I was somehwat confused by Greg Clark’s recent appointment as ‘minister for cities’ however. I have no issue with him personally of course, but does he speak for many of the big cities as MP for Tunbridge Wells? Someone from a constituency a little closer to the areas in question might carry a bit more credibility frankly.

The truth is that this ‘minister for cities’ is plainly and simply a PR exercise that is not intended to be taken at all seriously in government. A little less of this sort of empty gesture politics a little more real work in government would go a long way to sorting out some of the problems we were left by the last Labour government!

“Fourth, we need a powerful voice for Yorkshire right in the heart of Government. That’s why I have created the new job of Minister for Cities. The new Minister, Greg Clark MP, is going to be holding meetings with Ministers in charge of business, trade, transport and from the Treasury, to get things done for the biggest cities in our country – and two of the cities on his priority list are Leeds and Sheffield.”

So a powerful voice for YORKSHIRE will be the Minister for CITIES?

What is it with the Cameroons with their obsession with cities?

Has Cameron created a Minister for Industrial Towns or a Minister for Former Mining Areas or a Minister for Clapped Out Coastal Areas?

Can someone explain to Cameron that most people in Yorkshire do not consider themselves as being part of Leeds or Sheffield.

Or that Leeds and Sheffield have had more than enough money lavished on them by Labour.

And most of all that there is nothing to gain for the Conservatives by emphasising the needs of cities.

It really does make me wonder how much the Cameroons actually know about this country or whether they’ve learnt anything at all from the general election.

Con -2
LibD -1
Lab +1
UKIP +1
Ind +1

So not a good result for the Conservatives but anything that gives Labour a boost in areas like this is excellent for them strategically.

Suspending the former tory leader seems to me to indicate a party airing it’s greviances and dirty knickers in public.

The words taking for granted spring to mind and most voters are not stupid either.

Still we find out one month tomorrow.

I think it would still be difficult for Labour to get second place here in Tunbridge Wells (depending how it is drawn) but not out of the question.

Interesting comment Pete given that your neither ”delightful’, ‘amiable’ nor ‘old’!

LOL

i remember when the coalition was first established there was some resistance (or perhaps reluctance would be a better word) from Tories and Lib Dems in the South West where the two parties are often engaged in quite bitterly-faught tight contests

It certainly varies but i think your theory holds – the atmosphere is worst in seats which have historically been pretty safe but where the Lib Dems emerge as challengers

I think i’m probably somewhere in between

Speaking from personal experience, I have never met anyone involved in UKIP who could described as even remotely ‘delightful’ or ‘aimable’ – but they do take voters of all persuasions so i’m sure it would be unfair to assume they were mostly, to coin a phrase, “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”

I’m sure the likes of Tom Wise, Ashley Mote or Robert Kilroy-Silk are in a minority

In fairness, one reason Tories are liable to be (slightly patronisingly?) nice to Labour people in Richmond Park is that they are no threat and, on the contrary, they will historically have wanted them to do reasonably well. But there may well also be personality issues at play.

In my experience, the atmosphere is worst in seats which have historically been pretty safe but where the Lib Dems emerge. The lead party (Tory in the shires, Labour in the cities) are annoyed, the Lib Dems are rather chippy and aggressive, and the third party feel humiliated and angry.

UKIP are the oddest ones in a lot of ways. They vary from delightful, amiable old buffers in a lot of places to psychotic sub-BNPers in others, and there isn’t that much in between.