LOVE = DISCIPLINE

So what issue is it that has brought me back to the blogosphere? What burning dilemma had me pick up my laptop in haste? Well... I last night had the dubious fortune to be present as my wife watched a fly-on-the-wall programme tracking the life and times of one Peter Andre; singer, presenter, former wife of Katie Price and ‘Dad of the Year’ in both 2008 and 2010. And it is that last point that engaged my interest. Never mind the lunacy of the Now-reading public making such an arbitrary judgement, nor even why we are applauding one who sets up a TV camera prior to phoning his kids and places them in weekly photo-shoots and documentary’s in order to further his own career. No what has really got my goat is actually the criteria by which people are judging what it is to be a good parent.

For the prosecution I bring before you Case One, from last night’s show. Junior – Andre’s son – was, as usual, misbehaving in the spoilt, petulant manner in which he’s been raised. Charmingly for a 5-year old, Junior replied to an attempted instruction by his father with the televised retort ‘If he tells me that again, I’ll cut his head off’. Peter, upon hearing this, looked very sad and whined back “Junior, why do you say these things? You know it makes me upset”. Junior then hid under a desk, at which his dad apologised to him, in order to entice him back out to reconcile. The scene ended with the two hugging and each saying sorry; the backing music and voiceover made it abundantly clear that this was a happy ending to the scene and an example of the loving hands-on way that Dad of the Year Peter resolves such family issues.

Now I’m not disputing that this chap loves his kids. But WHERE IS THE DISCIPLINE?? Where is the incentive for this child to not threaten to kill his father next time? Where’s the lesson learned? Ultimately it gained him the attention he was seeking, along with an apology and a cuddle to boot. There is a missing stage here – any type of sanction. It’s worrisome because the public, en masse, are praising this approach (I’ve watched more of the programme than I should willingly admit, and this pattern; of rebellion, non-punishment and cuddles is repeated in every episode). Neither is it unique to Peter Andre – we are all too familiar with the US movie/TV staple of the parent who scolds the child, sees the child turn away or run from the room and at once apologises, explaining the true underlying reason for his/her inexcusable hostility. WHERE IS THE DISCIPLINE? Why has it become so unthinkable to upset children? They’re not fragile little dolls – they’re little humans, often characterised by rebellion, cruelty even, and very soon to be a grown-up for many more years than they were a child.

A few provisos – no I’m not a parent, and therefore have little authority on the issue of parenting. But I have been a teacher for 7 years. We pick up the pieces of this widespread syndrome – of the parents who spoil their kids rotten, allow them to treat mum and dad like mates and who know all their rights but none of their responsibilities or obligations. Parents all too often take Little Jonny’s side if he’s accused or sanctioned; they tactily (or overtly) encourage a culture of answering back, questioning every instruction and worsening, by degree, attitudes and behaviours in my, and every, school. Another proviso is that I’m not an arch-disciplinarian as a teacher, and I wouldn’t want to be seen as pretending otherwise. I smile and banter in lessons, encouraging discussion and trying to utilise informal humour. But it’s getting harder to do that, because it requires knowing where the line is, listening to others and treating them with respect. What’s more it’s only possible to do that if kids feel secure in knowing where the boundaries are; that there will be well-established punishments from me if someone behaves in a disruptive and unsettling fashion. Of late, there’s been an increasing number of groups where I have had to resort to the snarl and silence I don’t enjoy. It represents an increase in boys (I have until now taught in all-boys school) who have never learned the discipline required for more productive interaction.

If and when I am a parent I will endeavour to be stricter than many might expect or encourage. Rebellion, at any age, is a conscious decision and has to be acknowledged as such, with consequences attached. Just as with teaching, any sanction promised (‘if you do a, b will happen’) has to be followed through with . Easier said than done? Egg waiting to be landed on my face? Quite possibly... who knows my reality once it happens? But I do know that, were it not for a society that has ruled such things unacceptable, I would certainly tell off other peoples’ kids a lot more, in order to save myself doing it later once they’re a problematic teenager sitting in my classroom! The single most inspiring thing I’ve ever heard in the realm of parenting is from my pastor (whose kids are accordingly a credit) whose no-doubt misquoted approach basically comes down to ‘unmistakeable love, unyielding discipline’. It translates to lots of affection and cuddles every day, but no wrongdoing unpunished! I would suggest that, so long as he remains only half way there, Peter Andre is a less inspiring model to emulate...

PS I have spent some time this weekend with the children of one or two potential readers. Please know this is NO reflection on you and them – just on Peter Andre! In the case of the Bristol-based toddler I had the pleasure of meeting yesterday, the issue of discipline is particularly non-applicable as she behaved like a dream for the entire three hours we were there! The parents are clearly doing something right...

Hung Parliament = Angry Andy

I know that any point made about the current political deadlock is instantly rendered obsolete by the next hours’ events. However, I’m currently an angry and disillusioned sort – so let me underline a few reasons why…


1. I’m angry with the left.
I can’t abide the revisionism that sees many of my peers state that:

• This was a victory for ‘the left’ over ‘the right’. It wasn’t. Three largely similar and largely centrist parties competed. One of the got almost as many seats as the other two put together. One of them made their biggest electoral gains for almost a century (bigger than Churchill or Thatcher) whilst the other two went backwards. Yes it’s true that they failed to get an overall majority, but then Labour and the Lib Dems failed to get that even when combined! And had Labour got the same share of the vote, they’d have increased their majority of 2005 (see below).

• The left have the force of moral good. There’s been a markedly quasi-religious zeal to all online pronouncements about the need to keep out the evil Tories in order to pursue compassionate, progressive Labour policies. What nonsense. Did anyone else live through the past two terms? Yes, New Labour were once New (much of what was new was their embracing of the market, privatisation and the middle class) and showed that in pursuing devolution, revamping schools/hospitals etc. But that was a long time ago. For a long time they’ve been the party of war, banker bailouts (necessary? If so, the lack of accompanying conditions or reforming legislation wasn’t…) and an increasing gap between rich and poor. They had no interest in electoral reform, tried to scrap the preferential lowest tax bracket, put up NI and racked up a debt mountain to ensure misery (sure to hit the poorest hardest) for years to come. Quite aside from whether I believe the state itself to be inherently a force for good (I don’t), this Labour party long ago deemed ‘socialism’ a dirty word.

• The Tories are evil. No they’re not. What they mean is that Thatcher was evil. Thatcherism isn’t mainstream conservatism; it was new, radical and ultimately combined right wing nationalism, social conservatism and hard-edged market liberalism. That’s not Tory tradition nor the Tory present. A hundred years ago, politicians could move comfortably between the Tory and the Liberal Party. The Conservatives had a One Nation tradition of social justice, as viewed, for example, in the many reforms of the 1820s and upheld in the likes of the Tory Reform Group or ResPublica. Yes I know Cameron isn’t the greatest advocate of this – his ‘hug-a-hoody’ or cycle to work seem contrived. But neither is he Thatcher, and much of the assumption otherwise is just good old class hatred towards him as an old Etonian.

• The Tories should be cut out of a ruling coalition. It’s astonishing what lengths people will go to in order to cut out ‘the enemy’. It would be enough of an issue if the Lib-Labs did have enough seats to do it. But to rope in various Scots/Welsh nationalists and start dishing out funding-protection promises and all sorts… Never mind that clinging on to discredited power under an unelected leader would be the very worst thing for Labour themselves.

2. I’m angry with the right.
The good news as I write, that Lib-Tory talks have resumed and the Labour coup may have failed, takes something of the edge off this section. Nevertheless, it has been exasperating to see the Old Fogey Tories stamping their feet and protesting bitterly at any Liberal role largely because a) Europe is evil b) Immigrants are evil c) Electoral reform is evil and d)Lib Dems don’t understand the above. Various grass-root dinosaurs have threatened to hand in their membership and the right-wing press have been as noxious as ever. If there’s to be any chance of me sustaining my Tory dalliance it will be very much in the ‘Red Tory’ camp – basically positive on immigration, open to reform, even-handed in international relations (US/Europe, Israel/Palestine), prioritising social welfare – but looking to community institutions, Christian values and seeking a framework of fiscal responsibility; not entrusting everything to the wasteful, paranoid state. If reactionary factions out-manoeuvre Cameron and force him to become more like his horrible European allies… well then this was a one-night stand.

3. I’m angry with the middle.
The Liberal Democrats are a strange breed. Spurning all goodwill with their endless vacillations; putting everyone off electoral reform for evermore as the turgid behind-closed-doors wheeler-dealing drags endlessly on. They seem as uncomfortable as they should with playing kingmaker following a performance of disastrous underachievement and anticlimax.
Politically, they seem to have become a one-trick pony, pinning everything on attaining some sort of proportional representation. However, they must realise that the chances of them actually winning a referendum on bringing it about are fast receding, as the country begins wishing for the strong and decisive government they once bemoaned. They must also accept that reform includes equalising constituency sizes… as ridiculous as their own low number of seats is that an opposite vote share of 36% for Labour and 29% for Conservatives would have seen a three-figure majority for the former. Above all, this was the Lib Dems’ time; they blew it and they’re blowing it still (and this written as someone who has long supported electoral reform).
Incidentally, I know my politics are basically centrist on most things… but in a way this is the party I could least comfortably join; as has become clear online it’s the haven for the modern atheistic, politically correct, eco-warrior…

Grrrrrr!!! It’s frustrating because I don’t want to be an endless floating voter (I’ve voted for all three in general elections now!). I want someone I can campaign for (or maybe even one day stand for?!). How long the Littlest Political Hobo?!

Link to Awesome Phillip Blond

RE: My last post. How's about Phillip Blond just says it a million times better? THIS is what I'm trying to say!

http://www.respublica.org.uk/articles/shattered-society

It takes a while but it's really really good.

STONEWALL, STROUD AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

Right. Got to be quick as I don’t have time for this… but I’ve been bursting to write for a while now. There’s a lot going on to tax my little brain as we enter the final furlong come Thursday.


FIRST, I want to talk about society’s new ‘Worst Thing Ever’. That is to upset the homosexual lobby, and Stonewall in particular. Whoever you are, whatever you’ve done, there’s one thing that can finish your political prospects in a heartbeat – that is to express any doubt, disagreement or distaste regarding any aspect of the homosexual lifestyle or preference. Chris Grayling, whatever Thursday’s result, will probably not be Home Secretary. Philippa Stroud is unlikely to prosper, even if she wins in Sutton. Why? They broke the new golden rule. For Grayling it was the ‘B&B’ comment, hastily withdrawn. In Stroud’s case she didn’t even have to speak! It was enough for her enemies to show that, as an evangelical Christian, she had allegedly been part of a group praying to ‘cure’ homosexuality, albeit many years ago. Never mind that she’s done more overt and selfless good than any number of her critics – years of work with the homeless, alcoholics, drug addicts; a stint in Hong Kong working alongside the needy and abused; and a valuable role at the Centre for Social Justice – all of that is redundant, meaningless, if done whilst harbouring an opinion that homosexuality is in any way less than ideal.

There are so many issues at play here. In an incredibly short space of time we’ve seen a positive (tolerance and a desired end to homophobic bullying) become a fearsome negative (crushing freedom of religious conscience and hounding Christians in the public sphere). It’s just too much. I am in no way disregarding the sensitivity of this issue inside and outside the church – if I, as a Christian, had always experienced overpowering same-sex attraction… well I can fully see how difficult things might have been for me. So let’s talk about it; let’s have the discussion and explain where we’re coming from. But to crush all debate, to render it taboo and to scream fascism at any who venture an opposing view? It’s only going to drive people into resentful isolation. Don’t mistake disagreement for hatred. Don’t make politics out of bounds for any but the fully-PC and liberal (or for the many that pretend to be).

In this day and age, to dispute homosexuality is akin to racism, and is treated just as hysterically. I don’t believe this is valid. To hate someone, to see them as a lesser person, or to deny them human rights due to inbuilt sexual preference would be comparable. But for someone to choose a particular sexual act, relationship, lifestyle or fashion is not equivalent to being black or Asian. The former are choices and the latter is not. And if those choices are questioned or disapproved of, you can tell people to mind their own business, or even punch them on the nose. But don’t make out they are criminals for doing so!

SECOND, I want to share my ongoing thoughts about the Welfare State. I’ve been privy to a lot of recent discussion as to how Christians should vote. Evangelicals have tended to side with Conservatives over family values, pro-life issues and religious freedom. More liberal Christians have tended to see Labour as their home due to the provision of social justice through the welfare state (and not just liberals – remember the role of the Methodists within the early Labour party). If I am to join the former, I don’t want it to be a case of turning by back on the thinking behind the latter. I am certainly uncomfortable with the heavy hand of the state – I don’t trust them with all that money – but I have to be ideologically committed to an alternative that leaves the disadvantaged no less well served.

My thinking has settled upon the following: First, Conservatism was not always seen as heartless. The tradition of One Nation Toryism had a strong compulsion to care for the vulnerable – with strong emphasis on charity, compassion and voluntary service. This is why the first post-war Tory Chancellor Rab Butler was able to endorse and retain the Welfare State. Indeed this is why a devoted long-term anti-poverty campaigner such as Philippa Stroud, above, is able to find a home in the party. It would seem the problem is more Thatcher than the Conservative Party – it was under her rule that heartlessness so came to be part of the blend. One Nation views were overtly ditched as ‘wet’ and people were encouraged to plough their own self-interested furrow in the belief their subsequent wealth would naturally ‘trickle down’ to enrich and inspire the rest. The result was 3.6 million unemployed left largely to their own devices. But Cameron has been named by The Telegraph as the successor to Disraeli. He has listened to the likes of Rifkind or Iain Duncan-Smith. There is hope that ‘compassionate conservatism’ is more than empty rhetoric. In other words, it is perfectly possible that I could vote Conservative without in any way endorsing the neglect of the needy (and if it comes without so stifling an atmosphere of political correctness then all the better!).

Second: But what do I want by way of social provision? The Labour party came to exist, not because the others didn’t care, but because the working classes wanted a voice of their own, rather than a paternal top-hatted figure speaking sympathetically on their behalf. But they also came to exist in order to see the state wheeled into action as a benevolent redistributor of wealth. To a degree it’s worked, but not entirely. I still doubt the wisdom of throwing money at every social ill. It certainly doesn’t promote social mobility. The spectre of dependence perpetuates to the next generation and lessens self-respect. Where there is genuine incapacity there must be a safety net, but work must be incentivised and choosing hand-outs over available work mustn’t be an option (that’s why Lib Dem tax relief on the first earned 10k is better than Labour tax credits). The joy of spending on luxuries should be merited by virtue of wages earned – perhaps the hand-outs of necessity could be in the form of goods or vouchers exchangeable for only the essentials? By all means distribute council houses, offer training and facilities, but again let them be incentivised so there might be reward for hard work and initiative, stigma for the unwilling. And empower the charity and voluntary sector. Or even the private sector – let them compete to help the poor, complete with withheld financial incentives for those businesses that achieve results in lifting families out of poverty or delivering jobs. After all, the more direct the delivery of help, the less expensive the grinding layers of government in place to co-ordinate the whole racket.

And for the tax-payer, who resents giving so much of his/her labour to bureaucrats servicing layabouts? Can THEY take the initiative? Allowed to retain the cash, not all can be trusted to redistribute it. But could there be tax exemption for those who can prove they have done their share – whether by large charitable donation or voluntary service? Can there be an element of empowerment in terms of choosing how these sections of our wages are employed by ranking a list of options? In this I am inspired by the green Waitrose tokens placed in the box corresponding to a charity of the shopper’s choice! How much better to be nudged into philanthropy than to be robbed by the taxman; we are taxed directly for many of the services we receive anyway (road tax, VAT, council tax, National Insurance) and the government should have to pitch harder and more transparently in requesting our cash for the rest.

Small ideas and undeveloped perhaps… but I can’t help but feel they resemble a true ‘Big Society’. Whether Cameron’s version equates to anything of substance we shall perhaps begin to see by next week!

GUEST POST: Streatham Hustings Reviewed

GUEST POST!! The following post is written by PianoMan, a friend and reader who thought it only fair that the Streatham hustings (held the same night as the Tooting one) get represented up here too. So blame him! Might be useful for anyone within the constituency wanting relatively even-handed information to go by...

The Streatham Hustings was an admittedly tame affair, but probably all the more enjoyable and enlightening for it.


Church-organised, the audience was predominantly Christian and, well, let's say just a tad more charitable than your average hissing and booing Question Time mob. At our rather more reserved event, a smattering of applause followed absolutely everything that was said (even questions) - damning praise indeed!

The debate's moderator was a kindly likeable old Christian gent and clearly clued up on his political issues. But Paxman he was not, and despite repeatedly and firmly (well, firmly for a kindly, likeable old Christian gent) telling candidates to stick to 1 minute long answers, the candidates routinely took as long as they liked. This had a similar effect (on the MPs) as when I find myself at an 'all-you-can-eat' buffet: I may well be stuffed full already, but I'm still going to eat as much as I can anyway. Because I can. And so the candidates tended to ramble on even if they had nothing left to say. Because they could.

As a result, there was no time for debate between the candidates and limited time for questions. And some of the (relatively few) questions perhaps seemed a little more suited to a Miss World contest - "if you had only one prayer for Streatham, what would it be?".

Finally (let's get all the negativity done!), the degree of consensus between the candidates perhaps betrayed a lack of gritty political debate in favour of too much aspirational rhetoric. I mean, you can't really disagree with people saying repeatedly that poverty is bad, and education is good. At times, I would have liked more specifics.

Okay - negative stuff over - this absolutely did not mean the hustings was a waste of time. On the contrary, its flaws actually had major advantages. The candidates were obviously relaxed by the good-natured audience, and seemed able to show us who they were and what they were about (good and bad). I also got the impression that, oddly I suppose, they didn't seem desperate to impress the audience at all costs. This lack of cynicism was refreshing and at times enlightening (see later.) The whole thing was also decidedly light on party political backstabbing, and juvenile insults, which perhaps made it less exciting but, again, more refreshing.

Now, the candidates:

Chuka Umunna (Labour candidate) was the night's biggest cheese. Umanna has been held up as a potential ‘British Obama’ by the media. He’s written for everyone from The Guardian to the FT, has appeared on Question Time and Daily Politics, has founded an influential online magazine and is a leading member of influential Labour pressure group Compass.

At first I was on the verge of huge disappointment. Chuka seemed a bit bored, a bit disinterested, a bit like he was above the whole event (football anoraks: think Berbatov playing at Tottenham) – almost as if he simply felt the need to tick the Christian box, before moving onwards and upwards. And this – conveyed by slightly clumsy body language, and a couple of impatient answers - came across as arrogance. (Note: Chuka later said that his biggest weakness was being able to 'read him like a book', especially when he was bored). I also noticed that in his first few responses he seemed inclined to use the term 'helluva lot', well, one hell of a lot - especially considering the possibly conservative audience.

But, pretty soon he started to warm up, exhibiting some of the rhetorical flourishes that have him marked out as a rising star. The only candidate to have been born and raised in the area, his knowledge on and passion for the area was evident and undeniable. His long impassioned answer on how we can tackle gang crime in Streatham had the audience rapt and inspired. One got the impression that if Streatham wanted an impressive, dynamic and passionate ambassador, then we could do a lot worse than putting our tick next to Chuka's name come May 6th.

The green party was represented by Rebecca Findlay. My main doubt about the green party is that we all know their main issue is the environment, but are all of the other policies that are essential to our lives (and indeed essential if we want to begin to tackle climate change) an afterthought? Ms Findlay actually did a good job of assuaging these doubts – she was composed, a good speaker, with a decent command of facts and policy. Sometimes I worried about her pragmatism – I'm a fairly liberal chap, but actually think that big companies (such as Tesco) would be of benefit to the High Road area, and wouldn't necessarily want her to be campaigning against it (so long as smaller businesses were somehow supported.)

Would she get more votes as a mainstream candidate? Yes, definitely. Did she convince people that green was not a wasted vote? I would say no.

The Tory party candidate was one Rahous Bhansali. A personable chap – he came across as the most humble and humorous candidate. Flaws? At times he sounded like he was still rehearsing his political speeches in front of the mirror – doing his best David Cameron impression - rather than engaging with a local audience, on local issues. The answers were a little vague, a little too aspirational and didn't imbue me with confidence that he knew the Streatham constituency particularly well nor would be the much needed fierce advocate for the area.

Finally, the Liberal Democrat candidate was Chris Nicholson. He's a Clapham chap (accountant) who campaigned against the closure of the Post Office and Ice Rink, and, from the recent polls, would appear to be the main opposition for Chuka. He also has previous political experience as a local counsellor, and a government advisor (on economics). At the time, I didn't know much about Chris Nicholson, other than having got fairly sick of receiving his cheap looking literature through the post which said nothing else but to 'vote Chris Nicholson if you want to get rid of Gordon Brown's tired old Labour government'. (Note: since, I have received slightly more informative fliers).

However, from his performance at the Hustings I would argue that his negative literature has not done this (clearly thoughtful, warm, humble and passionate) man justice. Motivated by his personal Christian faith (which is about as much as he said on the matter), he said (believably) that he was in politics because he wanted to see more social justice. Very much in line with his party's manifesto, Chris was passionate about fairer taxes that would put money back into the pockets of the constituency's poorest residents. I was also impressed by his mention of getting alongside the marginalised in society – in particular asylum seekers and immigrants. One got the impression, from his humility and lack of bluster, that Chris was the kind of MP that would be approachable and accountable to his constituents - particularly striking in a time where most people have lost their faith in arrogant and greedy politicians.

My vote? Well, firstly, as someone who is fairly left-leaning, I would generally not consider voting Tory, since I do not feel the party at large is committed to the redistribution of wealth, and the equality and fairness that Lib Dems / Labour are traditionally in favour of. I also feel that the Tory candidate here was not sufficiently strong enough to join what is essentially a two-horse race between Labour and Lib Dems (for this seat). Likewise the green candidate, who may have gained more attention were she a candidate for one of the mainstream parties. But as things stand, I think that both a Tory and Green vote would be wasted.

So Nicholson or Ummuna? I would argue that both would be worthy representatives for the area. Both evidently passionate about being advocates for the poor and marginalised, Ummuna would lead from the front (he is clearly going places, and would hopefully take Streatham with him), whereas I feel confident that Nicholson would get alongside his constituents and fight their causes for him.

It's all your choice anyway (providing you live in Streatham of course!) The great thing is that the Hustings gave me a new passion for the area, and fresh belief in the people that want to be our representatives.

A NIGHT AT THE HUSTINGS...

Last night saw our local candidates go head to head in St Nick’s, Tooting for a church-organised hustings in this most open of elections. Well, at least, that was the theory. But let’s start with the major disappointment – Sadiq Khan didn’t show, instead sending Rex Osborn, a local Labour councillor, in his place. This entirely denied the 100-ish present a heavyweight clash and utterly flattened the field for Conservative Mark Clarke. The Liberal Democrat candidate Nasser Butt was present but, with all due respect, it seems his party has (understandably given prior performance) decided not to seriously contest the seat. Butt was an amiable chap, but often failed to grasp the gist of questions asked and gave a shambling performance rather bringing to mind Mr Bean. Cleggmania seems somewhat redundant in SW17… Add this to the fact Councillor Harmon really wasn’t trying to play the part of a candidate – not bothering to stand to answer and saying literally half as much as either of the others – and you are essentially left with the Mark Clarke show.

And it was an impressive show. This guy has been groomed for these moments. He was selected three years ago and moved then back to the area, given time to lead local campaigns and become a champion of the people. It’s cynical in a way – but strangely flattering that Tooting is deemed so important (according to Clarke in conversation afterwards, everyone from CNN to Al-Jazeera are scheduled to be present there for election night – his party have never taken the seat before and it may go down to the last vote!) – and I have personally reaped the benefit of it; Clarke having played a lead role in taking on the infamous Soma Café, next door to my flat. Clarke is a smooth politician; he sussed the audience in a way neither of the others came close to – with an overwhelmingly Christian audience, there were easy ovations to be gained by going hard on abortion, favouring freedom of speech and defending Christian heritage. He brought them home with ease.

Most impressive, however, was Clarke’s contribution to the Health debate. I asked the prompting question, one reflecting on the strengths and issues encountered during my wife’s brain surgery at St. George’s last year, and asking how money would find its way to front line services and staff. Butt’s answer was lame and ill-informed. Osborn went, as I’d expect, down the route of strongly defending St George’s as a great hospital and a privilege we should appreciate. This was more cynical than it sounds – designed to capitalise on recent news stories accusing Clarke of having exaggerated and scaremongered in undermining the hospital for political capital. But Clarke is way above mere gestures on this. He has been showing up to board meetings at St. George’s since arriving in the area. He is an ambassador for Tory’s famous ‘efficiency savings’, having seen the hospital board double in size and award themselves pay rises – NHS Wandsworth in one case paying £750,000 to an individual for an 8-month management contract. By his own admission, the board ‘hate’ him for these observations and he has evidence they themselves leaked the story of his ‘attacks’ on the hospital to the press. But he is in no way an enemy of NHS front-line services; his wife and mother both working in local hospitals. This was clearly his field of expertise and I would have loved to see him lock horns with Sadiq Khan over it.

Which brings us to the other refreshing thing about Clarke. There was a total absence of negative campaigning from him – another calculation for the benefit of the Christian audience? Possibly, but I get the feeling he and Khan are actually pretty good mates outside of election season. He referred to his rival as a ‘local champion’, an ‘exceptional MP’ and, in conversation, even a ‘role model’ to follow if he takes the seat. This goes way beyond mere platitudes.

In fact, I thought the worst thing Clarke did at any stage was to summarise by reminding everyone it was really about David Cameron. This was surely an outdated move, lacking recognition of the poor campaign his leader is having, and the electoral turn-off he’s becoming. After a performance as good as this, the last thing Clarke needed to do was remind us of his bewildered boss. You can bet ‘Gordon Brown’ would have been as unlikely a closing thought from Khan in this company as would ‘socialism’. In fact Cameron is the biggest threat faced by the Tories in Tooting – another poor debate by him tonight and you have to imagine the swing required to deliver Tooting might be gone for good. And it truly has been a poor campaign by the Tories on the whole – when was the last time you heard mention of the ‘Big Society’ presented with great fanfare at the manifesto launch? It already seems like yesterday’s news… (although the policy of parent-owned schools was raised last night – the test case will be up the road in Battersea).

So, where do I now stand? Well, locally Mark Clarke has won me over (and if he does win, you’ll soon hear plenty more of him), and the Lib Dems don’t factor. Which is something of a shame, as nationally the Conservatives are having a ‘mare and there is the prospect of real Lib Dem-propelled excitement. Still, it’s no done deal – I’ve very much enjoyed my ‘floating’ status in a marginal seat this time around. I’ve had a long email from one heavyweight candidate and a long conversation with the other. I’m running a school election launching on Monday, and more people than you might imagine are reading the blog! I’m well aware I’m unlikely to see another election like this one so I’ll continue to enjoy it while it lasts…

SADIQ KHAN PROPERLY WRITES TO ME. BLIMEY...

Now this is utterly unexpected. I’ll admit I sent a token email to Sadiq Khan’s campaign team with a link to my blog, inviting a response. However, the idea that a front bench government minister (albeit only front bench because the actual Transport Secretary sits in the House of Lords, but still!) would take at least half an hour to personally respond to my little blog post is frankly astonishing. I’m not sure there’s a great deal below to change my mind about the need for a change from Labour (although the Conservatives have proved somewhat unimpressive since my original post) but it does preserve my high opinion of the man himself.


“ Dear Andy,


Thank you for sending me the link to your blog explaining why you’ll be voting Tory (I said I probably would. In reality I’m still pretty much floating! Post on Lib Dems to follow… AW). I do of course respect your decision but I hope you don’t mind if I offer you my take on the matter.


I don’t believe by voting for an MP you are merely voting for a party, let alone that party’s leader.


There is a big difference between a good and a bad local MP and I would urge you not to underestimate the interaction between local and national policy. A good MP can take local issues to a national level and bring national help to a local level. For instance, as you may know, the South West London Law Centre (an invaluable local resource) very nearly had to close last year due to financial difficulties. I helped secure Ministry of Justice funding to prevent this from happening. A good MP can make sure Government is aware of the concerns of their community. For example I have arranged for the Foreign Secretary to meet local Tamil community leaders to hear their concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka. Conversely, do not underestimate the impact a divisive MP can have on a community. I have been unimpressed by the way the local Conservatives have been attacking our local hospital for electoral gain. (See http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/12/tories-tall-stories-115875-22105198/)


I’m afraid I’m a bit unclear as to whether you’re advocating a PR system or not. Personally I agree with your first point in this regard - that retaining the constituency link is important. I support holding a referendum on AV, and I believe this would ensure MPs reached out to a much wider proportion of their voters. The Tories have no interest in reforming the voting system.


You say you have become more Conservative as you’ve aged and this is of course your choice. However, I do not agree with what seems to be your characterisation of the Labour party (“calling disagreement hatred”, “the desire to regulate anything that moves”). To me the Labour party has always stood for justice and fairness and, as a former Labour voter, I assume this has some resonance with you. When I have supported measures in Parliament such as the 50p tax rate and a tax on bankers bonuses, this is not because I believe that wealth is “inherently bad” as you put it. Rather, I believe that in these difficult economic times progressive taxation is the fairest way forward. I do not think that inheritance and marriage tax breaks are a priority.


Assuming the things you list as Labour achievements indicate what you consider to be important, I am surprised you are considering voting Conservative. Labour has guaranteed to protect the policing and schools budget. The Tories have not. It is worth remembering the Tory legacy. By the end of the last Conservative Government health spending as a share of national income was the second lowest of all the major industrialised countries, and the aid budget had been halved.


Thank you for taking the time to listen to my point of view. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.


Yours sincerely,


Sadiq.


P.S You mention my expenses in your blog. I have always been open and honest regarding my expenses, publishing details on my website before the Telegraph scandal broke. As a new MP in 2005, with a new team of staff, I did make a genuine mistake in claiming for cards. I paid back the money, without being asked to do so, as soon as it was brought to my attention.”