I don't have any objection to the idea of local communities having a mechanism to put forward alternative ideas. This is something that seems like a constructive approach for many small-scale issues. In this case, there is also a demand for extra forms of entry across the borough - it is not just a case of repairs. It is also true that the costs to date have been high and that the scheme was awful. But now those costs have been sunk, should they be ignored? The planning, the staff time, the builders supplies, the legal fees, the architects... these are all costs that would have to have been covered and will have to be covered if this work is ever done. I am just suggesting that we use what has been done to date - it is less wasteful.

Saw the Hewitt-Hoon version of this on the poster board on Tottenham Court Road this evening. Very impressed at the modern party organisation that was able to get this up so quickly.

I am not sure if I quite agree with you, Anthony, on that assessment of the impact of immigration. My own view is that there is a new economic benefit to the UK, although I accept that the negative impacts fall, predominantly, on the less educated, less skilled members of the work force. Was that your meaning or are you suggesting the net effect of immigration is bad?

Thanks. :0)

Looks like he will be succeeded by Sir George Young. This is a very good choice by DC. He will be a strong and sensible advocate for sensible reform of the Commons, including expenses, and it compensates for losing out on Speaker. Sir George also has some genuine gravitas and ministerial experience. This is a move that shows DC preparing for government.

Surely the problem with the Speaker being opposed is that they cannot put forward any policies or a manifesto unlike regular candidates. Regardless of resources or activist support, this makes it impossible for there to be a fair contest.

Sally, The link is correct, but TypePad included the end bracket in the address, which I can't edit out. Try this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6806473.ece Thanks.

Sally - absolutely. And the coming plans are also really positive, such as the Velib-style cycle scheme and the announcement of hydrogen filling stations (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6806473.ece) for the next generation of cars, taxis and buses!

Richard - the problem is that strategic transport infrastructure needs strategic planning, or at least the ability to over rule NIMBYs when they abuse the planning system to prevent new developments that others need. No one wants to be next to a big new airport, but if we need one, it has to go somewhere. How would you overcome that without a central strategic planning function? I ask because I really don't see how that can be done otherwise and would genuinely appreciate an answer. Thanks

As a resident of the Eastern region when I am not in London, I would love to see the East Coast line upgraded first, except for my memories of the decade it took to electrify the current part - disruptions and coaches every weekend! Nightmare. :0)

I agree that the real problem here is that the single road cannot take the traffic. If it is possible to widen the road on the south side, then great. I don't pretend to know the area well enough to judge, but have read the consultants reports that favour the tunnel option for a combination of cost and preservation reasons. You are right to call this a "scandal". My point remains that these issues need tackling now even if there are large sums involved.

Jamie - this figure came from an article in the Economist from a couple of years ago. I can't find it online to post the link, but I have the hard copy to reference it. I will find it for you and post back.

Tim - you are right that we should talk more about non-Europe foreign affairs more on ConHome. As for the points here, it is true that the UK does not have the power to act alone in many overseas theatres, militarily or economically, and this is a major factor in all aspects of our foreign policy. It is also correct that we don't like compromising with the US or the rest of Europe when it comes to these matters. But we face a simple choice. If we need allies, which are the best to have for the sake of the national interest and which still want us to join them? The US, the Europeans or a UN-backed permanent military presence?

At least Boris' comments have some flair and might put a smile on your face - that is part of the joy of Boris. Brown's comment that the win was "exhilarating", hardly suggest he was au fait with what took place or saying anything he had considered himself.

Theo, I was surprised to see you sticking up for Labour here, but perhaps I shouldn't be. After all, there is so often a lack of truly meaningful difference between Labour and the Lib Dems. You are right though, that we put an advert in the press looking for new people that might be interested in becoming councillors. It seemed like a good way to reach out to people and make it clear that the Conservatives in Camden welcome new faces and are not so blinkered as to believe we might already have met everyone that would be good at the job. And we were right. There were some great potential candidates that came to our attention that way and we hope they will become councillors at some point in the future. Not everyone who might make a great councillor has themselves adopted into a party at birth before gaining some experience of life or questioning their own priorities. Did you? I certainly didn't, although I am a Conservative activist from an area south of Belsize, so maybe there are too many challenges to your prejudices wrapped up in that already.

The issue here is not just about the Tories and Lib Dems but about the potential for a complete Labour meltdown. In several of the key Labour-held wards, sitting councillors have resigned or been deselected and then replaced with members of a new guard with no real political or life experience. Camden, once a Labour stronghold, now looks to be going the same way as the rest of the country as voters turn against Labour and their activists search in panic for new candidates in a desperate bid to hold back the tide. Tories, with a share of the Council for the first time in nearly 40 years, are now better placed to take advantage of Labour's failings and make huge advances next year.

I agree that Beckett should be a non-starter, although I far from sure that she will not win through in the end, sadly. It is even more of a shame that her presence and the pressure from the Labour whips has pushed out Frank Field, truly one of the most staunch supporters of Parliament as an institution and an independent thinker who would have been a credit to the role. Tim rightly points out that John Bercow has many strong qualities and his candidature is not without merit, but the Commons will be nervous that, at 40 years old, he is too young for the role and could actually be in place for 25 years! For me, Sir George Young is the right man for the job. He has the dignity that the role and Parliament requires, he has the knowledge of the intricacies of procedures that are needed and while he has experience as a Minister he is far enough removed now to truly represent the back benches. Selecting Sir George would be a credit to the House.

Kevin - yes, I was joking. ;0) I agree with all of the points you raise in legitimate outrage. However, if he does get anywhere with these ill-considered election reforms, they might just be the most damaging part of Crash's legacy. I cannot imagine how these could be made effective in the next nine months given the need for a public debate, a referendum and the logistical preparations.... but that's the point. He might try and do it even if there is not enough time to do it properly. A fully elected HoL? No, thanks - we don't need an excuse for more would-be MPs who are not quite good enough for the HoC. Punitive expenses code for MPs? No, thanks - making MPs saints for taking no expenses and demons for charging some will only end up ensuring the very rich and those backed by Unions will ever make it. PR? Not in any form. Breaking the links with local people, an ever higher profile for the BNP and other nutters, a lack of authority for elected governments and, worse, a bodged PR it is likely to be on top of that. Crash will have done it again. No sympathy from me, really, I assure you.

Add to that his role as a vandal, too, for his attacks on many of our finest churches and cathedrals, including Ely. He was not a nice man. ;-)

Feels right to me, to be honest, based on what the associations I am involved in have found on the doorstep.

Sadly, the Deputies might also find it a hard debate over which to preside. Sir Alan Haselhurst has also been highlighted by the Telegraph, for a start.

I agree that there needs to be some more perspective in the discussion of all this. One additional thing to remember, when thinking about moats and tennis courts, is that these were not expense accounts, but allowances. If we accept the need for second homes, which most people seem to, then it seems less onerous on the taxpayer to me to offer an allowance for that rather than the use of a publicly-owned flat. But, having done so, should we means-test the MPs, too? If some have more money than others, there will inevitably be variation in how the allowance is spent. Should richer MP's have less of an allowance than poorer ones?