The long and winding road(s) to victory

I know a few things about this evening:

• I started the evening with a pile of leaflets, now I have less
• I have walked some distance and my knuckles are sore from being scraped by letter boxes

Other than that, it's all a bit of a mystery. I know I delivered some leaflets to some houses, I'm willing to bet about 75% of the ones on the estate I was doing, but for the life of me I couldn't tell you which 75%, because I got a little lost. Now I'm a methodical guy who has a map of the estate and everything, but there are two small problems:

1. The map doesn't even try and illustrate all of the streets in the estate, and there are lots, because....
2. The layout of the streets and cut-throughs and paths would make Escher take one look and have to go and have a lie down in a darkened room

So a successful evening in that I've delivered some leaflets, and I can now in good conscience tick off that area, but I can't honestly say I'm convinced that I didn't miss bits!

In other election news, the candidates have been announced for the local election, and I now know I face people from Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP (which is annoying because I'm very Eurosceptic dammit), English Democrats and the National Front. Yes, that's right, the party for those who just don't think the BNP are extreme enough is fielding a candidate in my area, actually quite looking forward to seeing if they put any election materials out, not quite sure what they stand for other than white people.

All of which brings me to my final point:

Why is it, less than a month from the election, that the only things I've seen from candidates are mine and a letter from the Labour guy? I know not everyone has money to spend (although leaflets really aren't that expensive it turns out), but I'm starting to wonder if everyone is actually going to campaign that actively, would seem odd if the Lib Dems didn't at least make a bit of a go of it! Oh well, only time will tell I guess...

Dan Bond for Myton Ward?

After a long absence, I'm back and hopefully blogging more regularly, lots to say about Hull and in particularly Myton Ward where I live and *drum roll* have been selected as the Conservative candidate for the upcoming Hull City Council elections. Interestingly, given that the election is only a month away, I'm still not entirely sure who else other than the Labour candidate is actually standing, so that will be an interesting surprise. Might actually stick my head in to the Lib Dem office at some point and ask, although I suspect there may be a proverb about poking sleeping dragons which applies here....

Have been out delivering leaflets with details for myself and Gary Shores, including clearly one which went through a current Labour councillor's door because I received a surprisingly civil email from him thanking me and wishing me good luck for the campaign. Not entirely sure what to make of that, but nice gesture anyway...

Cameron talking dirty to the TPA

This is the kind of stuff that members of the Tax Payer's Alliance might find themselves spending £1.50 a minute to hear, because it's about as close to porn as political party policy gets for them. I am, of course, talking about David Cameron's outstanding suggestions on how to bring transparency back into government spending. To quote from the introduction,

Government has been far too profligate for too long. Billions are wasted each year on pointless bureaucracy and failed projects that do nothing to improve the lives of the taxpayers who foot the bill. The explosion of unaccountable quangos, public sector ‘non-jobs’ and costly bureaucracy is an indictment of Labour’s reckless approach to spending other people’s money.

So far so good, but far too often that sort of statement doesn't have an effective follow-up to actually solve the problem. People complain that political parties are big on rhetoric, but short on workable solutions to the problems which nobody can fail to notice. No longer, because with the 5 words

sunlight is the best disinfectant

we have the solution that is just a little too radical and risky for Labour to ever contemplate. 13 years of backroom deals and hiding behind "commercial sensitivity" has got to stop, no ifs, no buts, and the only way to stop that is for a million pairs of eyes to watch every move that our elected representatives make. Whatever else the Conservatives do if they win the next election, opening up government spending and contracts to this kind of scrutiny will keep the next government and the one after FAR more honest than the current one.

And while we're at it, I can't wait for the current shady deals and suspiciously lax contracts to be shown the light of day. I can only imagine the skeletons lurking in the current government's cupboards...

Why Daniel Hannan is a Conservative

Having read David Cameron's speech about Rebuilding trust in politics, I now have something of an insight into what Daniel Hannan means when he says that piece by piece, The Plan is becoming Conservative policy, often almost word for word. Does Cameron's speech go as far as Carswell and Hannan in radically shifting power downwards and outwards? Not quite, although it's still a seismic shift in our political structures if the commitments become reality, and far more radical than either of the other two parties can ever hope to be. Gordon Brown's cynical move to curry favour with his VERY belated attempts at electoral reform (which frankly have some serious problems) are exposed for what they are, an attempt to save his own skin whatever the actual merit of his suggestions. What I have to wonder is, will the Lib Dems dare comment on this speech? Are they willing to propose something this radical and do they dare let the words "we fully support this plan" pass their lips?

Looks like it's going to be an interesting election...

And this is a surprise?

Hull's economic recovery 'will be slower'

Researchers say Hull could be left behind other cities as the UK comes out of recession.

A report by think tank Centre for Cities suggests a lack of private sector businesses in the city, in comparison to other areas, could mean Hull experiences a "second-wave recession".

And this, dear readers, is what happens when you have the big government mentality that vast numbers of people being dependant on the state for their income is a good thing. The state rightly provides a safety net in the form of various benefits to avoid people "falling through the cracks". The Conservatives are a party who value aspiration and people working, because then more people will start to appreciate conservative policies since they will want to enjoy as many of the fruits of their labour as possible. On the other hand, Labour are best served by people being dependent on them for their income on the principle of turkeys rarely voting for Christmas.

So then, we have a choice between two parties. Both want to increase their number of votes and therefore have policies to do so. One the one hand we have the Conservatives who want to make people richer and more self-reliant so that they will vote Conservative. On the other hand we have Labour who want to make people more reliant on the state so that they will vote Labour. I know which choice I would prefer!

Where is "Brown Direct"?

As David Cameron launches the second part of the Conservative Draft Manifesto, I can't help wondering where Gordon Brown (or indeed Nick Clegg) are in terms of announcing their policies on the issues being discussed. Cameron is undoubtedly far more comfortable than Brown in this format, engaging in a conversation with an audience and allowing sometimes difficult questions to be posed to him, but that doesn't preclude Gordon entering into similar conversations.

My proposal, and if anyone from Labour HQ reads this blog (which is unlikely I know) would like to use it then please feel free, is for the PM along with the relevant ministers to answer say the top 10 questions posed on the "Google Moderator" service to David Cameron. I wouldn't expect them to put on an event, or even to talk to people face to face, but a simple written answer to just those questions would give us a far greater understanding of what Labour is proposing people vote for in the next election. Nick Clegg and co would also be welcome to join in on the fun of course, seems only fair to hear their view point. Think of it as a warmup to the upcoming debates between the party leaders, a chance to road-test some policy ideas and get a feel for the public's reaction.

Well, a boy can dream anyway...

The two faces of Alan Johnson

Home Secretary Alan Johnson accused of asylum-seeker betrayal

HOME Secretary Alan Johnson has been accused of "betraying" a respected Hull asylum seeker.

The Hull West and Hessle MP has been charged with ending his support for Emmanuel Njoya and his family after taking the top post with the Home Office last year.

So what we have here is Alan Johnson (Hull West and Hessle MP) being convinced enough of the merits of Mr Njoya's case that he willing to write to the Home Secretary and plead his case. We also have Alan Johnson (Home Secretary) suggesting the case is without merit and deporting a man and his family who may now be killed due to their political allegiance. I will leave the reader to decide on the potential motives behind Mr Johnson's actions, particularly given the likely criticism of the government's record on immigration and the upcoming general election, but suffice to say one of our Alan Johnsons has got it horribly wrong.

There are right ways to reduce the influx of people into this country so that genuine asylum seekers can justifiably be accommodated, but I'm not sure this is it. Won't mention Europe because it doesn't really need saying, but imagine how much easier it would be for genuine asylum seekers coming to this country if the vast majority of migration into this country was by the permission of our elected government rather than because the European Union has decided to allow it. Oops, guess I did mention Europe there a little bit didn't I?

My take on PMQs

Just a few thoughts and in no particular order:

• Really liked David Cameron's first set of questions, businesslike and serious, definitely the right tone to set
• Does Nick Clegg have a new hair cut or is that just me? Not an important question I know, but I can't quite work it out. His questions about Chilcot were spot on, Gordon really chickened out on answering it but then what do we expect?
• Cameron's second set of questions really rattled Brown, the cheap jokes about photos didn't really manage to hide that, particularly given the way Cameron masterfully turned it around. Only real concern is Gordon doing so badly that expectations are lowered to a position where him not massively screwing up (unlikely I know) is seen as a success.
• A very aggressive tone for the last question from Cameron, and about time, once in a while Brown needs to be knocked for 6 to remind everyone of why he shouldn't be leading this country. Rattled doesn't even begin to describe it.

All in all, not a good day for Gordon and really quite a good day for Cameron and Clegg. Can't wait for the TV debates...

Thought for the day (from a Facebook reply that got a bit long...)

Firstly, much as the Conservatives are selling themselves very much on the strength of David Cameron, the range of views within the party are diverse and there are many senior Conservatives who will make excellent ministers. Brown has failed in one of his primary functions as Prime Minister which is to lead the country effectively, something I believe David Cameron will be far better at. Brown loves to point out the worldwide nature of the recession but refuses to admit that the decisions he has made have left us in a far worse position than we should be in. His continuing denial that we need to change our spending habits only makes things worse and ultimately I think he knows that, but since he realistically can't foresee himself being in power after the next election then not being the one to make the tough spending decisions suits him fine. Public spending needs to be cut, and cut massively, the government needs to re-evaluate the areas which it should and shouldn't be playing an active role in, but that's something Brown could never do because his "big government" mentality says the government should run as much of our lives as it can.

You know it's an election year when...

Hull City Council plans to freeze charges for services

Far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth, but you can't help wondering if this headline would have happened if a) the council was still Labour controlled (and therefore didn't need to "bribe" people in reasonably safe Labour parliamentary seats) or b) the Lib Dems weren't throwing an enormous amount of resources at Hull North, one of their target seats. Still, a freeze in the growth of taxation has to be a good start, although of course we still have no idea whether fire and policing will also have a 0% change.

What I want to know is where are the plans to be able to announce a reduction in council tax next year? What about the year after? Where is Carl Minns announcing that he is going to reduce the burden of council tax by looking seriously at each and every department and asking them to justify their budget for the year? Where are the council chiefs coming up with ideas on how to encourage existing local businesses and attract new ones by reducing the burden of regulation and taxation on them?

I'm a localist, someone who believes that powers should be pushed downwards and outwards. Ultimately I want local councils to assume a number of the responsibilities that central government currently has while other powers should be pushed out to the individual to make their own decisions over. A council who can reduce the cost to local people is a council who might just be worthy of being trusted with new powers and they pass existing ones back to the electorate.

Less politics, more science please

Chris Grayling has said the sacking of the Government's chief drug advisor was "inevitable" following his latest ill-judged comments on cannabis reclassification.

I think what he should have said was

Chris Grayling has said the sacking of the Government's chief drug advisor was "inevitable" following their latest ill-judged comments on cannabis reclassification.

I'm a Conservative, I believe in freedom, I believe in personal responsibility and I believe that any government should think very carefully before deciding to reduce people's freedom to make their own decisions. On the issue of drug legislation, science and pragmatism seem to have given way to authoritarianism and dogma, and while this is hardly surprising from the government whose prime purpose seems to be the expansion of state interference in...everything, it is still sad to see.

Sadder to see is that the line being taken by the shadow Home Secretary isn't to slate Labour's actions and defend the practice of making decisions based on good science and what actually makes sense. By effectively siding with Labour on this matter he not only sets a very worrying precedent but also misunderstands the feelings of a lot of grass-roots members of the party who don't think that running government policy "by the red-tops" is the right way to govern.

But hey, the Conservative party is a broad church and there's room for a range of views, as long our policy positions continue to get debated then that can only be a good thing for everyone concerned.

Deprivation

After a recent conversation with a friend, I found myself thinking about deprivation in Hull. Having suggested that Hull had a problem with deprivation, and being disagreed with by my friend who is rightly proud to be from Hull, we started trying to define what exactly we mean by deprivation.

Firstly, deprivation isn't just about money. If throwing money at deprived areas was the solution then Labour would have been far more successful in improving the lives of people in this country than they clearly have been. Labour's core belief seems to be that what we need is a bigger, more powerful government and throwing more money at things and any problem can be bent to their will. What do we end up with at the end of that? A lot of debt and a lot of people whose problems have been ignored because they don't need yet more "investment".

So what else, other than not having enough money, does deprivation mean? One of the most obvious is deprivation of aspiration, something that is pervasive in the education system in this country. If you measure schools by what percentage get 5 A*-Cs, then what a school will focus its energies on is making sure everyone gets 5A*-Cs. I can't blame any school for this focus, they would be crazy to do anything else because we are told that a school with a high percentage of pupils getting 5 A*-Cs is a success and a school with a lower percentage is a failure. But where does aspiration come in? It's a culture of asking for "OK" rather than striving for individual excellence in every pupil. It's rejecting the idea of grammar schools not because they don't work but because they make it harder for other schools to achieve "success" as measured by 5 A*-Cs. If the only schools where students are told "you can do anything", not just in words but by the very ethos of the school, are private schools, then is it any wonder the our leading universities have such trouble with low rate of application from state schools?

How about deprivation of opportunity, where people are expected to do things but never given the chance? The government says "we want as many people in work as possible" and then stacks the odds against them by creating a benefit system which makes more sense not to work than to take a lower paid job. Who can blame people for choosing not to work given that kind of choice! And why have the Labour government not seen this, are we really to believe that nobody might have twigged this fact? Or maybe the answer simpler than that, maybe having a large group of people whose livelihood depends on a government happy to maintain the status quo might be useful when it comes to elections...

Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, in so many other ways people have been deprived, and I'm sure in due course. So much of what has gone wrong in this country is about people being deprived of that they should rightfully be given, and the sooner that we have a government who can see that means more than just throwing money at people the better.