Robin Day is a deliciously acerbic and yet lovable host. The audience questions are less pointed but still uncompromising. The answers are less spun. In fact both Teddy Taylor and Michael Foot offer some quite complex, nuanced answers and neither is overtly attacking or partisan. The Archbishop is likeable and amusing. Edna O’Brian is delightfully rude. It’s difficult not to adore her. Everyone gets a fair hearing. It’s all very jolly.

The audience is perhaps too deferent but they are also engaged, amused and fair. When I watch QT nowadays, I feel annoyed. This show makes me feel warm towards a style of politics that is robust but polite too. I’d like to see something on telly like this again. Serious, solid, friendly and honest. Keep watching for the last questioner and her handbag. It’s hilarious.

Am I being too nostalgic? Or might we all enjoy something similar again today? This more friendly style of debate surely adds as much, if not more, than the bun fights we have come to expect on Question Time and other shows.

Labour: 26%
Conservative: 16%
Green: 12%

Link to the clipping.

The Green’s Jason Kitcat has rubbished the poll and spent a great deal of bloggage slagging off the use of graphs by every party but the Green Party. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. The Brighton Politics Blogger's take is here.

Every party uses polls, graphs and stats to make their point in the material sent out to voters. In Brighton, the Greens use 2007 council and 2009 EU votes to make the point that they’re riding the crest of a wave. They also use a 2009 poll of about 500 people to show they’re doing well here. The Conservatives are using a poll of GPs to suggest they’re the party of the NHS. Labour uses the result of the last General Election in 2005 to suggest that the Greens are well behind the Tories.

It’s a nuanced business. It’s fanciful to imagine that people vote for councillors and MEPs with the same concerns in mind as electing an MP to Westminster. The 2005 General Election was fought 5 years ago on different constituency boundaries. The voters aren’t all GPs. If a party commissions a poll (however venerable the pollsters are) they only want it to show they’re winning. I’ve worked in marketing long enough and commissioned surveys so I know that polls can be legitimately held to prove whatever you want them to say. As is so often the case, Sir Humphrey makes the point so well:

Polls are polls. Past performance is yesterday. We need to compare apples with apples. Methodological quibbling and sampling squabbles aside, the Argus poll is independent and credible. It also provides a few useful reminders:

The People haven’t spoken yet..
The Greens enjoy telling us how they’ve already won the Brighton Pavilion seat. They use the council or Euro elections or their own polls to show they’re a shoe-in. They claim to be the bookies’ favourite and recent campaign material would have you believe that they are a dead cert. It’s a rather presumptuous approach.

I don’t reckon that people much like being told the result before they’ve cast their ballot. Equally, while some pundits have written off Labour locally, this poll shows that’s evidently not the case. The Argus poll reminds us all that bookies, bloggers, pundits, pollsters, candidates, journalists and polticos don’t decide the result. That’s the voters’ privilege and until 10pm on election day, they haven’t spoken. Until then every vote is up for grabs. I love that: game on!

It’s a General Election, stupid.
The 2010 General Election will decide one crucial question: will Labour or the Conservatives form the next government? Talk of a hung parliament means that every vote and MP counts. Brighton’s choice of MP could make all the difference. It’s an amazingly powerful argument on the doorstep: your Labour vote could tilt the balance nationally. From my experience lots of people who have previously voted Green in local elections realise that a national contest is a different matter and much more important. Plenty of previously Green voters are saying to me that they’ll be voting Labour to keep the Tories out.

It’s a fascinating and exciting race here in the City-by-the-Sea. This is a hotly contested three way marginal seat: the Labour, Tory or Green candidate can win. If people tell you otherwise, they’re trying to mislead. Let’s stop second guessing the voters and insulting their intelligence with all this silly chat about opinion polls. They’ll tell us the result in due course. That’s democracy, man.

Disclosure: I'm a rank and file member of the Labour Party in the Brighton Pavilion constituency.

The idea sprang from the Brighton Future of News group. Spearheaded by the pioneering Online Editor of the Brighton Argus Jo Wadsworth, with Sarah Marshall and Steve Bustin, the map is a collaborative experiment to share the political conversations candidates have with voters in the relative privacy of the doorstep and away from the prying eyes of the media.

It’s a good idea and I wouldn’t be surprised if the aim was to expose possible discrepancies between what candidates say publicly and ‘privately’: that’s a good thing. We’re not yet 24 hours into the experiment and what do we see?

When the map was first published the Greens had a tiny handful of flags (3?) and a party apparatchik has spent some time in the past day adding those little green flags. Tory candidate Charlotte Vere told me on Twitter that her ‘flag count’ grew because she was “just including the points from my own map.” Labour candidate Nancy Platts has only used Twitter to add her red flags.

Can the best efforts of a local newspaper experimenting with social media, keen to report one of the most fascinating electoral races in the country, usefully shape a tight run race? I do hope so. If 2010 is the first ‘social media’ General Election, a map such as this with genuine input from voters represents a fine way for people to raise issues and offer perspectives on the campaigns. Politics isn’t just about broadcasting, I venture. It’s a conversation.

So far, from what I’ve seen, nobody unrelated to the three local campaigns has contributed to the Argus map. That’s a real shame.

As I have often said to businesses large and small over the years, the social media secret is letting go. Give up control and let other people chart the course of your journey. Even to someone like me involved in politics, this map shouldn’t be yet another channel we use to skew the discussion by showing how omnipresent and marvellous the parties are. It must be an opportunity to listen. Let’s follow the roadmap rather than draw it. Just for once.

This map will be all the more informative and intriguing if the party people leave it alone and ensure it’s a forum and outlet for the people that matter to express a view. I think we should let democracy breathe. I’m looking forward to day two… and three… and beyond…

Disclosure: I am a rank and file member of the Labour Party in Brighton Pavilion. These ain't nobody’s views but my own.

That's why I was terribly worried to hear that Ben Duncan's blog had disappeared from blogland in the past few days. I'm a regular reader of Ben's blog and am often amused and enlightened by his posts. Why shouldn't I be? Ben might be a Green councillor but I often agree with what he has to say: Labour and Green have plenty in common in Brighton!

So, I was seriously concerned to hear a rumour that his blog had been shut down because the Green Party folk are concerned he's 'off message'. I can't believe that they would silence Ben because they're worried that his views are damaging their leader Caroline Lucas. Ben said on Twitter: "Down for bit... a new bigger, better, website looms on the horizon."

In the interests of blogger solidarity I'm pleased to pose a few questions to Ben. His answers will put all us Brighton bloggers, who value open political discourse, at ease that he hasn't been knobbled. Here's hoping he's back in no time!

My questions:

- When will your blog/website be back?

- Are you moving your blog to a new platform?

- Was your blog's deletion required or suggested by the Green Party or Caroline Lucas? (Let's face it, you love being controversial!)

- When it returns, as you've promised on Twitter, will your blog have all the previous content as before?

- When your blog returns, will you be in charge as before or will you have to clear posts with Green Party colleagues?

I think The Argus missed the point. This is a resort city with two universities and that, combined with a native population that I venture likes a good time more than most, is going to have a lot of licensed premises. But that doesn’t in itself mean a drink problem. As the Church of England will attest, having more outlets doesn’t necessarily mean more punters.

There are lots of things I like about the 2003 Licensing Act that liberalised the rules. I think being able to have a pint in a pub post 11pm is a good thing. I think having off licences open earlier and later in the day is very convenient. That said, I’m not sure we need 24 hour booze shops and bars that open all night. There is also a case to say that we have too many off licenses now and also it’s worth recognising that the Council doesn’t have the powers it needs to regulate licensed premises.

But it’s not the number of premises that should be front of mind. We also need to think about price. Here’s an example: I checked out the drink in a local off licensed premises and was astonished to find I could buy 3 litres of strong cider for £2.99. This bottle clocks in at 16.3 units. That means that for around about a fiver I can buy my entire weekly government recommended unitage (3/4 units a day for a chap) for somewhere close to a fiver.

That just can’t be right. But what to do? Because I like a drink myself, I can’t get preachy about drinking less. Equally, whilst I can see the value in a minimum price per unit scheme, it is regressive, will hit the poor hardest and probably won’t touch well off folk who are part of the ‘problem’. It is also hardly fair that responsible drinkers should pay more. However, it does seem to be an answer.

And yet there is the paradox at the centre of the discussion. This country is drinking more than ever before and yet pubs are shutting at an alarming rate. If I like a beer, I like pubs more. In my local pub a pint of premium strongish draught cider of the Magners or Bulmers variety will set me back £3.50. It strikes me that part of sorting the drinking culture problem is getting people back into the pub. Pubs are, to some extent, a regulated environment where social norms and a responsible staff can limit massive consumption. “Sorry mate, you’ve had enough.”

A well-run pub is a joy. And, more often than not, a pub is a valuable and considerate member of its community. So that’s why they must be part of the solution and not forgotten or penalised as we consider the issues. They don’t peddle cheap booze. In fact it’s comparatively very expensive when you consider supermarkets and corner shops. We should concoct clever ways of bringing down the price of real ales and favour proper British beverages, for instance. Also, why are soft drinks so bloody expensive in pubs? We also need to give publicans more rights over greedy pub chains that limit choices. And yes, unreasonably noisy and unruly pubs should be treated harshly.

But only when pubs can compete as the face of ‘social drinking’ can we adequately tackle £2.99 3 litre bottles of strong cider and what we should consider as ‘anti-social’ drinking.

Here are some of my own efforts. Nothing clever. Just a bit childish.

Here's a brace for for Doctor Who fans and lovers of The Divine Comedy.

I have taken part in so many demos and protests that I can hardly keep count. The highlight was opposing the Iraq war in London on that February day in 2003 with a million others. But that was vanilla. I’ve faced up to police as they’ve beaten their shields with their batons with the sole intent to intimidate. I’ve been filmed and snapped by the rozzers before anti-terror legislation was enacted. I’ve mass-trespassed. I’ve squatted. I’ve been questioned, jostled and jibed by coppers. I’ve seen the underside of a police horse closer than I ever want to see one again.

The demos have been for causes various. I was against apartheid and shutting Brighton’s St Luke’s Pool (aged 9) in the 80s. I passionately opposed the CJB/CJA and French nuclear tests and other things in the 90s. More recently I’ve opposed student tuition fees and the Iraq war. I could mention direct action against fox hunting and car rallies on the South Downs. I even joined my mum to protest about midwife pay once.

But I never hid my face.

Protest is about standing up, being open, speaking out, hopefully raising the profile of the cause or issue, and being counted. For me, a protest doesn’t have to be legal but it must have peaceful intentions. I know how demos turn out. With opposing forces of protester and police, sometimes it gets edgy and ugly. As a protester, sometimes you get arrested. Usually you don’t. But passion doesn’t mean aggression. Violence should never be an aim.

That’s why I can’t support the Smash EDO action and protesters. Not only is the case unproven but they seek to make it anonymously. Any group that goes out and protests behind scarves and balaclavas is hiding something. That’s not how we should do it here. Protest must be proud to be credible. Ask Gandhi, Pankhurst, Mandela and King.

This article from DFID caught my eye today: Killing relief with kindness. Lots of people want to help and send things, but the agencies and charities involved basically just want your cash. It makes sense to me having read the article. That’s where eBay for Charity comes in.

If you feel a bit broke, or have stuff you don’t want, you can sell on eBay and donate the takings directly to the DEC (Disaster Emergency Committee). It may not be immediate, but let’s face it: they’ll still need your money in a week’s time when it’s not the top story on the news anymore.

It’s all above board and you don’t need to worry that someone is trousering your donation. eBay guarantees the cash, covers the admin costs and the listing fees if the item sells and you can donate anything between 10% and 100% of the sale price.

It’s a great way of turning something you’ve got knocking about the house, maybe an unwanted Christmas gift, into a few vital quid. Just choose the DEC as your beneficiary when you’re selling.

And, don’t forget you can also buy. All these items for sale will benefit the DEC. Just be sure to check what percentage of the sale price is going to Haiti.

I’ll certainly be flogging a few things in the next week or so.

(I must say, as an aside: why isn’t eBay promoting DEC Haiti items on the homepage? It’s a small gesture and it would be great to give the items for sale greater profile. The eBay Community has a great history of being generous: let’s unleash that spirit again!)

Any government agreement to reduce emissions will realistically mean everyday changes. I personally don’t think that a government can legislate for that. We must take the initiative ourselves and I’ll be signing up for 10:10 and more importantly actually plan to meet the commitment. As I strive for that, here are some of my thoughts:

A 10% decrease is actually easy.
I think the useful lesson of 10:10 is that a 10% decrease need not mean much effort and means absolutely no hardship if you boil it down into very useful chunks. Here are some examples. It’s not using the car for the school run once every two weeks. It’s turning the heating down a bit. It’s fewer, longer holidays. The simplicity annoys hardcore greenies but it is clever presentation.

Coming off a low base.
When I look at my record, I feel pleased with where I’m coming from. I don’t drive and have never kept a car: public transport for me! I’ve taken the decision to give up flying (I’ve not flown at all in 2009 and since March 2007 I’ve only flown once). I don’t have children.

It’s tricky for tenants.
It’s reasonably easy to deal with lightbulbs, but when it comes to home improvements it is difficult for those who rent accommodation to make many of the suggested improvements, like insulation, lagging, double glazing. This does seem like an area that government and local authorities can influence: legislate for all landlords to maintain minimum green standards. It can’t be tough.

What about recycling?
10:10 encourages composting (I have a wormery and I’m so grateful to the worms for their hard work) and suggests we buy better quality goods so they last longer. But it doesn’t really mention recycling: why is that? I understand that no use or reuse is better, but I’m getting a sense (from this and other sources) that recycling might be a pointless waste of energy.

Water!
Hats off to 10:10 for illumination regarding the energy cost of producing clean water. I had no idea and have tried to be more sparing ever since I found out how much energy goes into to purifying, pumping and providing tap water. But it’s absurd that I have no financial incentive to save water: I rent, don’t have and can’t install a water meter. Moreover, I play a flat fee and certainly use less water than the family of four in the flat above me who pay the same. That needs to be sorted out

It’s also astonishing that we use our precious, pure water to flush the loo rather than “grey water”. I’d personally like to know about a clever way for chaps to recycle, or rather utilise, urine. I live in a town centre location and think pouring urine on my modest garden on a regular basis may not be that clever (although am willing to try). There must be a cleverer way of dealing with it? Thoughts please.

Freezing out the fridge and freezer.
I experimented with this by turning off my fridge freezer for the whole of last October. I live alone, go to the shop daily and barely use my freezer so it wasn’t real hardship. Perhaps most vitally, I don’t like milk. It made me wonder whether we need this energy-guzzling machine as much as think we do. Especially if it’s a bit chilly outside.

We need to get serious about micro-generation.
I would invest in a turbine or solar panel if a) I was permanently placed, b) I could meaningfully flog my surplus into the grid at a generous rate aimed at recouping my investment. Saving 10% and then producing 10% of my own would be real progress. I’m sure I’m not alone in wanting to produce and not just reduce.

Metrics
Understanding one’s carbon footprint is hard. Utility bills aren’t enough. I need more numbers. Please.

Booze, cheese and meat:
These are my massive failure. I like meat. I love cheese. I enjoy wine and beer and whisky and cider… hic. The production of all of the above creates loads of CO2. I can’t commit to giving them up totally but I will strive to consume less. I expect I may fail.

10:10 must surely lead to 20:11
If we accept that reducing 10% in 2010 is vital. Then 20% on 2011 must follow on from that. That’s a harder commitment.

I’ll report back in a year and tell you how I got on.

I paraphrase his reply, but it was unequivocal, slightly venomous and laced with regret. “Never again. John Major and his “classless society” nonsense has seen to that.”

It was exactly the notion of a classless society that meant it could happen again, I argued back. After all, Tony Blair (Labour leader at the time) was a public schoolboy, class politics was on the wane and that meant an Old Etonian (OE) could be Prime Minister. Mischievously, I added that an OE PM need not necessarily be Conservative.

I do remember his withering look and the finality of his response keenly. “Normal public schoolboys perhaps. But not Etonians. Eton is a dirty word. A four letter word. Home was the last.”

It’s probably worth noting that when I had this discussion I was an Eton schoolboy replete with black tailcoat and starched collar. I was (as I indeed remain) a fully paid up member of the Labour party and in a subsequent post I might talk about how a this state comprehensive schoolboy from Brighton ended up at Eton if anyone is particularly interested.

I tittered at Gordon Brown’s recent comment at during Prime Minister’s Question time that David Cameron’s tax policy had been dreamt up “on the playing fields of Eton.” It was funny enough. I wasn’t particularly impressed by Cameron’s response that called it “spiteful”. It was certainly less spiteful a jibe than Tory quips calling former Speaker Martin “Gorbals Mick”. Brown also has the merit of being accurate. Cameron went to Eton. Lord Martin isn’t from the Gorbals.

But what’s surprising is how much coverage Brown’s Eton line generated. For over a week, and even today, it’s still driving comment in the press. A certain rough and tumble is an acceptable aspect of politics. In some senses it’s part of the fun. For Cameron to criticise what he has called “Punch and Judy politics” is like a sewer objecting to shit.

It might be fun, but we don’t learn a lot from it. It was little more than Gordon Brown legitimately pointing out that Tory plans do indeed benefit the rich over the poor. It was also apt in a week when millionaire Old Etonian Zac Goldsmith was criticised for evading tax as a non-dom whilst also seeking election to Parliament.

Equally, the public school jibe doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. There are plenty of good Labour comrades who went to public school (Attlee, Tony Benn, Blair) and plenty of Tories who didn’t. Not a few Labour figures were OEs, including notably the very great and dogged Tam Dalyell. Attlee’s first Chancellor of the Exchequer in those great reforming Labour governments of 1945-51, Hugh Dalton, went to Eton. (The other two, Cripps and Gaitskell, went to Winchester.)

But I think the Eton jibe was invoking more than just public schools and speaks to the peculiar place Eton holds in the public imagination. As my old beak said (that’s what they call teachers at Eton), it’s a dirty word. It invokes something visceral and reviled. It’s almost a synonym for the ruling class, privilege and aristocracy. It’s not for nothing that the old joke says that Eton should have a sign above the door: “Cabinetmakers to Her Majesty the Queen.” The Queen has worked with 11 PMs. 3 have been old Etonians. 18 in total since Walpole had the school motta ‘Floreat Etona’.

And that’s why Brown’s comment was powerful and potentially effective. It doesn’t do anything for talking up Labour’s achievements but it does raise questions. Can an Old Etonian with substantial personal wealth like David Cameron understand ordinary folk? And it also encourages scrutiny of the extraordinary number of OEs in the Tory ranks.

In this age of post-aristocratic politics, that there are more Old Etonians than women in the Tory top team does deserve greater examination. There are 15 OE MPs. 13 Conservatives. Labour and LibDems have one apiece. They represent something like 7% of all Member of Parliament. (Incidentally, in the House of Lords there are more than 80 OEs.) It’s not difficult to say that it’s too many and that representation on the Tory frontbench is disproportionate.

But what’s the cause? Is it favouritism, a Nietzschean will to power, elitism, misplaced deference, connections, some sort of conspiracy or what? In any case, it’s bizarre and possibly worrying. In my next post, I‘ll write about how I think the nature of Eton as a meritocracy and aspirational environment, its ethos and schooling influences students and encourages its former pupils to go into politics.

(This is the first of several posts where I'll discuss Eton, politics and my experience there. If there’s anything you might want me to cover, do leave a comment and I’ll see if I can squeeze it in. Subsequent posts haven’t been written yet.)