The Economist has a blog post about the timing of Ed Milliband’s speech to the March 26 rally.  Whilst there is an interesting analysis of why Mr Milliband spoke so early, far more interesting is 3 paragraphs that neatly sum up the range of opinion about how and when to get the public finances back under control:

I think Mr Miliband’s problem boils down to this. Most people in this country, including a lot of people I met on the march today, think that Britain faces a period of painful decisions and choices, because the country has been spending too much. Within that majority, there are people who are (for variously selfless and selfish reasons) attracted to a Keynesian argument that deep, front-loaded cuts are counter-productive, and so some painful decisions should be postponed. That is an intellectually respectable argument: this newspaper does not agree with it, but there are people of goodwill on both sides of the debate.

Then there is a hard core of people who simply do not accept that the money has run out. These flat-earthers think that there need not be any cuts, because if you only taxed the banks/bankers/multinationals/tax avoiders/the rich a lot more, you would unearth a hidden money pot filled with so many billions that we could keep spending as before. I don’t think Mr Miliband agrees with them. I don’t think most voters in Britain agree with them. I don’t think even most of the marchers in Hyde Park agree with that hard core.

But that hard core has a firm grip on Labour’s base, as could be seen on Friday in Nottingham. And Mr Miliband, by endorsing the wider anti-cuts movement, risks becoming associated with that hard core and their breathtaking lack of realism. He said again in Hyde Park that he was proud to be addressing the “mainstream majority”. But he did not look proud: his nerves gave him away. “It is so important that this be a peaceful protest,” he said at one point, almost pleadingly. The crowd seemed pretty indifferent to his presence, in return.

Read the blog post “Ed Milliband shunted off television news by anarchists” at The Economist website by clicking here.

I attended the public meeting at the Mechanics Hall in Brechin to discuss the Town Centre Regeneration Fund project.

I would like to thank Jim Milne for chairing the meeting and Angus Council for organising it, in the hope of giving Brechin residents the opportunity to hear the background and delivery of the project and to raise their concerns.

I was disappointed that so few local residents got the opportunity to air their views.  With Councillors from all around Angus, MSPs and political party activists turning the event into a political circus.

I attended with a view to listening to the views of local people, and hoping to discover what lessons could be learnt.  My fellow candidates for Angus North and Mearns in the upcoming Scottish Elections, Nigel Don and Alex Johnstone, came to be heard, not listen.  Their questions demonstrated either their lack of knowledge of the project, or willful aim at political point scoring.  In particular Mr Johnstone suggested that a Compulsory Purchase Order could have been used when he knows full well that would never have been possible.

It is not surprising that politicians get a bad name, given that point scoring was more important for many who attended, rather than establishing the facts and learning lessons.

It would appear that the SNP in Angus, faced with justifying the SNP Government’s decision to withdraw funding promised to Brechin, have decided that offence is the best defence.  They have tried to throw mud at Angus Council’s handling of the project, which from my 15 years experience as a Project Manager, has been excellent.

In particular I was very disappointed at the deeply personal attacks made on Council officers who have clearly worked extremely hard to bring £1m of investment into Brechin and are clearly deeply personally disappointed at not having been able to secure the remaining £800,000 from the Scottish Government.

I was well aware of the issues in advance of the meeting and was very impressed with the council officers as they presented the facts, and it was very clear to me that they could not have done more to reach a satisfactory conclusion with the property owners involved.  The reality was that they were undone twice by property owners who broke their promises to sell to Angus Council.

Furthermore, it appears that all Councillors had the opportunity to raise their concerns throughout the period of the project, at various meetings both in Forfar and in Brechin, but did not do so.  As was said last night, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and all councillors, as well as those involved in the Brechin Town Heritage Initiative and the Brechin Area Partnership were given regular updates, as well as given the chance to ask questions and make suggestions.

Let us welcome the £1m of investment in Brechin, along with the private investment in the old Woolworths, and learn lessons for the future, rather than take every opportunity to turn Brechin’s economic circumstances into a political football.

With Keith Brown MSP’s visit to Laurencekirk junction, the SNP’s governments renewed interest in building a flyover is welcome

I was delighted to hear that the new SNP minister saw the junction for himself and this was a huge step forward. The news that he has asked for more detailed costs is also great news. His predecessor seemed to suggest that the cost could be £23 million, which would make it the most expensive flyover in Scotland!

In my view the flyover should be added back into the Strategic Transport Project Review immediately.  The sooner the junction is built, the better. It is great to see road safety back as the top priority for transport policy.

North Angus and Mearns residents, from Forfar, Brechin, Montrose and Laurencekirk see no reason for any further delay. They will be relieved to know that there is now hope for a successful end to the superb campaign led by Jill Campbell.

She should be commended for carrying on the fight, and forcing the Scottish Government to rethink their decision not to build the Laurencekirk flyover.

Read more about this story by clicking here for “A90 Marykirk junctions improvements to be costed” at the Montrose Review

I am deeply concerned that a divide is forming between Aberdeenshire Council and Bervie Braes residents, and I have called on all those involved to work together for a resolution.  I sought to remind all concerned that they are working towards the same goal, to secure the Braes and ensure there are no further landslips.

Everyone involved, the residents, the Community Council, Aberdeenshire Council and local Councillors all want the work to secure the Braes to go ahead as quickly as possible.

Having visited Bervie Braes with David Fleming, chair of the Community Council and discussed the issue at length with Aberdeenshire Councillors, particularly Stonehaven Cllr Peter Bellarby, it is striking that they have far more in common, than they have differences of opinion.

Residents, having narrowly escaped earlier this year, and having been promised a resolution by the Council, will be worried about going through the winter without the Braes being secured.  Clearly, residents want to ensure that their future insurance coverage is not affected by the waivers which they have been asked to sign.  Their concerns are understandable and the council should take note.

It is therefore heartening to learn that the Council, having tried several times to visit all the residents to discuss the waivers face-to-face, is open to changing the wording in response to their worries.  When I have discussed the issue with Peter Bellarby and other Aberdeenshire Councillors, it was clear that they felt very, very strongly that the Council should undertake the effort, even though it has no responsibility to do so.

Aberdeenshire Council have had a major success in securing £2m from the Scottish Government towards the cost of the scheme and should be commended for their effort.  Understandably, the council has a responsibility to all other Aberdeenshire residents to ensure they do not incur a future liability, beyond the proposed scheme.  The contractors insurance will cover the work that they do, so this should be straightforward.

I would urge all those involved to put themselves in each others’ shoes.  They would then understand that it is in everyone’s interest to work together towards a mutually satisfactory outcome.

Alberto Costa has sent a letter to postal voters in Angus, in which he writes:

Remember, a vote for the SNP or the Lib Dems will only risk another five years of Labour or a hung Parliament.

Of course, the only thing that would make another five years of Labour more likely in Angus, is a vote for Labour candidate Kevin Hutchens. But Alberto does not mention that, as his intention is clearly to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about voting for the SNP or the Lib Dems.

Mentioning the Lib Dems as well as the SNP, but not Labour, clearly shows that Alberto knows that Angus is now a three way battle.

What is particularly worrying, is the sense of entitlement Alberto Costa displays in his letter to Angus residents. There is an assumption that the Tories have a right to power and that Angus residents have a responsibility to vote for him:

If we really want change, we all need to play our role and that means electing a new Conservative MP for Angus.

The reality is that if they want real change, then Angus residents have the opportunity to vote for the Liberal Democrats who can deliver it for them.

Montrose Academy held a mock election on Friday, run magnificently by Ian Watt. It was great to see Sean Massie, the Liberal Democrat candidate win the mock election. Congratulation to Sean and his class who ran an excellent campaign. I’ve had to ask Sean for a copy of his stump speech, as it included some key points I hope to use.

I really appreciated being invited to attend a hustings after the vote, between the Angus parliamentary candidates. During the discussion, Angus SNP candidate, Mike Weir admitted that there are three parties whose candidate could be elected, saying:

Whoever gets elected whether it is the SNP, the Tories or the Lib Dems,…

Conspicuously absent was any mention of the Labour candidate, Kevin Hutchens. Clearly, Mike has recognised that people in Angus are looking at all the main options available to them.

The national campaign shows this will not be just a once in a lifetime election. It will be a unique opportunity to sweep away the two old parties’ grip on power. They have and will do anything to stop things really changing.

It is no longer a two horse race nationally, nor is it here in Angus. Residents do not have to pick the least worst option.

When choosing between myself, Mike Weir and Alberto Costa, Angus residents now realise that by voting for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, by voting for me, Sanjay Samani, their vote will count and their voice will be heard.