Leaders' debate

Solomon did not watch it. He was busy in the swamp.

Solomon was not surprised to hear that Nick Clegg was considered the winner. Solomon was also not surprised to hear that lots of people claimed a win for their relevant parties on Twitter (although Solomon does not Twitter - a subject we may return to later).

Solomon is interested in the Times frontpage today. Is this a subtle shift in allegiance? It does seem quite bold, almost triumphal.  

But will news like this knock their bounce?

Solomon also likes the Matt's cartoon in the Telegraph today.

That's about it.

Soul break

A little while ago, I bought this album:

Take me to the river

It's brilliant. Loads of great tracks on it, and I find myself listening to it more and more as the weather is improving.

There's lots of tracks a casual soul fan would recognise - the album title track being an obvious one - but there's lots more to discover over the three discs.

If you've never heard it, William Bell's I forgot to be your lover is one of the greatest tracks ever recorded (sampled by Dilated Peoples in 2000ish with Worst comes to Worst)*.

I've always preferred southern soul to Motown. Motown's (amazing) sound tends towards perfectly polished, bordering on overly-sweet, pop. Southern soul tends to have more pain in the voice and lyrics. It's rougher, sexier. For example, Miss Millie Jackson

*it's not the best track ever recorded. That would be Many Rivers to Cross.

The future of Crossrail

Bienkov over at Tory Troll has seized on comments from Justine Greening this morning on LBC that she 'can’t give a guarantee that it (Crossrail) will continue'. Mr Troll seems to be taking this as a heavy hint that the Tories may well scrap the scheme, despite Boris' assurances (which, admittedly, aren't worth much) that Cameron has 'indicated both publicly and privately' that he likes the scheme.

The Standard is running a similar story at the mo, with slightly irrelevant picture of Cameron and missus.*

Personally, I can't see them scrapping it. Work has already gone too far (been by the old LA2 recently?) and business leaders will have a massive hissy fit if it doesn't happen. Scrapping Crossrail is exactly the sort of thing that will stop London retaining that 'business capital of the world' title politicians always like to bang on about.

The piece on Canary Wharf from the Guardian the other day made clear how vital Crossrail is going to be to expand that area - from something like 100,000 people working there to over 200,000.

No self-respecting Tory would ever sniff at that much wealth creation, particularly if we're looking to roar back from recession.

So the Solomon Grundy prediction is that the Tories will keep Crossrail. I don't tend to have much luck with predictions, so feel free to ignore it if you like.

As an aside, Mr Bienkov has asked Cameron to spell out where he stands on the project before the election. The stock Tory response to this seems to be that they won't commit to any spending until they get to have a full look at the books. This has always struck me as a very weak line. They would be advised to drop it pretty soon.


*Quite a lot of Mr Bienkov's work appears to be popping up in the Standard recently. I didn't notice which article appeared first, but there has been a lot of overlap in recent months

Boris' Ellie

Because we're all about balance here at the Solomon Grundy swamp, I thought I would share this website (which I heard of via Boris Watch):

Political piffle

Boris has his own Ellie and she blogs. Wouldn't it be fun to introduce her to Ms Gellard?

I found this post to be quite illuminating. Confusing. But illuminating too.

Remember, the sky is literally the limit.

Even-handed Standard

Today's Standard leader is a nice balanced piece of opinion:

Refreshing honesty from the Lib-Dems

Although it still perpetuates that slightly patronising two-party view of UK politics.

Anyway, the Standard is trying to live up to its promise to be politically neutral. Shame about all the celebrity crap, but still, they have some very fine journalists - Pippa Crerar, Ross Lydall, Paul Waugh and Joe Murphy all know their onions.

Some lefties carry on referring to it as the Evening Boris, but that's looking a bit tired now. Sort of like calling the Guardian the Grauniad (hat-tip everyone over 40 in my office).

Boris breaks election promise. Shock.

This was in yesterday's Standard:

Boris Johnson breaks his pledge to run Tube trains later at weekends

Followers of London politics will know it's not the first manifesto pledge that Boris has brazenly broken.

All of which begs the question, are the Tories right to point to Boris as an example of what a Conservative government might look like? Boris picked up a lot anti-Ken votes in the last mayoral election (see earlier post on Mr Waugh's piece)

How many of those are satisfied with him to date? I know several people who would normally vote Labour who couldn't bring themselves to vote Ken and decided to vote Boris for change. They now hugely regret that decision.

Will that impact on the Tory chances in the General election? Looking across London, I only see them taking one extra London borough (Sutton, since you ask). So I think they've reached a watermark there.

Will Boris help or hinder them with floating voters?

Hung parliaments

A few bits around today about voters wanting a hung parliament

What nonsense. Political journalists want hung parliaments. It's like their best ever wet dream. Although, I suppose the best ever wet dream is a dry, dirty dream.

Anyway, how do voters even vote to get a hung parliament? Hive-mind style communication, or do we all need to agree which constituency is getting which MP in advance?

The polls are reflecting general disdain for politicians. And quite right too.

I've personally not got a problem with hung parliaments. Although they might make me feel more inadequate than I already do.

Fullers PR success

Sorry, things keep popping into my head tonight. I meant to blog the other day to say well done to the Fullers PR team with all the coverage from that Cameron visit on Monday

Having him stand in front of cases of London Pride stacked a mile high was a marvellous bit of product placement. And it made me thirsty.

We were watching it in the office and it made me really hanker after a pint. And afterwards, someone from Sky News was doing a live into the studio standing in front of a London Pride truck. I was starting to think that they were missing a trick focusing so much on one product, when an ESB truck rumbled into shot. Good maximisation Fullers!

Well done to those clever PR men at Fullers. And if any of them fancy sending Solomon a case of ESB by way of thanks for this needless plug of their products, all they need to do is get in touch...

Slogans. Manifestos

Solomon remains confused by the Labour 'a future fair for all' slogan. It sounds sort of stilted. Doesn't it?

Like a phrase that has been chopped down by a sub-editor or ad exec to fit a space.

Or is it that Gordon Brown is offering all of us the chance to visit a futuristic fairground if we let him win the election? Like Thorpe Park crossed with Star Trek? Because if that is what we're being promised, I'm bloody well up for it. Flying dodgems sound unbe-bloody-lievable.

Obviously I'm not the first person to snigger at the image on the front of the manifesto - the communist-lite version. But it is funny. Part left-wing utopia, part staring in fear as the atom bomb explodes and waiting for the ensuing mushroom cloud.

I also like the Tory one. There's a nice serious image if ever there was one. Dizzy has been very funny with this post

Although I do enjoy the peerless Daily Mash's take on it. Out of interest, does any ever read manifestos, or just dissect the launches? And possible read the press releases?

Give the XXX a chance!

Paul 'look, I'm the most connected political journo you know, quite why I'm still working for this free paper is my business not yours' Waugh has blogged a bit on the idea that Cameron could win through on a 'give the new kid a chance' sentiment. He's pulled an old Express from the archives to back up his theory

My thoughts on this are...

1. Does that then work for the Lib Dems? And if not, why not? Paul says that the though process will be:
   "I can't face five more years of Labour/Gordon Brown. I'm not sure about Cameron. But, sod it, I'll give him a try."
   
   People will choose the 'untested contender'. But can you really think of the Tory party as an untested contender? Particularly with Ken Clarke still in it?
   
   It strikes me that the Lib Dems should try and claim that mantle as their own, portraying the choice as being between more of the same old Tories/Labour and the change they represent. In their cardigans and that.
   
   Obviously campaigning to be considered the unknown choice is a bit fraught with pitfalls, but I guess you just focus on the negatives of your opposition.
2. Paul suggests that the choice of Boris in the last London mayoral election backs up this theory. People were fed up with Ken and wanted to give someone else a go, even though they thought he was a risk.
   
   I think the first part of this is definitely true. But I don't think many people who voted for Boris saw him as a risk. They honestly believed he was equipped to run the great city of London. The muppets.

A note on Ellie

Ah, bless her little stilettoed shoes, Ellie Gellard seems to be attracting a bit of negative attention following her little hype (wo)man piece for Gordon ‘Bam Bam’ Brown yesterday.

As far as I can see it, there are three main criticisms of her in the papers at the moment…

1. A couple of years ago she blogged that Gordon Brown should quit as leader of the Labour party. I think Guido was one of the first to point this out.

I have a few thoughts on this – the first is that Guido is using the level of spite he normally reserves for Cabinet ministers. Perhaps that’s because he feels threatened by the poor little sweetheart, and he doesn’t normally feel threatened by other bloggers.

Anyway, the girl’s 20, which means she was about 18 two years’ ago. People do change their views at lot as they get older, particularly in that 16-30 bracket. I should know - I’m 29 and ¾.

The other thing that few people are pointing out is that two years’ ago coincided with when Polly Toynbee was calling for GB’s head. And we all know that Ellie has a slightly embarrassing new-border-on-prefect-style crush on the Toynbee lady. Who now thinks Gordon is the future (fair for all).

2. She once said something about hoping Thatcher would fall down the stairs on a skateboard. This has particularly angered the Mail.

Fair enough. Whatever your opinion of Mrs T, she is an elderly lady and wishing harm on her is childish and a bit mean.

I think that this says something a bit more about the quality of online discourse than it does about Miss (Ms?) Gellard’s character. I can’t be arsed to look, but I’d be willing to bet that I can find all sorts of right wing blogs with comments that could be construed as threats to ZaNu Liebore politicians, particularly that smiley Tony bloke.

It turns out people are even more of an arsehole online. People do say the most ridiculous things. But yes, silly girl to wish bodily harm on an old lady. I don't think she really meant it.

3. She is young, shrill and privileged. I think she’s probably all of those things.

To start with the privileged bit, I don’t know much about her background, but I think it’s sort of Holland Park and that. Anyway, who gives a fuck? You can’t rubbish criticism of David Cameron’s privileged background and then use that same argument against one of your opponents.

The young and shrill bit – young, of course. She can’t help that, can she?

The shrill bit – almost all young people talking about politics come over as pompous twats. Think of the first time you saw William Hague – but he seems to have got over that little presentation issue, and is now considered one of the true Tory heavyweights.

Although I’d rather watch a young Ellie talk than a young Hague (and yes, I didn’t use ‘listen’ deliberately).

So there you go.

Silk Cut

I find it interesting how the focus from the two main political parties (sorry Lib Dems) has shifted the closer we get to the election. Labour's change of line from 'we're not going to cut. ever' to 'alright, let's all be grown-ups, we know we need to cut something' has largely been attributed to Darling (and in turn, the Guardian's slightly embarassing crush on Darling can be attributed to this).

And, after all, it's the right line. Things do need to change and the state can not continue to fund things in the way it did when the bubble was, well, bubbling.

Unfortunately now it has turned into who can cut more and faster. Which suggests that the Lib Dems might start chiming in soon with something along the lines of 'it's not about the size of your cut, it's what you do with your cuts'.

And what people say they won't cut is revealing. Everyone says that they won't cut NHS funding (incidentally, I am beginning to wonder whether New Labour's greatest success has been to get the Conservatives to love the NHS. We'll see if I'm right on that one very soon). Nor do people want to cut 'frontline policing' (obviously the backroom stuff is just a big fat waste of time - why would the police need records anyway?).

We all know that there are votes to be won and lost on health and policing.

As a brief aside, it's interesting how nobody seems to have problems cutting local government, because that's only children's services, roads, care for the elderly, recycling etc. There are votes in those, but the best thing about cutting local government funding is that central government doesn't get the blame when services go down the shitter. No, that would be your locally elected council (who'd better not dare put up my council tax...).

It's sort of central government's Keyser Soze moment. Although it's not actually as impressive as all that.

But when you fence off two big areas like health and policing, something else has to take the strain. And inevitably a lot of people will rely on it.

So, yeah, cuts. It's what it's all about.

Incidentally, lest anyone think that I'm just waffling on about an issue without an opinion, I subscribe to the Double T's view. If you freeze everything (including health) at 2010/11 levels until 2014/15 you can halve Britain's deficit by that time.

Simple solution, but one fraught with pain. And generally unpopular with unions and the public sector at large. Still, I work in the public sector and I think it makes sense. Who's with me?

First. Woo hoo!

Blimey it takes a long time to get these blog things going, doesn't it? Everyone's like 'oh go on, start a blog man'. Nobody tells you it takes bloody ages of faffing around with fonts and images and layouts and whatnot.

So anyway, here we are, vaguely up and running. I'm your host, Solomon Grundy. You can read about me in that profile bit. Or I've got a fairly extensive Wikipedia entry

I've started to add a blogroll, which I'll expand on in the coming days. In fact, I'll probably expand the whole thing from day to day as time allows.

So what do you, new reader, need to know about this blog? Well... I like mouthing off about politics, rugby, music, books (less so on this one - I'm not very well-read) and the state of journalism.

Because I'm new to all this blogging, I thought I would just jot down some quick thoughts I've had today and see what sticks. Ready? Here we go:

• The Guardian has the right horn for Alistair Darling at the moment. I know he's not Gordon Brown and everything so it's ok to like him, but come on!
  
  
  
• This is a pretty good summary of why Rob Andrew is a waste of space
  
  
  
• This video makes me remember how much gloating I indulged in around the 1997 election. And I fully expect to see that paid back in spades this year.
  
  It also reminds me that I've always considered Ed Balls to have one of the most punchable faces in politics. But, lest anyone fear that I am being overly partisan, Antony Calvert looks like he could do with a slap too.
  
  
  
• I really like Sainsbury's Taste the Difference cheese coleslaw.

Good. That'll be me for tonight. I shall return tomorrow.