Politicsteacher's Blog

Participation – Interview with Jude Robinson, Chair of Cornwall Labour Party

politicsteacher — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:54:28 +0000

What is your role/are your roles in the Labour Party?
• I was Labour’s Parliamentary Candidate in Camborne and Redruth at the election – in other words, I hoped to be elected their MP – so remain spokesperson here until our conference.
• Also, I am the Membership Secretary of my local party, so I focus on recruiting new members, welcoming people who join and chasing up anyone who is drifting away.
• Last but not least, I was recently elected Chair of the Cornwall Labour Party, which is the forum where all the constituency parties in Cornwall get together to co-ordinate local government campaigns.

How did you become involved with the Labour Party?
I became actively involved in the Labour Party in 1990 – although I have supported Labour since I was old enough to think about politics (about 13!). I was fired up by the disgraceful condition of my children’s local school and another member asked me if I could help with a leaflet round. Then I went to a meeting, offered to help with desk top publishing, tried canvassing and enjoyed it – it was great to meet like minded people.
How were you selected?
The selections are run in a standard format by local Labour Parties and all have to be done according to rules. The constituency party advertises that it is starting selection and sets a timetable, you put your CV in if you are interested. This CLP (Constituency Labour Party) organised a social for members to meet candidates. Some ask them to meetings or to come out campaigning. Individual branches or union branches can make nominations and at the local officers make a shortlist. Then every member has a vote on which candidate they prefer in a proportional vote system.

What did your General Election campaign involve?
After selection in 2007, I regularly canvassed, meeting voters and talking to voters at least once a week if possible and encouraged members to be involved and help with regular leafleting. I made appointments to meet key people in the public sector, community groups and colleges. It is important to get a sense of the big issues and needs of the constituency by talking to people regularly. I also put out press releases, usually weekly, set up a blog and website, attended council meetings and researched issues for campaigns.

During the ‘short campaign’ – from a few weeks before the election was called, I worked from morning until evening knocking on doors, delivering leaflets and attending hustings. On Sundays I did paperwork and press releases.

What are your political ambitions?
I would like to continue representing the Labour Party in Cornwall and building its strength. We have been knocked back here by the Lib Dems particularly but I believe that can change – having lived here since 1982, I know that the only party that has ever delivered positive change in Cornwall is Labour and it angers me that this county has been short changed so often and that the media spin on ‘unfairness’ has represented a very biased view.

If a young person wants to become involved in the political process, what would be your advice to them?

• Be prepared for a lot of work, but as a young person you should be welcomed with open arms.
• Choose your party: no-one supports every single policy their party puts forward but there are important differences in philosophy, at least between Tories and Labour. Look at what the parties do and have done, not just what the media tells you and go for the party that most represents your values.
• Start on the ground; get used to talking to people and listening on the doorstep. It’s the single most important way politicians can connect with voters.
• Stand for your local Parish Council first because the more you know about how government and local government decisions affect communities, the better you will be at knowing how to change and influence. Volunteer to be a School Governor or charity trustee for the same reasons. Also, try working outside politics rather than just political jobs.
Thank you, Jude Robinson, Chair of Cornwall Labour Party (www.juderobinson.org.uk) for taking time out to talk with Politicsteacher.co.uk.

Cameron and Harman look like old hands (and friends) at PMQs

politicsteacher — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:59:34 +0000

Wednesday, 09 June 2010

Blue and Yellow PMQs

It was hard to believe that it was only David Cameron’s second PMQs this afternoon as he stood, relaxed and confident at the Dispatch Box, backed by Clegg who sat nodding throughout -a display of blue and yellow shirts and ties behind him.

The debt

The whole affair was very good natured on the whole. The response to any attack from Labour – to point out that they had had thirteen years in which to resolve whatever issue was raised and to bemoan the dreadful state of the economy that Labour had left. “What is unfair” David Cameron told them was the “£70billion” in interest rates on the debt in the next five years alone which, he complained, would swallow more than double all the Government would take in corportation tax.

Sad news

All were agreed that they were horrified by last weeks events in Cumbria and saddened by the death of some of our troops. Several backbenchers asked questions about their constituencies and, on the whole, Cameron said he would refer it to the relevant minister which was all fairly uneventful.

Caroline Flint – Anonymity in Rape Cases issue

Caroline Flint, a backbench Labour MP, raised the question as to why the Government are seeking to allow defendants in rape cases anonymity as opposed to all other crimes – suggesting that an accusation of murder, child abuse or other such crimes are just as serious. He acknowledged that she had made an eloquent speech on the matter the previous night but did not concede her point or promise any action.

The Good news

There was some good news for Sunderland – they will get the grant for the Nissan plant that they had been hoping for and, further good news for some, Cameron has decided that he will fly the George Cross over Downing Street for the duration of the world cup and they all agreed to cheer for England.

Beginning of term atmosphere

Apart from that light-hearted note, there was laughter when it appeared that Harriet Harman had broken House protocol by calling the Home Secretary “Theresa” ….but she was talking about another Theresa in her constituency…and after a few smiles, she carried on to tell us about Theresa who knows about living on an estate where they need surveillance.

All in all the atmosphere was jovial, relaxed – perhaps a bit much so – as the Speaker ticked off the ‘Senior’ MPs for not setting a good enough example at how to behave at PMQs to the newbies and told them all that there were too many private conversations going on. So, there was still the beginning of term atmosphere. Harriet Harman was so collected and impressive, one does wonder again why she is not standing for Leader of the Labour Party.

So, what is PMQs all about?

The BBC guide tells us:

Each week on Wednesday afternoon the prime minister must come to the House of Commons to answer oral questions for half an hour.

This system was changed by Tony Blair’s Labour government shortly after they came to power in May 1997. Previously PMQs took place on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons for 15 minutes.

Traditionally the leader of the opposition may ask up to six questions during the session and the leader of the Liberal Democrats two questions.

But Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems are now part of a coalition government so he will no longer get the chance to ask questions at this showpiece event.

Instead he will stand in for Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron when he is not present, and will also get his own monthly deputy prime minister’s questions.

It is expected that because the Lib Dems will not get to ask questions, the smaller opposition parties may get a chance to put the PM on the spot on a more regular basis.

Prime minister’s questions follows a different format to those of questions to other ministers. MPs do not normally give the prime minister prior notice of the subject which they are going to raise.

This element of surprise allows opposition MPs, in particular, to try to catch the prime minister out with an awkward question. The prime minister must respond without delay, thinking on his or her feet.

Government backbenchers can normally be relied upon to ask a “helpful” question which will allow the prime minister to tell the House about successful government policies.

The relative performance of each of the main party leaders is closely watched and each is under great pressure to get the better of their opponent.

The chance to ask the prime minister a question is highly prized. The names of the MPs who will get the chance to ask the prime minister a question are drawn in a weekly lottery.

Democracy on Trial – notes from the Radio 4 programme

politicsteacher — Mon, 17 May 2010 11:41:37 +0000

The rise of democracy
Before 1900 there were very few democratic countries in existence. Arguably, democracy is inherently fragile. It has not been around for very long, Russia is moving away from it and China is resisting it.
Professor John Keene, author of ‘The Life and Death of Democracy’ points out that in 1941, there were only 11 democracies left in the world. Many political commentators thought that the ideals associated with democracy were finished.
It was pointed out that although we tend to take democracy for granted now, only 75 years ago people were questioning whether democracy was suitable for other nations.
Francis Fukuyama, author of ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ explains that his grandfather fled to the USA from Imperial Japan and that within one generation, his son had become a University Professor. He believes that could only occur in a liberal democracy and that democracy is about more than just elections but is a package of things – a market economy which provides jobs and opportunities for people to advance themselves, a certain kind of social freedom where the identity of your parents does not determine your life outcomes – part of that is political institutions but part of it is also a culture that supports that opportunity.
In Fukuyama’s book, he argues that He saw liberal democracy as the only viable option. So the history of ending was the end of ideological struggle about how we should be governed.
Professor John Keane, author of the Life and Death of Democracy explains that prior to World War II, democracy was seriously under threat but by the end of the war, it came to be seen as an almost uncontested ideal. Germany and Japan became democracies. It spread to Southern Europe and then after 1989 to Eastern Europe and to South Africa.
So, were the post-war years a ‘golden age’ for democracy? Professor Vernon Bognador, Professor of Politics at Oxford University thinks not: “There never was a golden age, in fact, democracy probably works a bit better now than it did in the past….In the 1950s and 1960s party cohesion was so near to 100% there was no point in measuring it…the kind of revolts that we have seen on matters such as the Iraq War, City Academies, Foundation hospitals, top up fees….they are the largest revolts we have seen since the 1840s…MPs are thinking much more for themselves then they ever did”. In 1950, ignorance was rife 60 years ago among the voters. We have a much better educated and less deferential electorate. His view is that we romanticise the past.
The role of America in the spread of Democracy
Professor John Keane thinks we should look to America – it’s role in securing democratisation as a project after 1945 is clear e.g. the marriage of democracy and human rights in the UN charter. Without America, would democracy have survived?
Economist Larry Diamond, Senir Fellow Hoover Insitution, – the US played a formative role in tipping the reconstruction of Germany, Japan, Italy and Austria towards demilitarised, democratic states.
Robert Service, Professor of Russian History, Universtiy of Oxford – after 1945, communism spread rapidly like a virus over a third of the worlds surface and in every single communist state where there had been democratic traditions they were eliminated.
The survival of democracy in Europe could not be left to chance. It was for the US a strategic imperative. What was portrayed as the defence of freedom could also be portrayed as merely a tool in the struggle between the great powers or as a cover for American Imperialism.
Don Guttenplan of The Nation Magazine – the choice was Stalinism or democracy the US cooked the books – the CIA sent people to France, Italy etc to influence those choices and if they looked like they were going to make the ‘wrong choice’ they would use whatever methods they could to thwart that.
In an interview recorded in 1977, William Colby of the CIA answered claims that he had deliberately destabilised governments and interfered in the internal affairs of sovereign states. He admitted to this and to planned assassinations.
Professor of Economics at Oxford, author of Wars Guns and Votes, Paul Collier explained that American supported Mobutu in Zaire despite the fact that he was running a vastly undemocratic state simply because he was anti-communist and they propped him up year after year.
It seems that the spread of democracy was based on American backing and funding.
The link between money, democracy and capitalism
As democracy spread, it seemed clear that the democracies were richer than the non-democracies.
John Keane – History shows an affinity between competitive markets, private ownership of property why because markets serve as barriers against concentrated government power because they require freedom of information for markets to function. Historically non-market democracies are very rare and they don’t typically last.
Larry Diamond – economic development in Spain, Brazil, Taiwan, Korea was producing middle class societies that were more demanding for political rights, participation and freedom to bring about a new wave of democratic transitions
Paul Collier – wealth is required for democracy where people are too poor to be literate and to have a vision of themselves as citizens of a country rather than just members of a group. Although remember that India has been very poor and yet remained democratic . India is so big that it doesn’t work with personal leadership it needed institutions in order to function. Smaller states could function on personal patronage.
Of the African countries, 54 states, only a handful of them are functioning as democracies. Is this because of money? Paul Collier explains that this is for many reasons, one of them being that we give money to governments but the money is often captured by the political crooks who use it to finance patronage systems and so their power is entrenched as a result of corruption in budgets which then disempowers the honest politicians.
Tension between democracy and capitalism
John Donne, Professor of Political theory at Cambridge University, argues that there is a fundamental tension/incompatibility between democracy and capitalism. “There is something very deeply inimical in the political idea of democracy to the natural dynamics of capitalist development…because capitalism causes intensifying inequality and that is actually part of its logic. It isn’t a superficial or contingent aspect of it, it is part of what it fundamentally is what is definitely central to the idea of democracy is the idea of political equality but it is unclear how you combine political equality in substance with very dramatic social and economic inequality…..there is an element of tacit fraud about the implication of political equality…..you can’t get people to fight for capitalism….but you can and do fight for democracy….it can hold loyalty”.
The end of history?
In 1989 the communist world begun to unravel. The Western democracies had brought the communist system crashing down. So great was democracy’s achievement was that Frances Fukuyama saw it as the end of history. He saw liberal democracy as the only viable option. So the history of ending was the end of ideological struggle about how we should be governed.
In the twenty years since, there have been successes and disappointments for democrats, the problem with the Fukuyma theory was the idea that this could be achieved very quickly and that all that needed to happen was put in some political and economic advisors into these former communist countries and it would simply change, easily. They were oblivious to the disturbances that would happen in these countries. For example, Shirley Williams acted as an advisor to the Kremlin on drafting a new constitution in Russia. A difficulty that they had was that if they were writing something in the constitution it would happen e.g. ‘everyone has the right to suitable housing’ and yet there was no money to deliver this! A constitution was declaratory – that wouldn’t work! And Russia has shifted away from democracy
In countries where they have some experience of democracy, it seems to have taken root more successfully.
Larry Diamond: individuals play a crucial role in making democracy – social movements by individuals who take risks can make the difference. Look at Poland in the 1980s where particular leaders came to embody a movement and give life to it. Would South Africa have made the rapid progress without Nelson Mandela’s leadership? Hard to imagine.

First Day at School Nerves for New MPs

politicsteacher — Mon, 10 May 2010 15:59:23 +0000

After a hectic few months of campaigning, 232 MPs are experiencing that old familiar feeling – first day of school nerves – as they take their places at Westminster for the first time this week. Remember your first day at school? The stomach-churning realisation that you are the newbie, the one who doesn’t know their way around, doesn’t know if the big kids are being helpful or having a laugh at your expense? Many new MPS will be carrying their shiny satchels and maps of the corridors around them, clutching their guidebooks and notes as they tentatively make their way around Parliament. Westminster is a huge place full of long corridors and closed doors – a daunting prospect for the first-timer. And they don’t know where the loo is.

In years gone by, new MPs were simply left to get on with it themselves. Now, however, the process is a little kinder on them. They will first attend an induction at Portcullis House where they will be issued with a security pass, laptop and phone. They will then be trained on the all important new expense system overseen by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (no more dodgy expense claims and no second homes for new MPs!). When they first arrive, they will not be allocated a desk but will have to work where they can find space ‘hot-desking’.

The House of Commons, for the first time, is providing further induction for the newbies with information on some of the traditions, etiquette and procedures that they will need to familiarise themselves with in order to get on in this ancient institution
They will be allocated a whip, a ‘business manager’ who will supervise and cajole them along. This could, perhaps, be one of the most important relationships that they start to build from the outset.
Once parliamentary business begins next week, they will have other important decisions to make: where to sit in the House (they will tend to keep a place from then on so that the Speaker knows where they are), when and on what subject to make their maiden speech, who to form friendships and relationships with and how they are going to organise and manage this new and unfamiliar working life.

In the meantime, of course, in the first few days – just like you did when you started school – they will be dealing with the important stuff: where to get lunch, how to find their way round those blasted corridors and where those elusive loos are…..

How you can get involved in Politics – participation

politicsteacher — Tue, 04 May 2010 09:36:11 +0000

One essential feature of our democracy is the ability for people to participate freely in politics, to have the opportunity to be informed and to participate directly in influencing decision making. There are many ways in which you can participate in the system, for example by voting, by asking questions of your representatives, by being active in the local community in action groups, schools, churches or by joining a political party or pressure group. You could also consider putting yourself forward to represent others at council level or as an MP. But, just how would you go about standing as a Parliamentary candidate.

How to stand for Parliament
We visited the constituency of Chesham and Amersham which is a constituency in leafy Buckinghamshire, a traditional Conservative seat, currently held by shadow Secretary for Wales, Cheryl Gillan where we spoke to Parliamentary candidate, Tim Starkey of the Liberal Democrats. If local press reports are to be believed, he is finally giving the Tory incumbent some serious competition. “I joined the party in 1997, just as an ordinary member helping out from time to time delivery leaflets and the like, it was very low key” he explains. At that time, Tim was launching his career as a barrister specialising in criminal law and this kept him busy for quite some time. It was many years later, in 2006 that he started to get more involved “I replied to an advert asking for members of the party to participate in a working group shaping Liberal Democrat policy on how to improve our criminal justice system”. Naturally, this was of interest to him as a barrister and he worked as part of a team of 15 other party members gathering evidence from a range of experts, consulting widely with interested parties and groups in order to formulate national policy for the party. The team was headed by a certain Nick Clegg who, at that time, was in charge of Home Affairs for the party.

District Council
Tim was becoming increasingly involved and interested in politics by this stage and in 2007, he put himself forward for a place on the District Council. He failed to secure a place on this missing out by 58 votes. However, his interest in campaigning and participating in this way had been awakened and he worked in a team on Nick Clegg’s leadership campaign which, clearly, they won!

Parliament – going for it!

It was in 2008 that Tim finally decided to put himself forward as a parliamentary candidate. So what did this process involve? “The first hurdle is to get yourself onto the approved list of parliamentary candidates” he explains “in order to do that, you make a written application to the party and, if that is successful, you are invited to an assessment day”. So what horrible things do they make you do on an assessment day? Do they spend the day raking up your past and checking for any misdemeanours that the press may drag up one day? “Not at all – they may have asked the question whether there is anything that could embarrass the party, I don’t remember – but it wasn’t all about that sort of thing at all. It was essentially checking that you had the skills that are needed to, potentially, be an MP. I had to give a presentation, discuss policy, work through various role plays such as talking with constituents, writing press releases. Basically, it was about proving that I would be capable of the tasks and roles that the job involves. ”
If you then make it onto the list, what happens then? “The party produces a list of constituencies in need of candidates and you can apply to represent them, rather in the same way that you would apply for a job.” Tim applied and was selected to represent Chesham and Amersham in 2008. At that time, this would not have been viewed as a key seat given that it has so safely been in Tory hands for such a long time. However, the local press are suggesting that the competition is closer than it has ever been since Gillan was elected.

How to become a Parliamentary Candidate – The Starkey, Lib Dem Method

1. Join the Liberal Democrats

2. Get involved and get some experience

3. Apply to be on the approved list

4. Get selected by the party to represent a constituency

5. Campaign to be an MP

In tomorrow’s blog: We find out more from Tim Starkey about what a Parliamentary candidate has to do in the run up to an election and who pays for it!

What is all this stuff about a hung parliament

politicsteacher — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:11:20 +0000

The YouGov Poll this was predicting that if there was an election which reflected the polls in the last few days, the seats in the House of Commons would be as follows:

Liberal Democrat 137

Conservatives 251

Labour 230

This would result in what is known as a ‘hung parliament’ i.e. where there is no single party who has the majority of seats. Although, in the above scenario, the Conservatives would have more seats than any other party, it is quite clear that this would not be a MAJORITY.

When has this happened before?

In 1974, the Labour party – lead by Harold Wilson – won 301 seats while the Conservatives – lead by Ted Heath – won 297 seats. They needed 17 more seats in order to have an absolute majority.

(There have also been parties in government who have lost their majority in the course of a parliament – namely, Jim Callaghan’s Labour government in 1976 and John Major’s Conservative government in 1996. Callaghan worked directly with the Liberals, known as the ‘Lib-Lab pact’ of 1977-78 in order to pass legislation. John Major’s government functioned, unofficially, through working with the Ulster Unionists – although they were defeated in 1997.)

What happened then?

Despite not having a majority, Heath spent a few days trying to form a government by coming to an agreement with the Liberals. He did not manage to do this and so resigned leaving his Labour opposition, Wilson, to form a Government. Both of the major parties had suffered from the popularity of the Liberals. Wilson formed a Government but called another General Election in the same year in October 1974.

What are the options in the event of a hung parliament?

Coalition government – where two parties (or more) work together in order to form a government
Minority government – where party without a majority will seek to form a government and work on the basis of seeking consensus or co-operation in order to pass legislation
A second election – in the hope of securing a majority

Over the next few weeks, we may hear more questions about what is likely to happen in the event of a hung parliament, however, politicians on all sides are unlikely to discuss this in the run up to an election. They are all likely to claim that they will be attempting to win the election outright and refuse to speculate on hypothetical situations. However, it is worth listening out for comment and analysis as to the likelihood of any of these solutions arising and – quite possibly – discussion of electoral reform as a result.