Today is election day. The day that many of us have worked very hard for over the last few months, myself included. Personally, I have been fighting my very first election as a candidate [see above for a photo of my ballot paper] - to become a councillor in the ward in which I live - hence the lack of posts on this blog recently. You can see the two leaflets which I have been delivering in my ward here and here, along with many others across Watford and Three Rivers.

This morning I was up by 5.30am and went on a "dawn raid" in Watford, posting leaflets through doors reminding people that today was election day and that the Conservative candidate in their ward was the one to vote for. Then, after work, I went out knocking on doors and reminding people that they could still vote until 10pm. Some gave positive responses, some just said they "don't vote". But few gave particularly negative responses, which was nice.

The polls have closed across the country, and results are expected to start flooding in soon. Hopefully we will make good progress both across the country and specifically in Watford and Three Rivers.

Watch David Cameron casting his vote below:

A Populus poll puts just a three-point gap between the Conservatives and Labour, with the voting shares being: CON 37% (-3): LAB 34% (+3): LD 19%(+2). This is bad, bad news for the Tories, dropping below the 40% mark and coming some close to Labour in percentage terms.

However, unlike the Times extract above from their website claims, this certainly does not show that "voters still prefer Labour as the Government". More people want the Conservatives as the governemnt and Cameron as Prime Minister than Labour and Brown. It is just the issues with our political system and the massively disproportionate [aka anti-Tory] way the constituencies are currently set out, meaning that a 7% swing is needed for any sort of Tory majority in the Commons.

The Tories are ahead, but not by anywhere near enough. They need to push and keep pushing. Despite the adage that elections are lost by governments and not won by Oppositions, they need to set themselves out as a complete and authoritative alternative government to Labour. And soon. They are making good progress, but the progress needs to be picked up and run with.

A new Conservative ad campaign has been launched, showing the changes that a Conservative government will bring to Britain. With the campaign is a new video setting out these changes, which you can watch here, via the new Conservative party Facebook page. David Cameron explains the new campaign in the video below:

One thing I don't get though is the idea of becoming a "friend" of the party, but not a member. Doesn't really make much sense to me, but hey.

This is an unadulterated Good Thing. "Green" taxes are a bad idea, and don't even serve any real purpose except as a means for government to take more of our hard-earned money away from us. Being "green" isn't about paying extra taxes on "polluting" things, since taxes are already paid on them. And taxing them more will only hurt those lower down on the economic scale anyway.

Carrots work better than sticks in these situations. Any party who is serious about reducing Britain's carbon emissions, for whatever reason, must accept that taxing "bad" things like this isn't the way forward, and I am very glad that the Conservative Party has realised this, even if belatedly.

This is a question being asked by Mike Ion. He concludes his post with:

Mike is right that there is almost certainly never going to be a Tory manifesto that talks about "the strength of out common endeavour" or "ensuring wealth... [is] in the hands of the many and not the few". And that is a bloody good thing too, because that is all a load of utter bollocks. The only "common endeavour" we all have is to live. Wealth should be in the hands of those who go out and work hard to earn it, not those who sit at home on their arse all day watching the TV and farting. The opportunity is there for everyone to do that, or certainly would be under a Conservative government. The difference is that some take it, and some don't.

He is wrong that "the history of the Tory party is centred on the core belief that politics can't change people’s lives." Rather, it is centred on the core belief that it shouldn't more than necessary. It knows and accepts that it can, but believes that people as individuals are adults and as such should be allowed to make their own choices in life, not just take a State-directed route from cradle to grave.

Cameron's Conservatives will bring change and hope, because it will rid us of this interminable governemnt with its ridiculous and overbearing love of "targets" and "initiatives" and constant production of gimmicks.

Cameron's Conservatives are for the future. And I am proud to one of them.

Two words: No thanks.

A Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government would not work. Just Like a Labour-Lib Dem coalition wouldn’t. Or Labour-Conservative coalition. Coalitions, just in general, simply don’t work. Not in our political system.

Name any coalition in Britain that has not existed during a world war. Stuck? That would be because there hasn’t been any. There have been minority governments, but never any coalition government. And for good reason.

The first-past-the-post electoral system encourages oppositional politics. It certainly doesn’t encourage coalition government. The reason for this is the coalitions require a great amount of compromise and consensus – something not encouraged in the tribal world of British politics.

Whilst it is very good that the Lib Dems are making these sort of noises, the sort of thing they will want is to going to be things that a Conservative government could, or would, give. PR for Commons elections, for example, would be a very bad idea – although a cause close to the heart of many Lib Dems. It would be far better for the Conservatives to work with the Lib Dems on certain issues. But a formal government coalition? No thanks.

Tory MP Derek Conway has been outed as employing his son as a parliamentary researcher whilst he was a full-time student and paying him £1,000-plus per month, with a total of around £13,000 salary - plus bonuses. And all from taxpayer's funds, for work that wasn't done. Certainly not work to that value, anyway.

There is no excuse for what he has done. It is utterly disgraceful and unacceptable. He should have to repay every penny that has been wrongly taken. Every. Single. Penny. From his own money.

Just giving him a suspension from the House of Commons is not enough of a punishment - and the wrong sort of punishment. By suspending from the House of Commons, the people who are suffering are his constituents. What should instead happen is that he should have to continue working, but receive no pay.

I don't agree, however, that this "should be the last-chance saloon for the scandal of MPs expenses. It should mean that MPs finally come clean and reveal full details of who and what is being paid from the public purse." Because that isn't fair on the individuals who work for MPs for their salaries to be public knowledge. Instead, MPs should have to reveal whether they are employing any immediate or close family member and any payment they receive- and why. That is as it should be - but not for all personnel. Just those who are related to them.

Like ConservativeHome, I think that Cameron's reaction hasn't been decisive enough. But I don't think that the removal of the whip from Conway is the way to go. Instead Cameron should have declared that the Conservatives will be imposing a significantly greater punishment on Conway than the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee. After all, if they ejected him, they'd only end up bringing him back in eventually and reincarnating the whole story then. Far better to get it over with right away, and try and cut out as much comparison with Labour's sleaze issues as possible.

That's what David Cameron wants the Conservatives to be:

Quite an ambition. But an achievable one, since Labour have failed to improve the the NHS despite pumping billions of pounds of our money into it. Instead, they have destroyed it in many ways, changing it into a service that worries more about meeting targets than making people better.

That there is also little ideological difference between the two parties over the idea of the NHS, making it hard for Labour to claim as unassailable territory. Whether the Conservatives can really manage to become the "party of the NHS", I don't know - but if they can, it will be a substantial victory. I'm not convinced that it will be easy, or even possible, to do so. But it is certainly traditional Labour territory [much like the North] that the Conservatives certainly can and are making substantial inroads into.

Even though it's slightly out of date with Tony Blair no longer being Prime Minister, watch this video for the view of two doctors on the last decade of Labour NHS policy:

If what the Conservatives are claiming is true, then yes:

If this is indeed what is happening - that trade unions are not advertising the fact that members can opt out of paying the political levy - then there can be no doubt that it is illegal and that the trade unions [and indirectly the Labour party] are in breach of the law.

The paying of a political levy should really be an opt in rather than opt out system anyway, since it costs them extra money and is going to finance a political party which may or may not represent the beliefs of the individual involved. Since the trade unions have a vested interest in getting their members to pay the levy in order to give them power over the Labour party, they are unlikely to make any opt out system as clear or easy as it should be - as is evidenced by this Tory claim - but the opposite would be true with an opt in system.

What is interesting is that the Times also has an article on the completely legal donations made to the Conservatives by a "Vegas casino billionaire" who both resides in London and made his £70,000 worth of donations over three years - a minuscule amount compared to the millions of pounds a year that the trade unions bankroll Labour - through his UK limited companies.

It seems that Labour's fortress is under siege:

That's so not good news for Brown. If even Labour's heartlands of "the North", where most of Labour's Cabinet ministers have their seats, is under serious threat, then the possibility of a meltdown must seem all too likely.

And to a Conservative, this news just brings on a smile.

The future's bright, the future's blue.

David Cameron now has a party donation scandal all his very own.

Ouch, that's gotta hurt. Cameron's own constituency association taking illegal donations.

However, there is no denying that it is not as bad as Labour's scandal with Abrahams. To start with, the amount of money is tiny in comparison - more than £600,000 compared to about £7,000. There is also the fact that these donations were received on 21 August this year, rather than systematically taken and covered up over a rather lengthy period of time, and was handed to the Electoral Commission without the kind of fuss that beset Labour. However, it can be compared to the Wendy Alexander illegal donation, but at least neither Cameron or his Association wrote a thank you letter to the donors with an overseas address!

Yes, this has a whiff of hypocrisy about it. But it is hardly of the same level as that which has befallen Labour. This appears to be far more of a simple mistake rather than purposeful deceit and corruption. But it doesn't look good for Cameron after attacking Labour over similar issues. Especially since all political parties got given money to stop this happening.

It seems to me that those who defended Alexander also seem to be those who are attacking Cameron. If Alexander is innocent of any wrongdoing, Cameron certainly is.

Sources: The Guardian, The Telegraph

Ordovicius asks whether David Cameron's overtures towards the Liberal Democrats can be "categorised as a case of unrequited love" and "[w]ill it lead to Dave moping like a spurned lover?" Personally, I can't see it like that at all. Instead, it seems to me far more like Cameron setting out his stall as the man who is willing to make compromises and the man who cannot be blamed if Britain ends up with a minority government of any party.

Rather than unrequited love, it more about setting the Lib Dems up. By suggesting that he is willing to compromise should the occasion demand it, Cameron is giving the Lib Dems no choice about whom to select as coalition partner should the results demand it. It is about setting the Conservatives up as the non-partisan politician, as the leader who will compromise and lead a coalition government if that is what the electorate decide.

In stead of unrequited love, it's more about stitching the Lib Dems up, and giving them no choice but to select the Conservatives as coalition partners should the situation arise.

13% lead! Hopefully we can see this sort of poll more often...

What are the biggest political misjudgements? Paul Linford has listed his top 10 in a very good post, all of which make sense - bar one. The political misjudgement that he lists as the second biggest is actually the utter opposite. Paul says:

Unfortunately, Paul has got it wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Enoch's "Rivers of Blood" speech was the very reason he could ever have been elected leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, not the reason he wasn't.

Until he made that speech, in any leadership election he would have been nothing more than an also-ran - just like he had been in 1965, when Edward Heath was elected Conservative leader, and Powell polled just 5% of the vote, with just 15 votes. It was after his infamous speech that Powell's reputation with the people and his profile began to rise. It was precisely because of the speech for which he was widely criticised, but ultimately vindicated by shifts policy shifts across all parties, that he became well known.

Before 20 April 1968, Enoch was nothing more than just another mid-level politician - generally regarded quite well, but nothing more. After his speech and the reactions he got, that all changed. He rose in the opinion polls personally and as a potential leadership candidate should Heath step down, becoming far more well known and liked than others of his party.

But then Enoch made his big misjudgement - he stepped down as the MP for Wolverhampton South West at the February 1974 general election, and called for the electorate to vote Labour instead [primarily because the Tories had taken Britain in the EEC and Labour promised a referendum on the issue - at least they gave one that time]. That election ended with a hung parliament with Labour the largest party, and was followed by Labour winning a Commons majority of 3 in October of the same year.

Had Enoch remained a Conservative MP in February 1974, it is very likely that he would have been asked to replace Heath as leader, and is unlikely to have faced any opposition for the position. The last part of Paul's "what might have happened" could have. But without making his "Rivers of Blood" speech - the very speech which Paul considers to have been Enoch's political misjudgement - he would never have been any more than an also-ran in any leadership race. That speech in 1968 was the one thing that could have led him to be Prime Minister, not the one thing that stopped him. That distinction undoubtedly goes to his decision is stand down as a Conservative MP in February 1974.

Via Iain Dale and ConservativeHome, a Sunday Telegraph poll puts the Conservatives on their highest ICM poll since 1992:

Conservative: 43%
Labour: 36%
LibDems: 14%

From lows to highs, eh! Just a few weeks ago, we were trailing by eleven points, and now we're leading by seven! Hopefully this high will last longer than Brown's momentary lead and be able to be built on to ensure that we win the next general election - whenever Gordon Brown decides to call it.

Some thought that Brown's eleven point lead meant an end to Cameron and the Conservatives as a whole. How wrong they were! But recent polls do show that they are pretty volatile at the moment - except for the Lib Dems who are constantly trailing in the low double figures. Thus it seems that Brown's indecision over calling an election and his recent policy plagiarism have marred him in the electorate's eyes.

We can but hope this this isn't just a blip in the polls, but a sign that the Conservatives are properly back on top properly and for good.

Image: ConservativeHome

Today I have been leafleting in Watford - my first time! I was leafleting to help the fantastic [and hilarious] Conservative PPC Ian Oakley take the seat away from the failing and useless Claire Ward.

It was great fun campaigning with other people, mostly Conservative Future members including a candidate for CF chairman, and will hopefully go some way towards getting more Conservative votes in Watford - and with less than two thousand votes between all three parties at the last parliamentary election [no matter what the Fib Dems claim], every vote counts!

One thing that that needs to be done is for the Watford Conservative website to get back online.