Why must it be pedestrian? That's your assumption, not mine. Why must it be one term? That's your assumption, not mine. Why must it be one term? That's your assumption, not mine. Whatever mandate Cameron gets, he will act. He will act to reverse areas of social and moral decline with a focus on social responsibility. He will act to reverse our economic decline with a focus on the budget deficit and the competitiveness of Britain abroad. However, these focal points will not be painless and the stronger his mandate the easier it will be for him. If the mandate is weaker, he will just have to work harder. The difference here is that Labour (though not Brown) has a strong mandate currently (in Parliamentary terms ... the Conservative Party has dominated the popular vote since 2005). Now THAT has been a wasted and pedestrian term.

Are you asking me if I want one or expect one? After the rotten, torrid job that Brown has done as Chancellor and then PM, combined with the aimless and meandering rantings of his soon-to-be-jobless Cabinet, I would prefer a landslide so that Cameron has a stronger mandate to govern radically. However, I don't think this will happen. One reason it won't happen is that there are still voters out there who are unable to vote Conservative because the Labour Party can't extract itself from gutter, class-based, politics.

It's positive that for more than a year the Conservatives have been steady on 40%. It's also positive that Labour have struggled to get into the thirties in that period. It's even more positive that the LibDems have singularly failed to make an impact over that very same period. This isn't going to change going into an election, excepting game-changing incidents. The secret is two-fold: maximise the Conservative GOTV/marginal campaign and demoralise Labour activists with visible, positive and effective campaigning right from January 1st. The 'positive' element of this is important for a number of reasons, but not least because negative campaigning quite often rallies the opposition troops! If the campaign is effective in these areas, sending Labour down one or two points and Conservatives up one or two points, then we're talking about a pretty decent election result.

This whole affair is rather hilarious. For such a confident, attacking and partisan post to be so easily and widely discredited so quickly is ... well, just laughable.

Actually that's just not true. Indeed, John Lipsky the Dep MD of the IMF has classed both the dollar and euro as overvalued simultaneously in November this year.

The Euro MAY be over-valued, that's not my point. I'm just saying that one does not necessarily equal the other (which, to be fair, you did say when you said "...Germany is losing manufacturing jobs to the States because of the low dollar. Another way of looking at that would be that those jobs are relocating because of the over-valued euro.")

Actually no. By the figures above, the bulk was borrowed before the recession, despite over-inflated growth helped along by loose credit and government spending.

I say this without any judgement of your argument or conclusions, but a "low dollar" does not necessarily equal an "over-valued euro". The Dollar's value can be lower than historic levels whilst the Euro can still be accurately valued ...

One thing that irritates me about articles such as this is that it makes no attempt to offer any sort of solution. The benefit dependency culture in the UK is undeniable, but what is the author's prescription for cure? Cutting the benefit for this family? Sterilisation after one child? Gradated benefits? Public flogging? Don't mistake this post for a defence of the current system – it's indefensible – but I admit I am tired of the same old criticism being wheeled out to rapturous applause with little new thought or added value.

Actually, that's precisely not what I said. I said I was working all day and when I thought of one of our illustrious PM's many failings, I tweeted it. The fact that he has so many is not my failing, it is his. The bitterness that has poured forth from Labour luvvies today has been amusing. I suspect #saysorrybrown hurts so much because so many of the tweets are so damn true. Frankly, whether or not twitter adds any value at all, whether it's a valuable communications tool or whether it is just a bunch of like-minded people having fun on a Sunday from their mobile is just irrelevant ... the fact of the matter is that this hashtag solicited thousands of tweets, just as the online petition at Number10.gov.uk calling for Brown's resignation also solicited thousands of signatures. Grow up Mr Baker ... don't take everything so seriously, just accept that this PM is torrid and that today's #saysorrybrown recognises that.

P.s. glad to have made it into the twenty ... :)

Well done Tim – the important thing about this hashtag is that it has solicited such a rich depth of responses. John Prescott has attempted to derail it but as with all people who don't understand Twitter, derailing attempts merely serve to strengthen the micro-brand. I have spent the day working on my laptop, switching windows to tweet everytime I've thought of a #saysorrybrown ... and have hardly got a thing done!

Joan, I'm sorry but your analysis is just a bit silly. 1. The authors never claim to be seeking utopia – merely that conservatism and progressivism are not distinct and opposing. 2. You ask 'what actions...what ends'. Clearly this is a short article about the concepts of conservatism and progressivism; this is not SUPPOSED to be a detailed manifesto! Examples of actions and ends to illustrate the progressivism/conservatism point are given (schooling etc), but you seem to want the authors to give detailed actions and ends for every potential policy area. That is not their role nor intent – which is merely to illustrate the conservative policymakers can think in progressive terms without betraying conservatism. 3. You say 'the ends don't justify the means'... the authors don't claim that they do! What part of the article are you getting at here? 4. What is this about 'controlling people'? Nobody ever prescribes that 'controlling' is desirable (other than socialists, perhaps). The article talks explicitly about individual freedom and choice and distrusting change for change's sake... Too many responders hear have read the word progressive and cut'n'pasted their favourite objections to Labour manifestos into this comment thread.

dangerous for all three main parties... don't be under any misapprehension that the libdems aren't guilty here...

Moreover, you are immediately tarring this candidate with the wrongs of other MPs from all parties... this lady is saying "your MP has done wrong and to contrast myself with her here are my pledges". This is a tactic likely to be employed by any non-sitting candidate across the UK... including yourself!!!!! The STUPIDITY of you to say this lady is wrong for employing a campaign tactic that you then go and brag about using yourself!!!

The problem I have with this is that what is proposed to replace it? A raft of interest groupings with diverse needs, that government can deftly trade off against each other? Or no voice with which to speak to government at all? The LGA cannot be perfect because of the diversity of local council priorities, but it can be united for local government to central government, and that I believe is a real strength and of importance during this economic climate. This govt will use locgovt as a financial whipping boy over the next cycle given half a chance and one voice with which to apply public pressure I believe is crucial.

I'm sorry... "worst performing" by which measure? Are you comparing white working class males to black working class males, women, white working class women, elderly middle class males... what are you parameters here, and what indicators are you applying?

I'd be interested to know which communities you believe to be inherently less able "on average" than other communities...? And why should there be differences in a desire to go into politics – and what should that matter anyway? Shouldn't politicians still work for the good of everybody? And, incidentally, reread my post and you'll see I don't advocate positive discrimination which I believe engenders resentment. But there are plenty of other options available whilst retaining a meritocracy, such as affirmative recruitment policies.

Actually, I regret this article. Of course I accept that meritocracy must take precedence during any appointment, however I believe that it's a little niaive to assume that merely expressing this desire will suffice in an organisation of any significant size - especially where it hasn't sufficed in the past. Furthermore, Harry highlights some phrases as questionable which I cannot see objection to. For example, what is wrong with tackling "unwitting prejudice"? Prejudice, witting or otherwise, should be defeated, no? If the best candidate is male, female, young, old, black, white or otherwise, surely it is right to ensure that this candidate isn't "unwitting[ly]" judged for anything other than ability? He also questions the rigour with which the principle of "responsible procurement" has been scrutinised; why? Surely "responsible procurement" is a good in and of itself, no? Surely sensible procurement strategies that benefit the organisation, the taxpayer, communities and strategies are utterly desirable? Why even raise the phrase? He also questions the desire for the LA to reflect the diversity of its communities? Why? Why should it not be assumed that if we are blind to colour, gender, creed, age and so on, that the LA will naturally reflect diverse communities? To suggest otherwise makes the suggestion that one or some of these communities are in come way less able than the other...? He suggests that socio-economic references are more beneficial than BAME references. Well, I'd suggest they are linked. The purpose of targeting BAME communities is because of the historical inequity of their standing socio-economically. It is one factor... not THE factor, just ONE factor that is important to study to ensure that the LA has the self-awareness to know whether its line-managers, recruiters, budget-holders etc are not being "unwittingly prejudicial". I agree that arbitrary targets are not helpful; positive discrimination is not helpful; racial separatism is not helpful. Sensible policies to ensure that the London Assembly is fair, meritocratic and perceived as such ARE helpful however, and I fear that all too often ConHome threads characterises any E&D initiative as merely Labour rubbish. No... equality is a Conservative principle. It says that we are equal, judged on our ability and rewarded on our ability. Let's not allow the media an excuse to characterise the Conservatives as unconcerned in this area, as this is OUR area.

No, it's the re-weighting in pollsters methodology recently... since then, you'll have noticed a 4-6pt boost, I think.

The issue here isn't that the charity is seeking examples of initiatives that negatively impact our transport infrastructure, but that they only want negative examples of Conservative initiatives. A damned disgrace.

What a ridiculous post from the TPA. The info is all readily available to anybody who has their council's telephone number ... or google. They are trying to sensationalise the fact that the LGA won't do their work for them in making the comparisons and doing the math! Ludicrous!

What a bunch of crap. Why not just admit you're all racist supremacists and stop *trying* to dress it up as if it's some plain logic everyone's missed.

You neglect to mention the OUTCOMES of these meetings...

Just to add balance: as a 28 year old cty cllr (daytime meetings), my attendance is in the 80-90% range. Most of the 'missed' meetings are due to diary clashes! I have a fire authority meeting that clashes with every instance of a scrutiny committee I'm on, so one is always missed, for example. I'm a governor of two schools and a trustee of four outside bodies (connexions etc). This doesn't take into account the range of parish, resident assocs, community assocs, etc. This is all important, but it's worthless if I'm an idiot with no ability. I'd love to read less about individual ages and more about required skills. Incidentally, my understanding of why the attendance allowance went us because it somehow became illegal (no idea where/why/how)...