Some Things Never Seem To Change

So there I was at an antiques fair in Stockport, looking for potential stock for my fledgling business when this bit of ephemera caught my eye and I just had to have it for my own interest. I admit that I collect some odd things, and I've been in the habit of accumulating political literature since my days as an activist with the former Libertarian Party – this may be the oldest example of an election leaflet that I've ever seen though:

 

It seems even in the 1880s local politicians were screwing the citizenry into the ground with excessive taxes!

Supporting a Libertarian Candidate

I took a day off work yesterday, but I resisted the temptation to stay in bed. Instead, I got in my car and drove down to Uttoxeter, to help Gavin Webb in his campaign to be elected to the town council. Gavin is one of the best people I've met since I joined the Libertarian Party. He used to be a Lib Dem councillor in Stoke on Trent, but was always very open about his libertarian principles, and extremely good at getting into the local press. He eventually defected to us, becoming the Libertarian Party's first councillor. His seat in Stoke was abolished by boundary changes earlier next year, but when a by-election was called in his home town of Uttoxeter, he decided to stand. Because of the internal problems that the Libertarian Party is having at the moment, he was unable to stand as an official LP candidate, so he's describing himself as "The candidate with libertarian principles". That's good enough for me, a lib's a lib as far as I'm concerned, whatever flag they fly under - and by adopting the word "libertarian" in his description, he's brought the basic concept to the attention of local residents.

And this is the kind of activity that libertarians need to support. Some libs take the attitude that if you ignore the state it will go away - it won't. We'll always have governments, or at least for the forseeable future. Should we let them be dominated by statists who don't see any limit to a government's legitimate powers? I don't think so. We need libertarians in positions of authority so they can moderate the state - keep it as much as possible to its legitimate functions (basically protecting people from aggression) and away from poking its nose into our private business.

So when I found out that Gavin was standing, I didn't hesitate to volunteer. I donated a bit of money to his campaign - not much, but what I could afford - and managed to get down to Uttoxeter yesterday to help him with leafletting for a few hours. This was hard graft, especially as the weather was hot for a while, but I'm glad I did it. We delivered a good few hundred leaflets between us, and it felt good to be doing something practical for a change, instead of sitting at a computer keyboard moaning about the state of the world. This kind of real world activity is one of the things that's needed to gain some traction for libertarianism.

What are Gavin's chances of getting a decent result? I don't know, though Gavin seems optimistic. Even if he doesn't get elected he's brought libertarianism to the attention of thousands of people - that in itself is a victory. Polling day's tomorrow (Thursday) so we won't have long to wait to see how he's done. In the meantime, if you'd like to support Gavin, why don't you go along to his website and make a donation via Paypal? He's mostly financed his campaign himself, so I'm sure he'd appreciate whatever you can donate. If you really believe in libertarianism, show some solidarity for a man who's shown more than willing to get up off his backside to promote it in the real world.

Good News

Bin Liner is dead at last!

It's a pity he wasn't brought in alive to face a public trial for his crimes, but at least justice has been executed.

Goodby and good riddance to possibly the world's biggest loser - a man born to immense wealth who could easily have been a great force for good in the world. Instead he decided to waste his life on violence and hatred.

The world is a slightly better place today.

Debating AV

Here's a recent televised debate between the Establishment politician Margaret Beckett and Jonathan Bartley, who heads the campaign group "Yes to Fairer Votes". Personally I think Mr Bartley got the upper hand in this debate, but you make your own mind up:



On 5th May, we're all going to get the chance to vote for or against the introduction of the Alternative Vote system (AV), a seemingly small but significant change to the existing First Past The Post (FPTP) system. The difference with AV is that you number the candidates in order of preference, so you put 1 next to the guy you want to elect, 2 next to your second choice and so on. If your first choice doesn't get enough votes to be elected, then he's eliminated and your vote gets transferred to your second choice. This should eliminate the problem of tactical voting - instead of voting for whoever you think has the best chance of beating the guy you really don't want to get in, regardless of whether you like them or not, you can give your first preference to your favoured candidate without fear of your vote being wasted.

Although it's not a proportional system, it's an improvement on the current one. Not only will it eliminate wasted votes, it should also give a clearer picture of what kind of government the electorate actually want. The Libertarian Party supports this proposed reform, as do a broad range of other minority parties. Funnily enough, it's less popular with Establishment politicians, who seem to be generally happy with the system that got them elected (very often on small minorities).

5th May is going to be an opportunity to introduce a beneficial constitutional reform and give us, the general public, a bit more say in how this country is run. Don't miss the chance to vote Yes to fairer votes.

Hi Ho Silver!

Do you remember Boon? If so, go out and buy the DVDs now. If not, buy the DVDs anyway, it was a brilliant series with a brilliant theme song:

Labour's war on charities

Here's a nasty story from the Manchester Evening News. It seems that the Labour-dominated city council intend to crack down on charity workers, specifically the type who hang around places like Market Street and Piccadilly, asking people for permission to set up direct debits for regular donations. The MEN unflatteringly describes these guys as “charity muggers” or “chuggers”. Apparently shoppers have complained about feeling “harassed” and “intimidated” by them.

Sorry, but if you feel intimidated by a charity worker, you really need to grow a backbone. Unlike real muggers, they're not going to stick a knife in your ribs and demand money with menaces. And unlike Manchester City Council, they have no legal power to take your money from you without your permission. If you're approached by a charity worker in the street, and you either don't want to donate money or you can't afford to, a polite “no” will normally do – and if some misguided charity worker tries to give you the hard sell, all you need to do is calmly walk away.

So what's the problem?

Three months late...

... but this is the first time I've seen this particular Party Election broadcast from the Conservative Party:




How right they were. If only we'd heeded their warnings, we could have avoided the terrible fate that has befallen us. What a disaster this coalition government has been.

Good old Irish common sense

Here's a bit of welcome news from the Republic of Ireland. The government there has published the “Criminal Law Defence and the Dwelling) Bill 2010”, which – if passed – will recognise the right of a home owner, tenant or visitor to stand their ground if attacked in a home and specifically states that there is no obligation to retreat. The bill will allow people to use reasonable force to defend themselves and also specifically states that reasonable force can – depending on the circumstances – result in the death of an intruder.

Statists will scream that this is licensing vigilantism, which it obviously isn't – it's just common sense that you have the right to defend yourself and your home from attack. Here's a statement of support from Dan Hanley, vice-president of the AGSI (an organisation which represents police superintendents and inspectors, our equivalent would probably be ACPO): “The bill aims to shift the balance of rights back to the homeowner where it should always have been. It is intolerable a homeowner should be compelled to retreat in front of an intruder who has entered the home and who may have malign intentions towards the homeowner, the family or the home owner’s property."

Hanley added: "It is ridiculous to suggest the bill, which attempts to redress a serious legal imbalance, would provide a license to kill or a ‘have-a-go’ charter for homeowners, the vast majority of whom will continue to act with good sense and in a peaceful way."

This is exactly the sort of common sense we need more of in Britain.

The Leaflet War – Labour 2, LibDem 1

The next local election in Manchester isn't till next May, but as far as the big parties are concerned, the election campaign is already on. I've had three publications through the door in the last few weeks that can be considered election leaflets.

The first one was from Labour, and I've mentioned this in a previous blog entry – it's an expensive looking glossy full colour leaflet with a picture of the local Labour mob on the front and a big “Thank You” headline. No need to thank me, I certainly didn't vote Labour – much more fun to run against them, even though the Labour candidate did manage to squeeze back in with a measly 2,247 more votes than me.

The next leaflet I got was one of those LibDem Focus things – simpler colour scheme but broadly similar layout. Another “Thank You” headline. A few more pictures of the local LibDems and also a bit more text. Also one of those standard bar chart diagrams that they like to stick on the front of their Focus leaflets, showing LibDems and Labour as “neck and neck” and discounting the other four parties with the words “The other parties Vote has Collapsed” - this is untrue by the way, as you can easily check by having a look at the 2008 election results. The Tory and Green paper candidates got about the same result as last time. The BNP loser got more votes than last time, despite doing no campaigning – I put this down to a combination of having the benefit of also having a General Election candidate, plus the incredible amount of free publicity those clowns get from the other party. And of course, me being the first Libertarian Party candidate to stand in Manchester, we don't know yet what a typical Libertarian election result is going to be.

I've got nothing against the opposition sending me this stuff. It's their right and the money to pay for it has been raised voluntarily. But the third publication that I've received is different.

This publication is not technically a party political leaflet, but it might as well be. It's the latest edition of the “Manchester People” – a newspaper-style publication printed and distributed by Manchester City Council and funded by the taxpayer. Sixteen pages of propaganda saying what a great job the council is doing. The front page is dominated by a story praising the Manchester Day Parade - £200,000 down the drain, but not one word of criticism. Another story is about the council's plans to blow £1,000,000,000 redeveloping St Peter's Square. There's nothing much wrong with it at the moment, that I can see – maybe the councillors are just bored with the view. Again, it's a completely one-sided story, not admitting any criticism, typical of this publication. Although it doesn't actually tell you to vote Labour at the next election, since it consistently praises everything the council does, and as the council is dominated by Labour, the message is clear. Local councils shouldn't be allowed to get away with this kind of thing, and hopefully when the Libertarian Party gets some councillors elected we'll be able to put a stop to it. But for the time being the working people of this city are being forced to pay for this publication to the tune of over £140,000 per year.

All Out Superpower Confrontation

Do you remember "Not the Nine O'Clock News"? I've always liked this song:

Next year's election campaign has already begun.

At least as far as the Labour Party is concerned it has. I got this leaflet through the letter box a few days ago:



Note the self-satisfied grins on the faces of this unholy trio of Laburite career politicians. On the face of it, it might look a bit triumphalist, as the Labour got comfortable majorities in both the national and local elections round here. But they don't normally send out this kind of literature right after an election – that's more of a Lib Dem tactic, in fact I'd be surprised if the Lib Dems don't retaliate with one of their Focus leaflets shortly.

My guess is that the Labourites have realised that their two council seats in Miles Platting and Newton Heath aren't quite as rock-solid secure as they have been in previous years. They've already lost one of the three seats in this ward a couple of years ago. I was certainly surprised when Flanagan was re-elected, and it's very possible that he wouldn't have been if it hadn't been for the unusually high turnout brought about by having both elections on the same day – Labour always benefit from high voter turnouts. When June Hitchen comes up for re-election next year, they won't have that advantage, so who can say what will happen?

Would the Cumbria massacre have happened without the Firearms Acts?

Following on from the horrific events in Cumbria, it was completely predictable that statist politicians such as John Pugh and Chris Williamson would come out of the woodwork to advocate yet more bans on lawful firearms ownership. Naturally they fail to provide any evidence that any further gun bans will reduce the likelihood of the next massacre, because there is no such evidence. People who want to commit murder will do so, whatever the law says. Certainly Derrick Bird's actions appear at this point to have been premeditated. If he hadn't used legally owned guns to do what he did, he'd have used firearms bought on the black market – and black market guns are easier to acquire than legal ones these days, especially if you want something that's currently prohibited.

The 1988 and 1997 Firearms Acts were sold as being intended to prevent future atrocities such as happened in Hungerford and Dunblane. They have clearly not had that effect, so what makes anyone think that further bans will improve the situation? The only obvious effect current legislation had on the outcome of the Cumbria massacre was to ensure that Bird's victims were all unarmed and therefore easy targets. If only one of the random people who crossed Bird's path on that day had been armed, they would have been in with a chance of stopping him, or at least slowing him down. A few decades ago this would have been more likely, as the gun laws were more laid back then.

But there's one more thing about this event that I've been wondering about – did Bird just suddenly snap or did he feel himself deteriorating over time, as his problems gradually started to get on top of him? There is a story that he tried to get himself admitted to a mental hospital just a day or two before the massacre, but was turned away – I don't know if that's true or not. But if it was a gradual process, did he seek help earlier? If not, why not? Could he have been deterred from seeking professional help by the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act? To see what I mean by this, pop along to the Merseyside Police website and download either a Form 101 (application for a Firearm Certificate) or a Form 103 (application for a Shotgun Certificate) and read Section 16. It reads “I hereby give permission for the police to approach my GP to obtain factual details of my medical history.” It's something that was added to the form as a result of the 1997 Act. That on it's own is enough to deter any licensed gun owner from seeing his doctor if he starts suffering from any emotional or psychological problems – he'd be scared that the fact that he's being treated for depression or whatever would get back to the police and that they'd use it as an excuse to revoke his FAC or SGC. Did this fact deter Bird from seeking help before it was too late? I don't know, we'll probably never know. Would a councelling or therapy have helped to prevent him going off the rails? Again, I don't know and we'll probably never know. It's not like psychology is an exact science.

But what does seem obvious to me is that clause in our draconian gun laws actually increases the risk of licensed gun owners developing problems in the future – probably not by very much but the possibility's there. Something to think about.

Thought for today

I got the following text message from my henchman Daz:

"If prostitution was legal, would those three women in Bradford be alive?"

We'll never know for sure, of course, but one argument for legalised brothels is that they provide a safer working environment. Food for thought.

The End of the Beginning

The count for the local elections in Manchester took place at the Town Hall this afternoon. I was allowed to take two people along with me, so I took the Libertarian Party Chairman Gregg Beaman and a sympathiser who isn't yet a party member but who had contributed to the campaign. I found it to be an enjoyable experience. Fortunately the count didn't last as long as last night's General Election counts, but I had time for a cup of coffee and a chat with the Lib Dem candidate Gerry Diamond, who comes across as being a pleasant guy even though I don't agree with his politics. The local Lib Dem godfather Damien O'Connor was also there – it happens that he and Gregg knew each other a few years ago when they were both members of UKIP, so they had a chance to catch up on old times. The Labour candidate John Flanagan was there, but he seemed a bit aloof and didn't say anything to me. No sign of the Tory that I could see. The Greens were there too, and also the BNP candidate and one of his comrades. They didn't look very comfortable – a pair of twenty-somethings in ill-fitting suits who spent most of the time propping up a wall while the rest of the room avoided them. They looked like they were getting ready for a court appearance instead of an election (I was dressed much more stylishly in my combat jacket, jeans and Prisoner tee shirt – I think it's my sense of casual elegance that makes me so attractive to women). At one point, Flanagan tried to get support for a walkout in protest at the BNP even being there, which would have been a pretty childish thing to do – whatever else is wrong with them, the BNP are a legal political party with a perfect right to attend the count.

The count was over pretty quickly, and the result was as follows:

Lib Dem 1596
Labour 2402
Libertarian 55
Green 80
bnp 400
Conservative 265

Total votes: 4798

Flanagan gave a short speech in which he thanked the people of Newton Heath for voting for him and promised to do his best to serve the people of Newton Heath - not a word about the people of Miles Platting and Collyhurst South, which are also in this ward, don't ask me why. Possibly it's because Flanagan's not too familiar with the area, being from Gorton. You'd have to ask him.

I have to admit that the result was a surprise to me. I thought Gerry Diamond would win, his team certainly put plenty of work in, but unfortunately we've got another four years of Flanagan. The number of votes that I got as the Libertarian Party candidate was a pleasant surprise. I thought I'd get maybe 30-40. If that doesn't sound a lot, consider the fact that this is the very first election campaign that the Libertarian Party has mounted in this part of the country, that I'm an inexperienced candidate, that the ward was swamped with Lib Dem and Labour propaganda and that there would have been a lot of tactical voting going on. So I'm actually quite pleased that 55 people decided that it was worthwhile voting for me and the Libertarian Party. It comes to about 1.15% of the total vote. If you're one of those voters, thank you very much. I will do my best to ensure that you have plenty of opportunities to vote Libertarian in future elections. I don't know yet if I'll be a candidate next time, but I'm sure I'll be turning up in some capacity in future campaigns, maybe acting as an agent for another candidate or even just delivering leaflets. I've got the experience now, so I'm sure I can make myself useful. And I'm convinced that Manchester deserves a credible alternative to the current false choice between Labour and the Lib Dems. The Libertarian Party aims to be that alternative.

I'd also like to thank all those who supported me, whether in person by helping deliver leaflets or by sponsoring my campaign. It's been a real pleasure to work with such a dedicated team and I fully expect to be supporting some of them when they stand as candidates themselves.

Focusing on the Lib Dems

I got one of those Lib Dem Focus leaflets though my letterbox while I was out today. I'm really envious of their propaganda organisation, they put out some nice looking literature. This particular Focus leaflet was very well put together, a glossy A3 edition in full colour on both sides. Very nice looking, and very deceptive in places.

Take the following statement from the front page: “Gerry (the Lib Dem candidate) lives locally, unlike Labour's anonymous councillor, who only turned up at election time.” It's certainly true that the Labour guy lives over in South Gorton, but one thing the Lib Dems don't bother to mention is that their candidate (another ex-Labour councillor, incidentally, just like the sitting Lib Dem councillor) lives in Piccadilly Village, within walking distance of the Town Hall and nowhere near Miles Platting and Newton Heath. As a matter of fact, out of six candidates I'm the only one who lives in this ward.

The back page also has an interesting little piece about the Lib Dems' proposed Council Tax cut. They say they're after a cut of £51, but don't mention that the £51 figure only applies to the properties in the most expensive Council Tax band – a cut of less than 1%. Council Tax payers in the lower rated properties would get peanuts back. The Lib Dems are too timid to make the radical changes necessary to do what really needs to be done to regenerate this city – cut Council Tax by at least 10%.

Other promises they make are as follows:

“Scaling back the growth of council bureaucracy.” So they assume it will continue to grow. Why? They should be looking for ways to cut it back. I certainly will if elected.

“Reclaiming the £421,000 overpayment to Marketing Manchester.” OK as far as it goes, that's also my policy, but I would also want to delete the budget for Marketing Manchester altogether. It's expensive and we don't need it.

“Cancelling the contract for the second chauffeur driven car.” I would also cancel the first car.

If we're going to turn Manchester round, and get this town moving in an upwards direction, we need to make massive savings and let our overtaxed citizens keep more of their money. Lib Dems think too much like Labourites, we'll never get any real reforms with them. If you want fresh ideas and a bit of common sense being argued in the Town Hall, vote Libertarian on Thursday.

Friday Night is Music Night: Bad Guys

This one's in honour of whoever's going to end up running the country in a week's time:



Frankly I don't have a clue who I'm voting for in the General Election at the moment - at least in the local election I'll be voting for someone I trust!

The Axeman Cometh

One of my manifesto pledges being that I would always oppose increases in council tax and try to get it reduced significantly (significantly to me means at least 10%) then it's reasonable to ask what I would cut. Some people might think it's far-fetched being as Labour have increased council tax yet again and the Lib Dems are only promising a cut of less than 1%.

A good start would be to delete all or most of the budget for “Cultural and Related Services”. In 2006-2007, the budget for this was £66,506,000. By comparison, the budget for roads, highways and public transport services that year was less than half that, which shows a pretty strange set of priorities if you ask me.

Let's go through the itemised list of what this was for and see what we can take an axe to:

£96,000 – Archives spending. I'd have to look more closely into what this includes, but presumably the council needs to keep old records for future use, and it's a tiny part of the overall budget, so I'd leave it alone for now.

£3,825,000 – Arts development and support spending. Delete this completely. Art isn't something that should depend on handouts from the State. Art is generated by the creative impulses of the human mind, and it should be paid for by those who enjoy it.

£4,689,000 – Community centres and public halls spending. This probably won't make me popular, but I would vote to delete this part of the budget too. If there's a demand for such facilities, then they should be financed voluntarily by the people who use them.

£5,376,000 – Heritage spending. I'm assuming this includes maintaining the various monuments and historic buildings that come under council control. This should be phased out and responsibility for this should be turned over to charities and local voluntary groups.

£14,255,000 – Library spending. This is a problem. In principle it's another case where I'd say it should be paid for by those who use it. On the other hand, libraries are such useful facilities for supporting education, job hunting etc that I'd be very cautious about making any radical changes. If anyone has any practical ideas for making the library service voluntarily funded while still keeping it free at the point of use, I'd appreciate the input.

£6,560,000 – Museums and galleries spending. This part of the budget can and should be deleted. I do like visiting places like the Science Museum and the Art Gallery when I've got time, but not everyone does, and should my entertainment be funded by other people? I would advocate a rolling programme of transferring ownership and control of museums and art galleries to charities, volunteer groups and the private sector.

£14,764,000 – Open spaces spending. Parkland and suchlike, in some cases just waste ground that the council has grassed over. Local community groups should normally be responsible for this kind of thing, and in most cases they could probably do the job a lot cheaper.

£9,377,000 – Sports and recreation facilities including golf courses. Should be paid for by those who enjoy them. Privatise them.

£5,810,000 – Theatres and public entertainment. What is this, the Roman Empire, with Caesar laying on entertainment to keep the public quiet? I like going to the theatre when I can afford it (and it happens that we've got a lot of good amateur theatres around Greater Manchester) but I don't expect other people to subsidise my nights out through council tax. Delete this budget.

£1,754,000 – Tourism spending. I don't think I've ever met anyone who has visited Manchester due to promotion by Marketing Manchester. People come from the outside because they've got relatives in the area or there's some particular aspect of Manchester or it's history that interests them (football being an obvious example). Another budget that can be deleted with no problem.

Does a decent cut in council tax still sound far-fetched?

Busy couple of days

No-one told me politics would be this physically demanding. Having spent several days walking the streets delivering leaflets, I seem to be waking up tired every morning now. Never mind, it'll soon be over.

I actually overslept by several hours yesterday, so didn't get anything like as much done as I wanted to. I still managed to cover a reasonable chunk of Newton Heath, though.

In the evening I went to a public meeting concerning the Collyhurst demolitions. I didn't make any contribution myself, I was there to try to learn more about what's supposed to be going on, and I'm not inclined to shoot my mouth off unless I'm sure of my facts. The meeting was supposed to be about giving the residents a chance to find out what the current plan is, but there were no council officers there. Graham Stringer was there - he's the Labour MP for Blackley (or was, technically he's unemployed while he seeks re-election) and some of this development is in his constituency. Although I'm not a fan of the guy (I disliked him when I lived in Blackley and still do) I felt sorry for him on this occasion. All he could do was take notes of people's questions and promise to pass them onto the council, not very satisfying for anyone, but that's genuinely all he could do.

The redevelopment is supposed to be being financed by way of a PFI (Private Finance Initiative). Unfortunately for everyone, the private sector's not very flush at the moment and the whole scheme seems to depend on central government infecting a large amount of money into the scheme. Now everyone's waiting for the General Election result to see if this is still going ahead. Even if it does go ahead, the plans don't seem to have been finalised and it could still be two or three years before the demolitions start, then another two or three years before the residents are moved back - this will kill the community for sure. In the meantime, the council has been neglecting repairs to the properties in question, with the result that some of those maisonettes apparently no longer meet minimum standards. What a way to run a housing policy. The meeting broke up amid accusations of deliberate neglect and land banking. The council should really make a plan (or plans) based on what resources it's sure it can secure and then have an honest consulation with the residents and then actually carry out whatever plan is agreed without undue delay. Almost anything's better than keeping people in suspense.

I had a better day today. I woke up at a reasonable time feeling reasonably rested. I did a bit of leafleting in the area near the Methodist Church Hall then linked up with a libertarian sympathiser to do some leafletting over on the other side of Newton Heath, not far from where the old munitions factory used to be. We managed to cover a lot of ground, and hopefully we'll do at least as well tomorrow. One thing that's struck me is how badly maintained the roads seem to be once you get off the main roads. Definitely a case for more investment in maintenance.

Having spent several hours leafleting, I dropped my mate off in town , drove back to Newton Heath, did a bit more leafleting on my own, had a bit of tea then out again to the Methodist Church Hall on Droylsden Road for a yoga class (these are held free of charge every Tuesday between 6.30 and 7.30, just turn up and introduce yourself). Good stuff yoga, it's the only exercise system I've ever tried which genuinely leaves me feeling refreshed. So I'll be all ready for a bit more groundpounding tomorrow morning.

Thinking about housing

Sensible people sleep in late on weekends, or go out and enjoy themselves. Me and my loyal band of helpers, we spent yesterday and today walking the streets of Newton Heath, Miles Platting and Collyhurst, delivering my election leaflets. Yesterday it was roasting hot, today started off pleasantly cool but it soon started raining. A natural result of holding elections at this time of year, I suppose. At least it wasn't snowing.

We managed to get a lot done, though. We've managed to cover most of Collyhurst South, part of Miles Platting and a big chunk of Newton Heath. Hopefully we'll be able to do the rest by the end of the week.

Mostly we've been doing council estates so far, and talking to local residents, I've been struck yet again by what an awful landlord the council is. They're completely unresponsive to input from their own residents, and it can take years to get even simple repair jobs done. I've moved house several times as an adult and certainly that was my experience as a council tennant. It seems to me that the central problem is that the council is too distant and has too many other responsibilities to do the job properly. There needs to be more local control. Eventually, I would advocate local councils getting out of the housing market altogether, and turning council estates over to whatever local forms of control are preferred by the local residents (housing associations, cooperatives, outright ownership of each individual property by the occupants, whatever). Local solutions to local problems are usually more effective than central planning. One size doesn't fit all. Radical reform isn't going to happen overnight of course, and one thing that might be worth doing in the short term is to give more power to existing tennants' associations - they're already embedded in the local communities, so maybe give them a bit of a budget and let them get on with any small repairs that are needed in their area without having to lobby the council first. Obviously there would have to be safeguards, democratic accountability etc, but it's maybe an idea worth pursuing. I don't claim to be an expert on housing, but the current system's clearly not working the way it should. We need to elect some politicians who are at least open to trying out new ideas.

Mad dogs and politicians go out in this kind of weather

I had a bit of a hard day leafleting today. We were working the Collyhurst South area, delivering leaflets and talking to some of the local residents. Not many were around to talk to, sensible people stay indoors in this kind of weather instead of tramping the streets. It seems that the council's plans for "redevelopment" may be on hold for the moment - the latest word is that they're waiting to see who wins the general election, because the funds for this scheme are supposed to be coming from central government. Crazy, it's not like we didn't all know that a general election was coming. Councils should work out what money they've actually got available before announcing grand plans, instead of gambling on screwing a bit more money out of the government. The whole scheme's pretty controversial, with different people either strongly for or against it, but it does seem to keep changing, which isn't good for anyone.

Anyway, we managed to get most of the area covered, and then retired to the Marble Arch for a well-deserved bitter. I could really do with a bit of cool, overcast weather for this kind of work, the sun was definitely starting to get to me when we finished! Labour and the "Lib" Dems have also been working the area, so it's just as bad for their activists, I suppose.

After I got home and had a well-deserved nap, I decided to have a look at the internet for a bit of light relief. And I found some - enjoy:



For the record, I agree with Gordon Brown that the general election is depressing, and I also sympathise with Nick Clegg's reasons for wanting to be Prime Minister.