Photo-op's and Parties past

The war of the photo-op continues with more ministerial visits lined up, and presumably shadow ministers as well. The local media generally oblige by providing coverage, but only for known national names - this has the effect of marginalising the remaining parties competing in the election, in fact even the Lib Dems can suffer on this score, so they keep sending Nick Clegg - guaranteed a sympathetic interview from Archant and the BBC.

The BBC did manage a BOGOF today, with Charles Clarke hijacking yet another Cameron visit to give him a letter about Andy Coulson. The danger with this stunt is that your enemy retaliates and start to hijack your photo-opportunities - with two weeks to go it could yet get very silly with the Loony's and other Independents yet to start their photo-op hijacking campaign. Perhaps anticipation of this is why a lot of the visits tend to be secret, with only the organisations concerned and the press tipped off in advance.

Rumours about the past of candidates continues, with Ostrowski doing nothing to improve his standing and image by conceding that his much vaunted UEA past included time spent in the Conservative Students Society, and even standing for them as a candidate in NUS elections. Rupert on the other hand used to be a LibDem - hardly a surprise, especially given the venom those clean campaigning LibDem's have extended to him.

Meanwhile Mr Tickle the UKIP candidate denies a rumoured past association with the National Front - but did he really need to trot out the old 'some of my best friends are ......' defence? His posters, advertising and leaflets all continue to prominently feature his picture as an Aryan pin-up boy.

TV appearance by 4 of the candidates last night, 30 seconds each on education. In order of competence in delivery 1. young Chloe, clearly showing how well groomed she has been by Tory Central Office; 2. Rupert, sounding like a Rupert but stringing coherent sentences together, 3. Scary April (but almost as vacuous in content as young Chloe) 4 - by a long way, Ostrowski continuing to demonstrate support for the 'ironic gesture' theory behind his selection. Try getting any sentence from him that doesn't include the words 'SureStart centres'.

Also on TV last night was Harriet Harman, trying hard to smile and talk through gritted teeth. It does seem that Labour nationally really thought they could remove Ian from the candidates list and that he'd go quietly at the next election. I suppose if you are in the Westminster bubble and know nothing of either the person or the constituency you might just be able to delude yourself that at 70 and with a heart condition, Ian could retire gracefully at the next election and be presented as a sign that the party was being 'tough' on the expenses scandal. Instead they have a by-election they are going to get slaughtered at, a very disgruntled local party and just look pathetic bullies when Ian's expenses are compared with others against whom no action has been taken (Mandy, anyone?)

Predictable so far - for Norwich

Will he? won't he? in an uninspiring and largely predictable week the only real item of interest is the continuing disarray of the Labour Party over the by-election.  the national Party, we know, would prefer to wait as long as possible and hold all its by-elections together for obvious tactical reasons.  Unfortunately for London, the local Party doesn't want to play ball and Harriet was met by a resounding vote for the by-election to be called immediately.  

Sophistry around not wanting to be without an MP over the summer (they really want a Tory MP???) and not allowing the Greens to build on their European and Local Government success can't disguise the fact that it was really a two-finger gesture from a still seething local Party.  Sunday's selection meeting will be fascinating!

Meanwhile young Chloe continues to age as her national minders continue their relentless pursuit of the record for summer visits by shadow cabinet members to one constituency; and faces another visit by Cameron. The Green's predictably picked Rupert as their candidate, a safe if uninspiring choice whilst the local Lib Dems obviously decided they didn't want to win (or wanted a plausible excuse for losing) by picking scary April.  I suppose I should exempt Clegg from the choice as he upset the local party in a desperate 'anyone but April ( and preferably famous)' search.  Already with two visits, he will be back, and it will be interesting to see how he gets on with the locals.

Predictably the Lib Dems are writing to everyone asking for a clean campaign, whilst putting out a press release that describes Rupert as an extremist and claiming that only they can beat the Tories.  Even more predictably, Tory blogger Iain Dale is taking an interest in the by-election from the safe distance of London, sustained by local party insider tittle tattle.  

Sadly it does look as if the collapsing Labour vote will be split between Greens and Lib Dems, leaving the Tories to sneak through the middle.  There is hope in that the Tories clearly don't have the candidate they would have chosen for a by-election, and neither Rupert or April are very appealing locally.  A good charismatic independent could yet shock them all.

The phoney war

End of week 1 and the Tories continue to set the pace. Young Chloe is getting around the constituency for photo opportunities with more mature shadow ministers, and Nick Clegg followed Cameron in 'meeting the public' at a local High School. At least the school was actually in the constituency this time, and he didn't try out a cod German accent - although claiming that 'thinking about a holiday on the Broads sometime' qualifies as a 'local connection' was bizarre, even by the Lib Dem standards! Like Cameron and the Tories they are happier to make the by-election a negative campaign against Brown than to put forward anything positive. As the local rag has observed:

"Yet it seems party strategists for both Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron feel that this by-election will be part of a bigger debate about the future direction of this country. Given Norwich and Norfolk's reputation for doing different, I wonder if they may have got that wrong."

Meanwhile the Greens seem paralysed by their own processes and their campaigning naivety is shining through. Presumably they won't compete with leafleting on environmental grounds, and any comment seems dependent on finding a candidate. The Adrian's have ruled themselves out of standing, leaving Rupert to be coy and toy with the idea. If they could get there act together (and PLEASE, don't select Rupert!) they would have a good chance. They gained the largest share of the Euro election vote in Norwich, and picked up a few County Council seats in North Norwich (including the poor candidate for Mile Cross who, according to party rumour, only stood as a paper candidate and didn't want to be elected). Despite this they have left unchallenged young Chloe's silly leaflet with its sub SATS bar chart showing how only the Tories can challenge Labour. Sort out a sensible candidate and get a campaign going , and they would be a good option for even Labour loyalists wanting to make a gesture to the national party.

As for Labour, the national party has sent Harriet along this weekend to stiffen their resolve. I guess she will make optimistic noises (well, you have to, don't you) but there are no credible local candidate options ( under the circumstances, standing will automatically remove credibility) and they will be reduced to importing party workers if they want to do any campaigning for a national imposition. Realistically, all Labour can do is look to minimise the damage and call all the outstanding by-elections together as late as possible (October?), hoping the other parties get bored. They will all soon be on their summer holidays soon anyway, leaving the way open for a motley collection of independents who will be happy to regard campaigning in Norwich as their holiday.