David Cameron is Prime Minister so let the blood letting begin

So David Cameron is Prime Minister, and incidentally made a good speech.

This was, politically a good election to lose. There is much unpleasant work to be done and people will not be happy.

However I, and everyone I know in the Conservative party is in politics for the good of the country.

We did not win a majority. We wanted one, and we worked hard for it. We did not get it. The people have spoken, and what they have said is unclear.

What is clear is that this country needs a stable government capable of doing the unpleasant work that will need to be done to build a better future for our children and grandchildren.

The only way to achieve that was a Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. There was no other way to form a stable government.

I think that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat party have behaved in a statesman like way, put party interests aside, and indeed are prepared to take the hard stuff on the chin.

As a Conservative, all I can say is well done to the Liberal Democrats.

So to the blood letting.

There are many who will tear up their membership cards, of both parties. Then labour will attack the Liberal Democrats for not being "progressive". Well the term is asinine. All parties make progress, and in terms of social mobility the best times have actually been better under Conservatives.

Being in politics is a business that requires a thick skin especially when you actually win an election.

Gordon Brown resigns as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party!

Well, Gordon Brown has announced he will resign as prime minister and leader of the Labour party tomorrow.

So there will be a Conservative government, probably in coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

Mid Sussex votes for positive campaigning!

After having posted the results of the Mid Sussex constituency in the General Election, I thought I would comment on my view of what it means.

The campaign run by Serena Tierney was frankly a nasty personal one attacking Nicholas Soames in disingenuous ways.

Well, that meant that the Liberal Democrats did squeeze Labour, but it also pushed up the Conservative vote by 4564, increasing Nicholas Soames majority and getting him over 50% of the vote.

I also note Serena Tierney's behaviour at the count. Her team had been working hard throughout the election and worked hard at the count.

Serena turned up half an hour before her result was announced, and left immediately afterwards leaving the Liberal Democrat activists to watch over the by election count on their own.

Contrast that with Nicholas Soames who arrived about the same time I did, around 11 PM during verification, and left when I did at 7 AM after the last result was announced.

Gordon Brown squatting in No 10 Downing Street

Some people seem to be whinging about Gordon Brown squatting in No 10 Downing Street.

Why?

Whilst it is clear that he has lost the election, it is not clear how a winning coalition could be formed either.

What is clear is that it is unclear how a government will form.

In the meantime our constitution provides that the Primeminister remains until replaced.

Seems fair to me.

Someone has to run the country after all. Anyone got any better ideas?

The Mid Sussex view

Well, there can't be much surprise that Nicholas Soames will win. Serena Tierney has thrown the kitchen sink at the campaign, but the nasty Liberal Democrat campaign has not gained traction.

The reception on the doorstep has been both good and warm.

I also think we will have done well holding our by elections.

That said, if I am wrong then I will have to eat humble pie.

Exit poll predictions

The exit polls predict:

Conservatives 307

Labour 255

Liberal Democrats 59

Others 29

Now this is based on UNS and does not include postal votes so I am not sure if it will be as accurate as 2005.

BBC article on blogging

The BBC have published an article on political blogs here.

It covers my views and the views of 4 other bloggers on the election. They are:

Bob Balls

Thinking Muslim

Malc in the Burgh

Opinions of Tobias Grubbe

There is even a picture of me on it!

Liberal Democrat housing policy does not add up.

On the one hand the Liberal Democrats want to set a target to build 1,500,000 new homes, and on the other hand they want to add VAT to new homes.

How is increasing the cost of new homes by £15,000 going to help when money is already tight?

For more see policy diffusion here, or some others here.

Liberal Democrat Godfrey Newton- a strong voice for Worthing West!

Liberal Democrat Godfrey Newton- a strong voice for Worthing West, the only problem is that he is the Liberal Democrat candidate for Horsham, where one suspects they might like their MP to represent them!

Oops.. You can see the details here.

BBC biased on immigration

I have just watched the BBC 10 o'clock news, and it discussed immigration, and specifically how much was immigration from the EU and how much was from outside of the EU.

They then picked 2008, when the economy was beginning to suffer and based there report on that.

That was disingenuous in the extreme. The fact is that between 1997 and 2007 three quarters of of net inward migration has been from outside of the EU, not, as the BBC said from inside. The BBC simply cherry picked the year.

Burning our money has this.

Gordon Brown calls Labour voter a bigot!

Gordon Brown called Labour voter Gillian Duffy a bigot after a very smiley type of conversation, because one of the subjects she raised was immigration.

What gets me about this is that he did not disagree with her on camera but insulted her behind her back.

You can see the original video here, her response here, and Gordon's apology here, though what I suspect he is apologising for is not calling her a bigot but being caught.

A lot of people are worried about immigration, and whilst Labour talk tough on immigration they clearly think people who are concerned about it are bigots. It is not bigoted to be concerned about immigration.

Iain Dale has this.

IFS spending cuts worst since the 1970's shocker!

The main news, and rightly so, is that the well respected Institute of Fiscal Studies has produced a report that says that all the main parties are not telling the truth about spending cuts. The BBC has this.

At best we have the worst spending cuts since the 1970's (worse than Thatcher) and at worst, since the Second World War (It is not clear how much worse the latter is than the former however).

In defence of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the IFS does point out that they have no numbers to work from in terms of detail because there has been no spending review. Labour have said that this is because public finances are uncertain. True. However as the IFS point out, that will continue.

What is the biggest lesson of this?

Well there are two.

One is that we need more honesty in political debate, without the "they want to murder babies" sort of debate that we get especially with Ed Balls talking.

The "They want to murder your babies" style of debate really hinders honesty, and is currently best exemplified by the cancer scare Labour party political broadcast ripped apart here. In essence it is a very narrow pointless scare story over a stupid target which achieves nothing.

The other thing it really does say is that the increases in public spending by Labour over the last 13 years have been unsustainable and irresponsible.

Labour started in government with doctors who were well paid by OECD standards, and finish it with doctors being the best paid in the OECD. I never thought doctors were on the poverty line.

Lastly though, there is thankfully for you, the main three political parties and I, a "hole" in the IFS's figures, and that is the dividend payments from our shares in Lloyds TSB and indeed RBS as well as the potential profits from the sale of those shares. That could be worth a few billion a year. After all Lloyds TSB expects a profit this year.

Serena Tierney slammed in national press shocker!

Something most people don't realise about the Liberal Democrats is that they are the truly nasty party. Their campaign tactics are very unpleasant. Well, Serena Tierney's tactics have made it into the Daily Mail (Yes I know, not a paragon of any kind of virtue, but then what news paper actually is?)

The story leads with one of her local campaign tactics, which is to accuse Conservative councillors of deserting a sinking ship, because there is going to be 4 local by elections.

Well, one died, (Brenda Binge), one's husband's Parkinson’s disease has taken a turn for the worse so she has less time available to be a councillor, one has moved away and the other is about to.

Perhaps Serena thinks they should stay in post pocketing their allowances for doing little. Perhaps it is what Liberal Democrat councillors would do. Here in Mid Sussex, the Conservatives on the other hand do not.

Of course other Liberal Democrat nastiness is also covered in the article, and none of it surprises me.

If you have a story about Lib Dem campaign tactics, leave them in the comments or email them in.

Saint Vince Cable is skewered on his record

Much is made of the sage powers of Vince Cable. However as the Liberal Democrats are up in the polls, there record, or rather what they have said over the last few years have come under scrutiny.

Here is the result:

You decide.

Hat tip to Guido Fawkes, via Iain Dale.

The dangers of a hung parliament.

There is much discussion of what the dangers or benefits of a hung parliament would be. Apparently many people would like a hung parliament.

Well, today the DUP issued their manifesto, relishing the prospect of a hung parliament. The SNP and Plaid Cymru (The part of Wales) also relish this, as their small number of seats will give them much influence in Westminster.

This is, in the United States of America, called Pork barrel politics, and results in those with disproportionate influence getting disproportionate funding for their area. In fact both the SNP and Plaid Cymru are insisting that there need be no public service cuts.

The bottom line is this. We have had a Labour government, therefore we have not only run out of money, but run up obscene debts, and not only that, but will continue to run up these debts for years to come. Times are going to be tough, and frankly a hung parliament means that while most pay for Labour's mistakes, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland will get of Scot free.

Personally I think we are all in this together, we will all need to tighten our belts, and no one should be hit so much harder because some hold disproportionate influence.

Ask not what your country can do for you

- ask what you can do for your country.

So said John F Kennedy in his inaugural speech on Friday the 20th of January 1961.

Fundamentally that is what the Conservative manifesto is about.

What you can do, and how you can get involved in running your country.

You can read the manifesto in full here.

A Future fair for all?

Labour's manifesto is entitled "A Future fair for all".

Apart from the fact that is a vacuous motherhood and apple pie sort of statement*, you do have to ask what is meant by "fair".

Is it fair for example, that a family where no one works that has 5 children can get as much on state benefits as one where only one adult works full time on average pay**?

Is it fair that the education of a whole class can be put in jeopardy by one or two disruptive pupils whom the teachers can't deal with?

Is it fair that after 114 years of universal primary education, so many people leave school with out the ability to read, write or do arithmetic?

Is it fair that someone who works 100 hours a week only may only earn 4 times the before tax equivalent of someone who has never had a job?

Is it fair that you can pay a professional*** good money to do vital work for you, only to find out that they may be working 100 hours a week, and frankly are no good to anybody after 70 hours a week?

So what does fair mean exactly?

*Who wants an unfair future after all?

**That is mean average, not modal average.

***That means lawyers, accountants, tax advisers and of course doctors. Who would want to be operated on by a surgeon who had not had enough sleep?

Where did they get the data?

Iain Dale and Dizzy cover an article in the Sunday Times about Labour's very very dirty tricks in the campaign as far as cancer is concerned.

Basically they have sent out personalised cards 250,000 people who have had cancer treatment. (At least one of whom had died). These cards were very specifically addressed it seems.

Apart from the fact that they misrepresent the Conservative policy on cancer and its effects, preying on the very ill and vulnerable is a very low tactic.

From the Sunday Times article Labour deny using confidential information:

"Labour sources deny that the party has used any confidential information. However, the sources admit that, in line with other political parties, it uses socio-demographic research that is commercially and publicly available."

The question has to be how did they get the data that Mr Bob Smith has had some cancer treatment, and not his next door neighbour or his brother down the street?

Many months ago now I had an accident. I tripped up over something in the kitchen and seriously banged my knee. A few days later I had a checkup with my GP so mentioned it to him. He looked at it and said it was nothing to worry about. Shortly afterwards I received a marketing text from a claims handling agency saying that I could claim (from me presumably, so I did not take up the offer).

This all begs the question, is our confidential medical information being sold to the highest bidder and is therefore commercially available because this Labour government sold it, or are Labour just misusing special access to it? Either way it is wrong.

Could you imagine what would have happened if someone had had a cancer scare and decided not to mention it to their family? Their confidential medical information is then posted through the door on a postcard every one from the postman to partner picking up the card.

I do hope the Main stream media press on this issue. What goes on between a patient and doctor is supposed to be confidential, not sold to the highest bidder or used for political purposes.

Is Brown going to call an election tomorrow?

There is so much in the press and indeed on the airwaves about Gordon Brown calling an election for May the 6th, which means going to the Palace to see the Queen.

The thinking is as there are elections on May the 6th, Gordon must go then as to have two elections in consecutive months would be expensive and would annoy the electorate.

Whilst all that is true, and there is an encouraging poll from ICM*, Gordon still will not do it, as he does not possess the required courage. There will be a reason to dither, and he will take it.

The actual election is in June**, the last possible date being the 3rd apparently though I always thought it would be the 10th.

*According to Politicalbetting.com there is an ICM poll in tomorrows Guardian putting the Conservatives on 37% and Labour on 33%. This could even give Labour more seats. The only down side to this poll from Labour's point of view is that it was conducted over a Bank holiday weekend, (worse still a double!) so you may as well ignore it. There is another poll with the Conservatives 10% ahead, though for the same reasons that is dubious.

**I am preparing to eat my hat in the morning. If you disagree, prepare to eat yours :)

Update 23:00 BST.

Well it has been announced that Gordon will go to the Palace in the morning and the election will be on May the 6th.

I don't actually own a hat.. so I will make one out of rice paper :)

Gordon Brown to survive until June 3rd 2010

Well, actually, given that the general election count may be the following day Gordon Brown may still be PM on June the 4th 2010.

That is when he will call an election, waiting for something like the Falklands war to turn up.

There are still some who laughably think Labour will topple Gordon Brown. They won't.

Firstly if they want to mount an official challenge then they have to get 72 MP's to agree on one candidate who also agrees to be nominated. That will be like herding cats, no matter how much damaging infighting goes on.

Secondly there is no way any number of resignations will get the message through. It just will not happen. He can appoint as many Lords and Ladies as he likes to fill in for the fact that there are few with talent on the Labour commons benches prepared to serve.

The only possible way that they may get a big enough hint across is to vote against Labour in the no confidence vote the SNP and Plaid Cymru have tabled, with the caveat that if they actually win Labour losses the general election a month or two later, so they need to vote against but make it close, and in doing so sacrifice their chances of staying on as MP's. No that is not going to happen either.

In short, Labour are headed for a meltdown, and no one or two quarters of growth before a general election even if that does happen will not save them because unemployment will still be growing.

All good stuff.