The curse of the moderator......on or off?

Alex Wilcock has had a bit of a go at me this evening for leaving my moderator on having lit the blue touchpaper and then swanned off for the day. Well Alex, it has to be said it is a while since I have upset you, so I guess it was gonna happen sometime (!) and I take your point. But, it tends to be when I am saying something controversial I get in as much trouble with comments as I do with what I said originally. But, given I am on a major swan off tomorrow until Monday night, to the wonderful city of Belfast, I will risk it. On the understanding that all commentators refrain from the temptation to drop me in it by making defamatory et al comments. Deal?

Man Woman Woman Man...........its all of no consequence in a by election, isn't it??????

Thanks to Jane for alerting me to the news that whereas last week we had an "attractive young woman" replacing a presumably not quite so attractive older man..........this week we have the reverse and all the associated fallout.

I made my views clear on Crewe and Nantwich selection and they apply here. If we think a candidate isn''t good enough why on earth do we select them???? But, the other interesting issue here is that at a time when we are banging on about a more representative party we have yet again missed a trick. Whilst Cameron et al are cynically ensuring they have women and BME candidates even in the most unlikely places (and I say cynically because I know from inside that this is motivated by image rather than a real commitment to diversity), we are yet again missing a trick. Are we really saying we have no women approved candidates able to cut the mustard in a by election? I can't believe that.

So yet again we will have dissent in the party which could so easily have be avoided. Let's get these by elections out of the way and then I will say what I really think!

Is Cameron in the wrong party?

A couple of years ago when Cameron started describing himself as a liberal, my immediate thought was, so what are you doing in the Tories then mate? At the time much was made of his invitation to some of our, shall we say, more right wing front benchers, to come and join his expanding tent. Maybe now is the time for Nick Clegg to make a similar approach the other way?


The news (hat tip to Darrell) this week that he has for the fourth time voted with the minority of his party perhaps is an indication that eventually (perhaps when he has to actually get some policies down on paper) there are likely to surface some real tensions between him and the mainstream. At the moment we are all distracted with the car crash that is the Brown government, but as some point the Tories will have to say what it is they stand for - and my hunch is - liberalism it ain't!

Playing footsie with Labour on the GLA

After my last post about Nick Clegg refusing to play footsie with the other parties, imagine my shock and horror to learn that our GLA members are doing just that! Newly elected Liberal Democrat members Dee Doocey, Mike Tuffrey and Caroline Pidgeon have supported Jeanette Arnold as Chair. This is the same Jeannette Arnold, who was quoted after the elections last week saying “I think Emily (Thornberry) is right to suggest that it will be Labour versus the Conservatives in Islington. The Lib Dems were fourth in the party vote. That is cause for concern for them. This was a bad week for Labour, but not in North East.” Clearly this has an impact on the local parties, with two target seats and no representation on the GLA to ensure their views were considered before this decision was taken. I do hope it doesn't come back and bite them in the bottom.

Obama on Israel

An interesting piece on Obama's website on Israel's 60th Anniversary, not much mention of occupation or the plight of the Palestinian's who were and continue to be, dispossessed. Does not bode well for a change in US policy post Bush.

Nick Clegg - I won't play footsie with the big boys

Thanks to the kind heart of Millenium's daddy I got an unexpected bite at the cherry at the Bloggers Bash with Nick Clegg this evening. I was a sub and since everyone turned up I really shouldn't have been there - but since I was in the building I got a special dispensation! I thought I would be clever and try out the voice recorder on my brand new all singing all dancing phone.........sadly it wasn't all it was cracked up to be! So, I am left with my memory and a few sketchy notes.

Nick looked and sounded incredibly fresh and upbeat following what must have been a gruelling few weeks. He was asked a range of interesting questions, but for me what was music to my ears was his response to a question from Paul Walter on electoral reform. He reminded us that this was one of Labour's promises in 1997 that had not materialised. Nick's response was that he wasn't about to do deals with a weak Labour Party in order to achieve that reform, nor did he have any appetite for doing deals with the Tories, his view, that there was "little merit in playing footsie with either party" - glad to hear it Nick!

As for the rest of the interview, more later!

Blogging - perfecting the art of procrastination!

I know, it's obvious really, I am having a procrastinating interlude.......Blogging is preferable to sorting out my paperwork! OK, I have caught up with email, done a bit of reading about child poverty, watched Andrew Marr and the Politics Show, listened to the awesome A Dance to the Music of Time (so disappointed I missed the first couple of episodes), made some Thai Basil Lemonade, cleaned up the kitchen...........but that's about it really. At every opportunity I have found myself distracted, drawn back to putting in me tenpenneth on this or that issue. But, it will all be back to normal from Tuesday when I start three totally manic weeks............with a week off at the end. You have been warned!

Tough Love for Israel

Henry Siegman is director of the US/Middle East Project in New York and is a research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program at SOAS. He is a former executive director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America. Like many Jews he is exasperated at the lack of any real progress and the gross negligence of the Quartet in pandering to the notion that it is Israel who is the victim. This article is full of profound observations, not least his reflection that "The abandonment of the Palestinians now is surely not an atonement for the abandonment of European Jews seventy years ago, nor will it serve the security of the State of Israel and its people."

Here is a copy of his article, published in The Nation tomorrow:

We now have word that Tony Blair, envoy of the Middle East Quartet (the UN, the EU, Russia and the United States), and German Chancellor Angela Merkel intend to organize yet another peace conference, this time in Berlin in June. It is hard to believe that after the long string of failed peace initiatives, stretching back at least to the Madrid conference of 1991, diplomats are recycling these failures without seemingly having a clue as to why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is even more hopeless today than before these peace exercises first got under way.

The scandal of the international community's impotence in resolving one of history's longest bloodlettings is that it knows what the problem is but does not have the courage to speak the truth, much less deal with it. The peace conference in Germany will suffer from the same gutlessness that has marked all previous efforts. It will deal with everything except the problem primarily responsible for the impasse. That problem is that for all the sins attributable to the Palestinians--and they are legion, including inept and corrupt leadership, failed institution-building and the murderous violence of rejectionist groups--there is no prospect for a viable, sovereign Palestinian state, primarily because Israel's various governments, from 1967 until today, have never had the intention of allowing such a state to come into being.

It would be one thing if Israeli governments had insisted on delaying a Palestinian state until certain security concerns had been dealt with. But no government serious about a two-state solution to the conflict would have pursued, without letup, the theft and fragmentation of Palestinian lands, which even a child understands makes Palestinian statehood impossible.

Given the overwhelming disproportion of power between the occupier and the occupied, it is hardly surprising that Israeli governments and their military and security establishments found it difficult to resist the acquisition of Palestinian land. What is astounding is that the international community, pretending to believe Israel 's claim that it is the victim and its occupied subjects the aggressors, has allowed this devastating dispossession to continue and the law of the jungle to prevail.

As long as Israel knows that by delaying the peace process it buys time to create facts on the ground, and that the international community will continue to indulge Israel's pretense that its desire for a two-state solution is being frustrated by the Palestinians, no new peace initiative can succeed, and the dispossession of the Palestinian people will indeed become irreversible.

There can be no greater delusion on the part of Western countries weighed down by guilt about the Holocaust than the belief that accommodating such an outcome would be an act of friendship to the Jewish people. The abandonment of the Palestinians now is surely not an atonement for the abandonment of European Jews seventy years ago, nor will it serve the security of the State of Israel and its people.

John Vinocur of the New York Times recently suggested that the virtually unqualified declarations of support for Israel by Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are "at a minimum an attempt to seek Israeli moderation by means of public assurances with this tacit subtext: these days, the European Union is not, or is no longer, its reflexive antagonist." But the expectation that uncritical Western support of Israel would lead to greater Israeli moderation and greater willingness to take risks for peace is blatantly contradicted by the conflict's history.

Time and again, this history has shown that the less opposition Israel encounters from its friends in the West for its dispossession of the Palestinians, the more uncompromising its behavior. Indeed, soon after Sarkozy's and Merkel's expressions of eternal solidarity, Israel 's Ehud Olmert approved massive new construction in East Jerusalem--authorizing housing projects that had been frozen for years by previous governments because of their destructive impact on the possibility of a peace agreement--as well as continued expansion of Israel 's settlements. And Olmert's defense minister, Ehud Barak, declared shortly after Merkel's departure that he will remove only a token number of the more than 500 checkpoints and roadblocks that Israel has repeatedly promised, and just as repeatedly failed, to dismantle. That announcement shattered whatever hope Palestinians may have had for recovery of their economy, as a consequence of $7 billion in new aid promised by international donors in December. In these circumstances, the international donor community will not pour good money after bad, as they so often have in the past.

What is required of statesmen is not more peace conferences or clever adjustments to previous peace formulations but the moral and political courage to end their collaboration with the massive hoax the peace process has been turned into. Of course, Palestinian violence must be condemned and stopped, particularly when it targets civilians. But is it not utterly disingenuous to pretend that Israel 's occupation--maintained by IDF-manned checkpoints and barricades, helicopter gunships, jet fighters, targeted assassinations and military incursions, not to speak of the massive theft of Palestinian lands--is not an exercise in continuous and unrelenting violence against more than 3 million Palestinian civilians? If Israel were to renounce violence, could the occupation last even one day?

Israel's designs on the West Bank are not much different from the designs of the Arab forces that attacked the Jewish state in 1948--the nullification of the international community's partition resolution of 1947. Short of addressing the problem by its right name--something that is of an entirely different order than hollow statements that "settlements do not advance peace"--and taking effective collective action to end a colonial enterprise that disgraces what began as a noble Jewish national liberation struggle, further peace conferences, no matter how well intentioned, make their participants accessories to one of the longest and cruelest deceptions in the annals of international diplomacy.

New Labour, New Labour Message..........can it work?

Have just heard Harriet Harman on the Politics Show, following on from Gordon Brown this morning. Apparently now they not only have to listen but also to communicate their message more simply to the (presumably uneducated) masses.

Yes, of course, in a soundbite, instant gratification age, messages need to be sharp and memorable. But in my humble opinion the problem Labour has is that the message they are trying to convey (change for the better) is discordant with the reality (more of the same tired old government). The Tory's message is very simple and exactly the same - change for the better. The advantage they have is that, despite not a shred of evidence that their change would be for the better, they certainly offer change! Enough water has passed under the bridge in the last 11 years for people to forget the dying days of John Major's government and Cameron's great gift to be able to speak without saying anything, means that the electorate may be forgiven for believing there is a chance his Tory government will be different from the last one. After all, they now care for the poor don't they?

So, bring in the spinners, buy in the marketing consultants, come up with a new message if you must, but it will be totally useless if that message is totally at odds with the reality on the ground.

Should Hillary admit defeat?

As much as I would love to see a woman in the Whitehouse, I have admit to having doubts about Hillary, not least because of her support for Iraq and her recent comment about obliterating Iran. But, Democrats are now beginning to worry about the impact dragging out this contest will have on their party, not least if the final decision is made by the "Super Delegates".

One such person is David Swanson from After Downing Street where you can read his interesting analysis.

Brown on the ropes, should we be wishing him well?

Gordon Brown has just had a grilling, well perhaps a couple of seconds in the microwave, with Andrew Marr. He argued that Labour would be helping people through putting in place a number of building blocks, he was offering a strong sense of direction, but he didn't say what that direction was.

Frankly he looked terrible, very uncomfortable, a sense of a deep underlying misery. He is a man on the ropes, promising to fight but his body language says quite the opposite. I am someone who really believes in the power of humour when you are under attack, it disarms and diffuses the situation and gives you a chink to get your counter attack in. There was none of this, all Brown did was reinforce the image of himself as a dour man who had lost control.

He confessed to having made a mistake over the 10p rate, but said the government were intervening locally and internationally to help the economic problems around the price of food, petrol and housing. He said that he would intervene whilst the Tories would walk away. He argued that Britain was better prepared because of his sound management of the economy in the past. He admitted that he had allowed speculation about the General Election to go on too long. Andrew Marr challenged him that he was too obsessed with the fine detail and consequently had no big picture. His argument was that he was responding to a desire for fairness.

On Boris - he wished him well and congratulated him but questioned where was the substance. He assured us that he would be taking the fight to Tories, for the sake of "hard working families". He questioned whether the party had really changed, where was the substance, where were the policies?

On the prospect of a challenge to his leadership he insisted that it was not there, he did not accept he may not be the right man to lead and was not prepared to step aside. He acknowledged that he was a more private person, but he wanted to solve the country's problems, he felt our pain, understood our problems -he was the right person to do it. So he plans to be getting out more with his clear plan.

AM suggested he was seen as a bit strange, not like other people, a workaholic. Again Brown argued that he had an ordinary background that mean he understands people hurting and their worries. He was not the same as Blair but he was committed to better opportunities for hard working families.

He believed that leadership was tested in the worst of times and he was resolute and determined enough to face the test and build a stronger and fairer country.

When challenged on the 42 days detention he insisted this was the "right thing for the country" but he was someone committed to defending civil liberties.

So, some very contradictory comments. Commitment to opportunity and fairness and helping people in need, but is he really telling us that a man of such intellect and economic capability never understood the consequences of the removal of the 10p rate - even after Ming had pointed out the problem? Telling us he is listening, except of course in those extraordinary (OK everyday) circumstances when he knows what is right for us - 42 day detention for example. And all the chat about "hard working families" what about those who are not part of a family?

But I find myself with a dilemma, do I really want Brown to fall over completely and allow another Tory government in? With the smoke, mirrors and spin of the Tory party reluctant to come up with a single policy - no sorry - one policy on inheritance tax for the very rich - would a future Tory government really be any different from the last one? Maybe the silver lining of a Boris mayoralty will be that we begin to get a feel for the sort of policy direction a future Tory party would be heading in............but then again, maybe not! Brown is right on this, if nothing else, that the Tories lack substance, but as we have seen in the last few days, that is in no way an impediment to electoral success! If a BNP candidate can get elected merely on the basis of "Grown Up Politics" and "putting the needs of people first", Brown may be in a position of King Canute telling the waves to stop, but, unlike Canute, having miscalculated the tide!

London..........where did we go wrong?

So what has gone wrong in London for us? The results do not paint a pretty picture. Brian's vote squeezed to 9.63% and a poor 11.22% in the assembly resulting in a loss of 2 seats. In a city that should be instinctively liberal, should we not have expected to do better here than the rest of the country? It is not as if we don't have a strong presence both in inner and outer London. I trust someone will do some analysis, we need to fully understand what went wrong if we are not to find ourselves totally left out in the cold again next time.

Flippin Ada..........It's Boris!

I didn't get a vote today, though as someone who spends most of her working life there, I do have a bit of an interest in what happens in London. I worry about what will happen to London Transport since that will have an impact on my life, but I worry more about what will happen to those who are marginalised in London.

Boris has clearly demonstrated his credentials, racist, classist (is there such a thing?!), homophobic. Apparently at the LGBT hustings he said ....L..G..B..T is it? Yes yes I am all in favour of it! Right, this is the man who greeted civil partnerships by suggesting that next we would be supporting the union of 3 men and a dog. Now don't get me wrong. He is a character, I enjoy reading him, but he has NONE of the qualities necessary to run anything, let alone a city like London!

So, fasten your seatbelts.............remember, he will also be in charge in the run up to the Olympics......what was that about the last one to leave switching off the lights?

Campaigning Virgins

It's all about blisters really, isn't it? I was chatting earlier to our local master of the campaign trail Dave Hodgson. He had decided that he would have spent less money paying someone to do all the delivery he did in Milton Keynes, than he had ended up spending on blister remedies!

At the other end of the scale was my dear son Ravi. Given our passing like ships in the night over the past week, this evening was the first chance I got to chat to him about his trip to help in..........let's not say where, but somewhere where help was needed! I was in Norwich when I got a text from him saying "don't ever ask me to do this again!" Now Ravi was perfectly happy to help me delivering when he was a little boy, but like most little boys he sadly grew out of it. Anyway, he ended up going to another region to help for a couple of days - the first time for probably 10 years he has done anything useful (in political terms of course!) Sadly the experience appears to have ruined him for helping me next year.

He was not impressed with the organisational skills of our party, and also, unfortunately ended up getting sent to deliver in a white housing estate, where apparently everyone stared at him. Most disturbing was when it was pouring with rain and he asked someone where the nearest bus shelter was. The person he asked was extremely aggressive and swore at him, the bus shelter it turned out was only a few hundred yards away.

The following day he was asked to go back to the same estate, he tried to explain that he had felt the people there were quite racist in their attitude to him, to which the response was "you're a big lad, you can look after yourself". He came home completely disillusioned. He said he couldn't vote for another party because his views are clearly liberal, but he didn't know why he would vote for us. He had also had no thanks for his voluntary efforts and felt completely unappreciated. So, if he feels like this, how many other potential canvassers, deliverers, helpers, candidates, have left this campaign feeling the same way?

We have some great examples of good practice across the country, but it is patchy. We have done OK this evening, but we must bite the bullet and recognise that in some areas we frankly have to get a grip. Or maybe I am being unreasonable?

A painful reminder - the ghost of Tories past.......

Its funny isn't it, how defeat can often lead to a modicum of humility. I hate to admit it, but I had been lulled into a false sense of security. Michael Portillo, almost rehabilitated. William Hague, quite a cheeky chappy. Even Michael Howard's irritating tones had stopped having quite the same cringe effect on me.

And there have been times over the last 11 years when I have surprisingly found myself applauding various Tories as they tore into Labour, over Iraq in particular. That nice Mr Clarke and sharp Mr Rifkind.

But today has brought back all those horrid memories of 18 years of Tory rule. The arrogance, pomposity, sneering of a political class who generally believe they are the rightful heirs to the ruling classes and we serfs should know our place. OK, they have learned some lessons from Mr Blair about packaging and spin - but scratch the surface and underneath are the same attitudes that have always permeated the party. A little of the gilding came off today. To be honest they remind me of those Dr Whoish creatures who, having successfully masqueraded as normal human beings and infiltrated human society, suddenly metamorphosises into monsters.........you have been warned!

Nick Clegg talked today of the problem of the Labour Party having lost touch with their values. With the Tories I wonder if it is not that they have lost touch with their core values, but they have developed a rather cunning technique to hide them from the naked eye? Rather as the BNP candidate on the radio today who admitted he had won his seat by promising nothing and with no declared policies (except "grown up politics" ah yes, the BNP are very good at that!) the Tories are relying on the same wheeze. By suddenly discovering their concern for the poor and their opposition to the cut in the 10p rate, with NO PROMISE to replace it, they have pulled the wool over countless thousands of eyes. Unable at this stage to say whether or how they would replace it, they are more than happy to say whether or how they would cut inheritance tax - funny that.

Funny, I had forgotten just how much I loathe the Tories, looks like the country did too.

Are we getting slaughtered on the GLA?

I just had a comment left on my blog about the GLA, suggesting that we are getting slaughtered, down to 3 seats at most. Hope this isn't the case, I had high hopes for Meral.

The Candidate Trap.........Crewe and Nantwich

The news that previous PPC for Crewe and Nantwich, Marc Godwin has quit the party after having failed to be shortlisted for the by election raises another thorny issue for the party in terms of candidates.

Clearly, Elizabeth Shenton is an excellent and formidable candidate. And of course it is not unusual for sitting PPC's to be ousted in the event of a byelection, that after all is how Simon Hughes became the candidate in Bermondsey. But, the process should be seen to be transparent and fair shouldn't it? When I was selected for Luton North there was no caveat that in the event of a byelection I may find myself ousted. Maybe Marc Godwin was also unaware and I am sure if any of us had found ourselves in that position we would have been equally miffed.

So, perhaps we need an equivalent of a list system. Anyone who has been through the approval process will know there is no distinction on the quality of candidates. You either pass, pass with a recommendation for further training, fail with the opportunity of doing training and trying again, or fail completely. This results in the kind of problem we now have. I don't buy Marc's complaint that he failed to be shortlisted because the party wanted an attractive woman, (heavens if that were the case why are our candidates still so predominantly white men - some far from attractive (!)?) but if, as in an interview for a job, he knew that he hadn't reached the standard expected for a target or byelection candidate, it would have been a less bitter pill for him to swallow.

The Candidate Trap ....... London

Later today we will hear how Mr. P has done in his battle with Messrs L and J. No doubt this will be followed by some picking over the bones of what we could or couldn't have done better. I trust that my elders and betters will learn some lessons.

My initial thoughts are as follows........firstly, can we please start thinking about a candidate for next time now, instead of scrabbling around at the last minute? We do it in target parliamentary seats, why not London? With a prospective candidate in post, a London Spokesperson could spend the next term building support, challenging the incumbent, developing workable and robust policies.

Secondly, can we have a candidate who has a commitment to and an understanding of, our party? Brian was a reasonably good candidate, extremely good on crime, but I was rather disappointed with some of his attitudes, the "I am not a politician" mantra, subtext "politicians are dreadful people". If you are not a politician what are you doing standing for a political position? Also his comment that he "would not toe the party line" er........what's the point of being in a party then, why didn't he stand as an independent? Now that is not to say that there may not be occasions where he disagrees fundamentally with a position and takes a stand, but stating it as a kind of badge of honour demonstrates to me his lack of understanding, as did apparently making up policy on the hoof, particularly policy that would have an impact on areas outside London, without consultation. It was then left to Simon Hughes to hint about second preferences, whilst Brian refused to say. Given the potentially enormous influence second preferences will have, frankly whatever my doubts about another Ken term, a Boris term is truly terrifying! All of this may just be down to his lack of experience and involvement in the party, but as a party should we not take some responsibility for ensuring that our candidates are fully trained, briefed and properly advised?

Thirdly, can we do some thinking about how we ensure the electorate understand voting systems? Given that some 38% of people have said that they would vote for us if they thought their vote would count, there are many who clearly haven't understood that message, otherwise our first preferences would surely be far higher?

Other ideas, or is it just me that thinks we need to learn some lessons here?

Looz Muze Blooz?

Despite my best attempts to stay awake, I confess I dropped off about 3am so all my plans to continue blogging failed miserably. So, what about last night? Should we be dancing in the streets or crawling under the covers?

Well, it was clearly going to be a Lib Dem squeeze night. People are fed up with Labour and given our unfair voting system, the clearest way to send a message was voting Tory. I for one was surprised at the number of soft Tories I encountered this time, many who had always voted Tory but now weren't so sure. So it isn't all sweetness and light and I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere along the Tory road of the next couple of years the bubble begins to burst. As I have already pointed out, look on the Tory website, if you find a policy cunningly hidden in some dark corner, please let me know!

But, as ever, what this highlighted for me was our need as a party to be more disciplined, more organised and more evangelistic. Now being as discipline and organisation could not be seen to be my strong points.......I am one of those who needs help in this department!

Where we have lost ground it has often been as a result of internal squabbles, poor candidates who sometimes also get elected (!) very local issues and poor organisation at a local level. Complacency (often a complaint levelled at the Labour Party in their heartlands) can sometimes be a problem for us too. Councillors who are trying to get their long service award, "60 years if it kills me!" unable and unwilling to encourage and nurture new talent. Any organisation that doesn't develop will die, as the saying goes, change is the only sign of life.

So, my verdict? It was OK. Even if we had lost a few more seats it would still have been OK. To use my done to death Risk metaphor. It's no good trying to take over the world all in one go, especially with a miniscule army! We need to consolidate. Nick Clegg needs more time to find his feet. We need to do what he urged at hustings across the land last year, namely become a truly radical anti-establishment party and that means taking risks and in some cases losing ground to gain in the long run. After all, we are all in it to win it aren't we?

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster...........

Well, maybe not quite either, but it does seem it is going to be a mixed night for us. Given that this is the first year in living memory (well my living memory since I came to Bedford 17 years ago!) that we haven't had an election here, it has been interesting for me to have the luxury of getting out into the region.

One thing I have learned is that you don't get flogged quite so hard in other areas as wot u do in Bedford! Our taskmasters have us up at 5am with not so much as a bowl of porridge.....so I was relieved to learn that I didn't need to get to St Albans until 7.30. This worked well, as it broke my journey to Southend, where I learned they do not have to knock up until 2 minutes before the close of poll!

I am disappointed that we didn't make any gains in Brentwood.They have a young and enthusiastic team and deserve to do well. I am convinced they will do so in the future. But thrilled to hear the news from Southend, winning 2 seats in spite of their laid back approach to knocking up til close of poll.......(only teasing!)

So now anxiously waiting to see what happens elsewhere across the region.

HELP.....How do I do this?!

I am just back from Southend - with a dilemma. I can listen to the radio and blog. I can listen to the radio and watch the telly. I can't watch the telly and blog. What am I to do???? More by luck than judgement I just caught the bloggers spot and thought Alix was a star, certainly a rose between two thorns.......but, short of carting up the telly from downstairs I am stuffed. Any ideas?

If Cameron is the answer, what was the question?

David Cameron was interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning, demonstrating, if demonstration was necessary, why there are so many soft Tories. I confess to being surprised, if you looked at the polls you would expect to be encountering hard Tories at every other door. The opposite is the case, in fact I have spoken to many who are saying - well, I normally vote Tory, but I'm not so sure this time. Cameron, despite the polls, is certainly not setting middle Britain alight. His crocodile tears for the poor are not sending those on poverty pay rushing into his arms. This morning he again demonstrated why. No policies (except it seems tax cuts for the rich) - the only definite policy position he articulated was sorting out MP's allowances. All smoke, mirrors, motherhood and apple pie. On Grangemouth "We would be saying to management and union you need to sit down and talk together" - great idea Dave, how come no one else thought of that!

The King's New Clothes analogy is perhaps over used, but in this case it is perfect. Davey brought out that old chestnut "waste" cutting that would save the money for an ultimate cut in borrowing and taxes. Could he identify even one area where savings could be made? No, he is setting up a commission or some such animal to look into it. No mention of ID cards, quangos, paperwork, management consultants, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Trident?

I used to think Blair's great gift was packaging - shiny bright eye catching - conning you into thinking there was actually anything of worth in the package, but Cameron is surpassing even him. At least in the early days New Labour were driven by some sort of ideology and set of "new" values. Regardless of my disdain for Blair, and disagreement with much of that ideology and value base, you could see where he was going. You could understand a little of what drove him, even if you didn't agree with it. But Cameron, what are his values? You used to know where you stood with the Tories, but now, what do they believe? What political values do they espouse? What is the ideology driving their alleged policy development? They now seem to be trying to wrap themselves in the sheep's clothing of being progressive..........really?!

So, despite probing by Andrew Marr, I am still none the wiser as to what a Tory government would look like, how it would make its sums add up and I am frankly sick to death of the feeble excuse that they can't tell us yet. Up and down the country, opposition groups on local councils manage to come up with alternative budgets at budget time. I fail to understand how the Tories will ever come up with any concrete policies if they are unable to cost them. As Andrew Marr pointed out this morning, they are talking about spending commitments (more prisons etc) but still cannot say where the money would come from. As someone who has sat on FPC for the past couple of years I am only too acutely aware of the power of our treasury team when it comes to costing our policies!

So, the people of this country are in a catch 22 situation. Fed up with Labour, no real confidence in the Tories and with a voting system that means even if they do like our policies they are often more concerned about stopping someone else, or regard a vote for us as wasted. Little choice and virtually no power......and politicians wonder why there is so much disaffection amongst the electorate?