That’s a shame, because he had started off by making quite a pertinent point about using train journeys efficiently by working. I’ve tried both standard and first and it is a fact that it is far more difficult to work in standard.

The most pertinent reason is the fact that the tables are a lot smaller and it’s more crowded. When all of the seats are full there simply isn’t space for four people to get laptops out and work. Especially when you start adding reports, folders, drinks and food to the clutter.

The issue that should be addressed is how badly MPs buy their first class tickets. I’ve frequently travelled first class with MPs I know and their tickets have cost £334 for an open first class return and I’ve paid £94 (or less) to sit next to them on the same journey.

It’s ludicrous to think that MPs can’t plan their journeys like small businesses have to. Their diaries and meetings are no less or more subject to change than any other person travelling for business. There is no justification for using open tickets. Stopping them using first class is pointless and won’t necessarily even save money as an open standard is usually more than a first class advance – £223 on the Leeds to London Kings Cross example I’m using.

You can get first class tickets even cheaper if you follow the ‘split-ticketing’ advice. Instead of attacking those travelling standard class Sir Nicholas should be seeking to introduce legislation preventing the train operator using such unfair pricing that such tactics are necessary.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Mia Cambronero, who currently holds the job, “will be stepping down from my infamous role as ‘Barack Obama’s twitterer,’” she said in an email message posted to a listserv. “We’re looking for someone who is available to start immediately.”

Essential qualifications include:

• Excellent writing and editing skills with strong attention to detail; your writing is strong, sharp, and personable
• Strong organizing and campaigning instincts; you can craft messages that move people to act, and you know what actions will achieve the right impact at the right time
• Strong familiarity with social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.
• Ready to work hard; this isn’t a 9-5 sort of job
• Ability to work under deadline pressure
• Ability to manage multiple complex projects
• Passionate about engaging millions of Americans in advancing President Obama’s agenda and changing the country
• Candidates must be willing to relocate to Washington, DC

Bizarrely the job advert on the Obama website doesn’t give a closing date for applications.

National Express East Coast: Lions led by donkeys – 10 comments
In January I used my blog to express dissatisfaction with National Express East Coast’s abysmal customer service. At the end of November it was time to rejoice as it lost its franchise and the east coast mainline once again became a nationalised rail service (however temporarily). In just one month service has improved phenomenally.

Public relations is about reputation, not SEO – 16 comments
This post on the relative merits of public relations v. SEO resulted in me being asked to debate with Antony Mayfield at the New Media Knowledge event on online PR. It was a bit of an artificial debate as despite now working for a search agency Antony is a PR person so we agreed on far more than we disagreed. The arguments in my post focus on the fact that far too many people don’t know what they are talking about when discussing PR and SEO. I’d like to see more facts and less opinion.

Obama shaking hands with black policeman at No 10 Downing Street – 4 comments
A photograph showing the evident pleasure on the face of a black policeman as he shakes hands with President Barack Obama.

If you want to be a thought leader, blog don’t Twitter – 3 comments
Steve Rubel shutters his blog in favour of a ‘lifestream’, for once I agree with Robert Scoble and argue that thought leaders need to blog, not Twitter.

The only three questions you need to ask your prospective PR social media agency – 14 comments
A post that generated lots of retweets and was in a similar vein to one of my most popular posts of 2008 – Top ten ways not to choose a social media consultant.

How can local government use social media? – 1 comment
The IDeA asks how local government should use social media and I provide some answers based on not only on my public relations and social media experience, but also as an ex-councillor who served as Lead Member for Corporate Communications.

Will PR ever be free of the curse of AVEs? – 5 comments
The Central Office of Information announces it will stop using AVEs to evaluate public relations, I blog about hoping that the rest of the PR industry will follow suit.

Lots of interesting new social media research statistics – no comments
Short post that simply points to two other of my posts – Forrester publishes third global social media and social networks research report and Teens DO use Twitter: real research with the facts and statistics, not myths and hype on the Wolfstar blog. Illustrates the importance of search friendly headlines.

Social media campaign hammers the Daily Mail – 5 comments
When the Daily Mail ran a racist poll on its website, a vigorous Twitter campaign meant that it didn’t get the result it hoped for, a useful illustration of the power of social media.

Mandelson v. Marr: Master class or disaster class – you decide – 6 comments
YouTube videos of Lord Peter Mandelson getting the better of Andrew Marr, in what I think is a master class of how to handle a media interview.

The idea of open primaries is very seductive, emotionally I think they are brilliant. The open primaries between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, not only gripped the USA, but they gripped the rest of the world, even people who wouldn’t normally be interested in politics. But the UK, isn’t the USA and there are lots of reasons and barriers as to why open primaries won’t work in the UK. The campaign strikes me as very naive and I’d question how much experience the contributors have of real life grass roots politics in the UK. The problem is that well-meaning people read and listen to the political news of mainstream media and take it as the truth. In fact journalists very rarely have any real insight into how political party selection processes work. And when they do have ‘sources’ it is nearly always selection candidates who have an axe to grind.I’ve personal experience of Labour Party selection processes having seen and helped run them as party worker, participated as a candidate and helped friends through the process. I’ve also got direct knowledge of how Conservative Party selections work.

One of the clues is that even Open Up’s basic assumptions are wrong. It says “That’s why we want the people, not the politicians, to select who stands for election.” That’s kind of what happens now. In none of the three main parties do politicians select candidates.The media might like to portray constituency selections in both the Conservatives and Labour being manipulated and controlled by senior politicians, but in actual fact this rarely happens and even if they do try then it’s still local members who make the final decision.

Just some of the reasons why open primaries can’t work in the UK include:

Cost to the taxpayer

An open primary means every voter in a constituency has an opportunity to vote. That means putting in place quite a complex system of either postal votes, ballot stations or both. The cost per constituency would be approximately £40,000 or almost £25m for the whole country. That’s for one party to do it. Even if the political parties ran their primaries simultaneously the cost would be higher than the £40,000. One of the drawbacks of running them simultaneously is that it would be intensely confusing for voters and make it extremely difficult for candidates to achieve any sort of real recognition or engagement. If the three main parties ran them separately the cost would escalate to £75m and then we’ve got the additional cost of all the minor parties.

No political party could sustain this level of cost and there is already enough controversy about how parties fundraise without forcing them into trying to raise even more. The only alternative that I can see is state funding and I can’t envisage any public enthusiasm for that. Even if the public was willing to accept state funding of political parties I’m not sure that spending that sort of money on primaries would be the best way to use it.

Cost to the candidates

Anyone who has been through a selection process will be able to tell you how expensive it is personally, both in time and real money. And that’s only to campaign and influence a few hundred local party members. If you open it up to an entire constituency then the cost and effort becomes phenomenal. How do the well meaning souls at Open Up propose that this is paid for? The fact is that most of them have never done it. It would give a massively unfair advantage to candidates who are wealthy enough to fund it themselves, which is hardly good for opening up politics. Even more disturbingly it would give lobbyists, pressure groups, trade unions etc enormous scope for ‘packing’ the Commons with their placemen and women. Candidates could be bribed into supporting or attacking specific policies, giving the ordinary voter even less influence.We will end up with a House of Commons that is less representative of the country as a whole.

Less engagement in politics

All political parties are suffering from falling memberships (not just in the UK, but in many countries). One of the most important decisions that most grassroots members can make is to vote in selecting who their parliamentary candidate will be. It’s a rare and precious right and is one of the reasons why members are willing to tramp the streets in all weathers delivering leaflets and knocking on doors. What open primaries do is to effectively disenfranchise the very people who do the most to improve grassroots public engagement in politics. Open primaries won’t lead to more engagement and interest in politics, it will to less.

Fixes a problem that doesn’t exist

Open primaries are an American idea that were designed to solve specific issues with the political process in the USA. In the US they don’t have the same organised political structures that exist and campaign all year round. Instead they come together around elections and focus on candidates rather than parties. That’s partially because of the clear division in the US constitution between the executive, legislature and judiciary. In the UK we don’t have a written constitution that makes that split. We vote for the party that will from the government. Open primaries in the US were also partially a response to the graft and corruption associated with Tammany Hall politics.

We don’t have the same issues in the UK, so the open primaries solution won’t fix it. Politics in the UK does have issues and does need help and solutions to make it work better, but open primaries aren’t it. Open Up could have been a great campaign if they’d put the same energy and resources into campaigning for improvements to the British political process that would make a real difference, instead of just jumping on the latest fashionable political bandwagon.

I’m looking forward to catching up with old friends (sometimes conference is the only time you see people one year to the next!). I’m really disappointed to have missed Peter Mandelson’s speech yesterday, but am looking forward to Gordon’s speech this afternoon. My hope is that he will put some fire into the belly of activists and set out a clear vision for a fourth term. Labour members already know what Labour has achieved, they are more than capable of articulating this on the doorsteps. What they can’t do at the moment is set out a clear, compelling vision of what Labour will achieve in its fourth term. That’s what I’m hoping to hear from Gordon this afternoon.

I don’t think it’s just a publicity stunt for the BBC. It’s not a question of if it is a good move, it was the only move if the BBC is to maintain its impartiality.

I’m at odds with many colleagues in the Labour Party in that I do think we should share a platform with the BBC. We have to recognise that the BNP’s spin and half-truths are being listened to on the doorsteps – that’s why two BNP MEPs and dozens of councillors have been elected. The BNP is winning votes from disillusioned none voters and disaffected working class Labour and Tory voters. Their messages have resonance and the only way to defeat them is by exposing them. Attempting to censor them actually gives them more power on the doorsteps as they can say “this is the truth ‘they’ don’t want you to hear.” The three main parties defeat this by not being afraid to debate with the BNP and expose them for what they are.

If you needed anymore evidence that all the BNP needs is the ‘oxygen of publicity’ to choke itself then this video posted by David Brain should help to convince you:

That’s right. Labour is in fact the party that leads with blogging MPs, according to a poll run via a Conservative blog, where you’d expect there to be a greater predominance of Tory supporting readers.

Of course it would be naive and simplistic to use this one simple figure as evidence that Labour is beating the Tories online. But is does help illustrate that things are not as clear cut as people commonly perceive.

1 (2) Tom Harris LA
2 (1) John Redwood CO
3 (12) Douglas Carswell CO
4 (4) Nadine Dorries CO
5 (8) Kerry McCarthy LA
6 (3) Tom Watson LA
7 (6) Adam Price PC
8 (5) Lynne Featherstone LD
9 (10) David Jones CO
10 (11) Paul Flynn LA

However, not content with one nasty lie, the Investor’s Business Daily has returned with an even bigger lie. In this editorial they claim:

We also say that not everyone suffering from a debilitating disease is Stephen Hawking, and we hope our critics would acknowledge that. Hawking is a renowned theoretical physicist, university professor and best-selling author. It is doubtful any National Health Service bureaucrat would cut him off.

The clear implication is that hadn’t he been famous, that the NHS would have “cut him off”.

How do I know the Investor’s Business Daily is written by liars? Simple. My mum died of Motor Neurone Disease (MND or in the US better known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease). That’s the same debilitating disease that Professor Hawking suffers from. There is no cure. My mum wasn’t famous, just fantastic.The NHS did a fantastically, brilliant, excellent job in caring for my Mum. There aren’t enough superlatives in the dictionary to describe how much #welovetheNHS.That’s how I know The Investor’s Business Daily is lying.

The Telegraph and Sky News have both reported it as being the top trending topic, but it’s disappeared as I write this post.

The Telegraph has a screen grab as evidence that it did trend:

The #welovethenhs hashtag was started (I haven’t yet tracked down who by) to help defend the National Health Service from the scurrilous attacks that are being launched on it by right-wing Republicans in the USA. President Obama has made healthcare reform a central pillar of his presidency, to right the many wrongs and injustices of the US healthcare system, which penalises the most vulnerable and rewards the most privileged – the exact opposite of what most people would expect a healthcare system to do.

Most of the #welovethenhs tweets include short (140 character!) stories about people’s personal experiences of the NHS.

There is even a ‘Twibbon’ that will overlay a welovethenhs graphic over your Twitter avatar to show you’re supporting the campaign.

Update, it’s still trending on Twitscoop (and by a LOT!):

but not on Twitter or Twitter Search: