Oldham East and Saddleworth

Politics can be frustrating, particularly as you become more directly involved. It is true in life, but particularly true in politics, that everyone has their own agenda: Your opponents want to win, the media wants to sell their product (and advertising time/space) and commentators and pundits want to be heard. This fact means that getting a message across can be a challenge at the best of times. Actions and statements are twisted, misrepresented or misinterpreted and it can be difficult to get the truth across. Add to that a lazy electorate (not everyone, of course, but enough people) who don't make an effort to cut through all the rubbish to form a fully informed opinion and you've got one hell of a frustrating melting pot.

Of course, that challenge is all part of the fun!

On Thursday, the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth went to the polls in the first parliamentary by-election since the general election last year. The profile of this event was further increased after the winner last May, Phil Woolas, was found to have deliberately misled the electorate in his campaign literature. It was touted as everything from a test of coalition cohesion, to a measure of Ed Milliband's leadership. Some individuals and news organisations are already trying to draw sweeping conclusions for future elections based on this result but while there is an element of truth to the rhetoric, the reality is that the election is only a snap-shot of one constituency based on the very specific conditions of this election alone and therefore, what it tells us about any future election is very limited. Based purely on the outcome with no supporting canvass or polling data, even what it tells us about the views of the electorate in OES are limited!

The outcome was as follows:

Debbie Abrahams (Lab) 14,718 (42.14%, +10.27%)
Elwyn Watkins (LD) 11,160 (31.95%, +0.32%)
Kashif Ali (C) 4,481 (12.83%, -13.62%)
Paul Nuttall (UKIP) 2,029 (5.81%, +1.95%)
Derek Adams (BNP) 1,560 (4.47%, -1.25%)
Peter Allen (Green) 530 (1.52%)
The Flying Brick (Loony) 145 (0.42%)
Stephen Morris (Eng Dem) 144 (0.41%)
Loz Kaye (Pirate) 96 (0.27%)
David Bishop (Bus-Pass Elvis) 67 (0.19%)

Comparing these figures to those of the May election, Debbie Abrahams, the Labour candidate, was the only candidate to increase the actual number of votes (slightly) and also increase her vote share. Elwyn Watkins dropped almost 3,000 votes for the Liberal Democrats but increased his vote share slightly, while Conservative, Kashif Ali, dropped a substantial 7,200 votes and lost a significant share of the votes.

Some have been quick to suggest that those who voted Conservative last year, voted Labour instead. I personally find it unlikely that Conservative voters shifted directly to Labour, which makes me wonder if the reality is that Elwyn lost some of support to Labour but gained support from people who previously voted Conservative. However, I find even this possibility a stretch. Those Conservative supporters who are most likely to be disillusioned at the moment are the hard right as their party has had to take a more central position in order to compromise with the Lib Dems. It's conceivable that there was a tactical vote - that Conservative voters recognised that their best chance to have a coalition MP was to vote Lib Dem - but I doubt this factor has influenced the voters enough to cause Ali to lose over 7,000 votes.

Another common perception is that this result represents a swing from Lib Dem to Labour. This is certainly more plausible as, for some time, the Liberal Democrat party has been a protest vote for disaffected Labour and Tory supporters. However, like all political parties, Lib Dems lean left or right. Left-leaning Lib Dems, and ex-Labour supporters will surely be irate about the coalition and the tuition fees debacle has upset many voters. Having said that, I wonder how much influence these two factors have had on the result. Right-leaning Lib Dems and moderates will almost certainly be supportive of the party's achievements in government and even those who previously voted Lib Dem, having switched support from Labour, might be completely disillusioned, rather than switch support back, particularly in the light of Phil Woolas' shame.

Therefore, it is my belief that ultimately the vote in Oldham East and Saddleworth hasn't changed that much. Although I am certain that some people have voted differently to how they voted in the general election, I believe that the most significant factor that has influenced this election is the turnout. I believe Labour successfully located and mobilised their vote (picking up some ex-Lib Dem votes along the way) while a large proportion of Conservative voters stayed home. The Lib Dem vote is, unfortunately, renowned as being somewhat unstable (some might say 'fickle') and it would seem enough voters either stayed at home or shifted their vote Labour's way, to result in a Labour win.

If that's the case, what does it mean for the Council elections later this year? Is this a good result for us local Lib Dems, or a bad one? Firstly, it seems to suggest that not much has changed in real terms. Where Labour are strongest, elections might be theirs to lose and the win in OES (particularly if it is reinforced with more by-election victories) might make Labour complacent. In areas where the party takes their electorate for granted, there could be some shocks but I'm not going to hold my breath. Ed Miliband's leadership is very weak, but fortunately for the Labour party, it is easier to be in opposition than in government because you only have to tell people what they want to hear and, I fear, that's exactly what Miliband is doing. The challenge for Lib Dems everywhere will likely be twofold: one, to convince those who voted Lib Dem in the past to continue to do so, and two, to find that support and transfer it to the ballot box. But then again, hasn't that always been the case?

Regardless of what the OES result means (or not), I'd like to extend my congratulations to the Lib Dem team out there for a well-fought campaign. It is deeply disappointing that Elwyn Watkins didn't win - he deserved it after the dirty campaign Labour ran last May and, judging by his tenacity and determination to see the right thing done, he would've made a great MP. Next time, maybe.

Letterboxes

It would be a strange circumstance indeed that would see me become Prime Minister tomorrow, or indeed ever. But should that strange circumstance occur, my number one priority would not be the economy, schools or the NHS. It wouldn't even be electoral reform. It would be letterboxes!

Over the last 7 days I must have walked 50 miles and posted thousands of letters and leaflets through the doors of my neighbours. It has given me a new appreciation of the plight of the neighbourhood post-person. It has also given me a nice set of nicks, bruises and scars on the back of my hands and on my knuckles.

So, as your new Prime Minister, here are the new rules that will be introduced as of June 1st (see... I'm fair... I'm giving you some time to sort out your letterbox!)

1. All letterboxes must be in the middle of the door. No more letterboxes at the bottom of the door. How more posties don't throw their backs out or get assaulted by their bags as they bend down to access such letterboxes, I will never know.

2. All letterboxes must lift up rather than push in. Push in letterboxes are usually so stiff that you can barely move your fingers by the time your done. They also have a nasty habit of taking your fingers off. There is many a campaigner out there that is missing the end of a finger, or a whole finger, or even a hand!

3. There must be no sharp edges on any part of the letterbox. Brushes on the inside of letterboxes are increasingly popular - they are a good thing because they stop drafts and in these eco-conscientious times, who doesn't want to stop a draft? The side effect is that you usually have to shove your whole hand into the letterbox to get the letter or leaflet in. Sharp internal edges have drawn blood more times than I can count and have left me with many a battle scar.

4. On the subject of anti-draft brushes, can we have nice soft ones, please. Soft ones are nice on our weary little fingers. We don't like the kind that feels like scraping your hands on sandpaper.

5. Brushes make internal flaps unnecessary and it's hardly fair that you get to try and sever our fingers twice in one go.

6. Narrow letterboxes are forbidden. Only children can effectively use these letterboxes and we do not condone child labour.

7. All letterboxes must be hung horizontally. Vertical letterboxes are hopeless - especially the ones that are hinged at the top. Although side hinged ones are almost as bad.

8. In houses where there are dogs, a cage must be provided, either for the dog or for the letterbox. A third opportunity for finger severance in the form of a dog (or dogs) lying in wait on the other side of a door, is most definitely not acceptable.

9. As an alternative to the above, an outside box for post can be provided. And if you want to put it on your fence or gate to avoid the trek up (or down) a hill that's like the north face of the Eiger, that would be most welcome. There will be tax breaks for homes with long or steep paths that use this type of post receptacle.

10. A letter box must be provided. What's the deal with houses and flats with no letterbox? I can understand the attraction - no pizza leaflets, take-away menus and election stuff - but how the heck do you normally get your post? You are strange people!

11. Everyone must test their own letterbox several times to ensure full compliance with the above. Trust me, it will give you a whole new appreciation of the trouble this small, rectangular orifice causes.

Now aren't you glad you ended up with the present no-man's-land of politics, instead of me? :o)

The Fear

The election is over... sort of. After all, no party has really 'won' yet and, for the campaigner on the ground, there is still all the tidying up, thank you letters and the campaign autopsy to do before we can really say that the election is over. But for now, there is a little time to recover from our 'war wounds' (aching feet, lack of sleep and 'letter-box knuckle') and chance to reflect. Election week was so busy I didn't have time to post all the things I wanted to. So I will be catching up.

Last year, Lily Allen released the single 'The Fear', with the chorus...

I don't know what's right and what's real anymore
I don't know how I'm meant to feel anymore
And when do you think it will all become clear?
'Cos I'm being taken over by the fear

Wise words indeed. It's almost as if it was written about the election as the various parties vied for votes and power and tried (perhaps in vain) to use the black cloak of fear to confuse the electorate into supporting them.

Early on, Labour came under heavy criticism for sending postcards to cancer patients. Not only did the party make rather dubious use of NHS patient information in order to do so, they attempted to scare said cancer patients into supporting them by claiming that the Conservative party would cut cancer treatment and put lives at risk. It was a desperate tactic that backfired horribly. Rather than garnering support, it put people off the party. Far from being scared of a Tory government, it seemed the majority response was horror at the blatant attempt at manipulation that was just about as subtle as a brick and the general misuse of patient information.

The Conservatives tried a similar, albeit slightly less brick-like tactic. Feeling their divine right to power slipping through their tightly clenched fingers, the Tories tried to scare the electorate into avoiding a hung parliament. It'll be bad for the economy, the stock markets won't like it, it'll be all shady back-room deals... they failed to mention any of the nations where minority governments, coalitions and hung parliaments are run-of-the-mill. The SNP minority government in Scotland has managed to do just fine for its people. Fortunately, it seems that people were just as unconvinced by this tactic. The electorate didn't like to be 'told' how to vote and returned a hung parliament anyway. Take that, David Cameron!

The British National Party are of course the party of fear. They play on the general fear that surrounds immigration, 'foreign' cultures and some religions. Less than a week before the election, some of our neighbours received a mocked up letter and other material purporting to be from a Muslim organisation. I will not perpetuate the lies, but the stunt was designed to instill fear of the Muslim community. Thankfully, people here saw straight through it. Many of the mailings were handed to the police. Most were simply discarded. I am proud to say that the BNP vote collapsed.

So generally it seems that people do not allow themselves to be taken in by such tactics, but having said that, there was a large proportion of voters that remained undecided right up to the last minute and I wonder if these sort of tactics might have had something to do with it. 'Spin' is one thing - the presentation of information in a positive or negative way - but some of the strategies and tactics that have been employed have gone far beyond mere spin. It's tough enough picking a party or candidate to support without the media and the opposition making matters more complicated with fear, half-truths and sometimes even lies. Perhaps rules are needed? But then again, rules are made to be broken.

Style v Substance

There is little doubt, in this election, that celebrity is playing an important role. Until the first televised leaders debate, the Lib-Dems were very much the third party and no-one realistically expected a strong showing. But the debates have changed that. Here was a platform on which the Liberal Democrats were entirely equal to their opponents and here was a platform on which two young, charismatic men competed with an older, less attractive, and perhaps more typical, politician, for public affection. In a society that is increasingly driven by celebrity and media attention (Princess Diana, Jade Goody, Susan Boyle, Brangelina, Katie Price and Peter Andre, Heather Mills and Macca, etc, etc) Gordon Brown was perhaps always doomed to failure.

Of course, the outcome of the election hasn't yet been decided - we'll have to wait until Thursday for that - but this raises interesting questions about the influence of celebrity and media in modern politics. It is a concern for me that voters might be swayed either by the image a candidate projects in the media, the attention they get in the spotlight, or by the celebrities that support them, rather than by their policies. This set me thinking about another aspect of celebrity politics: Is it wrong for celebrities to endorse parties or candidates?

My head says, no (after all, celebrities are voters too and they have a right to support whomever they wish, just like the rest of us) but something in me finds this whole area of politics a little distasteful.

Early on in this election campaign Sir Michael Caine was seen doing the rounds with David Cameron
in support of Conservative proposals for a National Citizenship Service for 16 year olds. The Labour party have the support of comedian Eddie Izzard, who has been out on the campaign trail; and actor, David Tennant. Both have been seen in recent election broadcasts. The local Labour party has been at it too. They have the support of local artist and LS Lowry protege, Harold Riley, who, this year, signed the nomination papers for Hazel Blears. As for us, who have we managed to call out in support of the Lib Dems? We have presenter, Floella Benjamin; actor, Colin Firth; and Harry Potter (well, Daniel Radcliffe - sadly there will be no 'accio Lib-Dem Voters' for us). Even the BNP have tried to associate themselves with one of the most recognisable British Politicians ever, and wheeled out the corpse of Sir Winston Churchill for a controversial guest spot on the front of one of their leaflets. Bah!

Of course, as much as we'd like to think this is all part of some wider media furore surrounding this particular election, or perhaps a side effect of having live, televised leaders debates for the first time in UK history, having a celebrity or two stepping out in support of your politics is nothing new. There are few Scottish voters that will forget Sean Connery's stirring party political broadcasts in support of the SNP. And does anyone remember John Cleese's 1992 Lib-Dem broadcast? No, I thought not, but it did happen! This is nothing new. In fact, over the pond, the celebrity campaign has been used to great effect for quite some time. During Barack Obama's campaign, he had the support of high profile celebrities such as Madonna, Oprah Winfrey and Scarlett Johansson and USA Today traces celebrity endorsement as far back as...

"nearly a century ago. According to journalist Ronald Brownstein's account of the connection between Hollywood's glitter and Washington's power, the first formal endorsement of a presidential candidate by a major show-business figure came in 1920, when Al Jolson organized a group of Broadway celebrities on behalf of Republican Warren Harding's presidential campaign. Four years later, Jolson publicly backed Harding's successor, Calvin Coolidge. But it was not until the 1930s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt captured the loyalty of scores of actors and actresses — including a later president, Ronald Reagan — that endorsement of presidential candidates by performers became commonplace."

Mind you, in the same article USA Today also discusses how celebrity endorsements can sometimes backfire, as happened in the 2004 John Kerry campaign when Whoopi Goldberg made an inappropriate joke at George W Bush's expense.

"Candidates have often found out the hard way that stars are a bit like uranium: precious, but radioactive."

But I'm still not convinced that it's right. There's something about the parading of music, TV, movie or other cultural icons in politics that I find uncomfortable. The implication is something like, 'look, your favourite celebrity votes for us - so you should too'. It leaves a somewhat sour taste.

However, the attraction of the celebrity endorsement isn't only in the potential to draw votes, it's also in the draw of the media. Dragging out your highest profile celeb to shake some hands or make a statement at a press conference is a virtual guarantee of coverage in the media. In a society that hungers for star gossip, what a celebrity is up to at any given time sells papers and boosts ratings, so of course the media will sit up and pay attention. Perhaps the real impact at the end of the day is negligible compared with the potential positive benefits, because the difficulty for any candidate, whether in a local or parliamentary election, is getting your name and face out there, and the attention of the media is an exceptionally powerful tool that can be used to do just that. In truth, if we had a local celebrity willing to publicly back our parliamentary or local candidates in this election, I wouldn't hesitate to use him or her, if only to get us some extra media attention. I suspect I might not sleep very well, having done so, but I don't think I could pass-up the opportunity.

So perhaps celebrity and politics can happily sit together on the same park bench. Perhaps it is wrong of me to think that voters are so easily swayed or so shallow... or perhaps not? But spare a thought this bank holiday for the accidental celebrity in this election. I am, of course, speaking of Mrs Gillian Duffy, who found herself thrust into the media spotlight while out buying a loaf of bread. The 'bigoted woman', as Gordon Brown so unwittingly dubbed her, is now somewhat of a local heroine for confronting the Prime Minister on the campaign messages that were important to her. What a shame, however, that it wasn't her earnest and heartfelt challenge that earned her the attention of the TV camera's winking eye, but the far more sensational and far less inspiring gaff made by Gordon Brown - a weary man in a moment of weakness.

"Style over substance" is a phrase that has been used many times over the past few weeks and one which summarises this post most succinctly. If Mrs Duffy is anything to go by, perhaps substance is winning after all... although it's a disappointment that she has been so disillusioned by Gordon Brown's behaviour that she is saying that she will not vote for anyone. Ultimately, as long as most people vote for the candidate or party that most closely represents their views, no matter what role media and celebrity played in that decision, I'll be happy because democracy will be the outright winner.

Does Politics Have the X-Factor?

Last Sunday I spent two thirds of my day hanging around in the cold at Old Trafford waiting for my one and a half minutes in front of an X-Factor judge. Yes, I succumbed to the temptation of bright lights, fame, fortune... not quite! I auditioned, safe in the knowledge that I am neither a good enough, nor bad enough singer to get beyond stage one, so it was never about any of that stuff! My interest was purely one of experience and exploration. I took it as an opportunity to get some audition practice for the one that really matters - for a Sing Live Beatles solo audition, which will be next weekend! It was an interesting experience. I had some fun and it has ended up being a surprising confidence booster, so I'm glad I did it.

While standing there waiting in the longest queue I've ever stood in, it occurred to me that if people paid as much attention to politics as they do to X-Factor, Britain's Got (So-called) Talent and Big Brother, British politics would be much better off. Mind you, the thought of Gordon Brown singing and dancing on a Saturday night for votes kinda makes me want to vomit! But seriously, millions of people that won't vote for free in an election will actually spend money to vote for contestants on these shows - and it's not just sixteen year old girls either! How many people talk about X-Factor on a Monday morning, compared with how many people talk about local or national government (except to have a moan)? It seems that people are quick to complain and slow to act.

I think one of the main problems is a lack of understanding. I have lost count of the number of times recently when I have had to explain the concept of two elections on the same day and I constantly find myself explaining the importance of local elections to people who only vote in parliamentary elections. So many people seem to think that when they vote they are doing so to elect the Prime Minister. They don't realise they are actually electing the individual that will represent them in Parliament and that the Prime Minister is never actually elected (except as the MP for his or her own constituency). With so little understanding of how our system of government works and why it has been set up that way, it's no wonder people think their vote doesn't matter.

So, what's the answer? Do we need to change the way things work? Well, yes, sort of. I support Lib Dem electoral reform policy in full. However, I do not believe it will promote understanding (who here knows how proportional representation works?) and consequently I believe it is unlikely to improve voter turnout or encourage people to engage in politics. Instead, there are three things I would personally like to see introduced.

First, I would like to see politics and citizenship taught in school. Obviously, party policy must be kept out of the classroom but that isn't what I'm talking about here. Our kids should be taught about national and local government, how it works, why it's important to vote and what the affect of non-voting might be. This is a factual subject that can and should be taught. I believe that understanding will promote engagement.

The second thing I would like to see introduced is compulsory voting. There are many that disagree with me, including my poor husband who gets bullied over the subject at regular intervals. There is a general concern that compulsory voting is like putting a gun to person's head, but if an individual doesn't want to vote for any of the candidates they still have the right to not vote by removing or spoiling their ballot paper. In recent years, so many people have said to me that they don't vote in order to 'send a message'. Indeed, in the Irwell Riverside by-election last year, voter apathy was particularly high as many electors stayed home in the wake of the expenses scandal. But staying home doesn't send a message, it just makes you seem lazy. If the vote was compulsory, by removing or spoiling the ballot you would be sending a much clearer message. There is a risk that compulsory voting would mean people would make an uninformed and random choice, but I believe that having to make a choice (whether that be to vote for a candidate or to not complete the vote) would encourage people to make themselves more aware of their options. Understanding does not fall in fairy dust (or volcanic ash!) from the sky; it is something which you must seek out and choose to accept. When you are 'forced' to make a choice (for example, from a restaurant menu) do you just pick something without knowing what it is or do you ask (the waiter) for information or a recommendation?

Finally, I would lower the voting age to sixteen. I was initially against this when it was put to me (how can a sixteen year old make an informed decision about something a thirty year old can't?) but on reflection, if politics was taught in school, I see no reason why not. At the age of sixteen an individual can serve in the armed forces, can get married, can work (and consequently pay taxes) and can leave home. If you are considered responsible enough to make these decisions about your life and future, you should be responsible enough to make a choice about your government representative. Furthermore, politics is just as relevant to young people as it is to adults and if you speak to young people, you can see that kids as young as thirteen or fourteen are already becoming aware of community, society and government. They know what they want and need in their community - just ask them; they have some great ideas. Sixteen year olds are becoming increasingly accustomed to voting, whether it is for their favourite Big Brother contestant or the best singer or group on X-Factor. Rather than look down my nose at that, I'd prefer to use it! Get people to start voting young and they will continue to do so as they get older.

Voter turnout has been slipping for years. I believe that fostering understanding of the electoral system and local and national government is the key to improving it. Alternatively, we can get rid of candidates and just have people vote for their favourite party by calling an 0901 number or texting at 25p per message... I am, of course, joking about this last part! :o)

Who's Fault is it Anyway?

No campaigning for me yesterday. I had other things to do (more on that subject later). However, I was out on Saturday afternoon posting letters around our ward. It was a gorgeous, warm, sunny day, which meant that a lot of folks were out and about or sitting in their gardens. The sounds of the Grand National rolled out of open doors and windows and kids were kicking footballs in the streets. On days like that it's a great opportunity to catch views and responses because, for once, people are not locked away indoors!

A couple of things were clear. Firstly, the level of awareness of the pending election is very high, which is great because I've campaigned in by-elections when no-one even knew there was an election due. Mind you... you would have to be living under a rock to not know about this one! The second thing that's clear is that there exists a group of people who insist on blaming it all on the immigrants... whatever 'it' is!

People are entitled to their opinion but this is something that thoroughly irritates me. It is a position that shows an utter lack of insight and a determination to bury one's head most firmly in the sand. There is no denying that immigration is an important issue; an incoming population can have both positive and negative effects on a society, but it is somewhat ridiculous to blame all society's problems on immigration - as some people seem so bent on doing.

Sometimes, immigration is undoubtedly a good thing. It allows us to employ the best and brightest and specialists in their chosen field. We should also welcome overseas students who come here to learn, because as well as skills and knowledge, they also gain an understanding of our society and culture. Many industries also rely on overseas workers for seasonal work like fruit picking, because it's something British workers are rarely willing to do. This is very good for business and for the economy. However, immigration can simultaneously lead to a number of problems, not least a loss of identity.

The human being is a social creature. We identify ourselves by groups that we belong to or are excluded from. How often have you asked someone where they were born or what they do for a living? How old are you? Are you a cat or a dog person? What's your favourite colour? Wheelchair-bound people are constantly and frustratingly defined by the fact that they can't walk rather than by their views or experiences; it isn't that unusual to hear people talk about 'seeing beyond the chair'. We seek out people who are like us, with whom we have a common ground, because it makes us feel comfortable and safe; we like to belong. Mass immigration, I believe, scares people because it threatens that feeling of safety and belonging. It threatens identity. This is particularly true because minority populations also want to belong so they often seek each other out too. Minority communities thrive within larger towns and cities. Is there a Jewish quarter in your town? Does your city have a 'China Town'? In the case of religious beliefs, there is the additional consideration that communities spring up in places where there is a church, temple or mosque, simply because it's convenient for the population that worships there. (It's really no different from someone moving to be nearer work, or a family moving to be near a good school.) The unfortunate side-effect of this is that 'native' people begin to feel like the minority, even when they aren't. Additional problems arise when the national sense of identity begins to erode too.

The British are a nation battered by negative phrases like 'Broken Britain', 'Yob Culture' and 'Brits Abroad'. We are losing what it means to be British and more specifically what it means to be English. The Scottish, Irish and Welsh are fortunate to each have clear national and cultural identities. They are nations within a nation that each have a proud heritage and cultural quirks that the majority both acknowledge and, in many cases, adopt. They are people that are proud of who they are. But what of the English? Bangers and mash and fish and chips have given way to Chinese Take-out and Curry Mile. Tea and Crumpets has lost out to Starbucks and Costa-lotta Coffee. Not that those things really matter - I love take out and curry and drink tea or coffee depending on my mood - but when people don't understand what makes them culturally unique, they are even more inclined to feel threatened by other groups. When you feel like you have nothing in common with your neighbour who looks like you, talks like you, has a similar upbringing, family and social status to you, of course you will be concerned by the fifteen people in the next street who - to you - all seem to be alike. It's because you feel alone.

Of course, none of this is the fault of immigration but people who are not like us are an easy target. It takes so much less energy to point the finger at someone with brown skin or a different accent than it does to acknowledge and understand the real sources of society's problems. The person who lives down the street popping out one kid after the next so they can live at home on benefits is more guilty of draining the welfare state than an immigrant who is entitled to no benefits at all, and the young men who ride around my area on uninsured bikes making a racket and putting the lives of others at risk are not from overseas but from right here, in Salford.

My point is simply that society is far more complex than the 'blame it on the immigrants' attitude permits. There a thousand nuances to consider and immigration is only one facet of this little gem. There are sixty-one million people in the UK each with his or her own combination of problems, perspectives and circumstances, and I promise you that 'the immigrants' remain the minority by quite some margin. So don't come bleating to me about immigration. At least not until you have taken a long hard look at the issue you're complaining about. Understanding is the key - and not just understanding of the person who is different from you, but understanding of yourself and why you feel the way you feel.

It's All About the Money

The General Election is finally upon us but judging by the media, anyone would think that campaigning only started this week. The truth of the matter is that many activists, like myself, have been campaigning since before Christmas. Across the country, evenings have been spent in meetings or at home preparing leaflets, envelopes or the letters to go in them. Weekends have been spent meeting the public in the street, or posting leaflets through doors. However, now the real work begins.

Over the next few weeks I hope to try and blog regularly to give an impression of what it's like, as an activist, campaigning for local and national elections. I hope that you'll get some opinion, some insight and a feel for our constituency. I will try not to make it too dry. ;o)

So, the beginning of 'day four'. Where are we at?

Last night a group of us headed down to Salford Arts Theatre for a local 'Question Time' style debate. On the panel was the sitting Labour MP, Hazel Blears, Conservative candidate, Matthew Sephton, Liberal Democrat front-runner, Norman Owen, local journalist, Pamela Welsh and local TUC secretary, Alex Halligan.

There is a lot of ill feeling in our constituency (Salford and Eccles) towards the Labour party and Hazel Blears. During the summer of last year, it transpired that Hazel Blears had 'flipped' her home in order to avoid paying £13,000 in tax. She was far from the worst offender but has come out of this side of last year's expenses scandal very poorly. At the time, she showed up on TV waving a cheque, which she said would pay back the tax she had avoided. The reality of the publicity stunt was that the cheque was meaningless. Had she sent it to the Inland Revenue, they would not have had a mechanism to accept it. In addition, £13,000, the amount which seemed so insignificant to Hazel, is close to what many people in Salford get paid in a year. Thus, she came across as arrogant and effectively set herself apart from her voters. The only worse response would have been to stick two fingers up at the public on live TV. She followed this up by stabbing her party leader in the back and consequently losing her cabinet position. She saw an opportunity to progress her career and it back-fired. Needless to say, she is not a popular woman.

The event itself was very worthwhile and aside from a group of hecklers, served to genuinely engage the public. I think it was clear by the end of the meeting, that Hazel had done little to change the minds of those present, which is good news for our campaign! The event also served to confirm my worst fears about Labour and TUC politics.

Frankly, I have never seen so much ass-kissing in public. Throughout the event, the TUC panelist sucked up to Hazel at every opportunity. And the same was true in the opposite direction. There is a lot of back scratching going on and it couldn't have been more clear that the two organisations are in bed with each other if their representatives had stripped off right then and there! The TUC donates a significant amount of money to the Labour party, which in turn gives them a lot of power. I'm not saying the TUC dictates Labour party policy necessarily, but I do believe the Labour party is afraid of pissing off the unions for fear their funding will dry-up. Whether intentional or not, this will ultimately influence the behaviour of the party. At this point, you might be wondering what's wrong with that? Well, put simply, it's a conflict of interest. How can a government act in the interests of the nation when they are worried about their funding?

This is not a problem that is unique to British politics. It is a topic that featured in American politics time and again. Allowing unlimited donations to political parties and candidates means that it becomes possible to 'buy an election'. No-one really likes to admit it, but people are generally more impressed by a glossy full colour leaflet than by something produced in black and white on a Risograph, regardless of content. In also means that you can put more feet on the ground, stage more events and sometimes enables you to be more visible. Big money allows parties to campaign more aggressively over a much greater area and makes it more difficult for independents and smaller parties to compete. It's unfair and, in my opinion, undemocratic.

I think Lib-Dem policy puts it best:

"Politics should be a battle of ideas, not marketing budgets. No-one should be able to buy influence or buy an election. We will take big money out of politics by capping donations and spending throughout the electoral cycle."

Take Back Power

Any regular readers might note that I have resisted the urge to weigh-in on MP's Expenses. There are a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, I'm not sure that there is anything further to add to the debate and secondly when it's all you hear on the news and read in the paper this sort of thing very quickly becomes quite boring. However, there is one point I feel really needs to be made.

Over the last few weeks it has been made clear to the public that a number of MPs have been on the make, exploiting the expenses system to work to their benefit. Some MPs have treated their allowances like a target to be reached, claiming tens of thousands of pounds of money from UK plc. The minimum that an MP will receive as an annual salary is over £64,000. They will earn even more than this if they are on a committee or if they have a seat on the cabinet. Expenses are then paid on top of all this which means that an MP can earn very much more than their basic salary while average earnings in the UK are less than £25,000. With a high proportion of people earning very much less than this it's no wonder that the public are so infuriated

However, it is also important to remember that out of 646 MPs in UK Parliament, the Telegraph have named only 169 (which includes some MPs that no longer hold a seat in Parliament). This means that there are still well over 400 MPs that have not been singled out - probably because any expenses claims that they have made are entirely appropriate and unremarkable. It is also worth remembering that of the 169 named MPs, very few have actually broken the expenses rules. I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable but I am saying that it is understandable. Don't agree? Let me put it to you like this:

You start working for a new company and are told that you can claim expenses for certain items that enable you to do your job - fuel and stationary perhaps. To begin with you claim only for those items that you purchase that are related to you carrying out your duties until... one day, chatting with a couple of your colleagues they point out all the things that you can claim for, and indeed, lots of other employees already claim for. So your choice is this: do you continue to claim only expenses relating to your job or do you start to claim everything you can? Some paper here, staples there, a bit more fuel that you actually used for work... it's not right and I'm certainly not condoning it, but it happens and thousands of people do it and get away with it.

Of course, they aren't claiming £30,000 for gardening with £1600 of that for a 'duck island'!

Essentially, the point I'm making here is that people can be relied on to behave like people, not angels. At the end of the day, many people enter politics on a truly alturistic basis. They want to make a difference and they want that difference to be positive. However, we can only rely on people to behave like people and people lie, they steal, they cheat and they look after number 1. We can't count on anyone (including ourselves) to be whiter than white but that's what rules and laws are made for; to discourage us from doing things we ought not to. The same goes for the government. There are more than a hundred MPs that have made ridiculous expenses claims, but they have been able to do so because the rules are not good enough and they have been able to get away with it because the oversight is not tough enough.

That's why I am supporting the Liberal Democrat Take Back Power campaign. The people of the UK need a government that works for us, not for the financial gain of its members. We need proper oversight and we need proper representation. Labour have proposed no serious changes to the rules - they would like the status quo to remain so that they can keep their fingers firmly in the cookie jar. The Conservatives have proposed only the very weakest of reforms that will make no real difference to the people of this country.

The Liberal Democrats' Take Back Power campaign aims to reform the expenses system in full, ensure the public have the right to sack any MP that has been suspended for misconduct, reform the outdated House of Lords, reform party funding so that the government can't be 'bought' through party donations, introduce fixed term Parliaments, reform the electoral system so that each vote really does count and change procedure to reduce executive power. More detailed information can be found at http://www.takebackpower.org/.

It is important that we take the opportunity NOW to press for true electoral reform rather than letting the government get away with a continued abuse of power. Therefore, I urge everyone to take a stand and sign the online petition. It's time to make our voice heard.

A Reversal of 200 Years of 'Progress'

It's been a busy couple of weeks with a number of highs and not-so-highs.

Of the highs, the rehearsals for the Sing Live concert at the end of June are coming along nicely. Even the stress of a horrific day this Wednesday, when a simple airport pickup turned into a three hour nightmare, was very quickly eased by a few bars of 'It Had to be You'. My piano lessons are coming along similarly well - although I wish it was as easy to make my fingers move as fast as my mouth! Finally, Charly, survived a full service with no problems - what a relief!

In the not-so-highs category the top of the tree has to be the Irwell Riverside by-election. In case anyone has missed it, husband Steve was selected as the Lib Dem candidate. You can catch up on the events of the campaign on his own blog.

Being involved in his campaign - including helping to develop (or rather hone) the content of his leaflets and then 'on the frontline' posting those leaflets through the doors of the ward - has been a great experience. Watching the opening of the postal ballots was fascinating (I finally understand the need for all the bits of paper and those multi-coloured envelopes) while actually being able to attend the count in the evening was truly unique: not only because the media were circling like vultures awaiting the inevitable arrival of local political pariah, Hazel Blears, but also because so few 'ordinary' people get to see democracy up close and personal like this. In the end Steve came second behind the Labour candidate, Matt Mold.

All in all, it was a pretty positive result for the Lib Dems. This ward has traditionally been a Labour stronghold - last year they took a 51% share of the vote - so we were really taking the fight to them on their own territory. Steve attracted 18% of the vote (a reduction of only 1%) while the Conservatives and Labour lost out by 4% and 13% respectively. The recent Expenses Scandal has clearly taken its toll. It isn't just Labour that is paying the political price for the government's failure to set its house in order: every one of the major parties lost ground to the fringe parties (The Greens, UKIP and BNP all fielded candidates). Although we obviously hoped for better, given the circumstances losing only 1% share is an achievement.

So clearly I'm not disappointed with the result for the Lib Dems, so why am I not happy? There are two elements of the result that are extremely disappointing: The BNP and the voter turnout.

Until this by-election I have had few encounters with the BNP. I've been aware of them, of course, and will freely admit that I have always held a pretty low opinion of them as a political entity. However, it is not until I actually came face to face with them that I realised just how vile, deceitful and disrespectful they really are. Without going into a raft of detail (which would take me all day to catalogue) I was astonished by the sheer volume of lies and half-truths that they spouted in their propaganda and online on their own websites and particularly on those of others. Worryingly, they also showed absolutely no respect for democracy, even going as far as to suggest that some people should not be allowed to vote. If it's possible, they showed even less respect for the voting public talking openly in a highly derogatory manner referring to the voters as 'stupid', 'thick' or 'sheep' just because they didn't vote BNP. Finally, (and I speak from personal experience) they are downright nasty. Ignoring the disgusting abuse that their cohorts posted in comments on many local blogs, their behaviour at the evening count was akin to the level of school playground bullies. They were both puerile and venomous to other people present at the count as well as the returning officer. It is not just me that has noticed: Leader of the local Labour party, John Merry, has commented on Steve Cooke's blog.

However what disappoints me is not the BNP members or the party as a whole - I would expect little else from an organisation that has its roots firmly embedded in the fascist British National Front - it's the fact that the people of Salford appear to be falling for their rubbish. I don't mind if you choose to vote BNP as long as you understand who and what you are voting for (that is your choice and your right!) but I'm concerned that many voters may not be looking beyond the glossy surface of the BNPs leaflets or beyond their diverting but deceptive propaganda stunts. For goodness sake, if you are considering voting BNP in any election, please please please, make sure you are fully informed. A simple search in google or on reputable websites such as the BBC should reveal why so many people are set against their organisation.

However, no matter what my personal feelings about the BNP (or the mafia that they sent to the count) happen to be, the far greater disappointment in this by-election was the turnout. Only 17.5% of those people who are registered to vote in Irwell Riverside actually went to the trouble of doing so - that's less than 1 in 7 people! As a result, a little over 600 people chose the councillor for a ward of more than 9000 registered voters: that's less than 7% of people in the ward choosing who dictates the policies that directly influence the lives of everyone else. This kind of apathy means that decisions are made by a tiny minority of voters and it also opens the door to the fringe parties making extremely limited public support seem much greater than it actually is. This is not democracy! I'm sure that there are many people who didn't vote that would say 'my vote doesn't count' or 'I don't know who to vote for' or 'nothing will change so what's the point' or any number of similar excuses but the fact is by choosing to not vote you willingly reverse almost 200 years of progress.

Less than two centuries ago only 1 in 7 men could vote. Just 125 years ago less than half of all men could vote and women didn't have any voting rights at all. It wasn't until 1918 - less than a century ago - that any woman could vote in this country and it was only 81 years ago that we achieved universal suffrage. Two world wars were fought to maintain our sovereignty and democracy. Even now there are thousands of British troops protecting our democratic rights against terrorists who would like to see their religious and political views forced upon us, and all around the world their are millions of people that still have either no voting rights or can't vote freely.

Therefore, to those residents of Irwell Riverside who did not vote in this election my question is this: what response could you possibly give me that would justify allowing less than 7% of your community to make this choice for all of you?

The Last Day

It is the final 24 hours of George W. Bush's presidency. With just a few hours until a new president is sworn in, it seems appropriate to pause for a moment and consider what has passed and what's to come.

First, I'm glad to see Bush go. I believe he is more intelligent than some have given him credit for, but I also believe that he's bad news. Bush is like a bull in a china shop - there's no finesse there at all. It scares me to think of George W. Bush in the same situation that Kennedy faced during the Cuban Missile Crisis. At that time, the world was on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe as America and Russia faced off against each other. It is, of course, impossible to say for sure how Bush would've behaved, but we can look at his reaction to 9/11 and Iraq, and see how swift he was to lead the United States (and Britain) into an ill-conceived war. At the end of the day, the Bush legacy is not stability and peace, it's the opposite.

As for Obama, I am so pleased that the U.S. electorate has chosen him to succeed Bush. He is clearly intelligent and has some interesting policy ideas. Plus, as a UK citizen, I like his attitude when it comes to Foreign policy. I believe that he can take on board the intelligent opinion of his advisors and others around the world, and balance that with his own beliefs, knowledge and understanding and make educated decisions. He seems able to listen, gather information and insight but ultimately, make his own judgements without coming across as arrogant - something that I could never give Bush credit for. However, I do have one concern. At the moment, the American public is applauding itself for electing a coloured president. I agree that the nation has come a very long way since the de facto apartheid of the sixties and seventies, but there are still many Americans who harbour a deep seated and evil loathing of anything that isn't 'normal'. It is hard to quantify from a distance exactly how widespread this might be, but I wonder how people really fell about having a coloured president (or a gay, Jewish, Hindu, Latino or female) and I also wonder how long Obama will last. I hope I am wrong, but I have a horrible dread that one day I will switch on the news to reports of assasination. God, I hope that doesn't happen! If it does, will it be an Islamic Fundamentalist or a close-minded biggot? Where will the finger point: to the world at large, or in on itself?

This, by the way, is not to say that Americans aren't intelligent. Please don't think that I tar all U.S. citizens with the same brush: Many of my friends are American and I love the country for it's fantastic geographical and cultural variety. The American people deserve a leader to be proud of. Tomorrow we will say goodbye to Bush and welcome to Obama. I wish him all the best and hope that he can meet the challenges of the next 4 (and maybe even 8) years head on with the same respectability and dignity with which he conducted himself during the election.

Election!

My postal ballot arrived yesterday so let's talk about the local elections on the 1st of May.

First and foremost, no matter what the circumstances I intend to vote. I have voted in every election (bar one, when I was out of the country) since I was 18 and don't plan to break the habit. 'Why?' I hear you ask. It's my right! All over the world there are people who can't vote or people, like those in Zimbabwe, whose vote is made meaningless by their corrupt leaders. It may often seem like a vote in this country is meaningless but to those who honestly believe that I suggest you try living in dictatorship for a while and see how you feel about British politics then! Also, remember that just as there are many people whose vote means nothing, there are as many who can't vote. In the past many women have fought and died in this country for my right to vote and I am not about to insult their memory by squandering my vote. Thus, I would rather spoil my ballot than not actually vote and I encourage EVERYONE to think alike. It's your right, your voice and your power. If you choose not to wield it, you choose not be heard and not to act therefore you can't complain when everything's going tits-up!

Anyway, returning to my point, who should I put my trust in as my chosen representative in this local election? Well, in my ward I can vote Labour, vote Conservative or vote Lib-dem. What a choice! I am salivating at the endless possibilities!

Lets face it, by voting for the Labour representative I am effectively giving a seal of approval to the existing Labour dominated council. Here in Salford, our council tax is one of the highest in the area and we have just had the highest percentage increase of an council in Greater Manchester. For that increase we have roads that are riddled with pot holes, a substandard recycling programme and not much else. True, the Labour council are redeveloping my area - knocking down derelict buildings in favour of new 'low cost' housing - but they are also in favour of introducing congestion charging in Manchester and, the so-called low cost housing is, in reality anything but, the new housing is years from being built and the council is also looking to close schools in favour of larger super schools. All in all, not a great picture. I feel it could be time for a change.

So, what of the other candidates? Well, I have no idea what the Conservative candidate will stand for since we have had nothing from them. In general, however, the Tories are against anything that Labour want to do so you would think that makes them an ideal replacement. But I have a problem voting for a candidate that hasn't made any effort to convince me to elect them. It's almost as if the Tory candidate has decided that I won't vote for Labour therefore I will vote for them. They are not worthy of my vote.

That leaves the Lib-Dems as the only other choice. However there is always the concern that the Lib-Dems, as the 'third' party in this country, are unelectable. Even if they did get power, I'm not convinced they would know how to use it. At least THEY have made an effort to try and convince me!

So, what to do?