not one thing of any note for the teaching profession and its passing will not see any mourning or sorrow from teachers.

Good riddance GTC.

Words you won't hear a councillor say very often

"Oh good, my copy of Local Government First has arrived !"

For those who have never been a councillor, you might be totally unaware of this publication, but Local Government First is a weekly magazine that you get sent from the Local Government Associated which, to be honest, is ignored by the vast majority of councillors I know, in many cases they are thrown in to the nearest bin, totally unread, and if we are talking about cutting out waste, they could easily be emailed to councillors rather than be printed and posted every week.

Mine arrived this morning. 30 seconds later the plastic it was in was in one bin, the magazine (staples removed) was in my recycling. What a waste of time and money.

Nazis in Norfolk

The ever excellent Malcolm Redfellow has another gem of a story on his blog about the author Henry Williamson, his Fascist leanings, his love of the Nazis and the fact that his North Norfolk house is for sale.

I cannot really add much more than that which has been written by Malcolm, but I wanted to add my own local knowledge on the subject of Henry Williamson.

From 2003 to 2005 I "adopted" Stiffkey, the wartime home of Henry Williamson. By adopted I mean I took responsibility for getting out Lib Dem leaflets to Stiffkey four or five times a year. In doing this, I got to know where all the letter boxes were, and started to bump in to the same people over and again and started to be able to chat with people about the local history of Stiffkey.

One man who had lived in Stiffkey all his life, told me that he and his parents knew Henry Williamson, and like many, they didn't care for him very much.

Aside from his arrest which Malcolm Redfollow writes about, according to the chap I knew, Wells police would regularly call on Mr Williamson, checking his house out regularly for radio equipment, and reminding him of the blackout precautions. Now it appears this was Williamson's biggest problem as he would light his house up well and leave the windows open for the light to shine out. So the story goes, he was asked by a group of locals who spoke to him about this, if he would close his curtains so that Stiffkey wouldn't be bombed, and Williamson's response was "Oh don't worry. I can assure you we won't be bombed".

Local's took this to be that Williamson was allowing the light from his house to be used as a marker as to where the North Norfolk coast was in order to aid German bombers.

Whatever the excuse, it appears that Williamson was a gullible fool if he believed the Nazi message. It is though pleasant to know that despite people liking to maintain Norfolk is a place full of easily fooled simple country folk, local people were never taken in by him.

Vote labour - Vote for hypocrites - Vote for toadying candidates who are wise after the event

I know I ought to be astonished to see that Ed balls and Ed Miliband are now criticising the war in Iraq, and Labour's record of being one of the two main instigators of the war. The problem is, nothing about the duplicity of the Labour Party comes as a surprise anymore.

The two "Ed's" excuse for being able to come out as anti war is that they were not MP's in 2003. The problem is, there excuse falls apart when you realise what they were doing in 2003.

Now if Ed Balls was that upset about the war in Iraq and the illegal invasion in 2003, wouldn't you imagine he would, as a matter of principles, resigned his job as advisor to the Chancellor ?

If he was that digusted he might ahve done a Robin Cook and resigned any positions of authority that gave credibility to the War ?

Of course not. Just months after the invasion, as a good loyal Brown man, as a toady of the new labour regime, he was selected for the then safe seat of Normanton.

Getting a safe seat or stanging up against the war in Iraq ? I know which side of the argument Mr Balls came down on.

So what of Ed Miliband ? It appears that in the period leading up[ to the war, Mr Miliband too was a government advisor.

He did go to harvard in thr 2003/2004 year, but as terms run from Autumn to Summer, he must presumably still have been with the government up to the start of the war in Spring 2003 ?

Of course, a year at Harvard would have been the ideal opportunity for him to express his oppostion to the war in Iraq in articles, essays and speeches. I wonder if Mr Miliband is willing to publish all the articles from 2003/2004 ? I would guess that given that he was selected for a safe labour seat in 2005, no such speeches, essay or articles exist.

So vote for political expediency. For for Ed.

Blogging hiatus

After what has been the best fortnight on this blog ever for comments and unique visitors, I know I ought to follow this up with daily postings and lots more news. The problem, is, I  don't really know where to take this blog at the moment. 

So whilst I don't intend to totally stop blogging, until I have something really important to say or at least have some issues I can get my teeth in to, expect blogging to be patchy, at best.

I'm staying put, for now.

I am convinced by the coalition and our reason for entering it ?

No.

Am I convinced that some of our MPs didn't get stars in their eyes ?

No.

Do I think electors have been lied to ?

Yes

As a councillor elected as a Lib Dem, do I think it would further damage people's trust in my area if I resigned as a Lib Dem having been elected as one ?

Yes.

People are sick at the moment of voting for people who say one thing, then do another. "Vote Lib Dem to get ..." they were told. In my area, I intend to keep my promises even if nationally the party have failed to do that.

So until my term is up as a councillor, I will remain a Lib Dem and I will continue to oppose those things I was told we should be opposing in election literature delivered just days ago. However, I cannot  promise I will remain a Lib Dem after May 2011.

Losing the argument ?

We had a meeting yesterday of Lib Dem members, councillors and activists, about the coalition the party has gone in to with the Conservative Party. It was interesting, but brought up some issues that really do make me wonder why some people ever joined the Liberal Democrats.

There were obviously a number of people, including me, whose views were very polarised on this issue. I was far from being the only one feeling a sense of disgust at the way our parliamentary party has acted. But I was appalled at the way some in our party will resort to personal attacks, blatant lies and selective use of quotes in order to justify their side of the argument, and all those people were on the "We love the coalition" side of the debate.

The first example was when I raised the point that we launched a "Tory VAT bombshell" poster in the General Election campaign, but now we might be the ones to be supporting the VAT rise. When I said VAT was the most regressive form of Taxation, hitting the poor most, a former Lib Dem council leader, and an accountant to boot, stood up and told me I was wrong. That VAT was not at all regressive and was very fair because it exempted children's clothes and food.

Now I might expect a political novice not to know much about VAT, but a former council leader, an accountant ?

When I retorted back that "it was Vince Cable who said it was the most regressive", he had no response other than to repeat it ?

For the sake of Clarity, just Google "Vince Cable Regressive VAT" and you get dozens of quotes.

Another point made by those who supported the deal was that a Green Councillor in Norwich had written to the Eastern Daily Press saying the coalition was a good idea and so had Iain Dale !

When I responded pointing out that the Green's in Norwich were putting out on twitter that this was a great opportunity to recruit Lib Dems, so no wonder they were keen on it, and Iain Dale might be a supporter of the deal, but he was also predicting this would have have a detrimental affect on Lib Dem election results, the pro camp's response was "We don't care what they've got to say anyway !"

So when it supported the pro Tory coalitionists to use their quotes, it was great. When those same people being quoted said things that did not support their arguments, suddenly their views were to be ignored. Confused ?

Finally, and most insulting, was a comment from one North Norfolk member. Now I have known this person since 1997. I drove her home from the General Election Count in 1997 at 5am in the morning. She has known that I have been an active campaigner, given up a lot of things in life and spent an awful amount of money on supporting the Lib Dems in North Norfolk and beyond.

So for this lady to turn around after I had spoken and say "We're tired of these people on the internet and twitter who do nothing for this party and never get out from behind their computers to do real work", was a real insult.

I can accept reasoned argument and genuine criticism. But personal attacks from someone like that in a public forum were far from liberal or fair.

The view I got from the meeting yesterday was that those people who for years I have had to argue with in order to stand paper candidates, in order to do target letters, in order to deliver Focus leaflets outside of election time, were the very same people who were arguing for the coalition.

I have almost made a decision on my future politically. But comments and the attitude of some people yesterday would not encourage me to join the Lib Dems if I was not already a member.

The real commitment to inclusive Government laid bare

In the last parliament, there was one person in the Lib Dems above anyone else who was really promoting the case of cross party co-operation on key areas of policy.

Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb championed the idea of parties working together to come up with a proper response to the issues of personal care for the elderly in a way which would remove party political point scoring and instead focus on solving problems.

So what has Norman Lamb's reward been for championing working with other parties ? Nothing. No ministerial post, not at any level of government.

So when it comes to proving that people can work with other parties, Norman Lamb is given zilch by Nick Clegg in what appears to be Norman bring pushed aside by David Cameron, who seems now to be able to decide who in the Lib Dems will and won't be given positions.

What an appalling position for the Lib Dems to be in.

Update : I should add that Norman was not at the meeting of Norfolk Lib Dem members this morning. Simon Wright MP was in the hotseat and to be fair, did a good job of trying to justify the party's decisions. Although I disagree with almost everything he said and his interpretation of the situation, he remains a friend and even if I find myself leaving the party, Simon will remain a friend.

Read Read !!

Rob Fenwick highlights some of the big concerns I have. Read his article HERE.

New Lib Dem Focus Leaflet

Cabinet positions with little policy

I can tell you the reaction in the staffroom at work today was one of total shock that the Lib Dems had folded and given up the position of schools minister to Tory Michael Gove.

Crazy ideas from the Tories about intoducing a compulsory two hours of maths a day at primary level and allowing any group to set up their own schools which allows money and resources to be taken from existing schools now seem to be given the go ahead by the Lib Dems.

More total capitulation whilst Lib Dems take position in cabinet which have very little in the way of policy as part of the brief.

Our leaflets in the election warned about letting the Tories get hold of the NHS, and who is in charge of the NHS now ? Andrew Lansley, the chum of the private healthcare business. And more than that, the man we condemned for walking away from an all party agreement on healthcare and how to care for the elderly.

Now we have given them education too !

Out new party logo will be a white bird on a white background painted on to a flag !

How many reasons do we need not to sit with the Tories ?

How many good reason do we need to know the Tories are not the people we want to sit with ?

1) Homophobia - The Tories have consistently had problems with homophobia amongst their ranks. Chris Grayling started it all off again recently by claiming that B&B owners ought to be able to refuse to have gay peoiple staying in their establishments. Then we had the Tory PPC who set up a prayer group to use the power of religion to stop people geing gay. Need I go on and list all the others ?

2) Nadine Dorries - The twitter account deletion does not hide the fact that she calls people who are pro choice "Dr Death" and has numerous other issues that are totally incompatible with anyone who sees "fairness" as a core principles of their beliefs.

3) Voting reform - AV is not PR. Can I repeat that, AV IS NOT PR !

4) Murdoch - I always see it as a good rule of thumb that if Murdoch supports it, we ought to be against it.

5) Iraq - Let's not forget, the Tories were more supportive of the idea of invading Iraq than Labour were.

6) The NHS - In leaflets distributed by the Lib Dems in the general election, we were apparently to be very afraid of the Tories gettinh their hands on the NHS as they would wreck it. Not my words, but those of the Lib Dems.

7) Non Doms - MPs who are Non-Doms, multi millionaire backers who are Non-Doms. Should I go on ?

8) Flippers - Remember how many Tory MPs and Tory front benchers flipped their mortgages in order to gain the maximum amount from their expenses ? No Lib Dems did it. We were proud of that, but we'll sit with those who do.

9) Cleaning up parliament - How many of Cameron's front bench supported plans to reform parliamentary expenses before the expenses scandal broke ? Would it surprise people that a majhority didn't support reform ?

10) Trident - Apparently we need a cold war weapons system ?

This is a short list thought up by a very tired, fed up, dejected and utterly depressed activist.

I wonder who can add to this list who is feeling more inspired than me ?

Do I want to remain in a party that goes in to a full coalition with the Tories ?

The rumours this afternoon suggest that Lib Dem MPs are now swinging towards the idea of a full coalition with the Tories. If this is the case, I am absolutely appalled.

I can understand the arguments for allowing the Tories to run a minority government. I can understand the arguments for allowing the Tories to have support on key issues like the Queen's speech, major issues in their manifesto, and areas where Lib Dems and Tories agree. However, I cannot see the need for a full coalition other than to tickle the bellys of certain Lib Dem MPs wishing for a ministerial car and the title "Right Honourable".

If we get in return immediate support for the AV voting system and AV+, then I could stomach it. But if it is to got to a committee, then to a referendum, and finally be allowed to be crushed by the Rupert Murdoch media empire who will use every sinew of their energy to oppose it, ensuring we have torn the Lib Dems apart in order to allow the Tories to rule with no change to our voting system, then our MPs will allow themselves to become the Ramsay McDonalds of the Liberal movement.

Do I want to remain in such a party ? Do I hell !

Tuesday Night Update - So much of me wants to just give up on the party, but in many ways, that is what our parliamentary party has done, and I think there should be some of us left after they do their Ramsay McDonald act and either lose their seats or join the Tory Party. Someone has to carry the torch for the Lib Dems, so I will, in all probably stay on.