4 million reasons to say "Thank you".

There has been a lot of press in recent days about Tony Blair's donation of the proceeds of his memoirs to the Royal British Legion.

On one hand, the amount of money, typically estimated to be in excess of four million pounds, will make a substantial differenceto the Legion, which looks after the welfare of serving and ex-service men and women.

On the other hand, some have criticised it as "blood money" or as a publicity stunt from an already wealthy man.

Blair was a disappointing Prime Minister.  This is perhaps best revealed in Anthony Seldon's two volumes of history about him, Blair and Blair Unbound. 

However, unless you are among the super-rich, £4m is a great deal of money.  Blair didn't have to give it and was under no pressure to do so.  It's a pity that some people and journalists have chosen to sneer at his action rather than consider the benefits it will bring to wounded service men and women.

Bob, the Rocket Scientist

Hat tip: http://twitter.com/27bslash6

Pickpocket Politics

If my memory of history serves me well, it was Charles I who was the last king to claim to be above the law. You may recall he was not entirely successful.

This was brought to mind this morning when, listening to BBC Radio4, I heard that the question of party funding is back on the political agenda. Indeed, according to Sir Hayden Phillips, state funding of political parties is inevitable.

The problem political parties in the UK face is simple: over the past few decades, membership numbers have collapsed but they have carried on spending regardless. The result is that the main parties are all in debt to a greater or lesser extent and have become increasingly dependent on a small number of donors.

Now, if political parties were run as a business or even a club they would do one of the following:

• Make themselves or their products more appealling so that they would get more members or customers
  
• Cut their spending to match their income
  
• Go out of business
  

But if there is just one thing all parties agree on it is that their survival is paramount. So if the public won't voluntarily support them, then they will pass laws to take the money regardless.

This is corrupt. This is pickpocket politics.

The corruption infests all three main parties:

• Labour gets millions from Unions such as UNITE, whose members by default have part of their dues set aside for Labour.
  
• Liberal Democrats received millions from Michael Brown, a convicted fraudster.
  
• Tories have received millions from among others Lord Ashcroft, who used non-dom status to minimise paying taxes in the UK.
  

This must stop.

Funding for parties needs to be legislated in such a way that opportunities for corruption are minimised: a fairly low limit on donations from individuals or organisations; legally mandated accounts which must balance: no state funding.

It's time that political parties learned that, like the kings of old, they are not above the law, nor should they be allowed to change it for their own ends.

Salamander politics

Remember Elbridge Gerry?

Mmm, I thought not. Yet it is he who has the distinction of being the source of the word gerrymander. Almost 200 years ago, as governor of Massachusetts, he arranged for the electoral boundaries of one district to be drawn in a contorted shape that would help his party win election. The shape was so bizarre it was likened to a salamander and the word gerrymander is a combination of "Gerry" and "salamander".

Strangely, the ability of politicians to manipulate electoral boundaries, remains a feature of US politics to this day, and one example of this is shown in the diagram above.

The reason I'm blogging about this is that "gerrymander" has become a favourite term of many Labour MPs in recent days. The word itself sounds evil, and such words are a delight to politicians. But is it accurate to use this word to describe what the coalition government is doing?

I think not. Tories have felt for some while that the electoral system has a built in bias against them because typical Tory constituencies have more people in them than typical Labour ones. The reason is because people are leaving the towns and cities (often Labour strongholds) for the country (typically Tory, at least in England). This means that, with more residents per constituency in the country, a country vote counts for less than a city one. Re-drawing boundaries to make constituencies have roughly the same number of residents is not gerrymandering: it's a simply matter of fairness.

However, since Labour would be the main loser in such an exercise, they are naturally keen to portray re-drawing boundaries in a poor light. This is a pity, because there is a real problem with voting in Labour constituencies and it's this: too few people register to vote in the cities. Why did Labour allow this to continue during its thirteen years in power? And why don't they focus on fixing it now?

Voter registration was a powerful tool in enabling equal rights in the United States in the 20th Century. Instead of fraudulently shouting about gerrymandering, Labour would be wise to learn from the American example and empower their residents to vote.

That would be good for British democracy and a way to bury the political legacy of Elbridge Gerry.

The School Run (or walk, or cycle)

There's been a bit of fuss about young children cycling to school in the last few days. It started when Oliver and Gillian Schonrock, who live in a pleasant part of SE London, decided to let their two children cycle to school.

The children are aged five and eight, and this immediately led to an outcry and reaction to the outcry, not least from Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London. If you want to follow the pros and cons of that argument, there are plenty of places online where it's being debated: try here (Telegraph) or here (Positive Parenting) for example.

I'd like to present a slightly different view, which is this: in too many parts of Britain, cycling is positively dangerous, regardless of your age. I blogged on this a few years ago, after a near death experience on my one and only attempt to cycle to and from work. While footpaths, which by default are reserved for pedestrians, are common, cycle paths are rare. Cyclists are expected to share the roads with cars.

However, most roads are far too narrow to accommodate a dedicated cycle lane of adequate width. It may have escaped your notice that cyclists seldom cycle as fast as cars, but I assure you that it is true (except perhaps in Central London) and so you get queues of cars building up behind cyclists on narrow roads, their drivers getting impatient and then accelerating past at any opportunity. The margins for error are slim, the risk to the car perhaps a scratch, the risk to the cyclist perhaps his or her life.

It doesn't have to be like this. Oxford and York, to name just two, offer high quality cycling facilities. The lack of safe cycle routes elsewhere really needs fixing.

It's a constant policy across the major political parties that they want more people to cycle to work (and to school, college and just in general). Local councils often try to make facilities available, with varying degrees of success. See the Facility of the Month link here.

What is needed is a co-ordinated and consistent approach across all levels of government:

• All new developments should have dedicated cycle paths mandated.
  
• Many existing roads are broad enough to accommodate a cycle path of acceptable width, rather than the few inches of crumbling surface at the edge of the road. Councils should actively identify all roads broad enough to support dedicated cycle paths and to paint the roads appropriately.
  
• In other areas, councils should be required to create plans to make facilities available wherever possible to link up cycle paths and enable residents to safely cycle around towns.
  

I don't know at what age it's responsible to allow children to cycle to school. I do know that for cyclists of all ages, we need to do a great deal more to make cycling safer.

Cruel or Kind?

Well, it's the time of year that Total Politics builds its list of the top political blogs of the year.

I am not expecting to win it but, given I didn't even enter last year, any position would be good. So if you'ld like to vote for me, please click below.

Also please note the rules:

1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and ranks them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

Yes, yes, yes. This is me asking for your vote. I'm a politician. I've done it before.

So whether you do it by email or clicking below, please vote! And fyi, here are some of the more popular blogs and more here and here and here.

Dolphin apologises to witches

Tom Dolphin, a member of the BMA's junior doctors' committee, ... said he had previously described homeopathy as witchcraft, but now wanted to apologise to witches for making that link.

From The Guardian, reporting on the BMA Conference.

(He was more moderate alsewhere in his speech, referring to homeopathy as "pernicious", "nonsense on stilts", "irrationality", "made up science", "insidious" and "something ...[that] does not work".)

Physician, heal thyself

I have an undistinguished B Sc degree. I am a very minor politician and I work in marketing and it is for the last of these that I apologise.

Last night I was fortunate enough to be invited to attend the annual lecture of Sense about Science. The key speaker was Dr Fiona Godlee, the editor of the British Medical Journal, who combined being interesting, thoughtful, thought-provoking and witty.

The essence of her presentation involved failures in science, particularly medicine. In many cases the culprit was business. For example, she showed how business-sponsored scientific reviews of medical products were almost always positive, while independent reviews were far more mixed. Is it likely that these sponsored reviews are unbiased? Statistically the answer is no: the probability is so remote that it cannot be taken seriously. Over fiften or twenty minutes she presented her case cogently and with eloquence.

I started to disagree with her when she looked at some ways to address the problem. I must say I did so with trepidation. As I have already said, I have an undistinguished BSc while she has a strong scientific resume. But since my view is based on the philosophy of science (if that is not too grand a term), I'm going to put it forward anyway.

In the Olden Days, when I was at school, there was a fairly simple approach to science. It went roughly as follows:

1. A scientist would think of an idea - the hypothesis.
   
2. She would devise an experiment to test it.
   
3. She would run the experiment and collect the necessary and relevant data.
   
4. If the data supported the idea, it would become a new theory.
   
5. Other scientists could repeat the process and get the same results, so independently validating the theory.
   

Intellectually this works. Practically, in the real world, it sometimes breaks down. For example, developing new drugs is extraordinarily expensive. Pharmaceutical companies invest huge amounts of money in each new drug and their scientists invest years of their lives. The must be a great temptation, even in the most scrupulous scientist, to look for the good effects and play down the bad. Possibly that may be succumbed to unconsciously: perhaps dismissing a strange result as an outlier. The commercial pressures will be there too.

At present, science does too little to eliminate opportunities for these errors or for fraud. I suspect outright fraud is fairly rare, although cases such as

• Disgraced cloning scientist Hwang Woo-suk, whose stem cell research was found to have been faked
  
• Andrew Wakefield's MMR scare
  
• and in physics, the cold fusion controversy
  

show that they happen often enough to reach the mainstream media.

If I understood her correctly, the core of Dr Godlee's proposals to address these problems was to reduce commercial involvement in science, especially medicine. I think that would be wrong.

Science needs to look more to itself. Some of the finest brains in the past few centuries have been involved in science: why then is the very core of science, the scientific method, so subject to abuse?

I suggest that a fundamental issue is that scientific research is not sufficiently open to a basic commercial technique: audit. If at key stages research was subject to audit, the results would be more credible. This does not mean making the data or area of research prematurely public but it would mean that when it came to submit a paper for publication or to launch a new product there would be confidence that the research had been adequately conducted.

Who could do this auditing? I think that is less important than defining how it is done. For example, in the UK perhaps the Russell Group of universities could define: what independent checks should be made in each key area of science as that research progressed; what records must be verifiably submitted at each stage; what are acceptable ways of discounting results ("the subject died in a car accident") and unacceptable ("this outlier was so different that I suspect a measurement error was made").

This would not replace peer review. It would give reviewers greater confidence in the underlying methods and might well give them access to the underlying data.

It would benefit science. It would also benefit commerce: whether in medical, physical, chemical or any other area of scientific endeavour, the results of audited research would rightly be more trusted.

This, I think comes back to Dr Godlee's fundamental point: unreliable research undermines good science. If we can improve standards in research it will be of benefit not just to the scientific community but also to the public at large. Trustworthy results will lead to better decision-making, whether it means buying a new pill or investing in technology.

And should that day happen, I won't have to apologise for being in marketing.

How Often is Enough?

I believe it costs about £50,000 to run an election in Hart, the small district in NE Hampshire where I live. That's about a pound per registered voter, which I think is not bad.

The way we run elections here is that in three out of four years we elect one third of our district councillors (for a four year term) and in the fourth year we elect county councillors.

So, for example,

• 2009: elected county councillors
  
• 2010: elected 1/3 of district councillors
  
• 2011: elect 1/3 district councillors
  
• 2012: elect 1/3 of district councillors
  

However, there is the option of having all-in elections instead where we would elect district councillors all at once for a four year term, as we do with county councillors. In these straitened times, that would save us two elections every four years, or about £100,000. In a small district like Hart, that's a useful amount of money.

There is a contrary view that having elections more often gives voters a chance to register their approval or disagreement with the council more often. While that is true, it is costly. It also means that councillors spend more time electioneering and less doing the work you voted them in to do.

As you can tell, I don't favour the annual voting system. That's less important than what you think: would you, as a voter, prefer to vote more often at a higher cost, or would you prefer to save money but have fewer opportunities to register your views?

Please do let me know, either directly or via the comments section below.

Update: For what it's worth, based on a quick scan of their websites our neighbouring councils appear to vote as follows:

Basingstoke: Annually (like Hart)
Bracknell: All in every four years
East Hampshire: All in every four years
Surrey Heath: All in every four years
Wokingham: Annually (like Hart)

UNITEd We Fall

Ten days ago, Laura Solon scythed through the bs to the basic truth of the ongoing industrial dispute between British Airways and its cabin crew. Speaking on Have I Got News For You, she said that the biggest fringe benefit the cabin crew have is an airline to work for.

Now, on one hand I can understand the shock and anger you feel when your employer cuts payments or benefits. I've experienced this myself on a number of occasions, such as when my pension changed from being a final salary pension (good) to a defined benefits one (poor). That one change on its own cost me a few hundred thousand pounds. It cost most of my fellow workers much the same. But it had one huge fringe benefit: we still had a company to work for.

Right now, UNITE seems to be spoiling for a fight, not just at BA. It could scarcely choose a worse time: worldwide the combination of recession and fierce international competition mean that when I (or anyone else) is looking for a job, we are competing against not only the other people shortlisted for this vacancy but also anyone else, anywhere in the world, who can do the same work for a competitor.

Can a lower-paid worker in Ireland or India or the Far East do the same job, just as well? Then why should the company employ you?

This is where UNITE's confrontational approach is self-destructive for its members: the most likely result is the jobs will move elsewhere - whether to Emirates, Ryanair or Virgin. It's not clear how this will help BA cabin crew.

It used to be "United we stand". Today it looks more like UNITE's last stand.

Running for Rob

What, I wonder, is the defining characteristic of the British?

Just as the British have generalisations about other nations, I am sure that other nations generalise about the UK. I arrived in this country with my family in 1994, "on my way to America" and we are still here 16 years later. One of the things that has kept us here has been the extraordinary generosity of spirit of British people. This is at its best when you consider the extent to which people voluntarily support others who are less fortunate: visiting the infirm, shopping for the elderly, collecting for charity, running parish councils, tending to graves and thousands of other small ways of making this a better place to live. Perhaps it comes down to Thriving in Adversity.

On Sunday I saw a good example of this. There was a 10km (6.25 miles in old currency) Fun Run in Newbury and of the several hundred runners, about 50 were Running for Rob. So who is Rob? I don't know him (other than knowing he is a teenager with cancer) but I have a friend who does, so I will quote her words here

Rob is simply the loveliest 17 year old lad - through all of what he has gone through, he never complains and just gets on with all of this treatment. He was at the race and we had a lovely hug when I made just over the hour :-) ... because he knew I wasn't a runner and I would never have attempted a 10k without there being a very good reason to.

He is still studying for his 'A' Levels, plans to take them shortly, goes into school whenever possible, plans on studying Politics and plans to do the Edinburgh Festival again this year as he loves acting and directing and is planning on going on holiday to Greece with his pals and, of course, the pop festivals around such as Reading. I truly believe he is an inspiration to both young and old ... I absolutely adore him and feel we can learn so much from someone so young and I just want him to be back to full fitness again.

I feel he found the pomp and ceremony around the run quite embarrassing - his father wanted to do something positive and, as he is a runner, belongs to Newbury Athletic Club who organise the Bayer 10k, he felt having a team do the run would be that positive. That said, we all raised a lot of money for charity and, back at the BBQ in the garden, I sat with Tracey from Teenage Cancer Trust. They provide facilities and an environment for teenagers who have Cancer as the NHS provide only for children or adults ... and teenagers are caught in the middle. They do truly amazing work and we don't realise it. Rob has one more chemo treatment, scheduled for next week - I think it is Cycle 9. Because I look to the positive, I believe the outcome will be a positive and the tumour has, so far, become smaller and with Rob's stoic, mature and brave attitude, I know he will be clear when they do the final tests. He is just the best (and I only get my running kit on for the best :-)

To support Rob fifty people - many of whom hadn't run 10km in their life before - went through a great deal of pain and raised over £12,000 for two charities: Clic Sargent, which cares for young people with cancer and their families and the Teenage Cancer Trust.

(Click on the photo to see all the runners.)

For those who today are still feeling pain, remember you are part of a great tradition: serving the less fortunate in a typical, understated British way.

How to save £160,000,000,000

At present, the Government spends £160,000,000,000 more than it gets from tax. That's about £2,500 for every man, woman and child in the UK.

In economists' language, This Is Not Good.

Earlier this week, the Government announced plans to save £6bn: that's about 1% of the total govenment expenditure. Clearly we need to do more.

Yesterday I suggested how the government might avoid wasting several million pounds in the NHS. Today, in the Telegraph, there is an article by Chris Mullin who was a Labour minister ten years ago. At the time he suggested how to save money by reducing the cost of the wasteful Government Car Service. (Why oh why didn't we have more Labour ministers like this?)

Almost certainly anyone reading this blog will know of some area of waste in government money where savings could be made.

So, if you were the Chancellor, what would you cut?

By all means put your suggestions as comments on this blog. But also write to your local MP. You can find his or her contact details here.

We might well find that we can save that £160,000,000,000 (golly, my hand gets tired typing it) a few pounds at a time.

Good front-line surgery

There's a lot of talk about "cutting front line services" as the government tries to reduce the terrifying deficit.

This assumes that (a) the savings can't be made anywhere else but front line services and (b) all front line services give value.

Most people focus on (a). I'd like to focus on (b) and point out an example of front line services that are wasteful and potentially actually harmful.

In February this year, Parliament's Science and Technology Committee published a report which urged the government to withdraw funding and licensing of homeopathy.

Homeopathy is a front-line service. However, the parliamentary enquiry found that it had no better effect than placebos. Indeed, the British Medical Association has declared that homeopathy is witchcraft. Despite this the NHS funds four homeopthic hospitals and spend many millions on homeopathic treatment.

Here's a front-line service we should be happy to cut.

Trussssst in me ...

I was at a meeting last week. In an open question session the issue of trust was raised. The person answering the question was very clear: "Lack of trust comes from either a failure to communicate or a failure to deliver", he said.

Those words stuck with me. They really get to the crux of the matter. In light of the events of the last few days, can the Tories - or the electorate - trust the LibDems?

On May 7th, Nick Clegg said the Conservatives, as the biggest party, had the right to form a government first. Following that, negotiations were opened between the two parties. Yesterday it appeared that secret negotiations had been going on at the same time between Labour and the LibDems as well.

It's clear that the Conservatives have made significant concessions to the LibDems. It's far from clear what the LibDems have brought to the discussions. It's hard to view their actions as anything other than seeking party political advantage, despite their claims to be putting national interest first.

There may still be a Tory-LibDem pact of some kind. But if there is, it is difficult to imagine how well it will work when there is likely to be constant suspicion that at any time it suits them the LibDems may jump ship.

This is no way to run a country and, judging from LibDem blogs, there are many party members who realise the electorate may not forgive Nick Clegg, even if David Cameron does.

DIY Tips: How to Build a Cabinet

The first time I built a bedroom cupboard it ended up with all the drawers the right way up and the frame and doors upside down. However, today's challenge is a mental one, rather than needing any physical dexterity, so perhaps I may do better (and perhaps not!).

Let's assume for a moment that the Tories and LibDems do form a coalition. Who would you appoint to the various roles? To make it more fun (a) you don't have to fill all the offices and (b) you can have a serious list or a fun or even mischievous list. Here is mine.

Prime Minister: David Cameron
Chancellor: Ken Clarke, because he's done it before and would reassure the City.
Foreign Secretary: William Hague
Home Secretary: Nick Clegg
Olympics: Sir Menzies Campbell
Business, Innovation and Skills: Vince Cable

with the rest being the Tory shadow cabinet. This gives one of the great offices of state to the LibDems, puts a past captain of the Great Britain Olympics team in charge of the Olympics and gives Vince Cable the challenge of making his ideas work.

For the Tories, Ken Clarke would bring immense successful experience to the position, and it's hard to realistically imagine Hague or Cameron in other roles. Not in the above list but worthy of mention is Michael Gove, who would have the opportunity to make his radical and attractive ideas on education work. The more I see and hear of Gove, the more I like him: he could be a real star of the next government.

What of George Osborne? Make him chairman of the Conservative Party. There are persistent stories that "the City doesn't like him" and we really need the next government and the City to work together to rebuild the economy. And who knows? He may be like a vintage wine that matures well.

---

For reference, the last government cabinet posts were

Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service
Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, First Secretary and Lord President of the Council
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Secretary of State for International Development
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families,
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change,
Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,
Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
Minister for the Cabinet Office, and for the Olympics and Paymaster General,
Secretary of State for Scotland,
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,
Chief Secretary to the Treasury,
Secretary of State for Wales,
Secretary of State for Defence,
Secretary of State for Transport,
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Bite the bullet

If there's one thing the electorate expects of politicians it's that they run the country.

At 11am today, this seems like a challenge. With 30 or so seats still to declare, no party can get a majority. The way the rest are likely to go:

• A coalition of Labour and LibDems would not have a majority
  
• A working arrangement between Tories and Irish Unionists would similarly fail
  

The markets hate this. The FTSE is down 10% since the likelihood of a hung parliament became clear. The pound has slipped on forex markets. The reason is simple: without a strong government, it's likely that the hard choices urgently needed to fix the economy won't be made.

As a Tory, I wish we had a majority. The reality is that we don't. That leaves two choices: either a minority Conservative government or an agreement or coalition government with the LibDems.

For many Conservatives, working with the LibDems is anathema. There are many LibDems who feel the same way about Tories. There is a simple message for these hardcore party members: stick to your position and voters will reject you at the next election. You have to put the interests of the nation first, and the nation needs a strong government now.

It's time to face reality. Things didn't go as well as the LibDems or Tories had hoped.

Deal with it.

Precisely Wrong

As I write, Sky News are reporting various polls with Tory support between 33% and 37% and LibDem support between 23% and 28%. The parties and commentators hang on every percent with elation or despair.

But they are wrong to do so.

These polls are spuriously precise (which we don't really care about), but not necessarily accurate (which we desperately do). If, for example, a pollster says Tory support is 35%, what they mean is something like this:

"I am highly confident that Tory support is 35%, give or take 3%. When I did the sample. And that is if people are telling the truth."

See those bits in bold text. What they mean is that if you take those numbers as being accurate, more fool you. It's a statistical game and you need to remember that. Don't be in raptures when your party goes up a percent or two on in despair when it's down a percent or two: that may well just be "sampling error".

All you can really conclude from today's polls is that the Conservatives are a bit ahead and LibDems and Labour are neck-and-neck.

Probably.

So get back to your campaigning, before the Fat Lady sings.

La Cage Aux Folles

No, you're wrong.

This is not about politics.

I had the pleasure on Saturday evening of going to an intimate theatre in the south of Hampshire and watching perhaps the best amateur production I have ever seen. Actually, there is no "perhaps" about it. It was delightful.

The theatre is a converted small barn on the edge of Fareham: it holds just 80 people. It may astonish you to hear that they don't have a revolving stage, or room for acrobats or tigers. They have to rely on pure talent, and they have it by the bucketload. Their production of "La Cage Aux Folles" was spectacular, despite a host of challenges, which started with having to translate it from the French.

There was one problem: the audience was laughing so much in the second act it was often difficult to hear the words. No matter: the acting was all that mattered.

The play was put on by The Titchfield Festival Theatre and, although its run has ended, they have a full programme of forthcoming events, which I thoroughly recommend.

They even let you take photographs (no flash). Take that, West End.

Three of the Best

As a Tory, I hope the Conservatives win a majority.

As a realist, I accept this might not happen. I think a hung parliament would be bad for the UK, but perhaps it's time to think the unthinkable: what if we get one?

The most likely coalition, I hope, would be Tory/LibDem. So here's a challenge: if that came about, which three policies would you like to see the new government implement? The rules are simple: you must choose one Tory policy, one LibDem and the third can be from either party, or perhaps one of your own. Here are mine.

Education

The Tory policy here looks excellent, as I've written earlier. It's a real incentive for improvement and in a globally competitive world, nothing is more important than a good education.

Tax

I am sorry, but I love the LibDem proposal to raise the threshold at which you pay tax to £10,000. It's almost a Tory policy, it simplifies tax and it's a vote-winner.

Tax again

A policy of my own: eliminate 95% of tax law, and make the UK a better place to do business. Sustained recovery will depend on people wanting to do business in this country, yet our tax code is incredibly complicated.

So that's my three. What would you choose?

For your information you can get the Conservative manifesto here and the LibDem one here.

Please, David Cameron

Is Cameron good enough?

A mutual acquaintance put me on to David Cameron six years ago. I must say he impressed, with fresh views and the intention and ability to bring 21st century ideas into the heart of the Conservative Party. Looking back at his record, he has delivered on a lot of that and made the Tory Party electable again.

And yet, I can't help but feel disappointed.

I've been wondering about this over the past couple of weeks.

Is it because too many of his inner circle are an elite? No, that's an irritant, but he has done so much to open the party to people of merit.

What about his ideas? Many of them are very good. The schools policy, for example, should see the biggest improvement in education for a generation or two. Inheritance tax will help hundreds of thousands if not millions of Britons. And despite what Gordon may say, there is ample room for cutting waste in government without cutting front line services.

No, it's not these or a dozen other reasons.

The problem is that I want a leader to inspire me, and I don't yet see that in Cameron. What I do see is earnestness and sometimes grim determination. What I want to see is less someone who talks about Big Society and more someone who says "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I know that Cameron can do it. His early speeches sparkled with enthusiasm.

If he wants to lead the country, he needs to find that inspirational touch again.