Removal van at number 10 Downing Street

Paul on Politics is no more.

However, I will be keeping an eye on the political scene across the West on my new BBC correspondent page.

Thanks to everyone who left comments on my old blog.

I hope you will continue to take part in the debate on my new page.

Could free schools be a key part of the 'Big Society'?

Will "localism" ever really get off the ground?

It's one of the government's big visions: citizens taking control of their own destinies, and weaning themselves off reliance on the state.

But the experience of some parents in Bristol may be enough to dampen the most hardy "localist".

They're trying to get a new Free School off the ground - one of only a handful in the country with government pre-approval, an education backer, a possible head and children wanting to get in.

Bristol Free School prospectus

What they lack is a site.

They want to use council-owned land, and that's where it has all got sticky.

Relationships between the council, the Department for Education and the Free School Trust seem to have broken down.

Recriminations are flying and time is tight: if the school is to open on the site by September, it needs to get moving: parents must decide their children's secondary places within weeks, and local council elections have a habit of slowing down decision-making.

At a recent public meeting about this, one councillor - to paraphrase - told parents that "passion" wasn't enough.

Another threw up "legal and financial" obstacles to the free school, worried about parking and planning permission for the site.

Will it get done? Or will the free school have to go elsewhere?

Other sites may be available, but would have a detrimental impact on other secondary schools in the area, which are already under-subscribed.

In truth, no one really knows.

What it does show though - considering the free school plans have been active for about 18 months - is how hard it can be to get anything done on this scale without buy-in from the existing branches of government, in this case, the council - and to some extent, DfE.

Encouraging people to be active in their community only works, surely, if it's successful.

If not, localism could end up actually increasing cynicism - and undermining its very raison d'etre.

Should pensioners be cushioned from the cuts or should they also shoulder the burden?

Should pensioners shoulder more of the burden, in the age of austerity?

An interesting question for us, given the sheer number of senior citizens in the West Country, and our aging population.

Not an easy one though: the director of a free-market think tank admits he got hate mail when his report on this very question (answered in the affirmative, if you hadn't already guessed) recently came out.

Mark Littlewood, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, reckons we could save billions from our spending on the elderly, thus lifting the burden from those he says are most affected by the cuts - the young, and those with young families.

The think tank made lots of suggestions, including:

- ending pensioners' universal benefits such as free bus passes and TV licences
- not linking state pensions to earnings from 2011
- raising the state pension earlier than is already being proposed

Mark argues that this is as much about fairness, as saving money.

"The issue is intergenerational equity. There has been a great disservice done to the young. Money paid in has been spent by more than one government. Young people are being left with the liabilities.

"To ringfence particular perks for a generation... is unreasonable."

As you can imagine, this has not gone down too well in the West.

At a convention in Taunton, pensioners told us they are being squeezed by rising costs - of fuel, food and transport - and that they'd worked hard all their lives so they could retire in peace and dignity.

Not that they need to be worried about the IEA report, it seems to me.

Steve Webb MP, the Minister for Pensions, was at the Taunton event, and makes no apologies for championing pensioners' rights in Whitehall.

"A lot of universal benefits are very efficient. These are valuable parts of the mix... scaremongering reports suggesting these should all be slashed alarm people unnecessarily," he said.

But with an aging population, these questions will become more pertinent; balanced, of course, against the hard political reality that most pensioners vote.

We'll find out what the former Tory MP Ann Widdecombe thinks on the Politics Show West.

After all, she's nearly 65 herself.

Lord Heseltine is the chief 'dragon' in determining where the money goes

Let me throw a few terms at you and see if they stick.

Local Enterprise Partnership? No? How about Regional Growth Fund? Not heard of that one either?

Perhaps one day they'll occupy the same place in our hearts as the Regional Development Agency... or maybe not.

These are the government's new babies, designed to boost investment and innovation in the private sector.

The growth fund is a pot of money (£1.4bn over three years) private companies can bid for - so long as their projects help deliver jobs, and mitigate public sector job cuts.

It's a bit like the TV programme, Dragons' Den, and the chief dragon is Michael Heseltine.

Investing in regional businesses - opinion is divided on the best way forward

He heads up the panel which decides where the money goes, and has made it clear it's up to business to take the lead on this.

The first round of bids has come and gone, and West Country businesses have put their hands up for about £5m worth of funding.

Two criticisms have emerged. First, that £1.4bn - for the whole country - is not a lot of money. No surprise there.

But second, the South West could lose out to the Midlands or the North. Because we already have strong private industry here, we won't have the same need to mitigate public sector cuts - so we'll get less of the pot.

That remains to be seen, but industry leaders we've spoken to are fairly bullish they can pick up the slack.

And the onus falls on them to do this.

Which is where the Local Enterprise Partnerships come in.

These are rather nebulous creations, it seems to me: a heady mix of business leaders and council bosses, with some government seed money, working to enable rather than deliver growth - if you buy into business speak.

They are the replacement for the old RDAs - but may end up just being talking shops, say critics, who also argue the RDAs were more accountable, and could deliver longer-term projects over a wider geography.

There's only one LEP in the West so far - covering the old Avon area. Attempts to get them off the ground in Somerset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire have failed to date.

If it all leaves you stone cold, then remember one thing; the government tells us the private sector will secure the recovery - and these are some of the tools it's supplying to help that happen.

Nineteen-year-old Hanna Evans, from Swindon, is one of the new faces of unemployment.

Figures released recently show almost one in five young people under the age of 24 are now out of work: that's just under a million people.

Nineteen-year-old Hanna Evans, from Swindon, is one of them.

She's been unemployed for a year - in a town which famously used to have more jobs than people wanting them.

She hates it, but is undeterred - and has been tramping the streets of her home town, with the now infamous placard, touting for work.

"I've tried the internet, tried going round town, handing my CV in: no luck. This is my last resort."

When we hooked her up with the Employment Minister Chris Grayling, he gave the stock answer - blaming Labour for the deficit, the recession and lack of jobs.

But the government has promised to help, lengthening work placements from two to eight weeks before benefits kick in.

And one of the town's two Tory MPs, Rob Buckland, told the BBC Politics Show on Sunday: "It's been a problem in Swindon for the last couple of years. It was badly hit by the recession in 07/08 - but is slowly coming out of that.

"The good news for people like Hanna is that the government recognises there are too many barriers to employment for young people. We need to be encouraging the kind of apprentice and mentoring schemes which don't really on too much paper work."

Much more on those measures in future Politics Shows.

What's interesting here though are the historical parallels.

Rewind to 1992 and the last economic slump.

We filmed Phil Rice, also from Wiltshire, putting his CV under posh car windscreens after being made redundant.

He's now working for Malmesbury Town Council, having found a job three months after making his desperate plea.

"I wish Hanna all the best. When I saw what she'd done on the news, I thought good for you and it brought it all back to me. It must be murder getting into employment nowadays and tough for years to come."

Hanna will be hoping she'll make a breakthrough - she's just lined up a few job interviews.

The economy picked up for Phil Rice in 1993: will it do the same this time round?

Many employers are only taking people on part-time, leaving those on benefits unsure about the value of coming off them for temporary work.

The government has promised to solve this eternal conundrum with the Universal Benefit - but will those reforms come too late for Hanna's generation?

If so, the pictures of Hanna touting for a job could come back to haunt the coalition.

I don't just mean why are they taking such a hammering as councils slash their spending.

But how come they stir up much more protest than other, bigger cuts?

Dozens are threatened with closure across the West. Somerset County Council went furthest, at first announcing 20 would lose their funding.

Gloucestershire propose sweeping changes - with up to 11 closing.

Wiltshire are following suit, with 10 small branches in jeapordy.

There are some straightforward reasons why councils are doing this. Libraries aren't a matter of life and death. Many other things they spend money on, such as caring for the elderly or vulnerable children, can be.

The public know this; when consulted about cuts, there is very strong support for protecting social services.

So the cutting eye of the council axeman turns to less critical things, like youth clubs and libraries.

Losing the former affects relatively few. Losing the latter matters to many - and they can be formidable campaigners.

I have talked to groups from Gloucester to Glastonbury: they're eloquent and well-educated.

Add to that the fact that libraries are very visible, a tangible local asset that cameras can easily focus on, and you have a very potent mix.

The eruption of anger in Somerset has already brought a big u-turn: nine libraries have been reprieved.

But the leader of the council was keen to stress the cuts must go on; they'll just be spread more widely around the county's libraries.

And perhaps the furore has its uses.

It diverts attention from where much bigger cuts are being made.

Top of the hitlist: council staff.

In Somerset 1,500 jobs are expected to go; in Gloucestershire it's around 1,000.

Talking to one union man I asked if he felt frustrated at the lack of public sympathy for threatened civil servants, who are often dismissed as backroom bureaucrats and pen-pushers.

His reply suggested resignation more than anger.

"They won't really care until their services start to suffer in a year or two's time."

And, as any politician will tell you, a year or two is a very long time in politics.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

Sometimes the law is an ass.

That's the view from numerous MPs I've talked to about the laws that could kill off Bristol City's plans for a new stadium on fields at Ashton Vale.

Yet our laws are made by Parliament - with the most recent changes just four years ago.

A combination of legislative changes and landmark court cases have seen the scope of what can be designated a 'town green' or 'village green' widened.

That means, according to an official report, that the 42-acre site on the edge of Bristol qualifies.

Being a town green means it could never be developed; the only constructions on the land would remain the blue pipes which today bring up methane from the rotting landfill underneath.

There are plenty of other curious town or village greens, including swampy land, a beach and a golf course.

Barrister Charles George

Barrister Charles George has been involved in several significant cases - and is very critical of our lawmakers.

"Parliament has been particularly obtuse, because they had the chance in 2000 and in 2006 to say that the law has become a bit of a nonsense," he says. "Instead of which on both occasions they chose to make it easier to register land as village greens."

The 2006 Commons Act was put through by Labour MPs - including Bristol East's MP Kerry McCarthy.

Yet four years on she's championing the stadium bid, even tabling a Commons motion insisting it should not be killed off by the town green issue.

"As ever with legislation it's when things are put to the test in real-life scenarios that sometimes you find things aren't quite perfect," she admits.

"I don't think the town green legislation was designed to be used for land on this scale."

She's written to the government asking for them to change the law; so too has the Wells MP Tessa Munt.

"This is bonkers, this is absolutely bonkers!" she exclaims.

"I have to say it's happening in other parts of the country as well."

Defra (the relevent department) is considering changes - but they would come too late for Bristol City.

Expect a big crescendo of angst and fury as the issue comes to a head (such as at a joint BBC Radio Bristol - Evening Post debate).

A committee of councillors must decide whether to accept the town green recommendation.

But their personal wishes, and all the surrounding passion and emotion will count for little.

What matters is the law, and whether those muddy fields above an old rubbish tip meet the official criteria.

If councillors say they don't, the case may well go right up through the legal system.

Losing in the High or Supreme Court wouldn't just be embarrassing; it'd also be very expensive.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

"I have four children, and I feel sorry for the people who are between 35 and 50 because they'll never have what my family have had, or what I've been able to have before I've hit the squeeze."

This pensioner in Dunster in Somerset hit the nail on the head when it comes to state pension reform - which is being thought through by our very own Steve Webb MP for Thornbury and Yate, and now Minister for Pensions.

An unenviable task if ever there was one. The nettle he has to grasp is that because we're all living longer, we're all going to have to work longer.

State pensions are paid from current tax revenue, so the coalition wants to raise the retirement age for everyone.

For women, it'll speed up the process so it rises to 65 by 2018, and 66 by 2020.

This could particularly affect those now aged 57: their retirement could keep slipping out of their grasp, while those a few years older can book the cruise they've always wanted.

As pensions expert Tom McPhail from investment firm Hargreaves Lansdowne told us: "We may see the state pension age for women very rapidly increasing from 63 to 65 around 2016 to 2018.

"So women around 57 now, who suddenly find the state pension age goes up faster, and people around them, have very different pension ages as it get stretched out."

On the other side of the coin, women could do significantly better out of state pension reform.

It's been reported that everyone could get a flat rate pension of about £140 a week.

This would be regardless of what savings you have, so no more means-testing for top up credits, and regardless of what national insurance contributions you've paid into the pot.

This idea gets a cautious welcome from women's groups.

"It means women will be recognised as full citizens who are deserving of an equal pension - women who've spent a large proportion of their lives juggling childcare and elder care with work - often low-paid work," says Helen Mott, from the Bristol Fawcett Society.

The government says it wants to deliver better pensions and make them easier to get.

Steve Webb is working on a discussion paper, which should make interesting reading - particularly for women.

Phil Woolas and his election leaflets, eh?

"The respondent had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true and did not believe them to be true."

So ruled the court in this unusual case. It could be the tip of an iceberg.

Oldham East may be a long way from the West of England, but behaviourally it's only too close to home.

Too many times I've been shown campaign literature that is at best misleading, at worst downright dishonest.

I've had members of all parties complain bitterly about what their opponents are putting out.

But in the heat of an election campaign it's been pretty much accepted - with resignation - that there's little to be done about it, except put out your own counter-claims.

Voters can become bewildered, and very cynical.

So let's hope this landmark court case - the first in 99 years - ushers in a new, more honest era in our politics.

Understanding it is the first task - there are more than 50 benefits you can apply for and no one seems to really understand how it all works.

Even his detractors give credit to Iain Duncan-Smith for getting out and about on this.

But critics of the changes being planned say we shouldn't underestimate what is being proposed.

According to a former Labour government advisor, it is nothing short of a dismantling of one key plank of the welfare state: a trend, he says, which has been on the rise since the 1960s.

Professor Paul Gregg, of the University of Bristol, worked on the benefit system for New Labour.

In particular, the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which has slowly been replacing Incapacity Benefit.

This is a benefit paid at a higher level for the very sick and very disabled.

Admittedly, only after complicated assessments; but it was designed as a support-first, work-second benefit, offering personalised help for those trying to get back into work.

The government wants to move most claimants after a year from ESA and onto Job Seekers' Allowance.

This pays less and has more conditions attached.

Prof Gregg's point is that ESA is one of the last contributions-based benefits being paid out - that you get it in part because of any National Insurance payments you've made in the past.

The idea that you get more from the state if you fall ill because you've paid more in was a founding part of Beveridge's welfare state.

But, like Housing Benefit, it could be seen as a barrier to a Universal Benefit system - hence the attempt to change it.

The government argues that anyone who can't work won't be made to, and that those who need support will still get it.

However if the support you get isn't based on your contributions, but on a residual benefit system designed to protect people in the worse-case scenarios, the question is opened up - why work?

Especially as the shift to means-testing (think Child Benefit) continues.

The debate has only just begun.

Martin Horwood in Cheltenham, Stephen Williams in Bristol and Don Foster in Bath: all Lib Dem MPs here - and all in university towns.

They all signed up to the (manifesto) pledge to scrap tuition fees over six years.

There are several ways to view this: the most abstract is as a basic u-turn which will leave many supporters cold.

Like Trident and nuclear power, the beards and sandals brigade will be seething - it's the principle of the thing after all.

But MPs seem to be finding the ubiquitous coalition wriggle room in the argument that Browne's report is "fairer" than the system we have now - and having them in the coalition has softened what the Tories may have done on their own.

Stephen Williams has been his party's spokesman on higher education, so has faced tough questions about their change.

He told BBC Points West: "The report recommends a much more progressive system than we currently have, because if you're a high-earning graduate you'll pay back much more than a middle-earning graduate and lower earning graduates may not pay back anything at all."

Some modelling systems dispute this, but it shows the wider political battle being fought: which party is the more "progressive"?

Labour used this term as a rallying cry at its conference, and at PMQs David Cameron assumed the mantle in his defence of scrapping child benefit for higher earners.

But selling yourself as progressive is a bit like selling apple pie and ice cream: who's not going to buy it?

So the Lib Dems may have to work harder.

On tuition fees, they think they can insert progressive measures into the legislation, such as stopping higher-earning graduates paying off their debt too quickly, thus avoiding lucrative interest repayments which could be used to fund others in the system.

No Lib Dems we've spoken to will say for sure which way they'll vote on this: keeping their powder dry means - they say - they have leverage on these finer points of detail, which they hope will make the news once the headline writers have moved on.

It is worth remembering though that Labour flipped on tuition fees in 1997 - and stayed in power for 13 years.

In part, because while there may be 70,000 students in the west, many of them don't vote here - or even in their home constituencies.

They're transient - and crucially, they're used to paying for their education now.

Politics never ceases to surprise.

At this year's Tory and Lib Dem party conferences journalists looked in vain for legions of activists angry at the coalition.

Instead, with the Conservatives in Birmingham, I was treated to the strange sight of the visiting Bath MP Don Foster (Lib Dem) embracing Tory cabinet minister Eric Pickles.

They hugged for the cameras.

"We are together!" proclaimed the portly Mr Pickles.

"Forever!" added an aide.

"No, not forever," chuckled Don Foster, their arms still intertwined. "Distinct parties working together in the common interests of the country!"

He found no hardship in spending two days at his former foes' conference.

The political co-habitation has even earned praise from Ian Liddell-Grainger.

Back in May the Bridgwater MP was an instant critic of the coalition, stating he "never trusted the Lib Dems", and poking fun at his neighbours who'd been appointed ministers.

Five months on, the contrast is amazing.

"Dealing with my two local MPs, Jeremy Browne and David Heath, has actually been a revelation. They're doing really well," he told me. "I find that quite intriguing!"

His colleague Jacob Rees-Mogg of North East Somerset has gone even further.

He's proposing a political marriage, saying the two parties should fight the next general election in coalition.

That sort of talk would have been unheard of a few months ago.

And I suspect we won't hear much of it around the time of next year's elections, when local Tories and Lib Dems will do battle for control of the local council.

David Miliband won the vote among MPs and among party members - particularly in the West.

You can look at the exact figures for every constituency, and the older brother comes out on top across the region.

Notable was the influence of one of his campaign team, the former North East Somerset MP Dan Norris; Labour members there voted 2:1 for David M.

But the union vote swung it - and that was a far from perfect ballot. 36,000 papers were spoilt, most it seems because members had failed to tick a box confirming they supported Labour.

I'm sure some were not supporters of the party. We met a Bristol couple mystified why they'd been sent a ballot paper. She had been in the union but retired 14 years ago - and neither vote Labour!

However for activists that is now water under the bridge. They will unite behind the new leader, and focus on fighting the government and rebuilding the party.

And that's where the detailed voting figures make rather sober reading for the party, as we get to see the number of members in every seat.

Across the West it ranges from more than 600 in Lib Dem held Bristol West to just over 100 in South West Wiltshire, a pretty solid Tory seat.

The scale of the challenge is apparent in places that once were red.

Labour today have around 250 members in constituencies like Kingswood, Gloucester and North and South Swindon. It's similar in the party's two remaining Bristol seats.

That's a long, long way from the glory days of the late 90's.

Latest to go, Wiltshire Council, and there were plenty of gloomy figures being bandied about.

A total of 240 jobs going - £40m being cut by next April. And increasing demand on services.

Reporters, particularly those covering a wider area, naturally make comparisons - and that's where the trouble begins.

Wiltshire's unitary authority say over the next four years they must save £100m, invest and redirect £124m into priority areas, while losing £122m government funding. Figure that out!

Looking at neighbouring councils can make matters worse. Somerset County Council talk of a £75m deficit over three years. Gloucestershire warn of cutting £120m over four years. Oh, and remember those counties also have district councils with their own financial troubles.

So how do we guage how bad it really is?

I'd suggest two ways. Seeing how local residents are affected (a long term measure), and guaging the mood (much quicker!).

We will be watching and reporting tangible effects like library or swimming pool closures over the next few years.

But for now it's worth noting how Wiltshire Council's top people are feeling.

The leader, Jane Scott, was smiley. The chief executive Andrew Kerr was serene.

And he had a simple message: merging five councils to create one last year had come at almost exactly the right time - "a fantastic opportunity".

I wonder whether Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for local government who's railed against new unitary authorities, will notice.

Yes, you can cull.

The government's announcement that farmers could kill the badgers that they blame for TB in their cattle seemed straightforward.

The NFU certainly thought so, with warm words of approval.

But is it really that good for farmers?

Here are some facts to bear in mind.

First, they'll have to pay for it.

They'll only be able to cull in areas of at least 150 square kilometres. In the West of England that would likely contain more than 100 farms.

So a farmer wanting to institute a cull might have to persuade 99 others to agree to it.

And they won't all have cattle; it's reckoned that kind of area would on average contain 22 herds.

Then there's the cost: the government estimates the necessary cull, lasting several years and done under licence, would cost £1.2m. Others think it'd be higher: a report by academics at Imperial College suggests it could top £2m.

So persuade 100 farmers to accept a cull, and the 22 with cattle to pay at least £50,000 each, and off you go.

Oh, and watch out for the legal challenges: judges in Wales halted a cull in Pembrokeshire after casting doubt on the scientific grounds for it.

There are plenty of scientists on this side of the border keen to see a cull meet the same fate.