Nick Hillman for Cambridge

I was genuinely sad when Chris Howell chose to stand down as one of our city’s councillors in order to focus on his career (though I fully understand his decision).

Not only does Chris have a huge amount of experience, but he was also an extremely committed councillor. Both the people of Coleridge and the rest of us from elsewhere in Cambridge owe him a debt for raising key issues on the city council, such as: the shortage of family homes; the problems with the proposed Cambridge congestion charge (which even now is supported by some Lib Dems); and unnecessary hikes in Council Tax.

But, while I regret Chris’s resignation, I am delighted that local Conservatives have selected such a strong candidate for the Coleridge by-election on Thursday, 4th November 2010. Andy Bower knows Coleridge like the back of his hand and he is 100% committed to serving local residents and putting a Conservative voice back on the council. I have been out canvassing with him and his past work is reflected in excellent name recognition where it counts – on the doorstep.

On pretty much any indicator you choose, Conservatives are the second biggest party in Cambridge. But, because our vote is spread evenly across the city, we are massively under-represented on the city council. It would strengthen local democracy so much if Andy’s vibrant campaign is successful. Although Cambridge Lib Dems back a new style of politics in theory, they are happy to run the local council on their own – and in a rather unconsultative way – in practice, and this needs challenging.

Labour have recently selected a student as their candidate (though he seems to be the party’s second choice as a woman was initially chosen according to some Tweets that have now mysteriously disappeared). The Labour candidate has pledged to fight a clean campaign and I hope he does – though I am not too hopeful as he recently described our city’s MP as an ‘oleaginous smug traitor’ and labelled him ‘Judas Huppert’ in a blog post. Our MP should be critically assessed – as in this recent article of mine – but that is below the belt.

So, if you live in Coleridge and think – as I do – that the city council would be strengthened by the addition of a Conservative voice to speak up for local residents, local public services and local businesses, please make sure you vote Andy Bower on 4th November.

I have avoided blogging recently as I am limited in what I am allowed to do as a Special Adviser for the coalition Government. However, I am allowed to comment on local politics and I wanted to draw readers’ attention to the campaigning going on in the East Chesterton ward of Cambridge. There is a County Council by-election on there after a Lib Dem councillor has chosen to resign a long way short of term.

This could be great news for the people of East Chesterton as we Conservatives have an experienced, genial and determined candidate in Matt Bradney. He runs his own local business. He is an expert on transport. He has been a councillor before. He would be a real asset to local residents.

I live just over the river from East Chesterton and have been out campaigning with Matt many times. It would make a real difference to local residents – and indeed to the whole of Cambridge – if Matt were to win as he would be the only voice for the city in the heart of the Conservative-run council.

Even if you don’t usually vote Conservative, please consider doing so this time on the strength of our candidate, on our need for a city voice in the ruling group of the council and in order to send a message to those local politicians who have not taken East Chesterton seriously in the past.

Oh, and check out Matt’s campaign blog at: http://eastchesterton.blogspot.com. If you would like to help out, you can contact Matt there.

Thanks for listening.

Since becoming a Special Adviser for the Coalition Government, I have stopped updating this blog. Apologies to all those who were regular readers. (As an election candidate, my work was outward-looking and based around my desire to be the MP for Cambridge but, as an unelected Special Adviser, my role is more inward-looking so a regular blog is hard to sustain.)

However, having become a father today, I couldn’t resist adding one more post. Here is our (as yet unnamed) baby boy, born at the Rosie Hospital at Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge. My wife, Lara, had a tough labour so THANK YOU to the excellent local NHS and to all the midwives who helped in the delivery of our wonderful new son.

(This is no time for politics, but my grandmother used to say she could not understand why any woman who had given birth could vote for a party called Labour…!)

Excuse the self-indulgence, but I rather like this election photo of three of the Cambridge candidates – including the elusive Holborn, O (as he appeared in The Times).

Now that we finally have a new Prime Minister, I thought I would post some thoughts about the election campaign here in Cambridge

I loved every minute of the campaign – I had no idea being a candidate would be so much fun. I learnt a huge amount and it helped that the campaign here in Cambridge was (relatively) clean. I would have liked to have won, but I am genuinely pleased with second place – and the first increase in the Tory vote share since 1976! Every failed PPC has a favourite stat, and that is my one. Thank you to everyone who came out to help.

Here are some of the things I learnt (or had confirmed) during the campaign:

1. Cambridge Green Party are good people. When you are out campaigning, you get to know the other parties and their tactics pretty well. I was very impressed by the Greens’ campaign here as it always focused on their programme and eschewed attacks on others. It was also imaginative in terms of getting publicity – my favourite one of their stunts was their campaigning by punt, and I also liked the ‘Vote Green’ bike stickers. I disagree with the Greens’ economic policies but they livened up the election here and it was a pleasure to share so many platforms with Tony Juniper, from whom I learnt a great deal. It is very hard for small parties to win seats under our electoral system but the Greens won a seat in Brighton so they presumably fought good campaigns elsewhere too. (I am trying to remain positive towards our local Greens despite the odd story in today’s Cambridge News in which Tony Juniper and Daniel Zeichner, the Labour candidate, lump all their votes together with those of the Lib Dems and then claim that they were part of some big anti-Tory force. Guys: Sorry, but you lost and your previously expressed negative views about our new MP are a matter of record. There is simply no evidence for your assertion that your votes and Julian’s came from the same pool and that mine came from somewhere completely different – the main swing in Cambridge was away from the Lib Dems to us. As you both said during the campaign, we should leave disingenuous claims about how the votes in Cambridge break down during general elections to the Lib Dems and each get on with trying to win our own votes by offering a positive alternative vision.)

2. I surprised myself by having a higher opinion of Tony Blair at the end of the campaign than at the start. So many of his straplines – evidence-based policy, welfare that works, tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime – are well attuned to the electorate’s concerns. Blair messed up in my opinion, especially over Iraq and public service reform, but I now have a greater understanding of why he was such a successful politician in electioneering terms. This is not something I had previously expected to learn during the campaign.

3. Lib Dems should reassess some of their tactics. To the best of my knowledge, the only party to indulge in questionable activities during the campaign here were the Lib Dems. It’s all relative and nothing they did was too terrible but I still think it was pretty poor politics to tell the voters (in literature and when out canvassing) that Cambridge was a Lib Dem / Lab marginal, when it was clear that the Labour vote was collapsing and when Conservatives had come second in Cambridge in the 2009 European elections (the previous time the city had voted in a national election). What angered me most, however, were not the graphs on the Lib Dems’ literature but the evidence I was shown of a co-ordinated email campaign which focused on asking me lots of tricky and time-consuming questions, the answers of which were then circulated back among local Lib Dems so they could pore over them and see if they could catch me out. This was dispiriting though I don’t believe Julian, our new MP, was involved and it ultimately didn’t work.

4. The only two people on the doorstep who raised the critical issue of inequality with me both lived in massive, beautiful and very expensive houses. I was polite to both, even though one was spoiling for a fight. I found it a bit bizarre that they berated me for not caring about inequality when in fact I do (see the Writings section of this site) and when the party they both support (Labour) has not lived up to their promises in this area. I guess it shows how some people’s views of 300 years of Conservatism are still tainted by the more negative aspects of 11 years of Thatcherism. Perhaps I should have asked them if my pregnant wife and I could move out of our smallish, two-bed, rented, terraced house into their residences, thereby making Cambridge a smidgen more equal overnight!

5. I worked really hard to respond personally and honestly to every email and questionnaire I received during the campaign (sorry if I missed yours). But, without trying to insult the questioners, I think there were two sorts of questions that were perhaps a tiny bit misguided. First, there were those which asked for information on exactly how I would vote on imaginary pieces of legislation that might or might not be put forward in the new parliament. In my view, this misunderstands the fact that an election is about choosing someone who shares your basic philosophy, not someone who announces in advance exactly how they will act in response to every vote, big and small, over the next five years, including votes on pieces of legislation that have not yet been written/published. Of course, candidates should say where they stand on the big issues – and on the smaller ones when they can. But there was only one candidate in Cambridge (Old Holborn) who was promising to put every decision to the public vote – and even he was not saying in advance exactly how he would vote on every issue. Secondly, I think there are lessons for all us involved in politics from the Democracy Club survey. Conservative candidates, as well as Labour candidates, were the butt of a piece in the Guardian – as well as negative Tweets and so on – for their low response rate to this survey. I worked really hard to try and work with Democracy Club during the campaign – for example, I spoke at their hustings event even though it clashed with the second leader’s debate. I also wrote a lengthy blog entry explaining my views on 11 local issues they raised with candidates. I was still attacked for not responding in exactly the way Democracy Club wanted. Yet I remain of the opinion that their national questionnaire massively over-simplified some really big issues and would have left an inaccurate impression of my views even if I had filled it in honestly. To me, refusing to answer this particular survey was more responsible than doing so, though that stance probably lost me some votes. While I am a massive fan (and regular user) of TheyWorkForYou, I just think they called this survey wrong. Politics should be a conversation not a multiple choice exam. For an organisation that strives to be participatory, perhaps they might have consulted more widely on the survey before it went live if they wanted higher response rates.

For the record, my view about the political crisis that is now coming to an end is that, while it was not immediately clear who won the election, it is clear who lost it. Our new MP feels strongly about civil liberty issues so he should be pleased that his party are now in alliance with my party, which is resolutely opposed to ID cards and the database state.

**Update: It seems from his Tweet that Julian is indeed happy with the new arrangements.

Below is the letter I have written to first-time voters in Cambridge, as featured in today’s Cambridge News.

Dear X,

I’m the Conservative Candidate in Cambridge and I’m writing to everyone who has turned 18 since the last general election to encourage them to vote on May 6^th. I live in Cambridge, I studied at Cambridge University and I trained as a teacher in Cambridge schools. So this city means a great deal to me. I want to make sure we have an MP who will fight for our needs at Westminster.

Despite what you may have been told, the contest is wide open. All three of the main parties – Conservative, Labour and LibDem – have represented Cambridge in the past 20 years. And the latest local polls show this election is too close to call. Your vote really could make a difference.

I hope you will consider voting Conservative because I believe we have the best policies for Britain’s future. In particular:

• We will start sorting out the economic mess now – if we do not start tackling the Government’s debts, then younger people will be paying the bills for decades to come. We will not implement Labour’s tax on jobs, which would make it harder for people to get work.
• We will offer new opportunities to young people leaving education – for example, we will provide 150,000 more apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship and further education college places each year.
• We will deliver 10,000 more university places in 2010 – we are the only party with a clear policy for tackling this year’s university entrance crisis.
• We will put environmental issues at the heart of government – we will introduce a new Green Deal to help householders insulate their homes, provide a new focus on renewable energy and work towards a new international agreement on climate change.
• We will spend more than Labour has on the poorest countries in the world – and we will focus this spending on those most need in of help. This is particularly important to me as, in the last three years, I have been to Zambia, Rwanda and Ethiopia on charitable projects.

There is a lot of talk of a hung Parliament, where no one party has control. I can understand why this might seem appealing. But we face such serious problems that I believe it would be better to have a strong Conservative Government that can act to resolve the problems we face now.

Many thanks,

NICK HILLMAN

PS Whatever your views, please make sure you vote on May 6th!

Promoted and printed by Stephen Frost on behalf of Nick Hillman, both of 153 St Neots Road, Hardwick, Cambridgeshire CB23 7QJ

Listen from 1.25.40 until at least 1.32.00. (The traffic news, which splices the piece, ends at 1.29.15.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p007kzrl/Andie_Harpers_MidMorning_05_05_2010/

Vote Blue, Go Green!

I have written an open letter to Cambridge’s academics, lecturers and students. This has been distributed via the heads of colleges and is also featured in today’s Cambridge News.

However, many people will not have seen the full text so I am also publishing it here. I would be very interested to hear any responses.

If I am elected, higher education will be a top issue for me.

I have also put a link to a video of all the candidates talking about tuition fees at the bottom of the post.

An open letter to the academic community in Cambridge from Nick Hillman, the Conservative Candidate in the General Election

Dear All,

I am writing to you to outline my views because I am the Conservative candidate for Cambridge at this year’s general election, and because I regard the future of our university sector as one of the most important issues facing our country.

My background includes studying at three different universities, including Cambridge. For the past two-and-a-half years I have been Chief of Staff to David Willetts, the Shadow Secretary of State for Universities and Skills.

A fair deal for undergraduates: The cross-party review of student finance recently started work. I support this review of experts, although I would have liked it to have started in 2007 (when we called for it to do so) and I would also have liked the review team to have included greater student representation. Despite its imperfections, however, I think it would be irresponsible to reject the review out of hand in advance of its conclusions – as the Lib Dems, Greens and UKIP have already done.

Some people have claimed the review is nothing more than a backdoor way to raise tuition fees after the election, but it is unlikely to be taken seriously by anyone if that is all it is. Any increase in fees under the current model would have an enormous cost to the Treasury – for example, the extra loans would be huge – and it is not clear where the money would come from at a time of fiscal restraint. Instead, I believe the review should provide a more fundamental review of all aspects of student finance. I would also like to see the student finance review put widening participation issues at its heart. Personally, I will oppose any increase in the upfront cost of going to university unless there is a very clear matching benefit in terms of the quality of the student experience. I would also like to see urgent reforms to improve the woeful support on offer to part-time students at Madingley Hall and elsewhere.

I would urge anyone who has been attracted to the Lib Dems’ position on tuition fees to look in detail at their policy. It would not affect the vast majority of existing students and could harm the quality of the education on offer, especially in cities like Cambridge. Moreover, by holding the number of students down, it risks limiting the chances of people from under-represented groups reaching university.

Research: I have been criticised for talking as much about research income as undergraduate tuition fees. But I make no apology for doing so because research income is vitally important to our leading universities – as is income from other sources like endowments and university spin-outs.

A Conservative Government would delay the Research Excellence Framework for a period of up to two years. This will allow a proper consultation with academics and universities on how research money is allocated across the sector. Above all, I believe the distribution of research money should recognise excellence.

University expansion: As a former secondary school teacher, I believe it is the hallmark of a civilised society to send more people to university. But, in the Government’s own words: ‘Since 1998 the UK participation rate for higher education has slipped from 7th in the OECD to 15th.’

Today, we are in an absurd position. On the one hand, ministers claim to be in favour of sending more people to university. On the other hand, they are fining universities, including Anglia Ruskin, hundreds of thousands of pounds for ‘over-recruiting’ in 2009.

I am in favour of university expansion so that all those with the aptitude and desire to study at university level can do so – as outlined in the Robbins report half a century ago. I regret that Vince Cable and our local Lib Dem candidate have argued so strongly against university expansion. In contrast, my party is committed to easing this year’s university entrance crisis by offering 10,000 additional fully-funded university places for the 2010/11 academic year, funded by encouraging the early repayment of student loans from people who have left higher education.

University autonomy: I support university autonomy because, when politicians meddle in the day-day running of universities – as Gordon Brown tried to do in the notorious Laura Spence row – it usually ends in tears. I also support the Haldane Principle which limits the politicisation of research funding. And I support the idea of universities diversifying their income streams, as Cambridge has done so successfully, so that politicians hold less sway over them.

Public Spending: The national debt is huge and unsustainable. As with every previous Labour Government, the Government has run out of money and, as the Institute of Fiscal Studies has said, whoever wins the next election is going to have to take some very tough decisions on public spending. But Cambridge is currently being disproportionately affected by the cuts that have already been announced – in fact we are worse affected by many of the cuts, per-head of the population, than any other university city. So if I am elected as the MP, I will work very hard to make sure both Cambridge City and the Cambridge academic community have a louder voice at Westminster and are treated fairly.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Hillman

Conservative Candidate for Cambridge