Brighton Politics Blogger to stand as a Conservative candidate in 2015

Brighton Pavilion and Hove Conservatives are seeking candidates for the 2015 City Council elections – and you do not have to be a Party member already

Its website says that “In a bold new move the Conservatives in Brighton Pavilion and Hove have opened up their selection process for the first time to any member of the local community who wants to serve their neighbours by becoming a Councillor. No longer will selection be restricted to those who are already Party members.”

Councillor Andrew Wealls, who led a review of candidate selection, said: “We would like to hear from anyone who wants to work for the local community to ensure the Council better serves local residents and businesses. Of course we would expect them to be broadly sympathetic to Conservative values but the most important consideration is a determination to make life better for all residents, whether by ensuring council tax bills are reduced or delivering council services more effectively.”

In the spirit of the New Conservative Party, I have decided to put my name forward. While I have some difficulties with certain Conservative ‘values’, I am pleased that “the most important consideration is a determination to make life better for all residents”.

I want to make life better for residents, but which residents? Which seat will they let me stand in? Obviously there is a determination by the New Conservatives to make life better for this Blogger, and so will certainly allow me to stand in a safe seat. That rules out all seats in the current Brighton Pavilion constituency, even Withdean and Patcham wards.

So what sort of policies should I stand on? I am a conservative kind of person. I want to conserve socialist values in the Labour Party, a battle that is sadly being lost. I want low Council Tax rises, say 3.5%, in order to avoid bigger cuts last year, and on this issue I can foresee a Phillips-Blogger coalition at next year’s Budget Meeting. The modern Tory Party is committed to creating coalitions to replace the one with the doomed Lib Dems.

So here are some of my ideas for the Blogger’s Conservative manifesto:

• The mandatory wearing of ties sporting the stars and stripes by all male Conservative councillors at all times;
• All Tory councillors must abide by the Hyde Rule – having been born within a two mile radius of Brighton Town Hall (to hell with inbreeding, councillor Ania Kitcat);
• Leading the annual Pride March around Hangleton – pride that the ward is the most anti-traveller ward in the City; and
• Unlimited extensions for speeches by councillors Janio and Hawtree at all council meetings with tickets for the public gallery being sold to the highest bidders.

Mischievous Geoffrey Bowden, fighting Steve Bassam, and bullish Jason Kitcat

Do you have 3G? I don’t mean the Internet access on your phone or laptop, but Three Geoffrey’s? In the Bible the Three Wise Men travelled from the east to worship the Child God, or something like that. In Brighton and Hove, the Three Wise Men travelled to the west to King’s House. They are the Three G’s – Geoffreys Theobald, Wells and Bowden.

And rumour has it that each of the Three G’s is pulling in a different direction: Geoffrey W to the right, Geoffrey T straight ahead, while Geoffrey B pulling to the hard left (well just left of centre, really). And how do we know this? Well GB has tweeted that “Rumour has it that the Tory’s 2 Geoffreys – Wells & Theobald r @ war with Wells threatening 2 resign Tory whip @ full council on 15th”.

I know little more than what GB has tweeted, but hopefully one of my dear friends in the Tory Party will enlighten me further. Is this further evidence of the split between the Hove and Pavilion Tories on one hand, and the Kemptown Tories on the other?

But Geoffrey Bowden has been stirring it elsewhere. In another tweet, designed to get Warren Morgan spluttering, once again, over hi Sugar Puffs, he wrote: “Rallying Lab troops 2 help in Westbourne Warren Morgan reveals his fears Greens will look @ seat in E.Brighton if not stopped in bi-election.” Naughty, Geoffrey.

Less edifying on Twitter has been the ongoing obsession that Chuck Vere has about where Caroline Lucas lives. Most activists have long accepted that Ms Lucas has her only home in the Brighton Pavilion constituency, and Lady Everton, Alex Phillips, unambiguously made that clear on Twitter. Ms Lucas’s two main opponents at the general election, Chuck herself and Nancy Platts, both wasted little time returning to London after the election. Caroline Lucas is well and truly settled in Brighton Pavilion, and can expect a long incumbency as its Member of Parliament.

But what has been more interesting this week than the split between the two Blue Geoffreys, Labour’s fears for East Brighton, and Chuck Vere’s obsession as to where Caroline Lucas leaves her toothbrush, has been the role of Twitter in the debate on the City Council’s first Green budget. There have been two primary protagonists: in the red corner, Lord Bassam (the former Labour leader of Brighton and Hove City Council); in the green corner, the Green Administrations Cabinet Member for Finance, Jason Kitcat.

Steve Bassam has peppered Jason Kitcat with questions and comments, which councillor Kitcat has patiently answered over several days. This debate has shown two things: the tribal, street fighting, campaigning instincts of Steve Bassam, and the competence in financial matters of Jason Kitcat. For a new comer to Brighton politics, one would never have believed that, as councillor Bassam, Lord Bassam was responsible for cuts of an equal scale (including the closure of more public toilets than is currently proposed) and rate/council tax rises that makes councillor Kitcat look as though he is the true-born Son of Eric Pickles.

Finally, last week I invited supporters of Labour, the Tories, UKIP and the Lib Dems (if there are any of the latter group left) to send me their alternate budgets, saying I would post them on my blog for my three regular readers to review. But to date Momma Grizzly, Doris and Biker Dave have been disappointed. The offer still stands. Perhaps Lord Bassam might oblige …?

The Green budget is politically astute; what alternatives are there from Labour and the Tories?

I have really lost the plot. You shouldn’t read this blog. There are so many reasons not to. The latest reason is my praise for the Green budget. I seem to have lost any sense of balance. Well, that is how some people, including Valerie Paynter, Linda F, and some others see it.

If you were to look at my post about the Green budget, I hardly mentioned anything about the content, what is being protected, what is being cut. I rather looked at the politics, and I stand by what I said. The Greens, and Jason Kitcat in particular, have produced something exceptional and done so in an exceptional way.

Let’s face it, under the Tory-led Coalition, ably assisted by their lapdogs in the Lib Dems, no budget set at this time would be anything but incredibly difficult to set, and cuts are inevitable.

Over the last ten years, the budgets set by previous Labour and Tory administrations would have looked not too dissimilar had they been set by the other party, with marginal changes in emphasis, and the addition or removal of a cycle lane or two.

So, too, it is with this budget. I doubt whether either Labour or the Tories will come up with anything really substantive by way of an alternative. I hope they do, but many of the cost cutting measures, perhaps with the addition or removal of a Super Director or two, would be the same.

The Greens have said that they want to protect the young, the elderly, and the very vulnerable. It appears that, largely, they have achieved this. But the content of the Budget is not my area of expertise and I have left it to Jason Kitcat and Steve Bassam to joust through Twitter on the merits or otherwise of the budget itself. How Labour in Brighton and Hove need someone like Lord Bassam to lead their recovery.

But back to the politics. The approach taken by the Greens, the inclusive approach adopted by councillor Kitcat, the assertive way in which the budget-setting process has been led, is an example of a genuine wish to involve those from other parties and from none. And an unintentional consequence (probably a very intentional consequence, come to think about it) has been to neuter the opposition.

The approach has, genuinely, been an open one. Opposition councillors have been invited and welcomed into the ‘star chamber’. There is an ‘open book’ approach. This approach, politically, puts opposition groups on the back foot. They cannot make complain about the process, and it forces them to focus on the issues.

The challenge for the opposition is to come up with an alternate budget. For the Tories it won’t be enough to harp on about a Council Tax freeze. They are the party of cuts and austerity. Let’s hear something positive from them now.

The Brighton & Hove Budget 2012 – where clear political battle lines will be drawn

The Green administration in Brighton and Hove has announced that Council Tax in the City is to go up be about 3.5% in each of the next three years, or 10% over 3 years.

However, the People’s Geoff, (Tory Leader Geoffrey Theobald) said in a communication with this Humble Blogger that he thinks “residents will be concerned”. He said: “I find it quite irresponsible that the Greens are planning these large increases, for the next 3 years, at such an early stage in their administration”. He said that the Tories’ “first priority was always to look for savings in back office functions before ever turning to the council tax payer.”

Inevitably, as I warned last week, the Tories have raised the issue of the new head of media relations, as well as the decision to taking on the management of the Council’s downland estate.

I think Geoffrey Theobald is being a bit disingenuous. After all, the council tax freeze last year, indeed much of the budget set in the dying days of the Tory administration, was a decisive …. deferring of difficult decisions until this coming year’s budget.

A 3.5% increase is significantly less that the rate of inflation which is running at the moment at about 5%.

Council Leader Bill Randall has said his Green administration’s aim is to “protect front line services which support the city’s most vulnerable people.”

When it comes to setting a budget, it is clear that 23 Greens will vote one way, 18 Conservatives another, leaving the ultimate decision in the hands of Labour councillors. The 13 Labour councillors are in a tricky position. After they have put forward their token amendments which will have no chance of being agreed, they will either have to support the Conservatives’ opposition (and lose further credibility in the City) or support the Green’s budget (which will frustrate them and Labour activists who continue to see the Greens locally as their main opponents).

Of course Labour could abstain, thereby allowing the Green budget to be set. But an abstention would beg the question: what is the point of Labour councillors in Brighton?

Simple arguments for the Tories and the Greens, an impossible argument for Labour to make in Brighton and Hove

The Noble Lord, Baron Pepperpot, has disagreed with my analysis of the political implications of Thursday’s Budget votes at Brighton and Hove City Council. He writes: “I find it very difficult to believe-despite today’s Argus headline, that any Conservative-apart from those in those leafy outwith suburbs, will be laughing to the polls. Sometimes we over estimate the average persons interest in the intricate nature of these issues. Most people, however, will have heard about the proposed 1% reduction in council tax, most people will know about the cuts. It is my conclusion, from those I have spoken to, that people see the 1% reduction as a gimmick and that people know cuts are coming and are, whether rightly or wrongly, resigned to them. From this conclusion (and some people on here will agree, some not) I see that no damage has been done long term to either Labour or the Greens. Both can sell an alternative argument. And most people don’t have the time or inclination to draw an in depth conclusion.”

I don’t agree, Baron. The Tories will emphasise the fact that Labour and the Greens voted against the cut in Council Tax. Theirs is an easy (if sloppy) argument, one that ill-informed voters miught buy. Imagine the line on the doorstep/on leaflets: “We put forward a cut in Council tax but Labour and the Greens voted against saving you money.”  No mention of amounts, a simple, accurate message.

There is damage for Labour.  The Greens message will be: “We could have voted down the Tory cuts budget, but Labour abstained and allowed the cuts to go ahead”. Again, a simple, accurate message.

As for Labour, what will its message be? At best “While we don’t like the cuts, we had to abstain to allow a budget to be set to avoid chaos”.  Huh? A confusing, not so accurate message.  Floating voters like me won’t be convinced.  (Before I am accused by Labour activists of being pro Green, I intend to split my votes in May. Whether it is 2 Green and 1 Labour or 1 Green and 2 Labour is yet to be decided, but Labour’s abstention encorages me towards the former).

Warren Morgan makes a brave attempt to explain Labour’s position: “We co-operated on some amendments, we made a difference in what was passed. There was a disagreement over whether to vote out the amended Tory budget or let it go through with the changes we had agreed.  The Greens had other amendments that they put in which they will use on election leaflets to differentiate themselves from Labour, and chose to make a stand and vote against the Budget. Again they are using that position to differentiate themselves from Labour. We could have done the same, and would have had to do the whole thing again next week. That may or may not have enabled further changes, or it may have lost the changes already won. We could not, lawfully, have continued to vote it down and deny the reality of Tory govt imposed cuts.”

That’s a complicated argument, less still a convincing argument that will be difficult to make in response to the simple message that the Greens will be making.

Allie Cannell thinks my views about the future prospects of Labour-Green co-operation is too pessimistic: “Labour and the Greens are always going to disagree about things, thats why they are seperate parties! You can’t expect them to get along all the time, what is encouraging though is that they found so much stuff that they did agree on so that they could significantly change the Tory budget so it wasn’t quite as bad. There is some overlap and I think the collaboration in this budget shows that mostly both parties can work with that overlap and that politisicing hopefully wont get in the way.”  I hope you are right, Allie, but the tone of exchanges of late (well, since Thursday night) suggests some activists are less likely to stab others in the back, it is an all-out, full-frontal assault!

Christopher Hawtree says that the Budget is largely a non-issue: “I spoke with a lot of people yesterday, and did not hear the Budget mentioned.”  I doubt that the Tories or the Greens will allow that situation to last long.

The Greens blame Labour, Labour blames the Greens, and the Tories laugh all the way to the polling station

Yesterday I was upbeat and positive about the collaboration between Labour and the Greens.  Tonight they are back at each other’s throats.  This is how I see it. It was great that there was a shared approach to the Tory budget.  Labour and Green councillors were joined by Lib Dem Paul Elgood and independent (former Lib Dem) David Watkins, in voting through some amendments.  So far, so good.

It was right to amend the Tory budget, but that did not mean it was no longer a Tory budget, in spite of what the Grizzly One might say: “I am very disappointed that the Conservative budget proposal was voted down. It was, on the whole, excellent.”  The tens of millions of cuts remained.  Labour and Green councillors were then faced with a choice of what to do.  Together with Elgood and Watkins, they had more than enough votes to throw the whole budget out.  And there would have been enough time to review the Tory proposals and to come up with some alternatives.

But when push came to shove, all 13 Labour councillors abstained. All 13 Green councillors votes against the budget along with Watkins and Elgood.  A truly courageous group of Labour councillors would have seen this as an opportunity to make a real stand against the ConDem Coalition.  But it was not to be. The Tory budget, mildly amended, was comfortably carried. Andy Richards writes: “The opportunity which is being missed here by all of the non-Coalition councillors is to say to an increasingly weak and divided government, ‘we are not going to pass on your cuts’.”

There is a debate about whether it is ok to vote against a motion you have amended. It is no difference than abstaining if the vote goes in favour of a cuts budget.  Dani, as always, speaks sense: “The amendments were just tinkering at the edges of a £23 million cuts package. They restored less than £3 million – welcome, but not enough to make the overall budget acceptable.  Amending a motion you are intending to vote against is perfectly reasonable. It means you are saying that you don’t want to do what is proposed, but if you are defeated and it ends up being done, you would prefer it done in a different way.”

I entirely disagree with Ian Chisnall who writes: “If the Greens and Labour were not happy that the final budget was adequate they should have either tabled more robust amendements or tabled no amendments and voted against the unamended budget.”  Wrong.  It is right that Labour and Green try to make the best of a bad deal, but that doesn’t mean they then have to vote for that bad deal.

What will the consequences be? Immediately the prospect of any form of reconciliation between the two parties of the left has been lost, the likelihood of co-operation after May’s local elections gone.  The blame game has begun. Labour activists accuse the Greens of being unrealistic, the Greens blame Labour for selling out.  While I tend to take the latter view, the one party that will be laughing all the way to the polling stations is the Conservative Party.  They have their headline – a Council Tax being voted down – along with the defeated cut in the cost of parking permits.  Geoffrey Theobald ended with some egg on his face over the cycle path, but that is small change compared to the vitriol that is being expressed between the two opposition parties.

I am sorry not to have responded to the record number of comments left today, but the debate rages on in the Comments section of my last post which gave my knee-jerk reaction immediately after the end of the Council meeting.

An immediate, knee-jerk reaction to the Brighton and Hove City Council Budget Meeting

And so there we have it: the Brighton and Hove City Council budget for 2011/12. Here is my immediate and largely unconsidered knee-jerk reaction (nothing new there).

The amendments put forward by Labour and the Greens have been passed. That’s some good news at this time of harrowing cuts elsewhere. There are two ways of looking at this. One, put forward by @sandyd68 on Twitter, is that it is soft cuts as opposed to hard.  (Those supporting this view were calling, until the final vote, for Labour and Green councillors not to vote in favour of the amended budget.) The other, put forward by some Tories, is that if the Tory budget had remained unamended, elsewhere in the country people would be jumping for joy.

The reality is that the substantive budget put forward by the Tories was a clever election budget. There are 3 key matters that the Tories will now latch onto in the election campaign. One is the reversal of the Council Tax cut. It provides them with a useful headline and a rallying point for Grizzlies and the Estate Agent Tendency in Goldsmid. Two, the defeat of the parking permit cut will be used by the Tories in town centre wards, now the stronghold of the Greens. Fortunately, the Greens are too strong in these areas for this to make a difference. Three, the cutting of grass verges – £100k cut from that budget. Tories in the leafy suburbs will make hay while the grass grows. It could cost some votes in one or two areas of Hollingdean and Stanmer, but then that is largely a fight between Labour and the Greens. It could, however, make a difference in Labour / Tory contests in areas such as Hangleton and Knoll (now that Dawn Barnett and Brian Fitch have found common cause on the top deck of the No 5 bus).

For the Greens, the victory regarding the cycle lanes in The Drive and Grand Avenue is a two-edged sword. It preserves two cycle lanes (although not the greatest in the world) but denies the Greens a fantastic campaign issue for their campaigns in Central Hove and Goldsmid.

For Labour, they have the comfort of being part of something that wasn’t defeated by the Tories. However, they ame across as the minor partner in this budget coalition. On the whole, the Green councillors made stronger and more impassioned speeches. Some of the Tory speeches were ill-tempered and amounted to name-calling. It would have been better had more Tories made speeches that were positive about their budget rather than speak about Labour’s 2007 budget. Who the heck cares if it was Simon Burgess or Gill Mitchell who presented Labour’s last budget (it was Simon, for the record). Garry Peltzer Dunne is a very amiable chap to spend time with, but his speech was something else, not sure what, but something else!

The final twist of the evening came with Labour abstaining on the final vote on the budget (thereby ensuring it was carried).  The Greens voted against.  The Greens will be seen as carrying through its principles with Labour allowing the Tory budget through.  The Tories, of course, voted for the amended budget since it was largely theirs.  On balance, it was a good night for the Tories, Greens and, to a lesser extent, Labour. For the Lib Dem Group of One, opposing the Tory budget at least avoided political suicide.

The final word to @sandyd68 on Twitter.  “Labour sell out. Left wing coalition, my arse!”

Collaboration between Labour and the Greens on the Brighton and Hove Budget is a positive sign of things to come

What excellent news that the Greens and Labour are collaborating on challenges to the Budget at Brighton and Hove City Council. There is now a sort of clear greeny-red water between the parties of the left and the party of the right. The Lib Dems, as always, are floundering somewhere in the middle.

The Greens and Labour will try to force through two amendments at the Council meeting tomorrow (Thursday). The first seeks to raise £1.4 million by reversing the Conservatives proposed 1% cut in Council Tax (and other measures such as reducing the mowing of grass verges and not implementing the 5% reduction in the cost of residents’ parking permits. Instead, more will be spent on a range of Council services including the Community Safety Team (£150,000), the youth offending team (£90,000), the community and equalities team (£230,000) and advice and support to schools (£250,000).

The second amendment seeks to raise £1.1 million by scrapping the Conservative proposal to remove the cycle lane in Grand Avenue. The money saved will be used for items such as a co-ordinator for school’s equality and bullying work for one year (£30,000), to maintain certain bus routes (£50,000 – can this be counted as a victory for Brian Fitch in his campaign to save the No 5 to Hangleton?), and £400,000 to create a city-wide financial inclusion strategy to help those struggling with debt and avoid “loan sharks”. However, most of these measures will probably survive for just 12 months as they are being funded by a one-off saving.

The city-wide financial inclusion strategy is probably the most important item on the budget agenda for tomorrow night as it would, if agreed, help the most needy in the City. I would urge councillors of all parties to support this item.

The collaboration between Labour and the Greens is a monumental shift forward, and a tribute to the work of Green Convenor Bill Randall and Labour Leader Gill Mitchell. If, as is likely, no one party has a majority in May, then a coalition of the Greens and Labour could see an administration formed under the leadership of Bill Randall since the Greens are likely to have 4 or 5 more seats that the Labour Party.

But it is the politics of the two Budgets that is fascinating, and how matters will be played out on the doorstep. The Conservative proposal to make a 1% cut in Council Tax and a 5% reduction in residents parking permits will lead it’s election campaign, and will lead it big time. The Council Tax cut is, largely, symbolic but a good headline grabber and has galvanised Tory activists of a big society, small government mindset (such as Grizzlies and Estate Agents). Ironically, it may well be the reduction in residents parking charges that is more likely to appeal on the doorstep in town centre wards

The challenge for Labour and the Greens is to convince people that the amount being committed to protect ‘policy officers’ and ‘community safety teams’ isn’t coming at the expense of front line service delivery. Ask your average parent in the Queen’s Park playground, or the park in Marmion Road whether they would prefer a park warden or community safety partnership team, there is likely to be just one answer.

As for the Tories, the challenge they are facing, and losing heavily, is the plan to remove the cycle lane in Grand Avenue and The Drive. Credit here goes to Green councillors Alex Phillips and Ian Davey. The more the Tories defend the proposal, the deeper they dig a hole. Labour and the Greens should make this proposal the issue to counter the parking permit issue.

While I am not totally convinced by the Green / Labour alternative budget, the co-operation between the two parties is a sign of maturity and will probably have an impact longer on life in Brighton and Hove than a 1% cut in Council Tax.

Brighton and Hove City Council Budget: A ‘Desperate Budget’ or ‘Balanced and Fair’?

Last week the Conservatives on Brighton and Hove City Council unveiled their Budget.  Council Leader Mary Mears said she was delighted to present a budget that when “compared to other councils we feel this is balanced, fair and offers something to the whole city.”  She sais that  she and her coleagues “understand how much people are suffering at the moment so wanted to offer them some much needed relief.”

The Conservatives have announced a 1% cut in Council Tax, the first ever cut in the history of the City Council.  For a Council Tax D property, this amounts to a £13 cut for the year. The amount itself is negligible but it will, as I have said before, galvanised Tory activists, especially those on the Estate Agent wing in Goldsmid ward.  This Council Tax cut relies on the use of £10,000,000 of reserves.  That means that it is not sustainable unless it receives a massive increase in government funds or it makes that level of cuts in future years.

Green convenor, and the person most likely to replace Mary Mears should the Tories lose the elections in May, Bill Randall, said that he does not support the cut in Council Tax.  He said: “This Council is asking us to accept that it can cut £35 million and no one will suffer.  I am afraid I don’t buy that”.  There will, of course, be cuts, with adult social care and children’s services being expected to make the largest ‘savings’.

Labour leader Gill Mitchell described it as a “desperate budget”.  She pointed out that inflation rises of up to 5% have beem predicted and that that could have a severe impact on future budgets.  “It is a risky budget, making cuts in the wrong places and making risky assumptions.”

The budget will be decided at a full council meeting on March 3rd at Brighton Town Hall starting at 4.30pm.  It will be interesting to see if Labour and the Greens can co-operate on making amendments to the Tory budget and what alternate budget each will propose.

Doorstep Brighton 12: Being Grizzly in Coldean, a Lib Dem in Hove, and Ice Cold is Alex

In Hollingdean and Stanmer,” lots of friendly Conservatives” have been out in Coldean, cross city support for Rachael ‘Momma Grizzly’ Bates and her anonymous fellow candidates.  What defines “lots” in this context? And was this endangered species spotted by any of my spies? Rachel reports on Twitter that there had been “a fantastic response on the doorstep in Coldean”. Does that translate to ‘unharmed’?

Momma Grizzly is faced with somewhat of a problem: loyalty to her employer, Hove MP Mike Weatherley or the residents of the Brighton ward she seeks to represent on the City Council. Campaigning Mike, who on and off describes himself as the MP for Portslade, wants to the Royal Mail to drop ‘Brighton’ from the postal address for Portslade.  A nice populist move, Mike, but what should Grizzly do: follow the Weatherley “we don’t like you and we don’t care” approach and offend her H&S voters, or recognising that Portslade (and Hove actually) are now part of Greater Brighton.

In Goldsmid, Alex Phillips and her Green colleagues have had a ‘bike action’ day around The Drive and Cromwell Road.  A hardy bunch are Goldsmid Greens, out “come rain or shine”. This commitment is a challenge to Rob Buckwell and the other Goldsmid Estate Agents who cannot think beyond council tax cuts.

Rebecca Taylor is a brave one, a candidate who has ‘come out’ as a Lib Dem. Rebecca Taylor says on Twitter that she is “running for a seat on Brighton and Hove Council In May 2011 (representing Hove)”. The whole of Hove? I think she means Central Hove. She has little chance of success if her Twitter account (@rtaylorhove) is anything to go by – she has just 9 followers!  Beccy, forget the Lib Dems, if you are serious about becoming a councillor, join the Greens.

And finally, in Regency, Jason Bull writes: “I received a handwritten Christmas card from the LibDem candidates. Nothing from them since. Nothing from Labour. Can’t find out the names of the Conservative candidates. A female representative of the Green Party buzzed my flat intercom and asked if she could come in. I am a gay man and I was engaged in a sexual encounter at the time. I said ‘no.’ She persisted. I said, very firmly ‘no’, turned off my intercom and got back down to business.” How very dare you, Jason.