......SHOT BY BOTH SIDES

New wordpress blog

2010-05-22T01:11:00.002+01:00

Now blogging over at this site. Everything will be transferred over once I work out how to do it.

Dodgy emails

2010-05-14T19:21:00.002+01:00

OK, someone is having a laugh.... Not only have I been trying for months to stop Conservative campaign HQ sending me 'personal' and to be frank, rather over-friendly, emails from David Cameron, George Osborne and Eric Pickles, to both my own email account and to my parliamentary email address.... Latest example, from the man we must now learn to call the Prime Minister:

"Dear Kerry,

From the bottom of my heart - thank you.

Thank you for voting Conservative on Thursday. Every vote counts and you helped Britain vote for change.

More than that, I want to thank you for fighting and campaigning so hard for the past few weeks. I know how hard every supporter, member and activist worked during this campaign. I know how tough and gruelling it was. I know how tired you all feel now. You'll have blisters from all the pavements you've pounded; paper-cuts from the envelopes you've stuffed; bruised knuckles from the doors you've knocked on."

Etc, etc. I have been trying to compose bitingly sarcastic replies, but got stuck for inspiration and ended up just saying "Dear Dave. I am a Labour MP. Ergo..."

Anyway, if it were not bad enough that I've been unwittingly and completely involuntarily been conscripted into the Tory ranks, I also received last week:

- an email thanking me for signing up to receive news from the Liberal Democrats
- an email regarding my request to subscribe to the UKIP mailing list
- an email thanking me for signing up to Julia Goldsworthy's website and ticking the following options "I will display a poster at election time/ I can help with general campaigning/ I would like to join the Liberal Democrats/ I would like to recieve [sic] regular updates about Julia's Parliamentary work"

The last of those was received three days after she'd already lost the seat... if only I'd signed up sooner. She'd have been in the Cabinet now.

@actionaiduk - Make Your Mark

2010-05-14T18:23:00.003+01:00

I've been asked by Action Aid to publicise this on my blog, and very happy to do so. It's part of a campaign to get 1000 new sponsors in the Bristol area to support children in developing countries. I've been sponsoring a little boy, Baraka, in Tanzania, for a couple of years now, through Worldvision. In his first letter to me (written by an adult) he told me how he hoped to go to school one day; I now have pictures of him posing proudly in his new school uniform. It really is a rewarding experience, seeing how your donations actually make a difference to the life of the sponsored child, their family and their community, and worth doing if you can afford it.

Here's the press release from Action Aid:

"ActionAid is urging people in the South West to send in self portraits for a major public artwork before it’s too late. The deadline to ‘Make Your Mark’, and send a self portrait on a specially created template is Monday 17th May.

Unveiled on Bristol’s College Green on 1st June, a sea of West Country faces will make up this giant mosaic of the face of 5-year-old Enid from Uganda. Enid hopes to make her mark on her village by becoming a teacher. But first she needs to go to school. Making Your Mark and submitting a self portrait will help to raise awareness of the 72 million children around the world, like Enid, who do not attend school because of poverty.

West Country celebrities have already made their mark by submitting self portraits, including Bristolian comedy writer and actor Stephen Merchant; comedian Mark Watson and none-other-than Darth Vader himself (Bristol actor David Prowse).

Leading anti-poverty charity ActionAid is holding the event to help find a thousand new child sponsors in Bristol and the West Country, so they can support children like Enid and their communities. ActionAid works with communities to create an environment in which children can thrive. Regular donations from sponsors help communities turn that support into whatever’s needed most – whether it’s a new school building, trained teachers, healthcare services, clean water supplies or help to build sustainable livelihoods.

Mark Watson: “As a comedian I spend my life talking about myself, so I thought drawing myself would make a nice change.” [Despite his flippancy here, Mark Watson is very involved in this, and will be blogging and tweeting his way through Senegal for Action Aid soon - on Twitter as @watsoncomedian].

Bristol writer and actor, Stephen Merchant:
“I sponsor a child in India. My donation each month helps to support her and her entire community - it’s such a rewarding relationship.”

Liz Waldy, Head of Supporter Marketing at ActionAid:
“Sponsoring a child is a unique way of getting help direct to the people who need it most. ActionAid works with the world’s poorest people, helping them access many of the things we take for granted like education, healthcare and clean water.”

More info & self portrait templates available on the Action Aid site."

M32 park-and-ride

2010-05-04T17:39:00.003+01:00

One other issue I just wanted to flag up, before going out on door-knocking again... the M32 park-and-ride. To summarise very briefly. Yes to more park-and-ride schemes, and for that we need cross-border co-operation, which I suspect will only come when we finally get an Integrated Transport Authority. Yes to a park-and-ride scheme for the M32, as the congestion and queues coming into Bristol is pretty bad and will only get worse. No to putting it on the Stapleton allotments site, which is opposed by the vast majority of residents, will increase pollution in the area and - it seems, according to the rather daft plan - lead to more traffic heading through Stapleton village.

Where have all the Green Tories gone?

2010-05-04T17:18:00.003+01:00

Over on my website I've listed some of the pledges I've signed up to during the course of this campaign; it's by no means an exhaustive list, but covers some of those I've been asked to sign by several constituents, or perhaps those I feel particularly strongly about. One such pledge was from Friends of the Earth, which is featured in a Guardian report today, highlighting how few Tory candidates have signed up to it.

The four parts to the pledge are:

international agreement to tackle climate change, where those responsible make the deepest cuts first and developing countries are supported to grow in a local carbon way;
local carbon budgets;
a 42% reduction in UK emissions by 2020;
tackling greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation caused by the UK's dependence on imported feeds for livestock.

I'm not sure where on the Friends of the Earth website you can check which candidates have signed up to the pledge, 'though I've found the bit which records how many letters each local candidate has been sent. (I've had six, the Tory has had nine).

Anyway, for the record, I signed up to three out of four of the pledges, and gave the other one half a thumbs up. (That was the one on a 42% cut in emissions by 2020. Ed Miliband has said that signing up to a new agreement would mean increasing our current commitment to cut emissions by 34% by 2020, and it would have been easy for me to go along with the 42%, but I'm just not sure it's deliverable and didn't want to make an empty promise. But in theory, yes, we need to up our targets and be more ambitious).

My most enthusiastic response was, as you might expect, for the "Fix the Food Chain" pledge, about livestock's impact on the environment. I may not be one of the 277 MPs who signed the Early Day Motion on this (because I couldn't, not being a backbencher), but I think I'm still the only MP to have called a debate on the topic in the Commons.

By the way - the last hustings of the Bristol East campaign is tonight, at the City Academy, hosted by Greenpeace. I've watched the Bristol West one online, on Paul Smith's website, (well, it's two hours long and I can't claim to have given it my undivided attention, but it was on in the background). It will be interesting to see how the questions differ in our patch.

Change we see - or will see!

2010-05-04T16:46:00.004+01:00

Juggling all sorts of stuff in the office at the moment, i.e emails and letters that need to go out before Thursday, plus still a fair amount of ongoing casework. One of the things about spending so much time out and about in the constituency is the overall picture that begins to emerge, of priorities and current concerns. Of course I've had five years representing three-quarters of the new Bristol East constituency, but changing demographics, economic circumstances, things closing down or opening up, all make a difference over time.

One issue is the conversion of private housing into flats, which is something I've become more and more concerned about over time. (Indeed I may have blogged about it quite recently? Anyway, I'm doing so again!) I think it's a trend that has been exacerbated by the recession, with developers buying up repossessed properties and turning them into flats, which generate far higher profits for them. Planning permission seems to be readily granted, despite objections from local residents about additional pressures on parking and more traffic. I think the concerns go wider than this. For a start, it's yet another family house lost, and we have a real shortage of them in Bristol. Secondly, it changes the nature of the neighbourhood, if there's a steady turnover of tenants, some of whom might not care so much about keeping their front yards tidy, or getting on with their neighbours.

This, incidentally, is something addressed by Labour's plans for the local authorities to keep a full register of all private landlords, so that they can far more easily be held responsible for the actions of their tenants, even if the landlords themselves don't live on the premises. But we also need Bristol City Council to factor this into their planning policies, so that we don't see development by stealth, until our communities become choc-a-bloc with flats and cars and parking problems. I am, by the way, very keen on promoting urban living too, and more flats being built in the city centre, e.g. warehouse conversions. It's transformed city-centre living in Manchester, and I think areas like Redcliffe are ripe for such development.

On a related point, I never got round to blogging about the meeting I had a few months ago with the developers behind the Parcel Force building along Cattle Market road, i.e. the huge derelict building you see as you pull into Temple Meads. (I said it was an eyesore, they weren't happy, we had a meeting at which we ended up going completely off topic and talking about independent record labels of the early 1980s and how much we missed Tony Wilson, from what I recall). I'm not sure how much they want in the public domain at the moment, nor what's happened in the last couple of months, but let's just say that if they pull it off, it will be a fantastic project and really bring life to that part of the city.

Vote for animals

2010-05-01T17:36:00.004+01:00

Just picked up an email telling me that Protecting Animals in Democracy have decided to endorse me "as the best voting option in your constituency to protect millions of animals from the cruelty of bloodsports, intensive farming and painful experiments."

The email goes on to say: "We believe that the way we treat animals is a fundamental indication of the state of our society, and 87% of the public agree, according to a YouGov opinion poll. Your support for measures to protect animals is, therefore, a positive sign that you have the character and values much needed to stand in Parliament and help restore the integrity of our political system. We wish you the very best of luck in the General Election, and we hope we can work with you in the next Parliament to build a more compassionate society where animals are treated as individuals worthy of respect rather than expendable objects to be exploited and abused."

You can check out candidates' responses to the PAD questionnaire here: www.vote4animals.org.uk/constituency.htm

Community and youth facilities in east Bristol

2010-04-30T10:32:00.004+01:00

One of the issues I've flagged up on my latest leaflet is the lack of community and youth facilities in some parts of east Bristol. There's never space to go into much detail about what is in the pipeline, but there are positive things at the planning stage, and I hope that we can deliver on these over the coming year or so. Councillor Ron Stone is chair of the St George Neighbourhood Partnership, and, having been the driving force behind getting a new play park in St George's Park and securing funding for Meadowvale Community Centre, he's now involved in a deal where the Kingswood Foundation will take over the running of the Kingsway Youth Centre and invest in youth provision there, which will be fantastic when it happens.

Ron has also been leading the charge on Bristol City Council, trying to pin the Lib Dems down on the future of the Speedwell pool. This dates back to 2005, when the pool was closed down. There was meant to be an all-party agreement that ageing pools would be replaced before they were shut, but when the Liberals took over, they reneged on this. They're now promising a new pool for Speedwell, but questions from Cllr Stone have revealed there's no money in the capital programme for this... they're funding some sort of feasibility study, but as Ron says, you can't swim in that! At the moment it just looks as if they're promising pie-in-the-sky.

As for other parts of east Bristol, in Brislington we need to make more of Wicklea Youth Centre, but people have quite rightly said that there's also a need for better facilities elsewhere. And in Stockwood, there are suggestions that the site of Stockwood Green school could be used for a community centre, which the area desperately needs. As I mentioned in a blogpost not so long ago, Ron has identified millions of pounds of unspent s.106 money sitting in the Council's coffers. It's time some of that was spent in the community.

"No-one's knocked on my door"

2010-04-30T09:48:00.005+01:00

I've had a few people get in touch with the office to say that they haven't had any election literature from Labour or any contact on the doorstep. Many, many more people than that are returning slips from the leaflets or calling up, pledging their support, asking for posters, offering to help, or raising issues, including a lovely 78 year old woman who left a message on the campaign phone last night, saying she'd always voted Labour and wasn't going to change now, and she thought I'd done a great job over the last five years, and don't let the Tories in!

We've had quite a few such calls, of people just wanting to wish us well. (I say "us" - I mean the Labour Party, and my local Labour team. I might be the person up for election, but it's not just about me). I have also been moved by the number of people working in the public and voluntary sectors who have privately told me how worried they are about the prospect of a Tory government.

But to return to topic... virtually every household in the constituency should have had a copy of a hand-delivered newspaper, entitled Bristol News, which went out before the election was called (and I suspect some people have already forgotten they've had that). We have also been delivering surveys as we've been door-knocking - and we've covered virtually every area of the constituency in recent weeks, if not every street - and have been giving out copies of Labour's manifesto for families "Your Family, Your Choice" too. The election address, which is delivered by Royal Mail, is going out now, and we also have a "Change We See" leaflet going out now, to at least half the households in east Bristol. It's a great leaflet with a very positive message. We've also done a fair bit of street campaigning, e.g. with John Prescott in Fishponds, and in St George on St George's Day, as well as having a bit of fun with a fox in St George's Park. And we've been at the school gates, where the reaction from parents has been really good.

So sorry if we've missed you, but it doesn't mean we're not out there trying our best to make contact with as many people as possible. And we're certainly not complacent at all about the result in east Bristol. I don't detect any enthusiasm at all on the doorstep for a Conservative Government, but that doesn't mean that people who are Labour inclined will turn out to vote unless we convince them we're listening to their concerns, and tell them about what the election strategists would call "the future offer". (In other words, what we're going to do for them, their community and the country if we are re-elected). And we will be continuing to do so over the next few days until polling day.

I might try and post pdfs on the leaflets on here, or on the website, so that anyone who hasn't received a copy can download. And if you really want to talk to me about anything before polling day, and you're a constituent, by all means get in touch!

Another penitent sinner...

2010-04-29T18:36:00.003+01:00

Here's a statement I issued earlier:

"On hearing the results of a random and unscientific sample of postal votes, I posted them on Twitter. It was a thoughtless thing to do, and I very quickly realised that it was not appropriate to put such information in the public domain. Because this was not official information, and no votes had been counted, I thought of it as being akin to canvass returns, i.e. telling people how well we were doing with Labour promises on the doorstep, but I appreciate now it was wrong to do so. I have personally called the Returning Officer at Bristol City Council to apologise, and assured him I have removed the information as quickly as possible, within a matter of minutes. He has advised that it would not be lawful for anyone else to publish the information, for example, by re-posting my original Tweet."

I am not the first person to make such a mistake, and I'm sure I won't be the last, but as you can imagine, I'm cross with myself. Tweet in haste, repent at leisure....

Boundary changes blunder - latest

2010-04-29T16:09:00.003+01:00

Update on the boundary changes... I happened to speak to Stephen McNamara, the Returning Officer, today, and it looks as if they are reasonably confident that the situation can be resolved. It seems that most, but not all, postal voters in Lawrence Hill and Easton have been given the wrong ballot papers. Those who have recently moved into those wards, or have recently applied for a postal vote, have been given the correct ballot papers, i.e. for Bristol West.

The Council will be able to tell whether someone has voted twice, so if anyone in those wards has received and returned a Bristol West ballot, and then, say, gone off on holiday before receiving the reissued ballot paper, (see below for a possible scenario), then that will still count. The only people who will miss out will be those who have mistakenly received a Bristol East ballot paper, and go away on hols before the replacement arrives. However, the Council are hand-delivering the replacements and want to get them all out before the weekend (not May 4th as they stated in their letter). There is no guarantee given as to how soon before polling day postal vote ballot papers have to be sent out anyway, but the guideline is at least four working days, which will be met is they are received by Friday. So... the only problem will be if the result in Bristol West is close, i.e. within a few hundred votes.

Hustings

2010-04-29T10:21:00.004+01:00

There are a couple of hustings set to take place in east Bristol between now and next Thursday. The first one is this Friday, at St John's Church on Lodge Causeway, starting at 7.30pm. I think all main party candidates will be there, not sure how many of the other candidates have been invited. Anyone and everyone is welcome to attend.

The second is next Tuesday, at the CityAcademy. That's a 7pm for 7.30pm start. It's organised by Greenpeace, but open to everyone. I think it's just Labour, Tories, Libs and - of course - the Green candidate.

Arnos Vale

2010-04-29T10:05:00.004+01:00

In a a moment I'll be off to the opening ceremony at Arnos Vale cemetery, which is featured in today's Guardian. It's a shame the Guardian piece doesn't elaborate on quite what a battle it was to wrest ownership of the cemetery from the developer - how the volunteers set up stall outside the cemetery gates for many years, raising funds for its upkeep, fighting legal battles, before the developer was finally forced to transfer ownership and then a £5 million plus grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund meant that restoration work could begin.

I've paid tribute on here before to the work of Richard and Joyce Smith; sadly Richard died recently, after a long battle with cancer, but he lived long enough to know that his dream of seeing Arnos Vale restored and open to the public in all its gothic glory was about to be realised. If you have never visited, you really should; it's a stunning place.

Don't judge my family - update

2010-04-28T11:25:00.004+01:00

The Tory proposal for a Married Couples Tax Allowance came up at the Fawcett Society debate in Bristol last Thursday, and I think it's fair to say that the audience was not impressed. I've blogged about it on here before, so won't repeat myself, but it's good to see the heat being turned up, today with a letter from 70 widows and widowers to the Telegraph, pointing out the unfairness of the policy, which wouldn't benefit their families at all. As they say, money "should be spent to support children and families who need it most", not to make rather nasty political gestures in a bid to win over the Daily Mail editorial team.

Boundary changes - yet another blunder!

2010-04-28T11:08:00.003+01:00

Reports have reached me of voters in Easton receiving my freepost election address - that's the one which is directly delivered by Royal Mail, which every candidate is allowed. (There's an issue about whether the postal workers will deliver the BNP one, I think they refuse to do so).

The office had a call this morning from a voter in Easton who knew she was backing Paul Smith this time, but then got a postal vote with my name on it, and an election address from me. And then she got a letter from the Council telling her the postal vote ballot paper was wrong and she'd be getting a new one. Can't blame her for being confused!

Meanwhile some people in Lawrence Hill ward have received letters from the Council apologising for being sent Bristol East ballot papers, telling them to scrap them, and that they will be sent Bristol West ballot papers by May 4th at the latest. But they haven't actually been sent Bristol East ballot papers - they've had Bristol West ones! (It seems the wrong ballot papers have mostly gone out in Easton, but the Council has recalled all those sent out to the bits of Bristol East going into West).

So... what happens if they've already sent off their ballot paper? Will they realise they have to vote again? And what if they've gone away on holiday by then? Surely there must be a way, when verifying the postal votes, of checking whether people have voted once or twice, and if they've only sent back the first Bristol West ballot paper, then that should be allowed?

Vote Lib Dem Get Tory

2010-04-27T16:53:00.003+01:00

I am getting heartily sick of all this talk of hung parliaments. I've just composed a letter out to voters in east Bristol, urging them to take a look at policies instead.

I am also getting very, very fed up with Nick Clegg. He's getting rather full of himself, isn't he? How dare he presume to dictate to the Labour Party who we should have as our leader in the event of a Lib-Lab deal? Memo to Nick: we choose our leader, you don't. And if we were to have any say over the Lib Dem leadership, it wouldn't be you. We've read the Orange Book and we have just an inkling that you're something of a closet Tory.

Speaking of closet Tories, the Lib Dems in Bristol are of course fielding a former Tory councillor, in the person of Mike Popham. I have yet to see much evidence that he has repented his right-wing ways. If you vote Lib Dem in Bristol East you either: a) split the progressive vote and let the Tories in by the back door; b) vote for a party whose leader seems to be expressing a clear preference for getting into bed with Cameron; or c) vote in Popham and get a Tory MP in all but name!

You would of course be far better voting Labour... You know where you are with us ;-)

Update on postal voting in "old" Bristol East

2010-04-27T16:50:00.002+01:00

Latest on boundary changes blunder... The Council say all those affected will have their new postal ballots by this Friday. Still not sure if that will protect them from a legal challenge, but it's better than May 4th which was their original estimated date.

Boundary changes blunder

2010-04-26T22:21:00.005+01:00

The boundary changes that come into effect at this election mean that Bristol East loses the Lawrence Hill and Easton wards (which go into Bristol West) and the little bit of Knowle (which joins the rest of Knowle in Bristol South), and gains Frome Vale and Hillfields from the Kingswood constituency.

I've got to know lots of voters in Easton and Lawrence Hill over the past five years, through attending community events, dealing with casework and just generally getting out and about. So Paul Smith and I have gone to some lengths to explain to people that he'll be their candidate, not me. Unfortunately it hasn't quite sunk in at Bristol City Council, who have somehow managed to send out ballot papers to 2,800 postal voters in those wards with the names of the Bristol East candidates on them. (The 2,800 is their figure, although it may be that they've assumed they've got all the Easton/ Lawrence Hill postal votes wrong, and they haven't, which makes it even more muddled.)

Stephen McNamara, the Returning Officer, is going on Radio Bristol tomorrow to explain how it happened ("software error" I'm told), and what he's going to do about it. Apparently they're writing out to everyone, telling them the ballot papers are invalid, and will re-issue the ballot papers by May 4th at the latest. Is that going to be good enough? I suspect not. Look at these possible scenarios.

1) Mr and Mrs A have applied for a postal vote because they're going off on holiday on May 1st. Their replacement ballot paper arrives May 4th. They don't get the chance to vote.

2) Ms B doesn't get her postal vote until she arrives home from work on the evening of May 4th. She puts it in the post on May 5th. It's touch and go whether the post gets there in time for polling day on May 6th.

3) Mr C gets his ballot paper with Bristol East candidates on it, sends it off straightaway, and is confused by the second ballot paper arriving, so he doesn't send it off.

4) Mrs D is elderly and housebound, and can't get to the post office. She can't send off her ballot paper until her daughter comes round to visit on Thursday, which is too late.* NB In this scenario her daughter could drop the postal vote into the polling station on polling day, as that's always permitted; postal votes don't have to be sent by post.

Bristol West is likely to be a very close fight anyway, between Labour and Lib Dems. So what happens if, say, Paul Smith loses to the Lib candidate by 500 votes, but 600 postal votes are either invalid or aren't returned? (It's actually quite normal for many postal votes not to be used, though turnout is higher than it is for normal voting, but you wouldn't be able to assume that it was a deliberate abstention). Or even if the outcome is clear, but one of the minor parties narrowly misses holding onto their deposit? In the latter case I'm not sure whether they'd succeed in a legal challenge, or whether they could just be fobbed off by being given their deposit back, but in the first scenario it's pretty obvious that a legal challenge could be mounted, to try to declare the election result invalid. And if that happens, it means a by-election....

NB We had a couple of frantic hours in the office this afternoon, trying to find out whether it would affect all four Bristol seats, but it looks like it's just Bristol West. There is also a problem with ballot papers in the three south of the river wards, Brislington East + West, and Stockwood, with 800 or so ballot papers issued with duplicate numbers - i.e. there are two number ones, etc - but that can be sorted by checking against addresses, we hope.

Meet the candidates

2010-04-26T22:00:00.003+01:00

So, nominations are in for Bristol East and there are eight candidates on the ballot paper. Those leaning to the right are spoilt for choice, with the BNP, English Democrats, UKIP, Tories and Lib Dems (well, it is Popham after all), and on the left we have Labour, the Greens and the Socialist/ Trade Union party. The UKIP candidate is called Phil Collins, which got us excited for at least a couple of seconds in the office.

The only proper, open to all hustings of the campaign is taking place this coming Friday, at St John's Church on Lodge Causeway. It starts at 7.30pm. Would be good to see plenty of people there, asking lots of awkward questions. Not sure how many candidates have been invited.

I'm doing a couple of other debates this week, one in front of PCS members and a 'speed-dating' event somewhere in Clifton, which is being organised by Oxfam. [JUST RECEIVED EMAIL - THIS HAS BEEN CANCELLED BECAUSE IT CLASHES WITH A BRISTOL WEST HUSTINGS]

I bumped into Wilf from Greenpeace in the Post Office today (the first of three visits to three separate post offices, due to gross under-estimation of just how many postal vote letters we were sending out) and he wants to organise an event for Bristol East, so will keep you posted if that can be pulled together at short notice.

Better Banking

2010-04-25T22:53:00.003+01:00

I've just signed up to support the http://www.betterbanking.org.uk/ campaign. Of course it's always tempting for a candidate to sign up to virtually every pledge which is waved under their nose, in the hope that it will coax another voter into the fold, but I have a track record on this issue from my days on the Treasury Select Committee. Indeed, I made a speech in Parliament in 2006 on the need for a UK-equivalent to the US Community Reinvestment Act, which I seem to recall was met with rather blank looks in the Chamber. (Actually I made two speeches on it; here's the other one, you'll need to scroll down.)

Here's an extract from the Better Banking website, setting out their objectives:

1) Transparency

In order to understand how big and widespread the problem of financial exclusion is, we first need to know exactly which groups of people and parts of the country banks are lending money to and which they aren’t. The Better Banking Campaign therefore believes that banks should provide information on where their money comes from and where this is invested, and that this data should be broken down by demographic group and geographic area.

2) An Incentive Structure

Once we know who banks lend to and who they don’t, an incentive structure needs to be created to encourage banks to start lending to people, businesses and third sector organisations in underserved communities. Banks which take their responsibilities seriously should be rewarded, while those performing poorly should face penalties. In America, this incentive structure is provided by a piece of legislation called the Community Reinvestment Act. The Better Banking Campaign believes that an equivalent piece of legislation should also be introduced here in the UK.

3) A Cap on Extortionate Lending Rates

When people are unable to access finance from a mainstream bank, they are often forced to turn to a high-cost lender (such as a pay-day loan company) or, even worse, a loan shark. As the UK is one of the few EU countries without a legal cap on lending rates, these alternative lenders are able to charge whatever rate they like. Sometimes this can be as high as 3000%, meaning people end up paying back vastly more than they originally borrowed. The Better Banking Campaign believes that it is unacceptable that any form of lender should be allowed to profiteer in this way at the expense of people in need. We are therefore calling for the introduction of a cap on extortionate lending rates.

4) A Commitment to Re-invest 1% of Profits

In recognition for the assistance taxpayers have given banks since the financial crisis, we believe banks should be required to re-invest 1% of their pre-tax profits for social benefit. Some banks do in fact already do this through their CSR policies, but the Better Banking Campaign believes that making this a requirement for all banks will help ensure they take seriously their contribution to wider society.

Thursday - the spotlight's on Bristol!

2010-04-21T23:17:00.005+01:00

Final blog post of today, and keeping it short... Am still going to blog about the manifesto at some point, I promise! And on John Healey's visit to Bristol yesterday to highlight Labour's commitment to new council house building.

Tomorrow is going to be a really big campaign day, for obvious reasons. The party leaders are in town for the Leaders' debate, along with some 300 or so media hacks. Gordon is, I hope, going to be doing a visit or two earlier on in the day, and will also be tweeting live from Bristol - check out @Tweetminster #askGB.

Later on in the day I'll be out campaigning, possibly with a Minister in tow, then I'm doing a debate at the uni on education issues, and then a Fawcett Society debate at the Council House, on women's issues. That one could be quite interesting. I think Adeela will be there.

And then it's off to Bordeaux Quay for a VIP screening of the Leaders' Debate which is taking place across the water at the Arnolfini. Or I might disappear early to the St George Labour Club where we're screening it too. The first half of the debate is on foreign affairs, and I'd David Cameron will do his best to try to paint Nick Clegg as a rabid euro-federalist. (He's actually mildly rabid on the euro-federalism front, but not fully-fledged). Mr Clegg - or, indeed, Gordon - might want to watch this video on Tories in the EU parliament as part of their prep. It also includes Cameron's must-see interview for Gay Times.

Putting the record straight

2010-04-21T20:56:00.008+01:00

New media is a great way of bringing to wider attention the work done by 'old media' in dissecting and judging claims made by politicians during the campaign. Here, for example, is James Purnell's piece for Channel 4 about the Tories' pledge to cut benefits for people who refuse to work. (Not so much 'dog whistle' politics as placing a great big juicy steak right under Fido's nose.) As James points out, there have always been sanctions. The Tories "are railing against a problem that doesn't exist." He also goes on to expound on some interesting work he's been doing for Demos, on what he dubs 'Liberation Welfare'. Left Foot Forward however, point out that the Tories are proposing far harsher sanctions, and that actually, DWP research shows that sanctions have very little impact on behaviour.

One of the things I've found most - not rewarding, that's the wrong word, not satisfying... interesting perhaps, but more than just interesting... the most interesting and enlightening and heartwarming if that's not too soppy a word, over the five years I've been MP for east Bristol, has been spending time visiting organisations that work with welfare claimants, advising them, encouraging them, and giving practical support to enable them to move off welfare and into work. It's not something that produces immediate results, it takes resources and time, but it's so worthwhile seeing how people's lives can be turned around.

Obviously things like childcare and making work pay (and Labour's manifesto includes a pledge that we will ensure anyone would always be at least £40 per week better off in work) and the logistics of travelling from A (home) to B (work) via C (school or nursery or the childminder) are important, and I've blogged before about how we need to take such things into account, but equally important is a focus on boosting confidence, and just making people realise that, yes they can sort things out, that their problems aren't insurmountable, that they do have something to offer. I've seen this in the past fortnight at the Bristol Drugs Project, at Hartcliffe and Withywood Ventures, and at the Terence Higgins Trust, to name just three, talking to people who at times felt they'd reached rock bottom but have been given a helping hand up.

One of the things that struck me when I was talking to the Terence Higgins Trust though, was that it's these organisations that are actually the frontline services we need to protect under a future Labour government. It's easy just to think of frontline public services as doctors and nurses in hospitals, and teachers in schools, or staff in the job centres. But the Terence Higgins Trust is also on the frontline: face-to-face contact, hand-holding where necessary, being an integral part of service users' lives. And although they get some charitable funding, they also receive a lot of their funding from the Primary Care Trust. (Some criticise this giving of grants to third sector organisations as 'privatisation' of public services, but I've seen so much evidence of them doing excellent work, better and more personalised than a more bureaucratic public sector organisation could.

My fear is that when we talk about protecting frontline services in the face of cuts, the focus will all be on teachers and nurses, class sizes and hospital beds. Of course these are important, and Labour has pledged to protect them even as it seeks to reduce the deficit through efficiency savings. And they will have trade unions fighting for them and so they should. But let's not forget the community-based organisations who are doing valuable, publicly-funded work too, who can't shout as loud and might not be as obviously missed were the axe to fall.

I could now stray into a discussion of Cameron's plans for the 'Big Society' here, and why I don't think it's the same thing at all as what I see and admire in Bristol, but seeing as senior Tories are now saying it doesn't exist, or if it does "it's boiled vegetables that have been cooked for three minutes too long" (eh?) I really think I should preserve my energy.

School's out

2010-04-19T13:59:00.003+01:00

We're off to do some school gates campaigning soon, as we will be every day for the rest of the campaign. My team have decided that I am "not an electoral asset" first thing in the morning, so it's afternoons only for the time being! The more I see the reaction of Tories online to the http://www.dontjudgemyfamily.com/ campaign, the more I appreciate the need for it. I wonder how many of the parents at the gates of the schools in Stockwood today will be in the 'ideal' family set-up envisioned by the Tories? We will also be out canvassing in Stockwood afterwards; sometimes I think I should walk up and down the streets with a megaphone, so that people know I'm there! We always get that 'I only ever see you at election time', as well as people denying they've ever received any election literature from any candidate, local or parliamentary, for many, many years, even though we know we've delivered the whole ward.

...... The above post was started on Tuesday, or was it Monday? Then I had to rush off. We did school gates in Fishponds today, really positive response, including from some young pupils from Bristol Met, who'd been at the debate yesterday. One of them, a 13 year old Somali girl, ended up handing out leaflets with us. They're all Labour. Excellent stuff.

Got a call from someone today saying that my Tory opponent is apparently telling people she did so brilliantly in the debate at Bristol Met I rushed off straight afterwards, leaving her to bask in glory. Er, no... I had a Cabinet minister waiting for me in Hillfields! And I had already been at the school three hours. First we had a group of 11-13 year olds, then the older pupils, talking to them about the election, and then we did a Q and A with the pupils who'd expressed more of an interest.

I think the Tory mentioned one actual policy from the Tory manifesto, and not sure the Lib Dem mentioned any, he just kept going on about business and the national debt. And using words like 'interfacing' and 'optimally'. Today he's quoted me on his blog saying that I admitted in the debate that Bristol East has been ignored. Well, yes, I don't have any problem saying that in public, so not sure what he's getting excited about.

Parts of east Bristol have been overlooked, in that they don't qualify for regeneration funding in the way that the inner city wards do, and there's a lack of youth and community facilities; I've been saying that for the past five years. And there is undeniably resentment amongst many people, who feel that they've worked hard and fended for themselves, but that has meant they've lost out to people who haven't done so and 'have things handed to them on a plate'. (Not my words, but words I certainly hear on the doorstep).

We've made some progress, e.g. in St George, look at St George's Park new play area, and Meadowvale community centre has got funding, and schools provide more pre-school and after-school facilities under the Extended Schools initiative, but areas like Hillfields and Stockwood are crying out for places for young people to go, and things for them to do, and community centres too. A lot of this is, of course, down to the Council, not central Government. Labour Councillor Ron Stone has fought tremendous battles to get things happening in St George West, and this has paid off. He got 350 school pupils to lobby the council to fund the St George play area, for example; they were drawing up a shortlist of places across Bristol, and St George wasn't on the list until Ron marched into the office with his pile of 350 letters. Who could resist? Ron has also identified huge amounts - £16 million - of unspent s.106 money, which was earmarked for community facilities but has just been sitting in the council coffers. Quite frankly, it's a real scandal.

Brilliant Britain

2010-04-19T01:11:00.004+01:00

David Cameron is on TV at the moment saying in one breath he's going to fight a relentlessly positive campaign and in the very next saying 'we don't want another five years of Gordon Brown, of dithering and despair and depression'. (There goes the dog whistle, we all know what he's getting at). For the record, Dave, I can tell you that voters in east Bristol aren't impressed by the current batch of billboards featuring a grinning Gordon (looking quite cute actually, in a pixie-ish way) and nasty slogans. They don't like negative campaigning, they want to know what the Tories stand for.

Voters this week were - I assume subconsciously - quoting back at me the message from Labour's Party Election Broadcast, the Road Ahead. 'We're on the right road and now is not the time to change direction'. (And incidentally, this must be the first election where PEBs aren't something you accidentally catch on TV at the end of the news, but where you can track them down yourself on YouTube and tweet or email the links to friends).

Our second PEB, starring Eddie Izzard, is also worth watching. Yes, it criticises the Tories, it points out what's wrong with their principles and their policies, but it's not nasty, it's not personal, and the overall message is overwhelmingly positive: that Britain is not broken, it's brilliant.

After praising the virtues of positive campaigning, I may be laying myself open to accusations of hypocrisy for posting the link to the Who Has David Cameron Met? site, but it is rather entertaining. I suspect he won't be relaying quite so many anecdotes about people he's met on the campaign trail when it comes to this week's leaders' debate. "Last week I met an imaginary foreign sort who told me that New Labour got a free car on the NHS". Enjoy.

Don't Judge my Family

2010-04-19T00:41:00.004+01:00

On Tuesday this week Harriet Harman was in the city, to launch Labour's document "Your Family, Your Choice", which highlights the real differences between Tory and Labour policies on the family. She came to the Gatehouse Centre in Hartcliffe, which I'd not visited before, it being in Dawn Primarolo's patch, but they seem to be doing excellent work with children, parents and grandparents, offering support, fostering aspirations, and giving practical help and advice as needed. Their website takes a long time to load, but here's the link: www.hwv.org.uk.

One of the things the visit highlighted was something I've blogged about on here many times before. Most families aren't nuclear families. I had a really good conversation with a grandmother who has her grandchild living with her. I wasn't at all surprised to learn of the bureaucratic obstacles she'd had to face when she'd first assumed responsibility for the child. (This issue, of informal adoption, and how we can better help the adopters and the children in such circumstances is also something I've raised in Parliament, in the context of the welfare of children of prisoners).

While I'm on the topic of families, a campaign has been launched in protest at the Tory's plans to introduce a Married Couple's Tax Allowance. The site - Don't Judge my Family - lists all those categories of people who wouldn't benefit from the Tory tax move, including single parents, the widowed or those who have left an abusive relationship. The Tories themselves admit that the amounts involved are not much of an incentive for anyone to get married, but that it's about 'sending out a signal' that marriage is best. As the campaign says, this is not just judgmental, it's also highly offensive to many people. And it reflects a very conservative, old-fashioned view of marriage, in that it only kicks in if one partner in the marriage doesn't go out to work. So much for Cameron the moderniser.

Finally on the same topic, an absolutely brilliant article by JK Rowling. A must read.

Pledges

2010-04-17T00:51:00.003+01:00

I don't know if it was because I was selected so late last time round and didn't make it onto the lobbyists' databases, or whether it's just because campaign groups have got much more internet-savvy, but I'm getting a lot of requests to sign up to pledges and respond to candidates' surveys on all sorts of things. (In 2005 I had just the one, from the protect public toilets campaign, much to the amusement of all my friends).

In most cases the groups will be posting the results online, so that people can check to see if their local candidates have signed up or how they've responded, but I'm going to try to see if I can put links to at least some on my own website too, in the interests of letting as many people as possible know what I've done or said. Will try to get that sorted in the coming week. Here's one that I've more or less replied to, from Election Crossroads (I ignored some of the questions because I didn't think it was possible to give a yes or no answer, and commented in the space below). Incidentally, I know my Green Party opponent has press released the fact I haven't replied to this one, from DemRef - I have, actually - I assume they will be updating it soon. And I've just emailed another organisation because I think they've recorded my responses wrong, possibly because I tried to give a more intelligent answer than just yes/ no, which ends up getting recorded as prevarication or fence-sitting, whereas sometimes it's actually about not seeing things in black and white, or not liking the way the question is phrased. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, I can always see the possible caveats....

None of this matters a great deal in the big scheme of things, but it all adds up to letting people know a little bit about you, and like I said in the previous post, it's important people know who they're electing, even if most of them vote for the party, not the candidate.

Debates

2010-04-16T23:51:00.002+01:00

I've spent the evening listening to political pundits analysing the leaders' debate ad nauseam, so will reserve my words of wisdom for next Thursday's debate, the Sky one, on foreign affairs, which is of course being held in Bristol. Quite where it's taking place, I'm not sure. I did a piece to camera from the Sky 'bureau' in Bristol a week or two ago, and it's little more than a broom cupboard in an office block at the Science Park. (Incidentally, I hate those 'down the line' pieces. Never know where to look.)

I've been invited by Sky not to the actual debate, but to the VIP screening and after-show party, as have all the candidates, so not such a big deal really. I say all the candidates, it might just be the three main parties whose leaders are taking part. As it stands - and nominations don't close till Tuesday - there are at least seven candidates standing in Bristol East. Me for Labour of course, got the nomination papers in today. Adeela Shafi for the Tories. Mike "Biggles" Popham for the Lib Dems. Glenn Vowles for the Greens. Bloke called Jenkins for the BNP. An English Democrat, I think. A lefty trade union/ Socialist candidate, can't remember what the party is called. No sign of UKIP yet. And someone tweeted tonight about a Pirate Party candidate, but I don't know anything about that.

So far I've only taken part in one debate with people who are actually standing against me, with Mike Popham and Glenn Vowles at St Brendan's Sixth Form. Adeela pulled out. I was going to say, Adeela pulled out, so no Tory on the panel, but as I've already said, Mike Popham was there. Vote Lib Dem, get a Tory! (He was a Tory councillor in Woking, quite a right-wing one by all accounts, who defected to the Lib Dems because the Tories in Bristol wouldn't give him a safe council seat. Or so I'm told - feel free to rebut.)

I cannot detect any sign at all of liberal leanings. The one issue he's chosen to highlight on the front of his latest leaflet is something to do with undernourished soldiers, though he doesn't quite say what he's done about them. And he talks about "Tories and Labour buddies" on the Council. Excuse me! Wasn't us who was in coalition with the Tories! By the way, I can say now, if I haven't said it already - I will not even be mentioning my political opponents in my leaflets. Their parties, yes, their leaders, yes - but not the sort of nasty personal attacks to which the Lib Dem has resorted.

I also did a debate on Sikh issues last Saturday, but that was with the Bristol West Lib Dem and Green candidates, as well as someone from Plaid Cymru and the delightful Lord William Dartmouth from UKIP. Adeela pulled out. (Do you detect a pattern here?) There are more debates in the pipeline, but until today, when we took a call from a vicar wanting to put on something at his church in Lodge Causeway, none of them are between the Bristol East candidates, they're more cross-city affairs.

In fact I've started turning down some of the invitations to do things with Stephen Williams because (a) I think he should be going head-to-head with his actual Labour opponent, Paul Smith and (b) if I'm going to debate with a Lib Dem, I think it should be the guy who's standing against me. So, for example, I'd agreed to do a community radio show next Tuesday; then they said Stephen Williams would be on with me, so I've said, get Paul in. Or get Popham in, and then I'll do it.

I'm very keen actually to debate Popham more, and Adeela, who is not only pulling out of debates, she's not answering media calls either. Since the election was called local Tories have been busy getting their glossy airbrushed billboards up in supporters' gardens. Voters deserve the chance to find out if there's substance behind that sleek exterior. And at the moment, that's being denied them. Unless she's replying to emails, and in that case I'd be very interested to see what's she's saying...

#labourdoorstep

2010-04-16T21:20:00.002+01:00

As usual we were out door-knocking tonight, this time in Hillfields, the oldest council estate in Britain. It was built in 1919, as "Homes for Heroes" returning from the First World War. Nice spacious houses, mostly populated by very nice Labour voters. Last night we were out on the Speedwell estate, and the night before on the St Anne's estate in Brislington. Quite similar areas, and no, we're not just concentrating on our 'core vote', it's just a coincidence we did those three estates over the past few days. So what's the verdict from the doorstep?

Firstly, there is absolutely no sign at all of any shift from Labour to the Conservatives (and this is true in other, less traditionally Labour parts of the constituency too). Cameron goes down incredibly badly in this neck of the woods, with the common refrain being "he's not interested in people like us". These are the sort of voters who might perhaps have been won over by the Thatcher/ Tebbit brand of Conservatism; they've bought their council houses, they think there's too much immigration, and there's a degree of resentment against people who haven't worked hard or put aside savings, but receive benefits 'paid for by our taxes'. But Cameron doesn't do it for them, at all. Some are swayed by the idea of "Time for Change", but when you push it home and say that means "Time for Tories" they recoil.

There's not much sign of support for the Lib Dems either, though to be fair Nick Clegg's name did come up on the doorstep a few times tonight. After last night's debate he'll be able to capitalise on being the "Change" candidate, but once the buzz settles down, will people really see him as prime ministerial material? I still think he's a lightweight, and basically a Tory 'wet' who is too pro-European to be in the Tory party. And no interest in, or grasp of, economic issues. And needs putting on the spot about Lib Dems policies on a whole range of other things too. I think he may do well, in a particularly sanctimonious way, in the next debate, on foreign affairs. Down a drink for every time he mentions Iraq and you'll get absolutely bladdered. But give Gordon half a chance and he will absolutely hammer him on the third one, on the economy. (That's if Gordon wants to, of course, there may be good tactical reasons for not doing so.)

What worries me the most - and not because I think they have a hope in hell of winning, but just because of the sheer principle of it, the absolute horror of them gaining a foothold in east Bristol - is support for the BNP. The Government came up with a list, a while ago, of 100 wards across the country which could perhaps be labelled as typical 'disaffected white working class', vulnerable to the BNP, and some funding for community cohesion projects there. Six of those wards were in Bristol, and four of those six were in my constituency: Hillfields, St George East, St George West and Brislington East.

And this is being borne out by what I'm hearing on the doorstep. It's all about fairness: people who have worked hard, lived a fairly modest, decent life, never looked to the state for much help. Their resentment is not just about immigration, though that certainly comes up, almost every time, but also about people on their estates who don't work and 'get given everything', and MPs who can claim for duckhouses and cleaning the moat. Myths and stereotypes abound, from asylum seekers loading up supermarket trolleys with luxury items, paid for with vouchers (on £35 a week?) to young girls on the bus boasting about how they're going to get pregnant to get a council house.

But I've been having very long conversations with people, while the rest of my team get on with the canvassing, and you know what? These voters might want to make me work for their vote, but they're still Labour at heart; they just want to make sure I'm listening. I had one woman who insisted she wasn't going to vote Labour, bent my ear for a good twenty minutes or more about immigration, and then followed me up the garden path saying "well are you going to give me a poster then? can't have those ****** Tories back in!"

21 days to go...

2010-04-14T23:30:00.006+01:00

Rather cross with my failure to blog over past week, since the election was called. Hope to make up for it over the next few weeks. I finished up in Westminster on Thursday (by 'finished up' I mean gathering all the outstanding correspondence up and shovelling it into my suitcase, and forgetting to return my library books). As of 5pm on Monday, when Parliament was dissolved, we are no longer MPs and are not allowed into our Westminster offices, or allowed access to our parliamentary email. I've got it on auto-forward, to kerry4bristoleast@googlemail.com - people from Bristol East are welcome to contact me on that; people not from Bristol East, to be frank, I'd rather you didn't!

It was quite a weird feeling actually - I got off a train at Temple Meads at exactly 5pm, and suddenly thought: I'm not an MP anymore. I might never be an MP again. And then I walked home past Transport House, the TGWU headquarters, and saw loads of Vote Paul Smith posters in the windows where five years ago there were posters for me. (Boundary changes, it's in Bristol West now). So I've been feeling quite nostalgic, thinking back on the past five years. More of that later, perhaps.

Although I'm not an MP anymore, my office is still allowed to deal with outstanding casework, but I can't do surgeries, can't call the MPs' hotlines for immigration or DWP cases, can't use my MP letterhead... There's the added complication of the boundary changes. Much of my staff's time at the moment is spent writing to people in Lawrence Hill and Easton wards, saying I'm sorry but I can't represent them anymore because even if I am re-elected, they will be in Bristol West constituency, and do they want me to pass their files to the new MP after May 6th? (Incidentally, when the Tory, Jonathan Saeed, was beaten narrowly by Labour's Jean Corston in Bristol East in 1992 - not just one but two boundary changes ago - he simply binned all his casework files. That's Tories for you.)

Since getting back to Bristol on Friday - and what a relief it is to be in one place for a whole month! - I have of course been busy campaigning. I also spent Saturday afternoon debating Sikh issues with candidates from the Lib Dems and Greens, someone from Plaid Cymru and a rather rude and objectionable UKIP MEP (is there any other sort?) who I have since learned is Barbara Cartland's grandson. I'd have thought she'd have insisted on better manners from him. He tried at one point to suggest I'd said that people guilty of crimes against humanity should be allowed into the UK, but people who said things I disagreed with shouldn't. Needless to say, I said nothing of the sort.

Monday was the manifesto launch in Birmingham, and back in time for canvassing, and Tuesday started with Harriet Harman's visit to a family project in south Bristol. Lots more to blog about there, but enough for tonight.... busy day campaigning ahead of me tomorrow!

Do You Realize?

2010-04-08T21:54:00.003+01:00

I am determined not to log onto Tweetdeck tonight unless/ until I've made deeper inroads into my email inbox, but here's info from an email I've just received. Apparently I am 'the most engaged' politician on Twitter. Though maybe not tonight! Well deserved first place for Tom Watson, who is far more of a geek than I will ever be.

Radio Gaga*

2010-04-08T20:41:00.006+01:00

It was my intention to blog several times a day throughout the election campaign, but to be honest I've seen very little of it so far. I haven't had time to watch television, read the papers, or check out any online coverage. Over the next few days I will try to give a summary of what Parliament has been up to in the last few days, and my personal take on both issues and process, so please bear with me... Obviously have to prioritise clearing the decks in Westminster first and replying to all of the many, many requests to sign election pledges. To keep you entertained in the meantime, someone has sent me this transcript of an interview David Cameron did on BBC Radio Gloucestershire today. [Actually, now got the link, painful....]

Mark Cummings: How important to you is this part of the UK?

DC: Oh very important and there are vital swing seats we need to win, Cheltenham, Gloucester itself so you’ll see very hard campaigning across Gloucestershire. I feel I’m almost a home boy as my constituency’s just next door in West Oxfordshire but it’s obviously, this is a vital election and there’s a real chance of proper change in our country, not having to put up with another five years of Gordon Brown and I hope people take the opportunity.

MC: OK, swing seats, this is your neighbouring patch, you mentioned Cheltenham and Gloucester, any other places in Gloucestershire you’re interested in?

DC: Well I’m interested, we’re interested in winning every seat in Gloucestershire frankly. There are no no-go areas for the party, I mentioned two that spring to mind. Um, but you know, you have to…the truth about this election is that you have to win in every part of the country, you’ve got to win in the South West, you’ve got to win in the West and East Midlands, win in the North of England and that is what we’re focused on.

MC: But if you want to be the next Prime Minister obviously you need to get a grasp of which are those vital swing seats, so you mentioned Cheltenham and Gloucester, but obviously here there is another one in Gloucestershire. Which is the other one that you’re desperate to get that you should really get?

DC: Er, you’re giving me a test here. Um, well it’s all of them. I’m trying to er, think,, you’re testing me out now, hold on, er, which other seats. Well I can’t think of one we don’t want to win.

MC : Well Gloucestershire, it’s easy. It’s next to Oxfordshire.

DC: Yeah I know where exactly where Gloucestershire is. No. You can test me…no we need to win every seat and obviously we already hold the Cirencester seat, we already hold the Tewksbury seat, we need to, we already hold the, um, er, the, the, um, er, the, the, the…we need to win Cheltenham, we need to win Gloucester, er, I’m desperately racking my brain and thinking what other seats, er, we’ve got. Obviously, er, we’ve got Mark Harper as well, I’m sure he will be fighting very hard in this coming campaign. What have I missed out?

MC: Laurie Lee? Cider with Rosie? David Drew?...

DC: Aah, yes of course, Stroud. Very important. We’ve got an excellent candidate there in, in, in Neil Carmichael. I’ve been out on the streets with him, I’ve done a, erm, public meetings in Stroud. You’re quite right. Sorry. First thing in the morning, my geography let me down, but no Stroud is a vital seat and we’ll be fighting all of not just Stroud but the Slad valley, um, and Cider with Rosie, you’re quite right. I will go and refresh on my Laurie Lee.

* This breaks my rule about only using titles of songs I like, but my teabreak is over and I have to get back to work so no time to think of anything better! Good songs with radio in the title: Radio Free Europe, Radio Radio... Good songs about radio: Transmission, Turn it On.... No, inspiration fails me, back to the grindstone!

Easter

2010-04-04T18:30:00.004+01:00

This seems somehow timely, given the Chris Grayling furore and it being Easter and all that. Watch, enjoy and memorise for future reference.

P.S. Transcript here.

Cold brains

2010-04-02T16:15:00.003+01:00

I do love Joaquin Phoenix. Walk the Line is one of my favourite films of recent years, one of those you have to watch when it's on telly even though you've got it on DVD (as I did only the other night). He's just done this video for PETA, "Cold-Blooded Horrors: Inside the Exotic-Skins Trade" (wish I could embed, but technology fails me). Please watch, it's powerful stuff.

I hope someone shows Samantha Cameron a copy.

Find the River

2010-03-31T11:42:00.002+01:00

On train on the way back to Bristol after not quite such a late night as we expected last night. We finished at about midnight, though leaving the office was somewhat delayed by one of my whip colleagues efforts to find her lost Blackberry, which we could hear vibrating but couldn't see... I eventually found it in the bin. That's the last thing you want on the cusp of an election campaign, losing your phone!

I'm now gently easing into the day by listening to REM in mellow mood on Spotify on my netbook: Wendell Gee, Fall on Me, Perfect Circle, Find the River... (Not to be morbid but that's the song I want played at my funeral. I see the press reports now.... "In a macabre twist, she blogged about her funeral only minutes before the train plunged off the track and into the ravine". Incidentally, does anyone else remember the Rob Newman routine, possibly from the Mary Whitehouse Experience, where he says that whenever he walks home late at night he always has a Crimewatch voiceover in his head, as if he's reconstructing his final moments.... "He was just minutes from his front door when the machete-wielding attacker struck him from behind"? And does anyone else do the same, or is it just me?)

Almost in Bristol now. Will be a mad dash to drop off stuff at home, grab the car, then off to meet Paul Smith (Bristol West candidate but you all know that by now) for a visit to Bristol Drugs Project. And then I'm off to a residential care home in St George to judge their Easter bonnet competition! I actually did the same five years ago, as a new candidate... how time flies! Remember, if I don't survive the experience.... Find the River it is.

People Like Us

2010-03-31T10:53:00.002+01:00

I've posted this graph before, but this is the up-to-date version from the IFS. I assume it doesn't include the measures which come into effect at the start of the new financial year, i.e. the 50p higher band of income tax or the 1p rise in NI for those on more than £20,000. Political opponents are fond of focusing on the income inequality gap, i.e. that the gap between the richest and the poorest has grown under a Labour, but too often this gets twisted into "the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer". That's not true. The poorest are significantly better off under this Labour Government, as are many on modest and middle incomes too. And that's before you get onto public services, and the fact that those who can't afford to pay for health care or education have seen a massive improvement in the NHS and schools under Labour.

Just Step S'Ways

2010-03-30T23:43:00.004+01:00

Just had six votes in a row on motions relating to the 2010 Budget. There were actually 50 Government motions tabled, and each one had to be called for a vote, with the Whip saying Aye and then, unless the Opposition benches shouted Noe, things going through without a vote.

Most of the motions were self-explanatory, e.g. income tax, stamp duty, alcohol duty, but then it got more and more obscure. Motion 20was "Sideways Relief etc", causing a couple of backbenchers on the Tory benches to shout out "what's that then?" No-one replied.

And then we got to Motion 24, "Cushion Gas". Looking at the Order Paper I'm none the wiser as it simply says "That provision be made for cushion gas". Cue someone shouting out "Whoopee!" and both the Deputy Speaker and the Whip (me) finding it very hard to keep a straight face.

Somewhat late in the day though it might be, I feel I would be failing in my democratic duty to my constituents were I not to investigate further, and here's the least incomprehensible of all the explanations as to what we're doing on the cushion gas front:

Cushion gas
The Government has announced that from 1 April 2010, all leases of cushion gas will be treated as funding leases and that expenditure on cushion gas will attract allowances at 10 per cent per year. The reason for these changes is that cushion gas does not wear out and the Government were concerned that it would be possible to write very long operating leases of cushion gas without ever triggering the long funding lease rules.

A vote winner if ever there was one.

Gentlemen's Agreement

2010-03-30T22:31:00.002+01:00

Had a nice letter today from Stonewall, who have just published the voting records of all current MPs on seven votes which were crucial in pushing forward the agenda for full equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. It says "I wanted to let you know that you were among the minority of MPs who scored 100%, reflecting your support in every single vote." The full voting records are here: www.stonewall.org.uk/election2010.

On a related note, congratulations to Chris Bryant MP, who at the weekend became the first MP to enter into a civil partnership in the Palace of Westminster, with Jared, whom I've met on a couple of occasions, most recently at the National Portrait Gallery's 'Gay Icons' exhibition; they make a very nice couple. And congratulations to Ricky Martin, who it is now OK to like (which is good because I kind of secretly did anyway! Only in Spanish of course.)

Super Furry Animals

2010-03-30T21:14:00.003+01:00

Been a bit of an animal welfare theme to today... Started off at a breakfast briefing with the League of Cruel Sports, talking about their mission to preserve the hunting ban. Did you know, what's proposed by the Tories is a simple one clause Bill, repealing the ban, which if passed would not only legitimise hunting foxes with hounds again, but also stag-hunting and hare-coursing?

We also touched, in passing, on dog-fighting which is actually quite an issue locally. You can see the teeth marks on branches on the trees in St George's Park, where dog-owners hang their dogs up to strengthen their jaws.

Later on I recorded a promo for the Vegan Society. One of those things where I'm not quite sure what's going to happen with the finished product, but it won't be ready until the end of May. I basically had to do some pieces to camera about food security, and the environmental case for turning vegan. The film crew were from this company, Environmental Films. Very nice bunch of people.

While we're on this theme, a reminder to people to vote in Bristol's EcoVeggie awards. Also a bit of a plug for the Bristol Eco Veggie Fayre, at the end of May. This looks rather as if it's replacing the Bristol Vegan Fayre, which is a bit of a shame. I suppose if it pulls in more people it's good, but it's so nice to be able to spend one day of the year somewhere you don't ever have to ask what the ingredients are in things!

Do It Yourself

2010-03-30T16:36:00.005+01:00

Most people who are au fait, up to speed, on the ball, etc as far as new media campaigning is concerned will already have heard about Labour's latest wheeze, to 'crowd source' its next election poster. I gather entries have been flooding in, and the best will be published after the closing date, tomorrow. I did an interview about it on Five Live yesterday, when the Tory up against me actually cited #cashgordon as an example of the Tory Party's online success. (See recent post if you need an explanation as to why that provoked guffaws from the listening public).

I suspect the second category, "highlighting David Cameron's lack of substance" may produce the most amusing entries, but here's a great one in the first category, Labour's pledge to protect online public services, from Bristol's very own Rory Doona (see here for some more of his work, including his manga poster for Paul Smith's Bristol West campaign. He's promised me to do me one soon too!)

Banning things

2010-03-29T23:19:00.003+01:00

As I came out of my surgery on Friday (Muller Hall, just off Stapleton Road) I fell into conversation with three young guys, who were packing bundles of khat into a box. I'd never actually seen khat before, and was expecting it to be a bit more twig-like whereas it was actually quite green and fresh. I politely declined their offer to try some. (On a complete tangent, I keep getting into conversations where 'Adeela' is confused with 'a dealer'. So I should be very careful in future if I refer to being offered khat by a dealer, or I will be accused of slandering my Tory opponent).

I know many in the Somali community want khat banned, and the issue may well come to the forefront again with the decision to ban mephedrone and other cathinones.

The main active ingredient in khat is cathinone, but it's obviously not synthetic, so I assume not covered by the proposed ban. The guys I was talking insisted that it was fine in moderation, and that problems only arose when people abused khat, e.g. taking it every night instead of as an occasional 'treat'. But I've heard tales of family life being wrecked by it, with men staying out all night, sleeping all day and refusing to work, and it sometimes leading to domestic violence. (It's not exclusively a male phenomenon, some women do chew khat too, though not to anywhere near the same extent). At the risk of being seen to sit on the fence, I think we certainly need more research into the long-term health effects of khat use, and the social impact too, and I'm inclined to think we should be taking steps to limit its use. But I could be persuaded otherwise. As some Somalis would say to me, look at alcohol. And they'd be right.

Ask the Chancellors

2010-03-29T19:32:00.008+01:00

Aaagghhh... Twitter not working and it's #askthechancellors time! So let's blog it...

Alistair so far coming across as most human, most likeable (but then I do like him, he actually has a very dry sense of humour). The journos before questioned whether the unflappable Chancellor would prove to be flappable.... I predict not, though he's displaying more passion than most might have expected. Especially those who listened to his Budget speech last week! (Sorry Alistair, but it brought a whole new meaning to 'not playing to the gallery', except on the tax agreement with Belize announcement, the drama of which was somewhat lost on me because I thought it had already been in the papers; it hadn't, we'd had a briefing at the whips meeting earlier).

Osborne opening his response to the "why me" question with "I've been watching someone else do the job for five years" was a bit of a schoolboy error, did nothing to counter the notion that's he's inexperienced and never had a proper job. And Cable seems to be playing interrogator rather than answering questions. Now he's talking about savage cuts. Savage to me means vicious, attacking the weak and vulnerable. Radical cuts would be a better choice of terminology if he wants to signify something more than 'substantial'. (Twitter working again now....)

Might as well do a postscript... as predicted, Osborne wasn't exactly bad but didn't inspire confidence, and doubt if he said anything to win over anyone who wasn't a Tory in the first place. He comes across like a junior minister at best. Would have liked Alistair to have kept up the momentum a bit more, if he'd been stood next to Osborne I think dynamics would have worked better. As for Cable, people seem to like him but I just don't see the passion, or the politics. Does he really want to change the world?

(Also, I'd like to see him and Clegg firmly put on the spot about the unions, and what role they see for them in protecting workers' rights in a modern economy.... I don't think the support is there. And, as I've just been reminded on Twitter, Vince Cable said on this week's Any Questions that all strikes in the public sector should be banned. True, my jaw dropped when I heard him. David Miliband, btw, was very good on it - worth a relisten for his summary of Labour plans to cut the deficit).

Food for Thought

2010-03-29T19:32:00.003+01:00

Monday night and I'm in Bristol... we were on a one-liner today in London as it was day three of the Budget debate, and, having managed to persuade a colleague to do my SI (delegated legislation committee) for me, I was able to spend a day with the team in the constituency. We went to Grounded in Church Road for lunch, which followed hot on the heels of my first ever visit there, on Saturday in between campaign sessions. (St George in the morning, Brislington in the afternoon with our council candidate, Mike Wollacott, and then Eastville yesterday.)

Grounded is another step in what some might dub the gentrification of St George - it's all goats cheese, capers and parmesan shavings, quite Clifton in fact, but we like it. And it does soya lattes, which gets my vote. It was virtually full at lunchtime on a Saturday and also at 3pm on a Monday, which bodes quite well for its survival.

In other local news, I also popped into Love Food's Spring Festival at the Old Passenger Shed, Temple Meads, yesterday. Stunning venue and good to see it being used for a farmers market type event, rather than the usual corporate affairs. Lorna, whose brainchild the Love Food Festival is, will feature in the next edition of Marie Claire. Great example of how the Prince's Trust has helped get an original, local business idea off the ground. As I write this I am eating a (vegi-deli mince) shepherd's pie made with forraged wild garlic; someone gave me a bunch at the festival, and very nice it is too. Again, another plus to being able to spend a bit more time in Bristol; I can cook!

I'd been hoping to travel down to London tomorrow morning, but as it happens, I have to catch a late train to London tonight because I'm doing some filming in Parliament with the Vegan Society tomorrow morning, for a promo. At least it means I get to watch "Ask the Chancellors", starting on Channel 4 in a moment. I suspect expectations of George Osborne are so low, he might exceed them, but let's see.

Fox on the Run

2010-03-29T00:14:00.003+01:00

Rumours reached me a week or so ago that I would - along with some other Labour MPs - be targeted at the General Election by pro-hunt supporters. This is confirmed in an excellent piece of investigative journalism from the Independent.

Given that (a) I wasn't in Parliament in 2004 to vote for the hunting ban, although of course I would have backed it; (b) there are plenty of seats more marginal than mine; and (c) there aren't any hunts in my urban constituency, I regard this as something of a badge of honour. I can only assume I've been singled out in recognition of my support for animal welfare issues during my five years in Parliament, or my online efforts to promote http://www.backtheban.com/.

Or is it because my Tory opponent has been identified as someone who will vote to bring back fox-hunting? I've seen an email response she sent to a constituent a while ago on the topic, saying that she totally supported the Tory pledge to give MPs a free vote on the issue in the new parliament, but she 'would wait and see what her constituents thought' before deciding how to vote. (NB 75% of the British public opposes the ban).

My understanding, however, and I've seen some of the background material on this, is that Vote-OK have only given their backing to candidates who have pledged to vote for the return of fox-hunting. Perhaps someone could ask Adeela if that's true?

PS Easy way to ask - www.keepcrueltyhistory.com.

Glad to Be Gay

2010-03-24T17:38:00.007Z

Or at least gay-friendly. So he says. He being Cameron.
I know I'm coming late to this, but this really is a shockingly bad interview from Cameron for Gay Times. Perhaps by the time he gets to Bristol tomorrow he'll have learnt his lines.

P.S. Now had a 'courtesy email' from his diary secretary to say he'll be visiting Bristol East.

Having my Baby*

2010-03-24T08:54:00.008Z

Such is the life I lead, I often end up just skimming news headlines during the day and reading yesterday's paper the following morning as I'm drying my hair. Hence being rather late to realise that the Guardian has seen fit to devote a whole page to Samantha Cameron's pregnancy, with the tagline "Tory lead among female voters is likely to remain". No doubt the letters page today is full of letters from women who, like me, almost exploded on reading that. Yes, because that's all it takes to win the women's vote, isn't it? Cooing over the prospect of a gurgling little baby in No. 10. (The piece is written by two blokes, by the way. And yes, congratulations to the Camerons, especially after last year's tragedy, but please...).

The Guardian also falls for CCHQ puffery by highlighting their quote "Social action projects are at the heart of everything we do. Sam will champion that." She designs handbags. Rather expensive handbags, along with £250 credit card holders made from the skin of monitor lizards, who don't deserve to end up in some overpaid banker's inside breast pocket. Perhaps she has a hitherto undisclosed commitment to charitable projects, but she's kept it very quiet.

More importantly though, let's look in a bit more detail at that quote from CCHQ. "Social action projects are at the heart of everything we do... Social action projects demonstrate our core values of social responsibility, not state control." That's spinspeak for slashing public spending (and the grants to voluntary sector organisations that go with it), letting the churches and charities pick up the pieces. It's the same old Tory agenda. Any chance of the Guardian finding space for a full page article on that? Or will they just stick a big picture of Sam Cam on the page so the women readers can get a really good look at her baby bump?

* Without a doubt, the most nauseating song of all time. From the guy who wrote My Way.

Kerry's Guide to PMQs

2010-03-23T23:42:00.008Z

There is no other way of putting it... it's an absolutely lousy draw for PMQs this week. The statisticians amongst you will no doubt be able to explain what the odds are of only getting two Labour MPs on the order paper when more or less the same number of Labour and Tory MPs submitted questions (c.200 MPs participating in the ballot, 15 MPs drawn). Anyway here it is, a sea of blue. Add Cameron and Clegg to the mix, and lots of opportunities for random Labour backbenchers to seek to catch the Speaker's eye. See last week's post if you haven't quite sussed how it works yet.

1. Mike Penning

2. Mark Pritchard

3. Graham Brady

4. Brooks Newmark

5. Gregory Campbell (DUP)

6. Bob Spink (UKIP)

7. Julian Lewis (with a specific question about mental health units)

8. David Amess

9. Jeff Ennis

10. David Borrow

11. Norman Lamb

12. Andrew Selous

13. Mark Hoban

14. David Heath

15. Edward Garnier

I have no idea what any of the backbenchers will ask. Cameron will no doubt challenge the Prime Minister over what the lazy have dubbed Lobbygate but what I prefer to see as Labour's version of Fatal Attraction - just when you think the ultra-Blairites are dead, they lunge back into life, wielding another knife. Until the wife comes in and shoots them.

I'll be on the front bench for the duration, as it's Northern Ireland questions first. And then of course it's the Budget. Don't forget, it's Cameron who replies to the Budget statement, not Osborne. If you manage to catch a glimpse of the Tory front bench during the Chancellor's speech, you will see Letwin and Osborne frantically scribbling away, crossing out the bits of Cameron's speech which no longer apply, adding some back of a fag packet calculations, while the clock ticks away. Cameron just sits there looking blank. After Cameron it will be a Labour speaker, almost certainly John McFall in his swansong as Chair of the Treasury Select Committee. And then it will be Vince Cable.* The debate continues on Thursday, with Ed Miliband kicking off for the Government, on Monday with Yvette Cooper, and concludes on Tuesday with Ed Balls and Liam Byrne.

*I mis-remembered this, thinking of what happens at the PBR. It was of course Clegg, as party leader, who responded for the Libs, followed by John McFall. And I was also wrong about what Cameron would ask. Sir John Butterfill, by the way, who also featured in the Dispatches programme, was watching the debate from a safe perch up in the gallery, presumably so as to avoid anyone pointing him out).

Offend in Every Way

2010-03-23T19:35:00.002Z

Oh joy. David Cameron will be bringing "Cameron Direct" to Bristol this Thursday. Wonder if this will bring my elusive Tory opponent out of hiding? I was meant to be debating her on Monday at St Brendan's Sixth Form, but she had to pull out due to work commitments (or should that be "work commitments"?) and the Tories couldn't come up with a replacement. Pretty poor show considering the students at St Brendan's come from far and wide, and there are quite a few Tory candidates hoping to win seats in the surrounding areas. And it would have been absolutely spiffing to have had Jacob Rees-Mogg there.

As it was, the only other panel members were Vowlsie for the Greens and The Squadron Leader for the Lib Dems, who did a pretty good job of impersonating a Tory. Not that surprising given his past as a Tory councillor in Woking and, according to my mole, rather a right-wing one at that. Someone should ask him how he ended up in the Lib Dems, as it wasn't apparent from anything he said on Monday. The students looked rather bemused when, in response to a Q about the BA strike, he referred to his 20 years service in the RAF - no strikes there! Still, as we say, vote Lib Dem, get Tory.

He did pledge his support for Votes at 16, but as Vowlsie points out in the comments on my earlier "Fighter" post, his conversion to the cause seems to have been rather sudden.

On a more serious note... There are a whole host of candidates standing in Bristol East this time, including the English Democrats, a Socialist/ Trade Union candidate, and the BNP. No word from UKIP yet. The organiser of Monday's debate wasn't aware of the first two candidates and the decision whether or not to invite the BNP candidate was taken out of his hands as the college itself have decided the BNP should not be allowed on the premises.

I've discussed on here before, in the context of Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, my support for 'No platform for the BNP'. I know it's debatable, and sometimes the arguments against sharing a platform with them can sound a bit flimsy, but one thing I noticed when I was putting this point to the assembled students on Monday, was that while the students were fairly evenly split on the issue, all the BME students were nodding in agreement with me. And I kind of think they're the ones I should be listening to on this issue.

Killing an Arab*

2010-03-23T15:44:00.004Z

The Commons annuniciator screen earlier today said David Miliband would be making a statements on "UK Passports (Use in Alleged Murder)". Then it was changed to "UK Passports (Use in Dubai Murder)". I wonder if someone complained about the over-cautious language in the first version?

*This is a song title. Just in case anyone doesn't know that and thinks the reference is a tad gratuitous. The song's based on Camus' L'Etranger. Wouldn't be the first time people have taken it the wrong way. Was the changing of the lyrics to "Kissing an Arab" and then "Kissing Another" a sensible move in view of the danger of them being misinterpreted at a time of increased sensitivity on such issues, or a caving in to people who aren't very bright or very well-read? Discuss.

Fighter - update

2010-03-22T22:19:00.003Z

Must admit I was rather concerned at tonight's PLP when the Chief said that the Parliamentary Committee would be meeting to look at the Dispatches revelations about Byers, Hewitt + Hoon. Yes, that's the right thing to do procedurally, but to hold off from any form of action until 2pm on Wednesday - after PMQs, after the Budget statement - would have been disastrous. So I'm glad that the three have been suspended from the PLP as an interim measure. Swift, decisive action and exactly what furious Labour backbenchers at the PLP were calling for.

By the way, for those who don't know, the parliamentary committee consists of a number of backbench MPs, seven I think, elected by other Labour backbenchers to represent their interests. It meets every week with the Prime Minister. Martin Salter was on it for a while, but to be honest, I don't know who the members are at the moment. As a whip, I don't get to vote for them!

Reasons Not to Be an Idiot*

2010-03-22T22:05:00.005Z

*Thanks to Ben M for introducing me to the music of Frank Turner. I approve.

And yes, I am going home soon.... though I may stay in the office to watch Newsnight, being sad like that. But firstly I'm catching up on all the fun and games that seem to have happened in the Twittersphere during my self-imposed absence today. Students of my timeline, aka stalkers, will have noticed I sent two tweets before 7.30am this morning, just to prove I was up, and that was it - which means I missed the whole #cashgordon debacle as it unfolded. Here's the Guardian's serious take on it but see below for a handy cut out and keep guide (or here if you want a clearer version).

Fighter

2010-03-22T20:48:00.003Z

Business has finished early today, which is good because I'm shattered and so is everyone else, but I'm staying in the office to watch Dispatches, of which more in a moment....

We've had a really busy weekend campaigning in east Bristol, and doing constituency work too. I did a three hour surgery on Friday; only one case from the "new" Bristol East and all the others from the bits I lose in the boundary changes. Bristol West is going to be such a high maintenance seat! I also met Action for ME, for a briefing on various issues including Employment Support Allowance claims and how the system doesn't seem to be meeting the needs of people with fluctuating conditions. Saturday included opening the church fete at St Aidans, and meeting a group of residents in someone's house to talk about a planning objection, and on Sunday we were campaigning in Stockwood. And this morning I was at St Brendan's Sixth Form College to meet three different groups of students. (Big contrast between politics students and the rest in terms of engagement and interest, and surprising lack of support for votes at 16 amongst the non-political, on the grounds that 16 year olds don't know anything about politics and aren't informed enough to make a decision, and might just end up doing what their parents tell them to do. I'm definitely in favour of votes at 16, and hope it will be in the manifesto).

The highlight of the weekend however was John Prescott joining us on the campaign trail... He caught up with us in his battlebus on Saturday afternoon in Fishponds, to launch the local "Spring Clean" campaign (inspired by the very lovely Fiaz and Jacqui who run The Base, a veggie B&B on Fishponds Road). Our haul of rubbish included a copy of the Sun, much to John's delight. He also stood on the steps of Fishponds Conservative Club, in his high-viz gear, waving his litter picker, declaring he was going in: "there's a whole load of rubbish in here!" Later on in the day we accosted unsuspecting shoppers in Broadmead, and ended the night with a rousing Brizzup rally at the Trinity Centre.

John Prescott is of course standing down at the next election. And yet he's up for the fight. He's travelling the length and breadth of the nation, campaigning for Labour.

Which brings me back to Dispatches. Compare and contrast John Prescott - on the stumps at the age of 72, fighting for a Labour victory, talking to voters and picking up crisp bags and KFC wrappers with the rest of us - with Stephen Byers, who is barely seen in Parliament these days, naming his 'going rate' of £5000 a day. It's sickening.

Let me put a few things on the table. If you're privileged enough to be elected to Parliament, that is what you should spend your time doing. No second jobs.

A lot of MPs are be standing down in May, but until then, they were elected to do a job, to serve their constituents. They're being paid to do that job. And in putting themselves and their venal desire to line their pockets first, they've let down everyone in the Labour Party, who has been out there working for a Labour fourth term. (And of course the Tories are going to have a field day with this, although it's patently obvious Byers was talking complete and utter nonsense about his supposed influence over decision-making, and any corporates out there who would be prepared to pay him £5000 a day obviously have money to burn).

At tonight's PLP it was announced that the Chief Whip would be watching the programme, talking to those concerned and looking for a speedy resolution, possibly at Wednesday's meeting of the Parliamentary Committee. Harriet Harman also confirmed in the Commons today that there will be tougher rules on lobbying, which were in the pipeline anyway. But all in all, as one wag on Twitter said "It's a good day to bury Stephen Byers".

When the Going Gets Tough*

2010-03-22T20:12:00.005Z

Given yesterday's inclusion in an Observer piece on the Top Ten political blogs, I feel under something of an obligation to raise my game and blog a bit more. The more observant amongst you may have noticed that I've barely even tweeted over the past few days, and good intentions of blogging last night ended instead with falling asleep on the sofa to the sound of the Boyzone tribute to Stephen Gately concert. (And no, not a fan, and their version of the godlike Billy Ocean's "When the Going Gets Tough" is a travesty, but I felt under a moral obligation to watch. One in the eye for Jan Moir, etc.)

Actually, in the absence of any other contenders, I'm coming to the conclusion that "When the Going Gets Tough" - Billy O version - should be our election song on the grounds that:

a) Things have got tough, but you need Labour fighters and a tough guy at the helm to deal with it, and Labour has comprehensively risen to the challenge of difficult economic and political circumstances;

b) It has an amusing reference to Alistair Darling in it. Sort of.

c) We can have a lot of fun on Twitter with "When the Going Gets Tough, the Toffs Get Going"

d) See above re godlike genius that is Billy O.

e) When referred to a panel consisting of: Blog the Week's Conor Pope; the Stilletoed Socialist herself, Bevanite Ellie; and Twitter's @BenMosley and @BenCooper86 (collectively known as BenSquared) over brunch on Sunday, it met with virtually unanimous approval.

OK, we may have some explaining to do when it comes to the line about "Gonna make you stand and deliver, and give me love in the old-fashioned way", which conjures up frankly disturbing images, but I think we can deal with that.

Anything to stop that big-haired pomp rock nonsense, "Don't Stop Believing". I may have to resign the Labour whip if we choose that.

*I may well have used this title before, but hey, worth a reprise.

Fragile Happiness

2010-03-18T19:45:00.004Z

Interesting findings from a survey of MPs for a programme on the BBC tonight, the People's Politician. Two-fifths of MPs say their work has left them feeling depressed, 84% say that the public doesn't understand their jobs, and four out of ten say that they 'always' or 'often' exceed the government's recommended weekly alcohol limit. Four-fifths of the MPs agreed they were "hate figures".

However.... it's not all bad. 58% said they got "a lot" of satisfaction from their work and 21% said they could not imagine being happier doing anything else. And 14% want to be Prime Minister.

The programme is on at 9pm tonight.

Postscript... I'm sure my original version of this ended with a rather sarcastic commentary on all the above. But frankly I don't have the energy to try a repeat performance.

Kerry's guide to PMQs

2010-03-17T10:40:00.004Z

WEDNESDAY 17 MARCH 2010

*1 Tony Baldry (Banbury):
Random Labour backbencher
Cameron (6 questions, could be split)
Random Labour backbencher
Clegg (2 questions)
Random Labour backbencher
*2 Mr John Redwood (Wokingham):
*3 Gwyn Prosser (Dover):
Random Opposition backbencher
*4 Derek Twigg (Halton):
Random Opposition backbencher
*5 Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton):
*6 Mr Anthony Steen (Totnes):
*7 Mr Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley):
*8 Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey):
Random Labour backbencher
*9 Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire):
*10 Mr Michael Clapham (Barnsley West & Penistone):
*11 Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
Random Labour backbencher
*12 Mr John Baron (Billericay):
Random Labour backbencher
*13 Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight):
*14 Mr James Plaskitt (Warwick & Leamington):
Random Opposition backbencher
*15 Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd):

Predictions... Cameron will go on Unite/ Charlie Whelan/ Labour in hock to unions, at which point you may just hear the words "Ashcroft" "Belize" and "tax-dodger" from the Labour benches. Bring it on, I say - nothing at all to be ashamed of about being funded by a democratic organisation representing 1.5 million people and their families (who all pay tax). Or if he doesn't do that it could be a continuation of the alleged underfunding of troops. Or blaming Gordon for the break-up of Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes marriage because he didn't give them a Married Couple's Allowance. (See also, Cheryl and Ashley Cole; Mark from Take That and Emma. Kerry Katona and that dodgy bloke.)

Don't know about Clegg. Tempted to say I don't care, but we're in hung Parliament territory, have to be nice to Lib Dems! Or perhaps not.

This is almost certainly Sir Anthony Steen's swansong at PMQs. He's been speaking in Westminster Hall this morning on visas for domestic workers, the issue being that if they are badly treated by their employers they have no choice but to put up with it or lose their job/ visa and be kicked out of the country. Got to hand it to the old boy, he's been good on issues like this and human trafficking. Not so good on 'getting' why it's not a good idea to tell people they're just jealous because his house looks like Balmoral, but there you go.

As for the others... Redwood will go on something to do with economy/ regulation/ EU and will think he's being very clever. Sometimes he asks very short questions. Gwyn Prosser has a big local issue, re the port of Dover. If we get to Mike Clapham it will probably be pleural plaques, he's a long-time campaigner on the issue. And Simon Hughes will be greeted with cries of "too long!" "enough already!" as soon as he opens his mouth. It's a longstanding Commons tradition. And expect quite a few grandees called as 'randoms', i.e. those who are standing down. Not many PMQs to go before they depart the green benches.

Can't Stop the Spring

2010-03-17T10:22:00.002Z

Two pieces of good news on the intervention and investment -v- 'savage' cuts, inaction and indecision front today... Unemployment down 33,000 (remember when economists predicted it could reach 5 million in this recession?) and the DfT announces £43 million investment in the Ashton Vale-Temple Meads Rapid Transit Link. There is also £11m announcement for a Weston scheme.

Note that the press release from the West of England Partnership gives a Tory councillor from North Somerset and a Lib Dem councillor from Bristol as contacts should the press require further information. That's fair enough, seeing as they're portfolio holders in the respective local authorities, but watch out for them trying to take all the credit without any mention of the Labour government giving the go-ahead and providing the funding.

Expect a Focus leaflet through your door any day now claiming credit for Lib Dem 'delivering on transport investment'. NB Lib Dems are not responsible for extra police officers and PCSOs either. That was Labour too. And the school improvements.

I could go on...

And Even the Vegetables Screamed

2010-03-15T19:44:00.003Z

I emailed round MPs a little while ago, asking if any of them would own up to being vegetarian. This was prompted in part by the fact that the Bristol-based vegetarian campaign group, Viva! has a very limited selection of politicians listed on its site under 'Famous Vegetarians' and in fact no-one who will be in Parliament after the election. It's quite a fascinating list actually: Sir John Gielgud, Larry Hagman, Leonard Nimoy AND William Shatner, Doris Day...

My quick and unscientific survey (i.e. those who could be bothered to reply to the email) has produced the names of 18 vegetarians, another half dozen or so who eat fish but not meat, and a smattering of apologetic "not quite but almosts". Plus the ex-Minister who replied "I have a wife who's vegetarian and a daughter who's vegetarian but I'm afraid I'd eat a scabby dog if I was hungry enough!"

As for party breakdown? 16 Labour, 2 Lib Dems. Quite a few retirees amongst them, so we will have to see what the post-election scenario is. If all goes according to plan there will be at least two of us vegans, as Cathy Jamieson has been selected for Des Browne's seat.

Dr Ashok Kumar

2010-03-15T15:44:00.002Z

MPs were shocked today to learn of the sudden death of Dr Ashok Kumar MP. I didn't really know him, and consequently was surprised - pleasantly surprised - to see this email from the BHA paying tribute to his brave work on humanist issues.

BHA mourns Dr Ashok Kumar MP (1956-2010), politician and distinguished supporter of Humanism

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has expressed its sorrow at the death of its Distinguished Supporter, Dr Ashok Kumar MP. Ashok Kumar was a great supporter of the BHA, a committed and active member of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, and a self-described life-long “liberal humanist”.

Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, said, ‘Ashok was a long-standing supporter of Humanism and often went out of his way to get involved in and further humanist issues in Parliament. Ashok was especially interested in education, and was opposed to the divisive and discriminatory “faith schools” system, preferring inclusive schools and objective religious education, not religious instruction. In fact, Ashok spoke of the dangers of segregation and religious indoctrination consistently over the last decade, and in almost every Education Bill.’

‘Ashok also took the lead in Parliament in campaigning for a national holiday on the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, in honour of one of the fathers of modern science and one of Britain's greatest scientific minds. The loss of Ashok’s commitment, good humour and humanist outlook will felt by many in and outside of Parliament.’

Speaking in a House of Commons debate called in 2006 by his fellow humanist MP, Dr Evan Harris MP, he commented on the failure of Alan Johnson to ensure that faith schools would take pupils of other backgrounds:

‘I am against segregation, and I think that in his great spirited way the Secretary of State was trying to break down barriers and avoid future segregation. For that he was slapped down by the whole religious lobby. I find that very sad, because the Secretary of State was thinking, as we say in new Labour, for the long term—not tomorrow or the day after but perhaps 15 or 20 years' time. We do not want groups of people in society who believe that one religion is superior to another—a generation in which some believe that the only way is jihad and others believe it is Khalistan, and in which there are also Hindu fundamentalists. By the way, I am of Hindu and Sikh descent, and I am very happy to be so, although I am a non-believer. I was raised in both of those beliefs and went to a state school. I had no problem with learning about all faiths.’

Slates, Slags etc

2010-03-04T22:29:00.006Z

I think I've expressed concern on here before about just what kind of Tory parliamentary party we're likely to end up with if they do reasonably well in the election. They're certainly not all modernisers. Google, if you must, the Daily Mail feature on 'Cameron's Cuties' and tot up how many of those are in favour of reducing the abortion time limit, for example. Or check out the recent FT article on the influence of the religious right within the Tory Party.

And now we have a prime example of free market lunacy from the Tory candidate in Hyndburn. How do we reduce the number of abortions and stop all those feckless teenage single mums getting pregnant just for the hell of it? Oh, and sort out sexually transmitted diseases while we're at it? Simple: price them out of the market. I defy you to read it without wincing.

William, it was Really Nothing

2010-03-04T20:51:00.003Z

Sometimes song titles just hand themselves to you on a plate....

Obviously more than a little degree of schadenfreude at Westminster today, and I'm not talking about the Labour ranks. More than a few Tories - including those who loathe the Cameroons to the point they're quite prepared to lose the next election if it means seeing the back of him, and those Tory traditionalists who feel he's hung them out to dry over expenses - are finding it hard to hide their glee as the Ashcroft chickens finally come home to roost.

The does he/ doesn't he, should he/ shouldn't he pay tax issue has been done to death elsewhere, so let me just put a few things on the record.

1). I believe that all UK legislators should be resident in the UK and pay full taxes here. No non-doms.

2) I support, and have voted for, a wholly-elected House of Lords, not one appointed by patronage.

3) The difference between Ashcroft and other non-dom donors is that his peerage was conditional on him becoming a UK taxpayer, and based on undertakings he gave after he'd been turned down for a peerage twice. And his sheer effrontery in trying to brazen it out.

4) It is absolutely ridiculous that the Tory leadership could have got away with, until now, simply shrugging their shoulder whenever they were asked what Ashcroft's tax status was. Obviously Cameron, within days of becoming leader of a party bankrolled by the ignoble Lord, should have asked him. Ditto Hague.

5) It's time to deploy that well-worn phrase: the Tories simply don't get it. They think all this sort of stuff - and the Guardian, for example, is now carrying claims that Ashcroft avoided a pretty hefty VAT bill by invoicing opinion polling to Belize - is perfectly legit. Paying taxes is what the little people do.

What I'm most curious about, however - and what I think other people ought to be more curious about than they have been to date - is just what the deal is between Hague and Ashcroft. OK, Ashcroft bankrolled the party in its darkest days, when Hague was leader. And Hague is grateful to him for that.

But it's what happened after Hague stepped down as leader that is really intriguing. Ashcroft began funding Hague's parliamentary office, and then, to quote the Guardian: "Soon after, Hague was being flown across the world in Ashcroft's jet... He went to Prague in March 2006... followed by trips to Sudan, Israel, Jordan, China, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Bahrain and Syria, all courtesy of Ashcroft." The question is simple: why?

The Guardian piece goes on to say "Their relationship appears to have grown closer - and Ashcroft's support more generous - after David Cameron appointed Hague shadow foreign secretary in December 2005. The businessman began accompanying the politician on official shadow foreign secretary visits prompting speculation that Ashcroft was being considered for a ministerial role in the Foreign Office in a future Tory government." Trips to Iceland, Belize, Brazil, the Falklands, Cairo, Cuba, and official meetings with Obama's advisers in Washington....

Now I can see why a shadow foreign affairs spokesperson would go on lots of overseas trips. I can see why he'd take with him the guy who was so generously funding them. I can see that Ashcroft might have fancied a role in a Tory government, and given his past generosity, it was an offer the Tories couldn't refuse to make.

What's most intriguing is the period before Hague was given the foreign affairs brief, when he was supposedly taking it easy on the backbenches, spending time with his business interests. What were they up to, flying round the world? What were those meetings about? I genuinely don't know. But I'd certainly like to.

Many Rivers to Cross

2010-03-03T22:44:00.006Z

It's quite entertaining at the moment to observe how so many organisations who seem to have taken a Conservative victory at the election for granted are getting the political narrative so wrong. I get invited every day to think tank and charity events with 'keynote' speeches from leading Tories, as if they're already in Government. (No idea why they're asking me, if Teresa May had anything interesting to say about poverty and welfare reform I'm sure I'd have heard her say it by now). And yesterday I saw an ad for a book, on something like 'Where did it all go wrong for Gordon Brown?' Well, don't bank on that. Yes, we've been through tough times, but it's still very much #gameon for Labour, and if I was a political hack I'd be assembling my thoughts on how the Tories managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, just to be on the safe side.

People tend to underestimate what a mountain the Tories have to climb to achieve even a simple majority at Westminster. Don't forget - at the moment they have fewer MPs than Labour had after Michael Foot had led us into the 1983 General Election.

The Tories need to win 117 seats across the country to form a government. And that "across the country" is crucial. They can't just rely on picking off Labour marginals in the South East. And increasing their majorities in the southern seats they already hold, won't make any difference at all to their chances of forming a Government.

This is how the 117 seats the Tories need to win a majority break down on a regional basis.

London – 13 seats (10 Lab – 3 LD)
South East – 15 seats (12 Lab – 3 LD)
South West – 17 seats (11 LD – 6 Lab)
East – 8 seats (all Lab)
East Midlands – 10 seats (all Lab)
West Midlands – 16 seats (14 Lab – 1 Ind – 1 LD)
North West – 15 seats (13 Lab – 2 LD)
Yorkshire & Humberside – 12 seats (11 Lab – 1 LD)
North – 2 seats (1 Lab – 1 LD)
Wales – 5 seats (4 Lab – 1 LD)
Scotland – 4 seats (2 Lab – 2 SNP)

I can't see them doing it.

Talk about the Passion

2010-03-03T21:39:00.003Z

Here is the tribute Gordon paid to Michael Foot today. Very typical of Gordon to mention Michael's passion for Plymouth Argyle; he could be talking about his own obsession with Raith Rovers! I really wish I'd been in Parliament at the same time as Michael Foot, to hear one of the great orators in action. I've been listening to some of his speeches tonight - funny, idealistic, and above all absolutely passionate about his politics.

"Michael Foot was a man of deep principle and passionate idealism and one of the most eloquent speakers Britain has ever heard. He was an indomitable figure who always stood up for his beliefs and whether people agreed with him or not they admired his character and his steadfastness.

The respect he earned over a long life of service means that across our country today people, no matter their political views, will mourn the passing of a great and compassionate man. All his life, Michael campaigned and fought for the ideals he believed in. I remember fondly my time with him and Jill Craigie, the love of his life - they both inspired me with their passion and kindness. They leave behind so many people whose grief overwhelms us today.

While Michael was a brilliant thinker – a first rate journalist and a celebrated biographer – he always knew that for the people and causes he had entered politics to represent, the Commons was not simply a forum for debate but the theatre of change.

As Leader of the Labour Party in the most difficult circumstances he was a respected and unifying figure who sought to steer it through turbulent times. And his record as a Labour minister and champion of working men and women will always be a tribute to his convictions and a source of pride - leading through Parliament the Health and Safety at Work Act .

He served the communities of Plymouth and Ebbw Vale with distinction. But Michael wasn't just a great parliamentarian - a historian, a journalist and an author, he showed the same skill as one of the youngest editors of a national newspaper in his twenties as he did when writing articles and books well into his nineties.

A founder member of CND, he is often remembered for being a self-proclaimed "inveterate peace-monger" although his determination to break the rise of Fascism in Europe in the 1940s was demonstrated in his hugely influential book, "Guilty Men".

A lifelong Plymouth Argyle fan who continued attending Home Park well into his 90s, his love of his football club mirrored his love of the labour party: sticking by the Pilgrims through thick and thin, no one could ever doubt his loyalty and determination to see them reach the summit of success.

We will never forget his good humour, his passion and above all his enduring values and determination to fight for them - as, one of his favourite poets, Shelley proclaims "Ye are many — they are few."

Michael Foot was a genuine British radical - one who possessed a powerful sense of community, a pride in our progressive past and faith in our country's potential for a radical future."

Time for Heroes

2010-03-03T20:50:00.004Z

Very sad news today about Michael Foot, although he certainly had a good innings, and a phenomenal life. I'll post Gordon's tribute to him on here as a separate post, but if you want tears brought to your eyes, read Ellie's blog on how he inspired a young Labour activist who wasn't even born when he was party leader.

I caught the news of his death on Twitter in the middle of PMQs (which was horribly rowdy today, and not in a fun way) and, as duty whip on the front bench, managed to pass the news to Jack Straw just as he was about to introduce the main debate of the day. He'd heard, but wasn't sure if it was true... I said I was pretty sure.

Jack of course used to work for Michael Foot's great pal, Barbara Castle, in the 1970s so would have known Michael way back then, and was an MP under his leadership from 1979 to 1983. His tribute was very moving, very funny - and a poignant contrast to the Punch and Judy show we'd just had to sit through. (I'm not against Punch and Judy PMQs, I just didn't like it this week. There was something quite nasty about it).

I never really met Michael Foot as such, but during the 1983 election campaign Michael Foot gave a speech at what was then Luton Technical College, and I went along to it with my friend Mark and his Dad, a Labour Party member. He was an incredible speaker and also a tall, physically quite imposing man then, far removed from the public caricature of an old man with a walking stick. (Echoes of Gordon Brown and the way in which the press has tried to portray him as a weak, dithering, nervous wreck, whereas he actually has an immensely powerful physical presence. One reason, I suspect, the Rawnsley book hasn't harmed him, in that it's challenged the previous caricature, but that falls under the "I shan't dignify it with a blog post" heading. And no such comments on this post either).

My next encounter with Michael Foot was ten years or so later, at Labour Conference in Brighton. I was working in the City at the time and, having recently started a new job, was still 'in the closet' as a Labour supporter. No-one at work knew I was going to Conference - I think I said I was going to a family wedding - and I spent most of the week trying not to get on television.

In those days the big Conference occasion was the Tribune rally. As I was walking along the carpeted hotel corridor towards the hall where the rally was being held, suddenly I was caught in the full glare of the spotlight, as a host of cameras turned on me. Turned out Michael Foot was hobbling along behind,with his walking stick... It was a very long, slow walk, live on the TV news, and I had to resist the temptation to turn tail and run for it. He was of course, given a hero's welcome when he arrived in the hall.

Michael came to a PLP meeting in Parliament last year, where we paid tribute to him and Jack Jones, who has sadly also died since then. I got both them, and Gordon, Neil Kinnock and Bill Morris to sign a copy of the Minimum Wage Bill. I'd planned to auction it next week at my campaign fundraiser, but not sure I want to let it go now.

Here they are... a great pic of Michael in his Plymouth Argyle scarf.

Blue Arrangements

2010-03-01T20:25:00.003Z

Can't say I'm as shocked as Toby Helm is about the Ashcroft admission - surely today's announcement only confirms what everyone suspected all along? - but he does a pretty thorough job of explaining just why it matters. His article also highlights the extent to which senior Tories simply 'don't get it'. (See the Zac Goldsmith affair for another case study).

About time the Electoral Commission got its act together to decide whether Ashcroft's company is a valid donor too, or is it just a front, through which Ashcroft's overseas money is channelled? And just what influence does Ashcroft have on Tory foreign policy? Questions, questions... Shame Cameron and Gordon aren't going head to head at PMQs this week, but I imagine Harriet will have a few things to ask Mr. Hague.

Milk and Alcohol

2010-03-01T14:59:00.003Z

Interesting little item at the end of business today.

Under 'Presentation of Public Petitions' the Tory MP Christopher Chope will be presenting a petition on 'Bellamy's Bar Closure'. And no, it's not a matter of vital importance for his constituents of Christchurch. It's about plans to turn Bellamy's, one of the many bars on the parliamentary estate, into a creche. Mr Chope objects. Will be interesting to see how many signatures he's got from 'the public'.

Mr Chope is also fighting a rearguard action, along with Philip Davies MP (Dinosaur Jr) to stop moves by Harriet Harman to enshrine in legislation a rule that parliamentary committees should use the term 'Chair', and not Chairman from now on. I can see this might be a point of principle for the 'political correctness gone mad' brigade, but I look forward to seeing his justification for trying to scupper plans for a creche.

April Skies

2010-02-28T23:09:00.005Z

I'm on the last train to London. Too tired to blog about anything which requires any engagement of brain cells... There are several reasons why.

Firstly, I'm having to spend Fridays in London at the moment as we've got a run of Friday sittings to get through Private Members business before the election. (I say 'get through' - if anything about the parliamentary process was in need of reform, it's what happens on Fridays, when the filibuster still reigns supreme. More about that later, perhaps). I'm one of the Friday whips, so I have to be there to cover bench duty till about 3pm, which more or less rules out getting back to Bristol till the evening. So basically, a lot of the stuff I would do on Fridays in my constituency has to be done over the weekend. I was in the office for several hours earlier this evening, after spending an hour at the home the family of a constituent who has been arrested for plane-spotting in India. We're hoping he'll be allowed to come home after a court appearance on Wednesday, but I've got some early morning phone calls to make to India tomorrow, to try to get updates from his lawyer and the High Commission.

Another reason is that campaigning has stepped up a gear, and the weather has by and large been in our favour, so no rained-off sessions giving an excuse to spend an afternoon on the sofa. I was out today in Brislington (the Hungerford Road area) and again yesterday (the bit of Broomhill up by the industrial estate). Picked up a fair bit of casework, which was one of the reasons I had to go into the office this evening. I find if I don't transcribe my scribbled notes as soon as possible, they make very little sense.

The third reason is that, as interest in the election grows, the number of letters and emails and requests to sign up to campaign pledges grows too. I'm trying to suss out how to make it easy for voters to see what I've signed up to, but not sure my website can be adapted... we're working on it. The requests to take part in election hustings/ Q and A panels are also coming in... I took part in one on Saturday, organised by the African-Caribbean community, and met some excellent people. Lots of my cards given out, and lots of issues to follow up on. I've already agreed to a few more. There's one at St Brendan's Sixth Form soon, and another one in April organised by the two unis, for their staff. If there are any that are open to the general public - e.g. the churches organised some last time round - I'll stick it on the Facebook site and/or here.

Fourth reason... Campaigns don't just plan themselves. I've got a great bunch of volunteers, but there's still leaflets to be approved, fundraising to organise, ministerial visits to arrange, and 101 other things to get sorted, like the website and facebook and changing my Twitter name, which I will get round to eventually. We'll be doing a fair bit of direct mailing - i.e. writing to voters on issues that we know they're interested in, or concerned about - and it's important to get the text of these right. All the parties will have their centrally-produced copy, but I prefer to do it myself. I don't want to put out anything in my name that doesn't actually sound like me.

The role I have in the national campaign, as the new media spokesperson, is also taking up a fair bit of time. Lots of requests for interviews (especially from students doing their dissertations and sorry for all those who have sent in emails but haven't heard back from me yet - will get round to you soon!) but also from the national press and the more techy/ PR/ new media press. There's a real fascination out there in the mainstream media as to what role new media will play in the campaign, especially as the contrast between the Tory loads-of-money campaign and Labour's "fighters and believers" becomes more apparent, and as the Labour approach - authenticity, passion, and policies - appears to be paying off in the polls.

And finally, there is of course the fact that everyone is now working towards a deadline that is getting ever closer. I very much doubt the election will be held any earlier than May 6th (though I'm certainly not 'in the loop' as far as discussions about that go). On that reckoning we've got about 5 weeks left in Parliament, and a lot of business to get through. I'm the Northern Ireland whip, for example, and there are various statutory instruments which absolutely have to be in place before elections take place there.

We also have to clear our desks this month. We're not allowed to use our parliamentary offices after "wash-up"... that's the period immediately after the Prime Minister goes to the palace, when the parties try to agree on as much of the outstanding legislation as possible. If there's consensus, some stuff will go through; if there's not, it won't. We can go into the office to pick up stuff, but the computers can't be used and no work can be carried out. By contrast, staff in the constituency can continue to handle existing casework, but not new casework. If we pick up new casework on the campaign trail, after I've ceased to be an MP and am just a candidate, then I will have to handle it myself or get volunteers to help out. Most likely the former.

In fact I'm still trying to work out the details of exactly what the rules on dissolution are. I know, for example, we can't use our parliamentary email addresses, but not sure if we can still check parliamentary email or whether the accounts are completely disabled. I assume staff handling casework can still access their email, otherwise it could make life very difficult for people trying to contact us. So there's all that to look into too. And letters to write to people who have been constituents for the past five years, and have been helped by my office, but will be going into a new constituency. All that kind of stuff.

So, there you go... that's the next month taken care of. Next post will be about the campaign to save BBC 6 Music, but my train will be getting into London very soon, so will save that one for tomorrow. I'll be glad when the election is called and I can spend the whole month in Bristol.

Pat-Trip Dispenser

2010-02-24T17:44:00.008Z

I'm not sure whether this is one of those issues that flares up for a short period of time, gets everyone talking, and then burns itself out, or whether the Science and Technology Select Committee's report this week on homeopathy is actually the start of something. The Select Committee has called for the Government to stop NHS funding for homeopathic treatment, as there is no scientific proof of its effectiveness. This is of particular local significance, as Bristol Homeopathic Hospital receives £260,000 in annual funding from the NHS.

This follows fast in the footsteps of a recent stunt by the anti-homeopathy campaign, 10:23, which is trying to persuade Boots to stop 'lending legitimacy to nonsense' by stocking homeopathic medicines. (See www.1023.org.uk for more).

The Select Committee report in itself doesn't mean that anything much is going to happen. The Government will now be working on its response, which will include an indication of whether or not the Government is inclined to act upon any or all of the recommendations. Some, though not all, Select Committee reports are then debated in Parliament, usually in Westminster Hall on a Thursday afternoon. There's not time in the parliamentary calendar to do them all, so it's the Committee members who decide which ones are debated. And even then, there's no binding obligation on the Government to act, apart from continued pressure from the Committee and other interested parties.

However.... there is of course the small matter of a General Election looming upon the horizon so I'm not sure whether we will get to see the Government's response to the S+T Committee's report before Parliament is dissolved. I've told the constituent who came to see me today on a lobby of parliament that I will try to find out. I suspect it will be lost in the deluge, and it will be autumn, once the new Select Committees are established and Parliament gets back to normal, before it's revisited. I assume that if the Government hasn't responded before the election, the new Government (by which I mean the newly-constituted Government, not necessarily a Government of a different political hue) will not be under any obligation to do so, so it might be back to square one for the Committee.

The constituent who came to see me today swears by homeopathy, and is also a supporter of anthroposophical medicine; apparently the Helios clinic in Bristol, which is also a conventional GPs surgery, is one of only half a dozen or so in the country. He presents this as a matter of personal choice: if it works for him, who are we to deny him the right to such treatment?

Would be interested to know what people think... In particular, if some people swear by the benefits of homeopathy - people who are paying their taxes the same as everyone else - do we have the right to deny them the NHS service of their choice? Do we tell them that they're wrong, and science is right, even if they swear the opposite to be true? In some ways the argument that the NHS should be responsive to what patients want, not what clinicians/ bureaucrats decide, is an attractive one. If someone with terminal cancer loathes the idea of chemotherapy, and wants to try mistletoe instead (see the wiki link for anthroposophy), then who are we to dictate their choices?

But then I recall the cases I've fought on behalf of constituents with breast cancer, kidney cancer, and macular degeneration, who've been told by NICE that their drugs do not meet the cost-benefit-analysis test and will no longer be provided on the NHS. And the constituents who were denied fertility treatment because the odds were too low and the course of treatment too expensive. And all the other pressures on the NHS. It can't just be whatever people want, but what is the best use of public money. And then the question is, of course, who decides that? The scientists? Or the public?

Kerry's Guide to PMQs

2010-02-24T10:54:00.002Z

Here's today's running order. Expect Cameron to get in a 'forces of hell' gag which will be met with not-at-all faked hilarity from the Tory backbenchers and over-exuberant thigh-slapping from Sven. Stephen Pound, if we get to him, will by contrast be genuinely funny. Clegg might well go on the NOTW phone-tapping stuff. Dari Taylor will, I expect, go on Corus as it's a big local issue. Richard Benyon is the great-great grandson of former Conservative Prime Minister Lord Salisbury and lives in the ancestral home. This probably has no bearing at all on the question he is going to ask today, but just thought you might be interested!

Q1 Jamie Reed (Copeland):
Cameron
Random Labour backbencher
Clegg
Q2 David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells):
Random Labour backbencher
Q3 David Amess (Southend West):
Random Labour backbencher
Q4 Stewart Jackson (Peterborough):
Q5 Dari Taylor (Stockton South):
Random Opposition backbencher
Q6 Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne & Sheppey):
Q7 Richard Benyon (Newbury):
Q8 Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):
Q9 Michael Ancram (Devizes):
Q10 Stephen Pound (Ealing North):
Random Opposition backbencher
Q11 David Anderson (Blaydon):
Q12 John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford):
Random Labour backbencher
Q13 James Brokenshire (Hornchurch):
Q14 Liz Blackman (Erewash):
Q15 Angela Watkinson (Upminster):

What I'm Doing Today

2010-02-24T10:37:00.003Z

Nearly two weeks since I last blogged! Thought I'd get time to catch up over half-term recess, but as busy as ever. Apologies also to people who are waiting for me to reply to correspondence, especially on two big issues at the moment, Digital Economy Bill and Libel Reform. It's not that I'm ignoring you, it's that I want to do justice to the issues, which are complex, and not just fob you off with a rushed response. Also, with the DE Bill in particular, it's a moveable feast, as it's going through the Lords... Anyway, now that the Children Schools and Families Bill has got through its Third Reading in the Commons, life should be a little less hectic and give me the chance to deal with the mountains of paperwork. Yesterday, as the CSF departmental whip, I spent 11 hours on the Bill, and another couple doing other things like urgent emails and stuff relating to my constituent who's recently been arrested in India for plane-spotting. I hesitate to say today will be quiet, but it will at least mean I get to spend some time in my office rather than the Whips Office ... I hope.

Business in the Commons today is the remaining stages of the Energy Bill, after David Drew has presented his Public Bodies (Procurement of Seafood) Ten Minute Rule Bill, which sounds intriguing to say the least. It'll be a running whip on the Energy Bill, with votes possible throughout the day.

I'm also:

- Meeting with Jim Knight, the Minister for the South West, mostly to talk about regional economic issues, (good news yesterday, by the way, about the Bristol Science Park getting the go-ahead)

- Popping into the launch of the Robin Hood tax campaign (something I intend to blog about at some length, seeing as I do actually know a leetle bit about the financial markets - broadly supportive but don't think it's as easy to implement as people are suggesting.)

- Seeing a constituent who's here on a lobby of Parliament in support of homeopathy. Bristol is one of four cities which has an NHS-funded homeopathic hospital, and there's clear support for it from patients, but the Science and Technology Committee has said it's a waste of public money.

- Doing a little bit of whips' stuff - already had a breakfast meeting today, and Wednesdays are the day we sort out who is 'slipped' from the whip next week, which involves contacting all my Ministers (DCSF, DFID and NI) and South West backbenchers to see what their plans are.

And of course it's PMQs... more on that in a moment.

Rip It Up

2010-02-11T23:34:00.002Z

I do like the Orange Juice one, and Thatcher rising from the dead, but this is my favourite so far.

I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor

2010-02-10T23:19:00.003Z

I've been on last slot on bench duty this week, so have had the opportunity to observe the nightly rituals carried out by the Deputy Speaker and various MITs (men in tights, 'though not all wear tights and one of them is a woman) after business has finished in the Commons. I may have this not quite in the right order, particularly as most of it happens almost out of sight behind the Speakers Chair, but trust me, this is more than you'll ever need to know. Much more.

Say it's a Monday night. We get to 10.30pm, or if there have been late votes, 30 minutes after the adjournment debate began. The Deputy Speaker stands, 'Order Order' he/ she says, and starts to leave the Chair.

One of the MITs walks in, picks up the mace (at which point all MPs still in the Chamber have to stand up 'for the mace'), swings it over his/ her shoulder and walks out behind the Speaker's Chair, whereupon he/ she hands the mace to someone else who walks backwards with it a bit, and then veers off to the right and stands there holding it.

At some point a shout goes up from each end of the Chamber, "Home!" and someone else behind the Speaker's Chair replies: "Who goes home?!" No-one answers.

The Dep. Speaker (very rarely the Speaker at this time of night) - who has got down off his perch and is now behind the Chair with various MITs - looks at the the Serjeant-at-Arms. "2.30pm tomorrow!" says the Speaker. "2.30pm tomorrow!" repeats the Serjeant-at-Arms.

Then the Serjeant-at-Arms looks at the Principal Doorkeeper: "2.30pm tomorrow!" says the Serjeant-at-Arms. "2.30pm tomorrow!" says the Principal Doorkeeper back to the Serjeant-at-Arms. At which point, satisfied they all know what time they're due back at work the next day, they can all go home.

This nightly ritual is evidently a cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy without which the whole edifice would crumble and anarchy would ensue. But I wonder just who dreamt it up? Was there an eighteenth or whatever century equivalent of the Wright Committee set up to decide just how much bowing and scraping and walking backwards and repetition of "2.30pm" there should be at the end of each day? (They say 11.30am on Tuesday night btw, and 10.30am on Wednesday night, and this evening they said "2.30pm on the 22nd February because it's half-term). Were there any dissenting voices? Did anyone suggest, for example, that it wasn't quite sufficient for the Speaker to say it to the Serjeant and the Serjeant to say it back, and the Principal Doorkeeper etc, etc, and that perhaps a Deputy Doorkeeper ought to be roped in too to make 100% sure that no-one was going to get it wrong and turn up half an hour earlier or later the next day? And did anyone say, 'Look this is all very silly and we all know perfectly well what time the business starts each day, so let's just call it a night when someone shouts 'Home!' and all clear off without bothering with any of the fancy stuff?

As a more serious postscript to this, we will be debating some of the recommendations from the Wright Committee on 22nd February, when the Commons returns after half-term recess. (It's official title of the report is something like 'Rebuilding the House - Reform of the House of Commons Committee', but everyone calls it after its chair, Tony Wright).

As it's House, not Government, business it will be a free vote on things like allowing backbenchers more say over what is discussed on the floor of the House, and having elections for Select Committee chairs. See here for more details.

However... when the Committee drew up its report, there was a dissenting voice from Labour backbencher Natascha Engel, who doesn't think the proposals go anywhere near far enough, and has now suggested that if we accept the recommendations, we'll lose a once in a generation chance to really put our House in order. I have a lot of time for Natascha; I will be listening closely to what she says.

Let's say I agree with Natascha, and want more radical reform, and, in effect, want to send the Committee back to the drawing board. So I vote down the proposals. I vote against reform, but for all the right reasons. I will no doubt be joined in the division lobbies by some of the Tory Tufton Buftons, who turn purple at the very thought of changing anything. Next thing you know I will be listed on Theyworkforyou as "Voted very strongly against the reform of parliament" and this damning indictment will be used as a reference point by constituents and others for months and years to come.

I say this with confidence as I've been here before, last time we looked at parliamentary reform (which I think ended up as "Voted against a transparent parliament"). See also "Voted against an inquiry into the Iraq war" (no, I voted against an immediate inquiry and for an inquiry as soon as the troops came home).

We shall see how it all pans out. Chances are I will go along with the Wright Committee recommendations, which I've read but have yet to study in depth, on the grounds that some change is better than no change and we need to be seen to be changing in response to the political crisis of the past few years. But we shall see....

Lock in

2010-02-10T15:27:00.004Z

I was asked yesterday on Twitter what it means when the shout goes up 'lock the doors' during votes. (Yesterday being one of those rare parliamentary occasions when political animals were glued to the TV, waiting to see how the House voted on AV).

Basically, there are two division lobbies which run either side of the Chamber, where we vote. The one behind the Government benches is the Aye lobby; the one behind the Opposition is the Noe lobby. There are three entrances to each lobby, and one exit during votes. So... if you're voting Aye, you'd either enter through big doors to the left just outside the Chamber at the back of the Speaker's Chair, or through one of the doors situated at the back of the Government benches, at the far right and far left. And you'd exit after going through the division lobby, giving your name to the clerk, and being counted by the Whips (the "tellers") at doors at the opposite end to the Speaker, just outside the Chamber, by Members' lobby.

If you're voting No, you'd enter on the right, at the opposite end from the Speaker's chair, or through the doors by the back rows on the far left and far right of the Opposition benches, and you'd emerge outside behind the back of the Speaker's Chair, on the right.

The tellers, btw, are the four people who come in, make their bows and announce the result of the votes. The winners always stand by the Opposition benches, and one of them who reads out the result. I was one of the tellers earlier this week, along with the Labour MP Bob Blizzard and the Tories, Bill Wiggin and John Baron. Not one of them under 6'2". Bill kindly suggested I should stand on one of the Despatch Boxes.

Anyway... we have eight minutes to get into the division lobbies. There's no time limit on getting out, but the Speaker will send one of the men in tights (who don't all wear tights, but it's a useful collective noun for them) to investigate if people are taking too long. It's usually about 15 minutes all told.

But back to the eight minutes... the very second those eight minutes are up, the call goes out "lock the doors!" and the doors are all slammed shut by the MITs. On busy days, with running whips (which means votes at any time, not that the whips run around frantically, 'though that's often the case too), it's not uncommon to see senior Government ministers sprinting through Members' lobby or up the stairs, trying to make the vote, only to see the doors slammed in their faces. No exceptions, no pleading - I've seen Cabinet Ministers miss votes before. So there you have it. If you think this is a strange way to run a democracy, wait till you read my next post.

Tombstone Blues

2010-02-10T10:34:00.003Z

As the doctor says in the song, "My advice is to not let the boys in" Indeed.

http://mydavidcameron.com/tombstone Enjoy!

Kerry's Guide to PMQs

2010-02-10T10:09:00.002Z

Returning after a few weeks off, because I've been so busy. Just for Bristol Dave, as I know he appreciates it... Excellent draw for Labour this week. A few Qs have been withdrawn, including Jim Devine who had been down as No. 1 (phew!) and Rob Flello, who has to be elsewhere.

Q1 Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 February. Probably last ever appearance at PMQs for the very well-respected Mr Iddon, who's standing down at the next election. To be replaced, one hopes, by the very lovely Maryam Khan (@Maryam4BuryNorth on Twitter).

CAMERON - 6 Qs, or possibly 3 Qs now, 3 Qs later

Random Labour backbencher or a 'queue jumper' from lower on order paper

CLEGG - 2 Qs

Q2 Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South): Local issue I suspect.

Random Opposition backbencher, from any party

Q3 Dr Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): Former transport minister, marginal seat.

Q4 Mr Douglas Carswell (Harwich): Mr Carswell is asking people on his blog what he should ask at PMQs today. http://www.talkcarswell.com/

Q5 Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North): Karen will resist the temptation to dwell on Tory misfortunes in her own back yard, (no Cash for questions?) but expect a few chuckles. http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2010/02/joanne-cash-that-meeting-in-full.html

Random Opposition backbencher, from any party

Q6 Mr Gordon Prentice (Pendle): Can never be quite sure what Gordon will come up with.

Q7 Mr Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire): Welsh hill farmer, comes up often at PMQs and we always predict he'll ask about sheep, but he never does.

Random Labour backbencher or a 'queue jumper' from lower on order paper

Q8 Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough):

Q9 Gwyn Prosser (Dover):

Random Opposition backbencher, from any party

Q10 Mr Chris Mullin (Sunderland South):

Q11 Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby): Deputy Tory Chief Whip. Will probably live down to expectations and be a little bit nasty. Quite often gets pulled up by Speaker for heckling during PMQs so has started sitting further away from the Speaker's Chair.

Random Labour backbencher

Q12 Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole): Nice woman, Lib Dem spokesperson on children's issues and also chair of the APPG on Microfinance.

Some Candy Talking

2010-02-09T20:40:00.003Z

Well it didn't take them long, did it? Kraft have confirmed - or rather, announced because it wasn't even floated before today - that they're going to close the Cadbury's plant in Keynsham, despite declaring during their takeover bid that they wanted to reverse Cadbury's plans to move production to Poland. As an MP who has many constituents working at the Somerdale plant, I had to an extent put aside my misgivings about an American company taking over a British institution like Cadbury's on a highly-leveraged buyout because of their assurances on the future of Somerdale, and their apparent willingness to reconsider Cadbury's decision to close the plant. I'm sure Dan Norris, the local MP, has been on the case and will try to catch him at the votes later on tonight to see what we can do. I think an urgent meeting with Cadbury's management must be on the cards. In the meantime, I'll be sticking to Divine rather than Green and Black's.

Spock's Missing

2010-02-09T19:52:00.001Z

An act of genius to set this to the William Shatner version. Apparently Ian Cawsey's Tory opponent in Brigg and Goole is trying to get it banned. Enjoy!

Tell It Like It Is

2010-02-09T19:02:00.002Z

I've been slightly taken aback at receiving quite a few angry emails over the past few days about Friday's Private Members Bill sitting, at which I was the whip on bench duty. We got through a fair bit of business, with all stages of Anthony Steen's Anti-Slavery Day Bill and Andrew Dismore's pleural plaques bill, which he's tried to get through the Commons before and this time was successful, with Government support. As the session drew to an end at 2.30pm we had just started on another Andrew Dismore bill, but there obviously wasn't time to debate it and it will be relisted for hearing on another date. It's then the job of the whip on bench duty to tell the Speaker what the Government's position is on the remaining Bills listed for hearing. The fifth Bill on the list was the Contaminated Blood Bill, which does not have Government support. My job therefore was to shout 'Object' as the title of the Bill was read out. That was the extent of my involvement; the actual decision was nothing to do with me, and if I hadn't shouted 'Object' the Deputy Chief Whip would have done so, or the Minister. But obviously the people who are directly affected by this issue are upset, and have contacted me to tell me so. This is partly because they have - mistakenly I believe - pinned all their hopes on this Bill getting through the parliamentary process which, quite frankly, was not going to happen, especially not given how close we are to the end of this parliament. Anyway, here's a letter I've sent out in reply to a constituent, in a bid to explain, and I've also written in similar terms to everyone else who has contacted me. I've had some nice responses back from people, who at least appreciate the fact I've responded, even if they don't agree with me or the Government. Here's the letter:

"Thank you for your emails regarding the Contaminated Blood Bill. I completely understand why this is so important to many people and why you find it frustrating that the Bill did not receive a Second Reading on Friday. The Bill, however, was not reached during Friday's sitting, as it was fifth Bill listed for debate on the order paper and the House had only just started debating the fourth Bill when we reached 2.30pm. As we ran out of time, there was no opportunity for a debate on the many measures in the Bill.

The Government's view was that it was not appropriate for the Bill to go through without a proper debate in the Commons, i.e. the objection was to it going through 'on the nod', rather than to the Bill itself. I was the duty whip on Friday, so it was my responsibility to announce the Government's decision. Understandably, I have received a number of emails from people across the country, and from TaintedBlood, about my role in this and I have responded to them all to clarify the situation and explain it was not my personal objection. As you are a constituent with whom I have previously discussed these issues, I appreciate that you may be concerned more than most, so I will be happy to meet with you again to discuss this in more detail.

I certainly do not underestimate the understandably strong feeling within the haemophiliac community about Lord Archer’s Report and Lord Morris’s Bill, particularly following my meeting with you, discussions with other constituents, and through my membership of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia. Indeed, you will know that I have previously written to Ministers on a number of occasions in support of your objectives. I should make clear, therefore, that I am personally supportive of some of the measures in the Bill, although I have reservations about some elements. For example, while I appreciate why campaigners are calling for free prescriptions for haemophiliacs, I do not think this issue should be decided on an individual basis when there are so many other groups calling for similar action on behalf of those with chronic conditions. The Government, as you may know, set up the Gilmore review to look at whether the right to free prescriptions should be extended, and is currently considering its recommendations.

The Bill will be relisted for a Second Reading on 26th February. It is not, however, likely to be high up the order paper as the order is determined by where members came in the ballot for Private Members Bills, and the mover of the Bill, Mr Eddie O'Hara was not drawn in the ballot. As we are so close to the end of this parliamentary session it is very unlikely that more than a handful of Private Members Bills will make it through the legislative process and priority will be given to those bills which did top the ballot.

I have spoken today with Dr Brian Iddon MP, who has been very supportive of the haemophiliac community. He told me he advised campaigners before the Bill was introduced to the House of Commons that it would unfortunately be very difficult to secure sufficient Parliamentary time for it to be fully debated and passed, and that it would be objected to on behalf of the Government by a whip at Friday's sitting.

Dr Iddon actually secured first place in the Private Members Bill ballot, and considered taking up the Contaminated Blood Bill, but came to the conclusion that there was no chance of it being approved by Parliament before the end of this session. Dr Iddon takes the view, as do I, that the way forward is to continue to make the case to the Department of Health on some of the specific recommendations of the Archer review, rather than seek to push through legislation which does not have Government support.

I realise you will be disappointed with this response, but I hope it is helpful in explaining to you what happened on Friday. I know that your health sadly meant that you were not able to come to our last meeting, but if you would like to meet again to discuss this, and explain which specific measures you believe should be a priority, please do contact my office to arrange a time. I can assure you that I will, in any event, continue to lobby the Department of Health on your behalf."

I'm Mandy Fly me

2010-02-09T12:47:00.002Z

Just had an email to inform me that the Speaker wants the Procedure Committee to 'inquire into increasing the accountability of Ministers in the House of Lords to the elected members of the Commons.' They want to know:

Do you think that Secretaries of State in the House of Lords should be more directly accountable to the House of Commons?
If so, do you think that such scrutiny should take place in the Chamber, Westminster Hall or another forum?
Should such scrutiny take the form of questions or also include debates?

My answer would probably be, in the short term of course until we have a democratically-elected second chamber, that yes Secretaries of State in the Lords (which means Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis) should take part in departmental questions in the Commons and should also come to the Commons to give statements and be questioned on those statements but they shouldn't take part in debates on legislation as otherwise they'd be de facto Commons ministers. It would of course be a big step forward for Lords ministers to be allowed on the floor of the Chamber. Some will no doubt see it as an outrageous breach of parliamentary convention, and suggest that it will undermine the very foundations of parliamentary democracy, but my only concern would be that in enhancing the legitimacy of the unelected Ministers it would prolong the existence of the unelected second chamber. Seeing as we're committed to a directly elected Second Chamber (and by we, I mean Labour) I don't think we need to worry too much about that. (I actually don't know what the Tory view is on an elected second chamber. I know they voted the other week to keep the remaining 92 hereditaries, but not sure what their long-term view is).

Lies, damn lies and Lib Dem statistics

2010-02-08T23:28:00.002Z

Speaking of being honest in campaign literature, the Lib Dems in east Bristol are running one of their usual 'only the Lib Dems can beat Labour here' graphs on their latest (which is also their first) parliamentary election leaflet. It has the result of the 2005 General Election showing Labour represented by a big red column, the Lib Dems on a ever so slightly smaller yellow column, and the Tories lagging way behind with a little blue stump. They must think voters are really stupid, as the actual number of votes cast for each party is conveniently printed on each column too, and makes a complete mockery of their measurements: 19,152 votes for Labour; 10,531 for the Lib Dems; and 8,787 for the Conservatives. Oh, and there's the small matter of boundary changes, which mean that the 2005 General Election results are not an entirely useful guide to what will happen in 2010.

More on the Lib Dem leaflet soon and my thoughts on why they're making such great play of their candidate's RAF background, even down to including a pic of him in uniform... appealing to 'patriotic' voters by the look of it. And why he's just emailed me a letter asking me to confirm that my expenses claims were all in accordance with parliamentary rules. The answer is a categoric yes. I suspect they scent Tory blood, given recent revelations - which I can't decide whether I should blog about or not - and are now gearing up to have a pop at me. Just remember folks, there are lies, damn lies and Lib Dem lies.

New kids on the blog

2010-02-08T21:46:00.004Z

My colleague Jamie Reed has just popped into the whips office and told me off for not having looked at his blog yet: so here it is, and very excellent it is too. My colleague Andrew Gwynne has also been nagging me from his sickbed to give his new blog for Think Politics a plug.

I particularly like Andrew's post on whether being local makes for being a better MP...

One of my opponents at the General Election is making great play of her local credentials. The front of her leaflet proclaims her "the local candidate" and another headline inside says "working and living locally". Not quite sure living in Westbury-on-Trym counts as "local" in east Bristol, but leaving that to one side... Does it actually matter?

I'm not from Bristol. I've never pretended to be. But I have lived in my constituency for the past five years. (I won't technically be in the constituency any longer after boundary changes, but the layout of the new Bristol East means that where I am - Redcliffe - is actually more convenient for both ends of the constituency, as well as for all the meetings I have in the city centre. And it seemed a bit silly to move somewhere five minutes down the road just so I could still say "I live in my constituency." But you won't get me putting out leaflets during the campaign pretending otherwise).

Over the past five years as the MP for Bristol East I've handled hundreds of cases through my constituency office in St George, and responded to thousands of emails, letters and phone calls on local issues, or national issues which local people care passionately about. I've held surgeries, knocked on doors, accepted invitations to virtually every event I've been invited to, unless I really, really couldn't make it. I've visited schools, health centres, children's centres, care homes. I've met with business people, community groups, public sector workers, faith groups... And I've done something afterwards, whether it be collaring Ministers in the division lobby to bend their ear, or writing to the authorities, or lending my support in whatever way I'm asked. Most of this goes unreported, except on my website. In fact there's still a lot that doesn't make it onto there, either because it's confidential (virtually all casework), or would suffer from being made public, or because I just haven't got round to doing it. Perhaps not being from Bristol made a difference at the start, meant I had a bit of catching up to do... but it seems a bit silly to be playing the "I'm local" card against someone who has represented the area for the past five years.

P.S. Although I do know who Bill Shankly is - how could anyone brought up on John Peel not know? - I confess, I'd be hard pressed to name many Bristol City or Bristol Rovers players... might just Google it before the hustings start!

Working for the Clampdown

2010-02-08T17:44:00.003Z

Yes, I know I've stolen the title of Paul Smith's blog, but he nicked the idea of using song titles from me, so we're evens.

Nice little piece in the Mail at the weekend about an email sent to Tory MPs and election candidates, telling them that all their online utterances must be cleared by CCHQ first. Tories simply can't be trusted to tweet.

There is, as we speak, a team of young Tobys, Tarquins and Taras at Tory HQ, under the supervision of a fanatical spinmeister, Toryquemada, scrutinising every draft tweet for signs of divergence from "The Line". This perhaps might explain why so few tweets from Tory politicians make it onto Twitter; they've all failed the Tory inquisition. One wonders quite what they're trying to hide?

Know Your Rights

2010-02-08T14:52:00.003Z

Very quick post... I've basically been either too busy or too downright exhausted to blog; that's what three weeks of Bill committee and weekends of campaigning does to you. I don't think this should really have to be said, but seeing as if I don't say it, someone may well accuse me of believing otherwise....

Obviously when it comes to the prosecution of Members of Parliament, they should be treated on exactly the same basis as anyone else facing prosecution under the Theft Act, as AJ said at the weekend. Of course, parliamentary privilege has to be there to protect freedom of speech in parliament, otherwise we'd be landed with libel actions or injunctions left, right and centre, but it certainly shouldn't apply to criminal proceedings. I have no idea whether there is any legal basis for arguing otherwise, under the 1689 Bill of Rights, but I think it would be a travesty of justice if there was. Cameron is being his usual opportunistic self in trying to suggest that the Labour Party doesn't think so.

Incidentally, Cameron has also suggested that Gordon has been slow to act in suspending the three MPs from the party. That's how it works under the Labour Party constitution. If someone is charged with a criminal offence, they are placed under administrative suspension until the case is concluded. Disciplinary suspension is a different process, which can be used as an alternative to expulsion if wrongdoing is found; i.e. it's a response to proven wrongdoing, not just allegations of it. These rules apply across the board, so the MPs are being treated exactly the same as any local councillor would be. It would no doubt get all the right headlines if we were to expel them from the Party now, but it wouldn't be just to do so. (And note - these MPs have already been barred from standing at the next election, which is probably as close as the Party can and should get to expressing an opinion on their alleged actions without prejudging the outcome of their trial).

Teddy Picker

2010-02-04T18:28:00.004Z

I'm afraid that my 'no issues' verdict from Sir Thomas Legg - i.e. being given a clean bill of health on expenses - may have rather disappointed people.

Someone posing as a journalist called the office today, seeking clarification about quarterly payments made from my Incidental Expenses Provision, i.e. the office costs allowance, to a company called CIT Vendor Finance. Well, I can exclusively reveal, before the budding Woodward/ Bernstein does, that this is the photocopier rental charge. (Hold the front page...!)

I dealt with this enquiry while I was in Bill committee this afternoon. My suspicions as to why anyone was interested in my office photocopier payments on today of all days, when there are so many more suitable subjects for media scrutiny, were confirmed when I got back to the office.

I've now discovered that the so-called media interest came from the "Centre for Open Politics". And yes, a quick Google search has revealed that it's exactly who I thought it was, or rather, someone calling herself Juliet acting on his behalf. (More here too.)

This person also told a left-wing blogsite this week that Eric Pickles has said it would be: “A very dirty election...."

Where's Captain Kirk?

2010-01-28T18:44:00.002Z

One of my colleagues - who shall remain nameless, but no, it's not Tom Harris, has joined in the fun.

Shoot You Down

2010-01-28T18:35:00.003Z

One of the things I've been saying when asked (on virtually a daily basis) what impact new media will have on the election campaign, is that it will be far more difficult for politicians to get away with spinning a line, unless it's backed up by solid evidence. Witness the Tories this week, who thought that if they said often enough that violent crime has gone up under Labour, they'd be able to fool most of the people most of the time. Enter the BBC's Mark Easton, who has comprehensively rubbished their claim. Are the Tories being honest with their claims on violent crime? he asks. The answer is no.

Channel 4's Fact Checker is also worth keeping an eye on. Here it is on Chris Grayling's claim that parts of Britain bring to mind episodes of The Wire. More scaremongering from the Tories.

New York City Cops (2)

2010-01-28T18:21:00.002Z

By way of follow up to yesterday's piece about "TC gone mad", I can report that not only has he not managed to dig himself out of the hole, he's dug himself a veritable mineshaft.

On Five Live he's been talking about communities who have "imported into this country barbaric and medieval views about women" and has, as you can imagine, rather upset the Muslim community.

New York City Cops...

2010-01-27T23:52:00.004Z

...ain't that smart. So sang the Strokes. Don't know about that, but at least one of our Special Constables definitely ain't.

I refer of course to the contribution at PMQs today from David TC Davies MP. Aka David "political correctness gone mad" Davies, and, on Twitter, #DavidDaviesgonemad.

"Balal Khan was this week sentenced to just three years in an institution for a violent rape. Will the Minister refer that disgraceful sentence to the Solicitor General, and also investigate the parents and community, to find out how that young man could have such disregard for women's rights?"

Now.... big intake of breath. Where do I start? Well here's the Daily Mail report on the case, which was undoubtedly horrible. A 13 year old boy beat, raped and robbed a 20 year old woman. And it's because he was under 14 at the time that the sentence was so short. Whether the sentence was too short is of course an issue for debate, and a perfectly valid issue to raise in a parliamentary question. But let's put that to one side for now.

Let's also leave aside the sheer audacity of TC suddenly presenting himself as a champion of "women's rights", which was what made my jaw drop open in disbelief. (A colleague, actually squealed in horror, which I gather could be heard by the TV audience. Though she'd grasped the real import of what he'd said).

And let's also brush over the silliness of describing rape as a breach of "women's rights". Well yes, if you also regard being murdered as a breach of one's human rights, I suppose. Which it is, but kind of misses the point, doesn't it?

Let's focus on what TC was really saying in his question. Which, put crudely, was that the boy raped because he comes from a community - the Muslim community - which doesn't respect women's rights. That was what he was saying, wasn't it?

Now obviously there's an ongoing debate over Islam and the role of women, and whether the religion is more or less respectful of women than Western cultures, and of course that depends partly on the interpretation of Islam and the form in which it is practised or, even, perverted by extremist elements. And TC will no doubt try to convince his critics that he was trying to engage in this serious, complex debate. But I could point to plenty of examples of Western culture that equally "prove" a correlation between male attitudes towards women and crimes such as rape.

I was going to flag up footballers, their drunken escapades and allegations of rape against them by way of illustration, but that gets into rather tricky territory. So I'll just use a very simple example.

I've mentioned on here before an incident I witnessed when I was about 15. Trivial in a sense, but something that left a lasting impression. (Well it must have - it was thirty years ago!) I was walking the family dog late at night, when a minibus pulled up at the traffic lights near me. The occupants, who had no doubt had a few drinks, had a life-size, naked blow-up doll in the bus with them and were punching it, abusing it, beating it repeatedly around the head... I remember their faces illuminated in the streetlights, contorted in snarls of angry, aggressive pleasure. Yes, it was only a inflatable doll, but they were clearly venting their hatred on it. Their hatred of women.

They were rugby fans. They may well have been Welsh rugby fans. So perhaps TC - a Welsh MP - would like to ask some questions about what in their families, their community led them to have such a lack of respect for women? He'd probably find out they loved their mothers, were fiercely protective of their sisters, wanted to marry a 'nice' girl. Not much different to your average Muslim, in fact. But he would never have asked that question of them, would he?

Picture This

2010-01-27T19:32:00.004Z

Just a quick, albeit lengthy, cut-and-paste post to nail something that has been raised with me before and has cropped up again in the context of Labour's excellent "Change We See" campaign. Concrete evidence (in some cases literally!) of the social and economic change we've seen in our communities under 12 years of a Labour government. Contrast that with the vacuous "time for change" mantra chanted by Cameron at every opportunity, and challenge him as to what that really means.

Anyway, the suggestion is that it's unlawful to take pictures of public buildings, which is of course not true. Here is what the Minister, Shahid Malik, said in response to a debate in Parliament in April 2009 on photography in public places. And no, I haven't censored the ending. The Speaker cut him off in his prime. Worth reading the full debate, which includes more detail from the Minister on what guidance has been given to police officers and reassurances as to what ought to happen.

"There are two separate issues and I would like to deal with each in turn. First, concerns have been expressed about the stop-and-search powers used under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. As hon. Members will know, section 44 enables the police to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles exist. This is a useful power, but it is also wide-ranging, and concerns have been expressed that the power is being used to stop people taking photographs - whether of buildings or of people - within authorised areas. There are also concerns that cameras are being confiscated as part of such searches. Those are genuine concerns that people have raised.

I would like to make it clear that section 44 does not prohibit the taking of photographs. In November last year the National Police Improvement Agency issued revised guidance on the use of section 44 that made it clear that the power does not stop the taking of photographs in an authorised area and that the police should not use those powers to stop people taking pictures. The police may stop and search someone who is taking photographs in an authorised area, just as they may stop and search any member of the public, but the powers should not be targeted on photographers."

"The second issue concerns the new offence in section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. It makes it an offence to elicit, attempt to elicit, publish or communicate information about an individual who is or has been a constable, or a member of the armed forces or intelligences services. The information must be of a kind that is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing acts of terrorism.

It has been suggested that the new offence could criminalise people taking or publishing photographs of police officers. A photograph of a police officer may fall within the scope of the offence, but would do so in only limited circumstances. The offence is designed to capture terrorist activity directed at members of the protected groups, which, sadly, we know occurs. An offence might be committed, therefore, if someone provides a person with information about the names, addresses or details of car registration numbers of persons in the protected groups. The important thing is that the photographs would have to be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to terrorists, and the person taking or providing the photograph would have to have no reasonable excuse, such as responsible journalism, for taking it.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley)—York is a great city—that had he taken a photograph of a billboard in an underground station, he would have been on safe ground. I hope that the incident did not cost him the prize for being the best MP photographer in that year.

I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that we will issue all police officers and forces with a circular on the new offence. It will set out the policy intentions behind the offence and make it clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. The circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued.

Designated areas may cover any area. They may, for example, cover a town or a borough. They must be approved by the Secretary of State, and, prior to that, by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is worth noting in this context the two important safeguards in the statute, which I just mentioned. It is also worth remembering why Parliament only recently agreed to create the new offence. The offence is aimed at protecting those who are on the front line of our efforts to tackle terrorism. Sadly, recent events in Northern Ireland have shown that members of the armed forces and the police continue to be targets for terrorists. We also judge that the police, the armed forces and the intelligence services are regarded as potential targets by extremists in the UK. The new offence is therefore important, and I would not want concerns about its potential application to photographers to overshadow that.

On a separate issue, we have recently been made aware of the publication on the internet of detailed street images of the capital and other major UK cities. The hon. Member for Uxbridge raised the matter. It freely demonstrates that the ability to take photographs in a public place is not subject to any set of rules or to statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place except where the picture is taken with the intent of committing a crime or terrorist act.

I hope that I have provided some reassurance that we take the issue seriously and that we are doing all we can to ensure that legislation is not misused against photographers, whether journalists, tourists or just enthusiasts. I make it absolutely clear that unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, they must be allowed to take photographs in public places and that the law should not be used to discourage or hamper that activity. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government's intentions in this area are right and that we are working hard to ensure that the law does not have an unintended impact on photography.

The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) spoke about a journalist in his constituency. Freedom of the press is a fundamental foundation of any democracy, and the idea that journalists are being blocked willy-nilly from engaging in their lawful activity is completely unacceptable. Anecdotally, there seems to be a disconnect between what the Government intended and what might be happening on the ground...

If anyone does have proof of the 'disconnect' the Minister talks of, get in touch with your MP, tell him or her all about it. It shouldn't be happening.

Are you Experienced?

2010-01-20T18:22:00.003Z

"If only I, could sell myself, the way that even, I would buy..."

In the wake of the airbrushed poster debacle - and incidentally www.mydavidcameron.com is now claiming to be the UK's most visited politics site, with more than 500 posters submitted - news is out that the Tories are advertising for a "Brand Communications Manager" to sell Brand Cameron to an unsuspecting British public.

The new recruit will join a Brand Communications Team, reporting to someone with "overall responsibility for brand management" and her deputy.

The job advert doesn't make clear quite how many eager young Tory tots make up the rest of the team, but tells us the Brand Communications team is responsible for above-the-line advertising, design, online creative content and "experiential activity", whatever that may be. Watch out for The David Cameron Experience* coming to a town near you!

*Poster to appear on mydavidcameron.com very soon no doubt. Beyond my technical skills.

Alone Again Or

2010-01-18T21:39:00.003Z

Disturbing but not at all surprising report in the FT of a survey of Tory candidates standing in the 240 most winnable of their target seats. Of the 144 PPCs who responded, “reducing Britain’s carbon footprint” was the lowest priority for them out of 19 policy options put before them.

Asked to rate each policy on a scale of one to five, where five was the most important to them personally, the candidates gave the climate change issue an average rating of 2.8, significantly below “more help for marriage”, 3.6, and “protecting the English countryside”, 3.57. They rated “cutting red tape” as second only to tackling the budget deficit in terms of priorities, suggesting resistance to environmental regulation.

Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home is quoted as saying: ‘This is a hugely controversial issue for the Conservative party. There’s almost no support among centre-right think-tanks for all this climate change, so the party has got to be incredibly careful. I’m confident the sceptics are going to win. It’s for Cameron to decide how he’s going to get out of this – he’s lost the battle already.’

So is Cameron going to take a stand and try to whip his party into shape behind him? Or is he going to quietly let this one go? Judging from his near silence on green issues in recent months, even during Copenhagen week, it looks as if he's already given up the fight. (And that's being generous enough to assume that he was ever particularly passionate about the cause in the first place... Which I doubt.)

Equal but Different

2010-01-17T23:41:00.003Z

Final blog of the night... and this is only because I said I would.

I am, as previously mentioned on here, thoroughly fed up with outbursts of mockrage from Tories on Twitter, although in some ways it's a useful indicator that what I've said has hit a raw nerve. Latest case is the RTing by me of a Tweet from a constituent, which, as abbreviated by me, was: "A gay man/lesbian voting Tory is a fool. Cameron voted ag repeal section 28 & party is aligned with homophobes in EU". (The constituent, btw, is a journalist who writes on LGBT issues for various local publications. And he's a gay man in a civil partnership. I've met him and his husband; they're nice blokes).

So why has this struck a nerve with the Tories? Obviously no-one likes being called a fool, and perhaps the language could have been more moderate, but you can see I'd already had to condense the tweet to fit it in, without being able to add comment of my own. And anyway, I do think that most people would be misguided/ mistaken/ unwise/ foolish/ irrational/ imprudent/ demented/ derranged/ just plain wrong [delete as appropriate] to vote Tory at the next election. Of course I do. A Tory Government would be a disaster for this country and deeply damaging for my constituents on a personal level.

But let's get back to the main issue. I suspect my constituent's tweet was inspired by reading this piece in Saturday's Guardian, on the Conservatives' less than impressive track record in voting against gay rights. I've not seen any conclusive proof that the leopard has changed its spots, despite Cameron's attempts to convince us otherwise. If a gay man/ lesbian votes on the basis of identity politics, then it's hard to see why they'd vote Tory. (And none of the 'outraged' have said anything to challenge that view).

Of course, many LGBT voters won't vote on that basis, which is where the tweet is open to challenge. If you're a gay man with parents who happen to be very elderly and very wealthy, and the only thing you care about in life is getting your hands on as much of their money as possible, then it could be argued you'd be a fool NOT to vote Tory.

Let's move on though, to the issues which I know concern my constituent, and on which basis he may well cast his vote at the next election. An example of "the politics of But" (rather than "the politics of And"). Yes, the track record of this Labour Government on equalities is remarkable, from equalising the age of consent, gay adoption, scrapping section 28, civil partnerships, recognising homophobic hate crimes.... have a look here for more. But.

Civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. And we won't have true equality until they are. I've tried looking into this, and the explanation I got as to why the UK hasn't gone down the path of other countries who have legalised gay marriage was that it's more difficult in the UK because whereas in those countries you can only be married in a civil ceremony and can then choose to go on and have a religious service should you want one, in the UK you can be married in church without the civil element. Which I took to mean that you couldn't have gay marriage in this country without persuading the Church of England, Catholic church, etc, to accept it.

But you could have a concept of civil marriages for all those who don't care for the religious part of the marriage ceremony, so there would at least be equality there, and hope that the Church takes a more enlightened view in future. (And give it nudges in the right direction). Although that could be seen as downgrading civil ceremonies for opposite sex couples and be met with opposition? I don't know the extent to which this was all discussed before the 2004 Act became law - I wasn't in Parliament then - but I can see why the "But" matters, and perhaps it's time we revisited it.

The other "But" is the fact gay men are still barred from being blood donors, because they're in a high risk group for HIV transmission. My initial response to this was, well, it's an understandable restriction. But when you think about it... Giving blood is an altruistic thing. We don't pay people to give blood in this country. People do it out of the goodness of their hearts. And it's self-certifying. People who go along to give blood are by and large trusted to say whether or not they've been indulging in risky behaviour. A gay man might not know if he's HIV positive, but I can't see why, if he had any doubt in his mind, he'd decide to go and give blood. And there are second and third generation tests which pick up infected blood anyway. The risk in the US, according to this, of contracting HIV through a blood transfusion is 1 in 2 million units transfused. And - correct me if I'm wrong - people are paid to give blood there. So I can see why gay men find it offensive to all be lumped into the same bracket, and to, in effect, be accused of being indifferent to the fate of people to whom they donate blood.

Policies not posters

2010-01-17T22:49:00.006Z

In a seminar I chaired at the Fabians conference yesterday I asked Peter Kellner of YouGov whether it was possible to judge what was the more effective form of political campaigning: the Conservatives spending millions on billboards of an airbrushed David Cameron, or Labour supporters parodying it with the www.mydavidcameron.com pics, which have now received considerable coverage in the mainstream media. His response was that it's difficult to judge, and that 90% of the money spent by the political parties during election campaigns is a complete waste of money anyway. Leaflets go in the bin, billboards are forgotten, etc, etc.

Also, much of this propaganda is directed at people who have already made up their minds how to vote anyway.... Which is why Voter ID/ phone bank work, and then targeted mailings are by far the best use of funds rather than blanket coverage of a constituency. (Not something those with the Ashcroft millions behind them have to worry about though - they can just bombard everyone.)

The received wisdom about billboard campaigns in the past was that what mattered wasn't the billboard itself, but the press/TV coverage it got when it was unveiled. As Peter Kellner pointed out, the only Conservative billboard people remember from the 1997 campaign was the 'Demon Eyes' picture of Tony Blair. And yet there was only ever the one poster; it wasn't a campaign that was rolled out on billboards across the country. You will probably be able to find people who can "remember" seeing the poster, but they won't have; they'll have seen the press coverage.

During my brief stint working for the Labour Party during the 2001 election I remember having trouble explaining this to the Electoral Commission, when we were discussing election spend with them. They were convinced that a 'billboard campaign' would have cost millions, whereas the truth is, most of them only get a very limited run. The current Cameron campaign, which really has been rolled out nationwide, is the exception, not the rule. And yes, people notice the posters, but are they more or less likely to vote Conservative as a result? I doubt it actually makes any difference at all, unless the ad agencies find a campaign that really hits home.

At the coming election Labour has a choice - should it spend its limited funds on targeted mailings, phone banks, battle buses, party political broadcasts, new media campaigns: all those things which genuinely connect with voters? Or should it splash out on billboards instead? My reckoning is we might see one or two limited poster campaigns, to get across a particular message on a particular day, perhaps in a particular location, but we won't be following the Conservative example.

Now Mary

2010-01-17T21:56:00.002Z

I'm not usually a Telegraph reader - no, you surprise us! gasps my collective readership - but this piece by Mary Portas, aka Mary Queen of Shops, is a must-read. (Given my previous post, perhaps we should just get rid of political columnists altogether and have celebs write all the comment pieces in our newspapers).

Mary dissects the now infamous 'airbrushed' posters, and comes to the conclusion that, frankly, they're a bit crap. (For suggestions as to how they can be improved, see the excellent www.mydavidcameron.com.) But it's in her analysis of 'Brand Cameron' that she really excels, coming to the devasting conclusion:

"All successful brands stand for something, whether that's reliability, luxury or usefulness. I've racked my brains but I can't for the life of me think what Cameron stands for.... If he were a supermarket, he'd be Somerfield."

Mere Pseud Mag Ed

2010-01-17T19:36:00.010Z

Two excellent articles in the Observer today. David Mitchell is on form, parodying archaeologists and the conclusions they draw from tiny "finds". Something which, perhaps I can now confess, I've never really quite seen the value of. So archaeologists, led by a professor of palaeolithic archaeology at the University of Bristol no less, have discovered Neanderthals may have worn make-up. I thought we already knew that from the Flintstones? Betty and Wilma were very glam. They'd completely nailed this season's animal print too. Role models for us all.

Seriously though, perhaps someone can explain to me why we need to know this. Is is that we could then go on to conclude that Neanderthals weren't quite as hairy as we've previously thought, and that could tenuously prove something to do with evolution? Or is it just fascinating to know a tiny bit more about our very ancient past, and I'm the archaeological equivalent of a philistine?

The second excellent article in today's Observer - and tellingly by another non-journalist - is from Regine Chassagne of Arcade Fire fame, who is Haitian and writes movingly about her shock since the earthquake struck. "Since Haiti shook and crumbled, I feel as if something has collapsed over my head, too. Miles away, somehow, I'm trapped in this nightmare. My heart is crushed, I've been thinking of nothing else." Please read it - and then donate via the DEC appeal, which includes most of the major UK charities/ NGOs.

There is also a far from excellent article in today's Observer by Catherine Bennett. I have to admit, I'm not a fan of her comment pieces. She's rarely thought-provoking or infuriating or amusing. The logic of her conclusions often defies me, and there doesn't seem to be any coherent worldview. To be honest, I've never quite seen why she's paid to be a columnist.

Anyway, today she is writing about about the possibility of her mate, the highly unappealing Rod Liddle, becoming editor of the Independent. Completely bizarre logic, once again. She seems to be defending Mr Liddle's right to free speech - sexist/ racist/ Islamophobic though it may be- whilst condemning those in the blogosphere and on Twitter who are expressing the view that a man of Mr Liddle's views should not be put at the helm of one of our few liberal-leaning newspapers. It seems free speech only applies to Mr Liddle and not to those who disapprove of him. (Check him out on climate change denial too; surely if the Independent has a particular USP, it's that it's been excellent on environmental issues).

Stop press - the folks over at Liberal Conspiracy are running a piece suggesting that Mr Liddle has been leaving racist comments on a football website. Wonder what Ms Bennett has to say about that?

Glam Racket

2010-01-14T22:32:00.004Z

Was toying with the idea of doing a post here on silly Tory claims that ww.mydavidcameron.com is negative campaigning. (Well it is, in so far as it's saying that Cameron and his Tory Party are not an entirely good thing, which we are allowed to do, but it's witty and fun and some of the pics at least are based on policy differences which need highlighting - for example, the BBC one - and this is a good way to do it.)

As I say, I was going to do that, but I've been distracted by discovering Www.deadgoose.com. Worth checking out for the picture of Geoff and Patricia alone. And I like Andrew Adonis and his salt supplies.

Hollow Man (2)

2010-01-14T22:27:00.003Z

Sorry to harp on about the Cameron poster campaign (well, not really) but according to the Mail, Senior Tory officials have said that the campaign is "designed to appeal to floating voters in Lib Dem held seats". So does that mean the Tories are targeting Bristol West? The three posters I've seen so far are in the new Bristol West seat or roads leading to it... It was a three-way marginal last time, but I'd have thought the boundary changes put it as a straight Lib Dem-Labour fight (which will be won by Labour).

Stephen Williams, by the way, reckons Bristol North West is a three-way fight, as his safest Lib Dem ward has gone into there. No doubt we will be seeing "Only the Lib Dems can beat Labour here" leaflets going out soon.

Wax and Wane

2010-01-14T17:48:00.002Z

Some good pieces on the airbrush campaign by Brand Republic. (See the links at the bottom too.)

Haiti - earthquake

2010-01-14T17:04:00.004Z

DFID is making excellent use of its website - www.dfid.gov.uk - and its Twitter account - @dfid_uk - to show what the UK is doing to help the people of Haiti, including sending out search and rescue teams. The UK were first on the scene after the Pakistan earthquake and are acknowledged experts in this field. Of course after the rescue efforts have been exhausted, there will be a huge amount of reconstruction needed, in what was already one of the world's poorest countries. You can donate to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal at www.dec.org.uk.

Kurious Orange

2010-01-14T16:56:00.002Z

Just received this email. Somewhat baffled by it.

Dear Kerry McCarthy,

Whatever happened to that revolutionary Rearing of Cod in Freshwater Project?

Well, I am delighted to advise that our activities are developing at a rapid rate!

The website has just been updated together with a summary of 2009 and the Annual Report.

We have included a very honest assessment of our activities and performance, as well as an opinion of current trends and policies.

It makes good reading and may ruffle a few scales!

Take a look at www.diobas.com

Kind regards,
Gerry

It's the New Thing!

2010-01-14T11:52:00.002Z

Douglas in the New Statesman on the election campaign:

"Look at the Conservatives: they're running a broadcast campaign in a networked world. If you look at their poster advertising - a thousand posters last week - I think the idea that you have one-way dialogue with the public … fails to recognise the appetite for engagement". Indeed.

No Good Advice

2010-01-14T11:22:00.003Z

A few hours in the office, for the first time this week... I see people are reporting that Andy Burnham has 'let slip' the election date. I was at that event yesterday, which was the parliamentary launch of Julie Morgan's Private Members Bill to stop under-18s using sunbeds. The Bill will also outlaw unstaffed tanning salons of which there are quite a few in Bristol, sometimes offering sessions for as cheap as £1 or even 50p a minute. When I was first elected I met with Consol Suncenter, who run a lot of these unstaffed salons and have a regional office in my constituency. We discussed the steps they were taking to make sure under-16s didn't use their salons, and that others didn't over-use the salons, which was mostly about conspicuously displaying signs in the salon and having CCTV and spot checks, but I have to say, I wasn't convinced and will be supporting Julie's Bill.

Andy was joined at the launch by Nicola from Girls Aloud, who was obviously nervous at speaking in public but gave a lovely speech saying "You don't have to be Tangoed to be accepted". Have to say, she looked great. Killer heels.

Anyway, during Andy's speech he said something about a May 6th election, which caused these flutterings amongst political pundits. It doesn't mean a thing. I'm working on the assumption of a May 6th election. Everyone is. It seems the most obvious choice of date. But the only person who knows is Gordon, and I suspect even he doesn't know yet. He might wake up tomorrow morning and decide, what the hell, let's go for March 25th. He might not!