Oldham East and Saddleworth

Politics can be frustrating, particularly as you become more directly involved. It is true in life, but particularly true in politics, that everyone has their own agenda: Your opponents want to win, the media wants to sell their product (and advertising time/space) and commentators and pundits want to be heard. This fact means that getting a message across can be a challenge at the best of times. Actions and statements are twisted, misrepresented or misinterpreted and it can be difficult to get the truth across. Add to that a lazy electorate (not everyone, of course, but enough people) who don't make an effort to cut through all the rubbish to form a fully informed opinion and you've got one hell of a frustrating melting pot.

Of course, that challenge is all part of the fun!

On Thursday, the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth went to the polls in the first parliamentary by-election since the general election last year. The profile of this event was further increased after the winner last May, Phil Woolas, was found to have deliberately misled the electorate in his campaign literature. It was touted as everything from a test of coalition cohesion, to a measure of Ed Milliband's leadership. Some individuals and news organisations are already trying to draw sweeping conclusions for future elections based on this result but while there is an element of truth to the rhetoric, the reality is that the election is only a snap-shot of one constituency based on the very specific conditions of this election alone and therefore, what it tells us about any future election is very limited. Based purely on the outcome with no supporting canvass or polling data, even what it tells us about the views of the electorate in OES are limited!

The outcome was as follows:

Debbie Abrahams (Lab) 14,718 (42.14%, +10.27%)
Elwyn Watkins (LD) 11,160 (31.95%, +0.32%)
Kashif Ali (C) 4,481 (12.83%, -13.62%)
Paul Nuttall (UKIP) 2,029 (5.81%, +1.95%)
Derek Adams (BNP) 1,560 (4.47%, -1.25%)
Peter Allen (Green) 530 (1.52%)
The Flying Brick (Loony) 145 (0.42%)
Stephen Morris (Eng Dem) 144 (0.41%)
Loz Kaye (Pirate) 96 (0.27%)
David Bishop (Bus-Pass Elvis) 67 (0.19%)

Comparing these figures to those of the May election, Debbie Abrahams, the Labour candidate, was the only candidate to increase the actual number of votes (slightly) and also increase her vote share. Elwyn Watkins dropped almost 3,000 votes for the Liberal Democrats but increased his vote share slightly, while Conservative, Kashif Ali, dropped a substantial 7,200 votes and lost a significant share of the votes.

Some have been quick to suggest that those who voted Conservative last year, voted Labour instead. I personally find it unlikely that Conservative voters shifted directly to Labour, which makes me wonder if the reality is that Elwyn lost some of support to Labour but gained support from people who previously voted Conservative. However, I find even this possibility a stretch. Those Conservative supporters who are most likely to be disillusioned at the moment are the hard right as their party has had to take a more central position in order to compromise with the Lib Dems. It's conceivable that there was a tactical vote - that Conservative voters recognised that their best chance to have a coalition MP was to vote Lib Dem - but I doubt this factor has influenced the voters enough to cause Ali to lose over 7,000 votes.

Another common perception is that this result represents a swing from Lib Dem to Labour. This is certainly more plausible as, for some time, the Liberal Democrat party has been a protest vote for disaffected Labour and Tory supporters. However, like all political parties, Lib Dems lean left or right. Left-leaning Lib Dems, and ex-Labour supporters will surely be irate about the coalition and the tuition fees debacle has upset many voters. Having said that, I wonder how much influence these two factors have had on the result. Right-leaning Lib Dems and moderates will almost certainly be supportive of the party's achievements in government and even those who previously voted Lib Dem, having switched support from Labour, might be completely disillusioned, rather than switch support back, particularly in the light of Phil Woolas' shame.

Therefore, it is my belief that ultimately the vote in Oldham East and Saddleworth hasn't changed that much. Although I am certain that some people have voted differently to how they voted in the general election, I believe that the most significant factor that has influenced this election is the turnout. I believe Labour successfully located and mobilised their vote (picking up some ex-Lib Dem votes along the way) while a large proportion of Conservative voters stayed home. The Lib Dem vote is, unfortunately, renowned as being somewhat unstable (some might say 'fickle') and it would seem enough voters either stayed at home or shifted their vote Labour's way, to result in a Labour win.

If that's the case, what does it mean for the Council elections later this year? Is this a good result for us local Lib Dems, or a bad one? Firstly, it seems to suggest that not much has changed in real terms. Where Labour are strongest, elections might be theirs to lose and the win in OES (particularly if it is reinforced with more by-election victories) might make Labour complacent. In areas where the party takes their electorate for granted, there could be some shocks but I'm not going to hold my breath. Ed Miliband's leadership is very weak, but fortunately for the Labour party, it is easier to be in opposition than in government because you only have to tell people what they want to hear and, I fear, that's exactly what Miliband is doing. The challenge for Lib Dems everywhere will likely be twofold: one, to convince those who voted Lib Dem in the past to continue to do so, and two, to find that support and transfer it to the ballot box. But then again, hasn't that always been the case?

Regardless of what the OES result means (or not), I'd like to extend my congratulations to the Lib Dem team out there for a well-fought campaign. It is deeply disappointing that Elwyn Watkins didn't win - he deserved it after the dirty campaign Labour ran last May and, judging by his tenacity and determination to see the right thing done, he would've made a great MP. Next time, maybe.

A Fee Too Far?

Students protest in London (BBC News)

I feel fortunate that I am not an MP today, and even more fortunate that, way-back-when actually governing seemed like a distant pipe-dream, I didn't sign any sort of pledge to abolish tuition fees. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time but some Liberal Democrats are learning the hard way that photo opportunities (like the tutition fee pledge) sometimes come back to haunt you. Today, our nation's Liberal Democrat parliamentary representatives will face one of the most politically challenging decisions of their careers when they face a vote on proposed changes to higher education funding.

Under the new scheme, the cap on tuition fees would be increased to £9,000 per year (up from around £3,200). This is to offset changes under the deficit reduction plan that will see cuts of at least 40% to university funding. Essentially, the weight of responsibility for university funding will be shifted from the taxpayer to the graduate. While this might seem frightening (particularly when you consider a typical degree will take three years, incurring up to £27,000 of debt for the graduate before they have even taken a job), plans have been put in place to try and alleviate the burden. First and foremost, under the proposed scheme, students will not have to pay anything up front, thereby maintaining the accessibility of university education. Secondly, no graduate will pay a penny until they are earning £21,000 per annum (with this threshold increasing annually according to the rate of inflation). Once graduates do start paying back their fees, they will pay only 9% per month. While this might seem alot, it ensures that higher earners will pay more back, and will pay more quickly than those on lower incomes. Finally, the debt will be written off after 30 years so no-one will be lumbered with the burden indefinitely.

Happily, having never made any election promise pertaining to tutition fees, I feel secure in stating for posterity that I am in favour of the new proposals and that, if I were an MP today, I would vote accordingly. While I baulk at the thought of students accumulating debt to the tune of almost thirty grand, I acknowledge that present circumstances prohibit even the status quo, never mind abolishing fees altogether. Present circumstances include the fact that we are in coalition and must compromise with our Conservative colleagues, allowing them to meet some of their election pledges at the same time as meeting some of our own. We have, and will continue to achieve some of our manifesto policies, but abolishing tuition fees was never going to be possible in a coalition, either with the Conservatives or with Labour. Furthermore, the previous government has left the country with a much greater deficit than even the most pessimistic estimates predicted. As a result, cuts have had to be deeper and more immediate than we believed was the case during the election period. (Welcome to the world of Labour lies.) Either way, the simple truth at the end of the day is that there are more important spending priorities, including health and schools, than ensuring a free university education for anyone that wants it. I would, of course, prefer not to increase tuition fees at all and would love to be in a position to guarantee free higher education to all but, facing budget cuts, universities have to be allowed to charge students higher fees. If they are not allowed to do so, it will not be a reduced uptake for students from poorer backgrounds that we face, or a generation of students in a debt crisis; it will be a generation of students fighting for a greatly reduced number of university places and this benefits no-one.

In addition, there is the greater debate of whether it is right for the taxpayer to fully fund higher education. I have found very few people that believe the taxpayer should shoulder the burden alone, but most of the people I have discussed it with are cautious about increasing fees to the proposed £9k. It seems therefore that the problem is not the fees themselves but the number. £9,000 is still a lot of money to most people, especially multiplied three times. Generally, however, I have found a lot of support for the new proposals, especially when people come to understand that those who earn less will pay less. Most people seem convinced that higher education should not be pervue of the taxpayer.

This debate fundamentally differs in England than in Scotland where there is a cultural tradition of free education. I know my Dad is very much against tuition fees, but I haven't discussed with enough Scots to get a reasonable grasp of public feeling north of the border.

Either way, the choice in government today is simple: increase the cap on tuition fees and ensure funding security for universities, or maintain the status quo on tuition fees and doom thousands of youngsters to a future where there is no university place for them at all. There is no question of whether we should abolish tuition fees or not, because it is not achievable in coalition. Faced with these choices, I believe the proposals are progressive and I therefore support them. I believe that students will be better off in the long-run and that the policy has greatly benefitted from the influence of the Liberal Democrats in government. Without this influence, the cap would probably have been lifted altogether and I doubt that any of the measures to ensure accessibility for students from poorer backgrounds would have been part of the policy.

Of course, if I were an MP today, I may well have got there by signing a pledge or campaigning on the principle of abolishing tuition fees, in which case my views are quite different. For those who have made promises, particularly by signing pledges, the situation is very much more complex. It is clear that some MPs will feel bound to vote against the proposals, regardless of any merits. I personally feel that an MP's duty is first, to their constituents and second to the government as a whole. MP's are there to represent the people that elected them so if a candidate stated that they would oppose any increase in tuition fees, in simple terms, they risk betraying their electorate if they vote in favour of the proposals. There is a question about whether this individual policy was crucial in each individual campaign and how many constituents realistically support the abolition of tuition fees, as politics is anything but simple, so it will therefore be a matter of conscience for some Liberal Democrat MPs and I leave it to them to determine how best to represent their constituency. However, I would personally discourage abstention as 'the cowards way out'.

My final concern is how the Liberal Democrat party will be perceived after this crucial vote. In coalition with the Conservatives, I always feared that we would come off worse. It is harder for our credibility to survive compromise with the defense "it would've been worse without us" than it is for the Conservatives, who will convince right wing supporters that their more moderate policies are all our doing. I would like to think that four years down the line people will be better off and recognise our influence in bringing that prosperity. It is particularly difficult to think positively in a firestorm of negative media coverage and also difficult to think positively when the future of the nation is hurling missiles and injuring police in violent protests. How representative of voter feeling these protests are remains to be seen. After all, Labour promised not to introduce tuition fees and did, and pledged not to increase them and did, and they survived in government for over a decade. I think as long as we can maintain our identity as Liberal Democrats and ride out media interest without being seen to be weak, we will get-by.

Style v Substance

There is little doubt, in this election, that celebrity is playing an important role. Until the first televised leaders debate, the Lib-Dems were very much the third party and no-one realistically expected a strong showing. But the debates have changed that. Here was a platform on which the Liberal Democrats were entirely equal to their opponents and here was a platform on which two young, charismatic men competed with an older, less attractive, and perhaps more typical, politician, for public affection. In a society that is increasingly driven by celebrity and media attention (Princess Diana, Jade Goody, Susan Boyle, Brangelina, Katie Price and Peter Andre, Heather Mills and Macca, etc, etc) Gordon Brown was perhaps always doomed to failure.

Of course, the outcome of the election hasn't yet been decided - we'll have to wait until Thursday for that - but this raises interesting questions about the influence of celebrity and media in modern politics. It is a concern for me that voters might be swayed either by the image a candidate projects in the media, the attention they get in the spotlight, or by the celebrities that support them, rather than by their policies. This set me thinking about another aspect of celebrity politics: Is it wrong for celebrities to endorse parties or candidates?

My head says, no (after all, celebrities are voters too and they have a right to support whomever they wish, just like the rest of us) but something in me finds this whole area of politics a little distasteful.

Early on in this election campaign Sir Michael Caine was seen doing the rounds with David Cameron
in support of Conservative proposals for a National Citizenship Service for 16 year olds. The Labour party have the support of comedian Eddie Izzard, who has been out on the campaign trail; and actor, David Tennant. Both have been seen in recent election broadcasts. The local Labour party has been at it too. They have the support of local artist and LS Lowry protege, Harold Riley, who, this year, signed the nomination papers for Hazel Blears. As for us, who have we managed to call out in support of the Lib Dems? We have presenter, Floella Benjamin; actor, Colin Firth; and Harry Potter (well, Daniel Radcliffe - sadly there will be no 'accio Lib-Dem Voters' for us). Even the BNP have tried to associate themselves with one of the most recognisable British Politicians ever, and wheeled out the corpse of Sir Winston Churchill for a controversial guest spot on the front of one of their leaflets. Bah!

Of course, as much as we'd like to think this is all part of some wider media furore surrounding this particular election, or perhaps a side effect of having live, televised leaders debates for the first time in UK history, having a celebrity or two stepping out in support of your politics is nothing new. There are few Scottish voters that will forget Sean Connery's stirring party political broadcasts in support of the SNP. And does anyone remember John Cleese's 1992 Lib-Dem broadcast? No, I thought not, but it did happen! This is nothing new. In fact, over the pond, the celebrity campaign has been used to great effect for quite some time. During Barack Obama's campaign, he had the support of high profile celebrities such as Madonna, Oprah Winfrey and Scarlett Johansson and USA Today traces celebrity endorsement as far back as...

"nearly a century ago. According to journalist Ronald Brownstein's account of the connection between Hollywood's glitter and Washington's power, the first formal endorsement of a presidential candidate by a major show-business figure came in 1920, when Al Jolson organized a group of Broadway celebrities on behalf of Republican Warren Harding's presidential campaign. Four years later, Jolson publicly backed Harding's successor, Calvin Coolidge. But it was not until the 1930s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt captured the loyalty of scores of actors and actresses — including a later president, Ronald Reagan — that endorsement of presidential candidates by performers became commonplace."

Mind you, in the same article USA Today also discusses how celebrity endorsements can sometimes backfire, as happened in the 2004 John Kerry campaign when Whoopi Goldberg made an inappropriate joke at George W Bush's expense.

"Candidates have often found out the hard way that stars are a bit like uranium: precious, but radioactive."

But I'm still not convinced that it's right. There's something about the parading of music, TV, movie or other cultural icons in politics that I find uncomfortable. The implication is something like, 'look, your favourite celebrity votes for us - so you should too'. It leaves a somewhat sour taste.

However, the attraction of the celebrity endorsement isn't only in the potential to draw votes, it's also in the draw of the media. Dragging out your highest profile celeb to shake some hands or make a statement at a press conference is a virtual guarantee of coverage in the media. In a society that hungers for star gossip, what a celebrity is up to at any given time sells papers and boosts ratings, so of course the media will sit up and pay attention. Perhaps the real impact at the end of the day is negligible compared with the potential positive benefits, because the difficulty for any candidate, whether in a local or parliamentary election, is getting your name and face out there, and the attention of the media is an exceptionally powerful tool that can be used to do just that. In truth, if we had a local celebrity willing to publicly back our parliamentary or local candidates in this election, I wouldn't hesitate to use him or her, if only to get us some extra media attention. I suspect I might not sleep very well, having done so, but I don't think I could pass-up the opportunity.

So perhaps celebrity and politics can happily sit together on the same park bench. Perhaps it is wrong of me to think that voters are so easily swayed or so shallow... or perhaps not? But spare a thought this bank holiday for the accidental celebrity in this election. I am, of course, speaking of Mrs Gillian Duffy, who found herself thrust into the media spotlight while out buying a loaf of bread. The 'bigoted woman', as Gordon Brown so unwittingly dubbed her, is now somewhat of a local heroine for confronting the Prime Minister on the campaign messages that were important to her. What a shame, however, that it wasn't her earnest and heartfelt challenge that earned her the attention of the TV camera's winking eye, but the far more sensational and far less inspiring gaff made by Gordon Brown - a weary man in a moment of weakness.

"Style over substance" is a phrase that has been used many times over the past few weeks and one which summarises this post most succinctly. If Mrs Duffy is anything to go by, perhaps substance is winning after all... although it's a disappointment that she has been so disillusioned by Gordon Brown's behaviour that she is saying that she will not vote for anyone. Ultimately, as long as most people vote for the candidate or party that most closely represents their views, no matter what role media and celebrity played in that decision, I'll be happy because democracy will be the outright winner.

It's All About the Money

The General Election is finally upon us but judging by the media, anyone would think that campaigning only started this week. The truth of the matter is that many activists, like myself, have been campaigning since before Christmas. Across the country, evenings have been spent in meetings or at home preparing leaflets, envelopes or the letters to go in them. Weekends have been spent meeting the public in the street, or posting leaflets through doors. However, now the real work begins.

Over the next few weeks I hope to try and blog regularly to give an impression of what it's like, as an activist, campaigning for local and national elections. I hope that you'll get some opinion, some insight and a feel for our constituency. I will try not to make it too dry. ;o)

So, the beginning of 'day four'. Where are we at?

Last night a group of us headed down to Salford Arts Theatre for a local 'Question Time' style debate. On the panel was the sitting Labour MP, Hazel Blears, Conservative candidate, Matthew Sephton, Liberal Democrat front-runner, Norman Owen, local journalist, Pamela Welsh and local TUC secretary, Alex Halligan.

There is a lot of ill feeling in our constituency (Salford and Eccles) towards the Labour party and Hazel Blears. During the summer of last year, it transpired that Hazel Blears had 'flipped' her home in order to avoid paying £13,000 in tax. She was far from the worst offender but has come out of this side of last year's expenses scandal very poorly. At the time, she showed up on TV waving a cheque, which she said would pay back the tax she had avoided. The reality of the publicity stunt was that the cheque was meaningless. Had she sent it to the Inland Revenue, they would not have had a mechanism to accept it. In addition, £13,000, the amount which seemed so insignificant to Hazel, is close to what many people in Salford get paid in a year. Thus, she came across as arrogant and effectively set herself apart from her voters. The only worse response would have been to stick two fingers up at the public on live TV. She followed this up by stabbing her party leader in the back and consequently losing her cabinet position. She saw an opportunity to progress her career and it back-fired. Needless to say, she is not a popular woman.

The event itself was very worthwhile and aside from a group of hecklers, served to genuinely engage the public. I think it was clear by the end of the meeting, that Hazel had done little to change the minds of those present, which is good news for our campaign! The event also served to confirm my worst fears about Labour and TUC politics.

Frankly, I have never seen so much ass-kissing in public. Throughout the event, the TUC panelist sucked up to Hazel at every opportunity. And the same was true in the opposite direction. There is a lot of back scratching going on and it couldn't have been more clear that the two organisations are in bed with each other if their representatives had stripped off right then and there! The TUC donates a significant amount of money to the Labour party, which in turn gives them a lot of power. I'm not saying the TUC dictates Labour party policy necessarily, but I do believe the Labour party is afraid of pissing off the unions for fear their funding will dry-up. Whether intentional or not, this will ultimately influence the behaviour of the party. At this point, you might be wondering what's wrong with that? Well, put simply, it's a conflict of interest. How can a government act in the interests of the nation when they are worried about their funding?

This is not a problem that is unique to British politics. It is a topic that featured in American politics time and again. Allowing unlimited donations to political parties and candidates means that it becomes possible to 'buy an election'. No-one really likes to admit it, but people are generally more impressed by a glossy full colour leaflet than by something produced in black and white on a Risograph, regardless of content. In also means that you can put more feet on the ground, stage more events and sometimes enables you to be more visible. Big money allows parties to campaign more aggressively over a much greater area and makes it more difficult for independents and smaller parties to compete. It's unfair and, in my opinion, undemocratic.

I think Lib-Dem policy puts it best:

"Politics should be a battle of ideas, not marketing budgets. No-one should be able to buy influence or buy an election. We will take big money out of politics by capping donations and spending throughout the electoral cycle."

Take Back Power

Any regular readers might note that I have resisted the urge to weigh-in on MP's Expenses. There are a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, I'm not sure that there is anything further to add to the debate and secondly when it's all you hear on the news and read in the paper this sort of thing very quickly becomes quite boring. However, there is one point I feel really needs to be made.

Over the last few weeks it has been made clear to the public that a number of MPs have been on the make, exploiting the expenses system to work to their benefit. Some MPs have treated their allowances like a target to be reached, claiming tens of thousands of pounds of money from UK plc. The minimum that an MP will receive as an annual salary is over £64,000. They will earn even more than this if they are on a committee or if they have a seat on the cabinet. Expenses are then paid on top of all this which means that an MP can earn very much more than their basic salary while average earnings in the UK are less than £25,000. With a high proportion of people earning very much less than this it's no wonder that the public are so infuriated

However, it is also important to remember that out of 646 MPs in UK Parliament, the Telegraph have named only 169 (which includes some MPs that no longer hold a seat in Parliament). This means that there are still well over 400 MPs that have not been singled out - probably because any expenses claims that they have made are entirely appropriate and unremarkable. It is also worth remembering that of the 169 named MPs, very few have actually broken the expenses rules. I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable but I am saying that it is understandable. Don't agree? Let me put it to you like this:

You start working for a new company and are told that you can claim expenses for certain items that enable you to do your job - fuel and stationary perhaps. To begin with you claim only for those items that you purchase that are related to you carrying out your duties until... one day, chatting with a couple of your colleagues they point out all the things that you can claim for, and indeed, lots of other employees already claim for. So your choice is this: do you continue to claim only expenses relating to your job or do you start to claim everything you can? Some paper here, staples there, a bit more fuel that you actually used for work... it's not right and I'm certainly not condoning it, but it happens and thousands of people do it and get away with it.

Of course, they aren't claiming £30,000 for gardening with £1600 of that for a 'duck island'!

Essentially, the point I'm making here is that people can be relied on to behave like people, not angels. At the end of the day, many people enter politics on a truly alturistic basis. They want to make a difference and they want that difference to be positive. However, we can only rely on people to behave like people and people lie, they steal, they cheat and they look after number 1. We can't count on anyone (including ourselves) to be whiter than white but that's what rules and laws are made for; to discourage us from doing things we ought not to. The same goes for the government. There are more than a hundred MPs that have made ridiculous expenses claims, but they have been able to do so because the rules are not good enough and they have been able to get away with it because the oversight is not tough enough.

That's why I am supporting the Liberal Democrat Take Back Power campaign. The people of the UK need a government that works for us, not for the financial gain of its members. We need proper oversight and we need proper representation. Labour have proposed no serious changes to the rules - they would like the status quo to remain so that they can keep their fingers firmly in the cookie jar. The Conservatives have proposed only the very weakest of reforms that will make no real difference to the people of this country.

The Liberal Democrats' Take Back Power campaign aims to reform the expenses system in full, ensure the public have the right to sack any MP that has been suspended for misconduct, reform the outdated House of Lords, reform party funding so that the government can't be 'bought' through party donations, introduce fixed term Parliaments, reform the electoral system so that each vote really does count and change procedure to reduce executive power. More detailed information can be found at http://www.takebackpower.org/.

It is important that we take the opportunity NOW to press for true electoral reform rather than letting the government get away with a continued abuse of power. Therefore, I urge everyone to take a stand and sign the online petition. It's time to make our voice heard.

Election!

My postal ballot arrived yesterday so let's talk about the local elections on the 1st of May.

First and foremost, no matter what the circumstances I intend to vote. I have voted in every election (bar one, when I was out of the country) since I was 18 and don't plan to break the habit. 'Why?' I hear you ask. It's my right! All over the world there are people who can't vote or people, like those in Zimbabwe, whose vote is made meaningless by their corrupt leaders. It may often seem like a vote in this country is meaningless but to those who honestly believe that I suggest you try living in dictatorship for a while and see how you feel about British politics then! Also, remember that just as there are many people whose vote means nothing, there are as many who can't vote. In the past many women have fought and died in this country for my right to vote and I am not about to insult their memory by squandering my vote. Thus, I would rather spoil my ballot than not actually vote and I encourage EVERYONE to think alike. It's your right, your voice and your power. If you choose not to wield it, you choose not be heard and not to act therefore you can't complain when everything's going tits-up!

Anyway, returning to my point, who should I put my trust in as my chosen representative in this local election? Well, in my ward I can vote Labour, vote Conservative or vote Lib-dem. What a choice! I am salivating at the endless possibilities!

Lets face it, by voting for the Labour representative I am effectively giving a seal of approval to the existing Labour dominated council. Here in Salford, our council tax is one of the highest in the area and we have just had the highest percentage increase of an council in Greater Manchester. For that increase we have roads that are riddled with pot holes, a substandard recycling programme and not much else. True, the Labour council are redeveloping my area - knocking down derelict buildings in favour of new 'low cost' housing - but they are also in favour of introducing congestion charging in Manchester and, the so-called low cost housing is, in reality anything but, the new housing is years from being built and the council is also looking to close schools in favour of larger super schools. All in all, not a great picture. I feel it could be time for a change.

So, what of the other candidates? Well, I have no idea what the Conservative candidate will stand for since we have had nothing from them. In general, however, the Tories are against anything that Labour want to do so you would think that makes them an ideal replacement. But I have a problem voting for a candidate that hasn't made any effort to convince me to elect them. It's almost as if the Tory candidate has decided that I won't vote for Labour therefore I will vote for them. They are not worthy of my vote.

That leaves the Lib-Dems as the only other choice. However there is always the concern that the Lib-Dems, as the 'third' party in this country, are unelectable. Even if they did get power, I'm not convinced they would know how to use it. At least THEY have made an effort to try and convince me!

So, what to do?