Ken ahead in another poll

Following hot on the heels from YouGov's poll on the state of play in the 2012 mayoral poll, ComRes has another that shows Ken narrowly pushing ahead of the Tory candidate.

The change in the polling position is quite stark - compared to the tail end of 2011 and shows that this will a close election. 

The momentum in Ken's campaign has been building for a while and their poll bounce has in part been driven by old-fashioned (and fairly relentless) campaigning: a clear simple message (Ed Balls take note), a large number of activists all underpinned by unusually strong marketing for a political campaign - from the 'pickpocket' posters to the videos like the one below.

Clegg: NHS reforms will be pushed through

Click for Clegg's comments on BBC's Andrew Marr show

After another stormy week for Lansley's Health and Social Care Bill, in which most of the Royal Medical Colleges lined up to attack the reforms and the Observer reported that the Health Select Committee is set to deliver a damning report on the way the reforms are proceeding, Clegg sat down with Andrew Marr and indicated that the Lib Dems would not push very hard for any more concessions.

What is jaw dropping about the reforms is that the sheer scale of opposition - from health professionals, including both doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and health experts - appears to be falling on deaf ears.

The audacity of ministers claiming that GPs support the reforms when all the evidence points to the opposite is something to behold - something demonstrated by polls of GPs in 2011 and again in 2012.

The question is this: how long before the disaster-in-waiting causes real damage to the Government? 

Another reason to vote Ken...

There are many, good reasons to vote Ken in the 2012 Mayoral election; and, if today's YouGov poll is anything to go by, Londoners are beginning to warm to some of them.

There is his record as mayor, in which he dramatically increased the number of buses on London's roads; his numerous transport projects - from the extension of the East London line (now London Overground) to Crossrail; his backing of some dramatic changes - witness the pedestrianisation of the north of Trafalgar Square - that transformed key public spaces in London into continental-style spaces fit for walking.

Then there is his vision: for fair transport fares, for affordable housing (from rent caps to building more affordable homes) and for investment in public transport.

But there is one, overwhelming reason, why Londoners should support Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London. To annoy Andrew Gillian.

Gilligan, the obsessive, pompous, self-important ex-Standard and current Torygraph 'journalist', would hate nothing more than to see his arch-nemesis back at City Hall. It would devastate him. In fact, he would probably openly weep.

And that is a cause around which all Londoners can rally.

What will Boris' estuary airport plan cost him?

Within the space of less than 24 hours, we've had two contradictory stories about the PM's support for Boris' dreams of an airport just off the coast of Kent. As with every other scheme the Mayor has either hatched or launched and claimed as his own, the idea was inevitably dubbed 'Boris Island'.

So, last night, we had the Telegraph claiming that Number 10 had indicated its support for the scheme. Barely a day later, the Guardian carries a story that claimed that, out of irritation in the way Johnson's team had spilled the beans to the Torygraph, Cameron was going cold on the idea. 

Now, whatever the view of the Prime Minister, there is one side effect of this that is worth considering. An airport east of London is, for the Mayor, supposedly a more suitable spot than an expansion of flights to Heathrow over true blue west London. But the airport would have an adverse impact in terms of noise pollution on some key consituencies that Boris relied on to win him his place in City Hall in 2008 - the likes of Bexley and Bromley. 

As the driving force behind the scheme, will we see see some of the Mayor's previous supporters in the area melt away? 

The PIP debacle exposes the folly of outsourcing key NHS services

The intransigence of a number of leading cosmetic surgery firms to Government requests for them to provide greater support for women who received breast implants from Poly Implant Prostheses (PIP) has led Andrew Lansley to criticise them on a number of levels, from providing poor data on the number of women that have undergone a procedure and for "not stepping up to their responsibilities at all" by failing in many cases to offer to replace or remove implants.

It is a combination of the clear powerlessness of the Health Secretary and the disregard for any moral duty on the part of a number of the private firms involved that demonstrates a key problem with fragmented and privatised health care.

And yet the government's Health and Social Care Bill, which will increase this fragmentation and privatisation, rolls on. The news that leading management firms are being rewarded for teaching GPs business knowledge that is already available in the soon to be dismantled Primary Care Trusts (a development criticised by the BMA's GPs committee) demonstrates the determination of Cameron and Lansley to force a restructuring through regardless of cost and without evidence that it will improve much beyond the balance sheets of a number of private companies. 

And as if to back up this view, the plans for the privatisation of the NHS compensation - a move that the chair of the consultants committee at the BMA argued would 'mimic the worst aspects of US healthcare' - referenced the Confederation of British Industry as identifying the authority as a "potential opportunity". It seems that for the modern Conservative Party, their key interest in the NHS is how much money its constituent parts can make for private corporations.

It even appears that the Government is reluctant to commit to the recommendations on the pro-reform task force that it set up, the NHS Future Forum. Chris Ham, Chief Executive of the Kings Find has commented that "there were very few, specific credible commitments on the department's part to actually do anything in making a reality of what the Future Forum has said", explicitly citing the need to include in the NHS constitution a commitment that patients who require joined up and integrated care from different parts of the system get the services they need.

It is instructive that one of the latest recommendations from the Future Forum is that the Government should address confusion around 'choice' and 'competition' in Lansley's Bill, stating that "Monitor and the NHS Commissioning Board should urgently support commissioners and providers to understand how competition, choice and integration can work together to improve services for patients and communities". 

It seems that in its haste to plow on with outsourcing as much as the NHS as possible, the government is willing to risk the creation of a fragmented, confused system that may be significantly more bureaucratic than the existing one.

Labour should concentrate on doing its job, not writing the 2015 budget

Let's face it, the last few hours aren't great if you are on the left or centre-left of British politics. A curious interview between Ed Balls - an intelligent MP with a good understanding of economics - with the Guardian has turned into a PR headache.

The aim, no doubt to some in Labour high command, was to try to counter the relatively disappointing poll position that Labour finds itself in with regards to questions of economic competence by convincing Balls - a proponent of Keynesian economics - to nuance his rhetoric with some soundbites on the economy designed to please the right-wing press.

Balls now appears to have backtracked on the interview somewhat. But there are three problems with the interview 24 hours earlier:

First, there is no point trying to write the 2015 budget in opposition, 3 years before the election. None. Yes, voters want to see what you believe in, but most aren't listening at this stage and, if they are, want to hear your response to current problems, not those of 3 years time.

Second, Ed Balls was right in his approach over the last 18 months. His assertions - and those of like-minded economists like Paul Krugman and David Blanchflower - that cutting deeply during a recession in the private sector would damage economic growth have come to pass. The downgrading of austerity-mad EU countries across the EU for pursuing deficit-cutting mania has served to justify this position. Confusing the message that he Balls been giving on these issues doesn't help.

Third, the right-wing press can't be won over. Never. And neither is there a future left in triangulation, in out-flanking the Tories on the right, despite what the likes of John Rentoul and Dan Hodges might argue. It's a route to electoral oblivion.

The real battle - opposing the attack on social democracy

What Labour should be doing is trying to defend some the cornerstones of British social democracy that are under attack in the name of 'defecit reduction'. The horrendous assault on the National Health Service is one. The government's Health and Social Care Bill will turn one of the fairest - and most efficient - health systems into a fragmented, bureaucratic, privatised mess that will emulate some of the worst aspects of the near-bankrupt US system.

MPs like Andy Burnham know this. Forging alliances with like-minded people and parties across the political spectrum to defend the NHS is crucial - and is popular.

Yes, many aspects of the polls at the moment don't look good for Labour. But it's worth bearing in mind that the last election was in 2010, which itself ended 13 years of Labour rule. Panic-driven interviews, hopelessly misguided press releases and confusing messages won't change it. Sticking to a principled, but realistic will.

Ken's new anti-Boris ad

The Livingstone team released their new ad backing up their 'Fare Deal' campaign. It is - rather like the recent video ad - effective and succinct. Unusual for a political advert...