Election reflections

So, it's all over, after a lot of shouting. Politics certainly gets rough and dirty sometimes, but the UK-wide referendum campaign certainly plummeted to new depths of scaremongering, insults, half-truths and just downright lies. And that was just the Prime Minister.

For the Liberal Democrats, both the local, Scottish and Welsh elections proved that you can't just go from being a party of protest to being a party of government overnight without there being any consequences. The impact will be certainly be felt because it begins to soften the buffer between Labour and the Tories. A weaker Lib Dem party could limit Labour's options for coalition or co-operation, come the next General Election. It is a challenge for the left of British politics because Thursday's elections were undoubtedly a victory for David Cameron. The Prime Minister's authority will become stronger – as it has begun to do so already in recent months – while undermining the junior partner in the Coalition further. Nick Clegg will hang on because there is still no real appetite for decapitating yet another leader – the risks of a bloodbath are just too high in government. And it's hardly in Cameron's interest either.

As for the referendum, it was disappointing that the public took against the Alternative Vote in such numbers. I live in Lambeth, one of only eight areas which voted yes – no surprises there given the support my own MP has given to the Yes campaign and the generally progressive nature of the politics around these parts. Others too have pointed out that Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh were all areas that voted for change – all reasonably affluent, liberal bastions of democracy where it's probably fair to say that a higher than average number of people understand and support the alternatives to our current voting system. The dilemma now will be whether to come back with another question as Chris Huhne has mooted, or whether it becomes part of Labour or Liberal Democrat manifestos in the future – maybe the closely related AV Plus, or the Single Transferable Vote. But while the public voting overwhelmingly against change, our political institutions are still tired and dysfunctional and the issues around plurality and accessibility to smaller parties in our democracy will only become more apparent.

Nick Clegg didn't help matters, of course, but it was fundamentally a matter of timing and utter naivety on the part of the Liberal Democrat leadership that we had this referendum when we did. The idea that the Tories – and more conservative Labour stalwarts - would just play nicely and allow the referendum to pass by as a harmless sideshow. Given a year or so, and the opportunity to heal significant wounds caused by the Lib Dem u-turn on tuition fees and the outcome may have been different. It may also have influenced the thinking behind the campaign itself, which seemed to rely on stoking up anti-political feeling and gushing support from liberal celebrities such as Eddie Izzard, Stephen Fry and Helena Bonham-Carter. They're fine entertainers and personalities, but they don't do hard politics. Sometimes you need seasoned politicians to come out and fight a vigorous campaign, and not have to resort to the pathetic campaign tactics that the Yes campaign used at times. The failure of the Yes campaign made ample space for the likes of Labour big beasts John Prescott and John Reid at the No campaign, whose messages resonated with ordinary voters that were ultimately confused by the multitude of essentially academically derived arguments pushed by AV's 'supporters'. (And it might have helped if the Yes campaign had stopped saying 'it's not perfect and not what we really want, but...').

With people distracted by high unemployment, and the simultaneous destruction of public services, sticking with the status quo was just the simplest choice requiring less thinking at the ballot box. Any large-scale progressive campaign in future should remember that.

The fuss over AV might have also overshadowed the campaigns in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Suddenly, the political establishment has woken up to the reality of the Scottish National Party governing with a not insubstantial majority, and the clearest mandate yet for any party in the Scottish Parliament. Without anyone noticing, the break-up of the United Kingdom within 10-15 years has suddenly become more of a possibility. The political consequences of that can only begin to be imagined. Certainly, there is no reason to believe that Labour could ever make a comeback in Scotland without a serious reappraisal of what their role could be in a changed environment, and it's positive to hear that Ed Mililband has ordered a root-and-branch review of Scottish Labour.

On the whole, Labour didn't fare too badly but Ed Miliband was no runaway winner. The journey on the road to recovering the party's electoral fortunes has begun but negotiating the obstacles placed in front of it by the Coalition has added an extra dimension. Re-drawn boundaries, a deficit reduction plan that may or may not work and new thinking around public services will challenge Labour's strategists for months to come. Now these elections and the referendum are out of the way, it's time for some serious, credible and meaningful opposition from Ed.

Labour: stop blindly following your tribe and vote Yes in the AV referendum

For a moment, I felt utterly repulsed seeing the former Home Secretary John Reid on a platform with David Cameron yesterday, explaining why he was in favour of retaining the status quo for our voting system. But I quickly got over it – remembering how right-wing he was in Government. Reid is no progressive, but the worst kind of Labour dinosaur – a tribalist who is apologetic for a discredited and discounted form of politics. He must have felt at home with Cameron. Genuinely progressive politicians should have no business on platforms with Tory politicians – not on issues as fundamental to our democracy as this, anyway. But Reid, like Cameron, can't see beyond vested interest.

As anyone who reads my blog regularly will know, I’m voting Yes in the referendum on the Alternative Vote on 5 May. And while I relish the opportunity to convince others of why a Yes vote is a good idea, I'm increasingly sick and tired of the increasingly ignorant arguments put forward by opponents of AV. And I know it's not perfect. No voting system is perfect – our current system (First Past the Post) has proved that. But I can't get my head around why other so-called progressives – and by that I mean Labour or non-aligned left-leaning people – are campaigning for a No vote in the referendum.

Some just can't stand Nick Clegg and wish to spite him. Fair enough, but he won't be around forever the way the Coalition is going. The future of our democracy is, I hope is obvious, more important than any single politician, hated or not.

There also seem to be plenty of proportional representation (PR) purists that have sprung out of nowhere, who take a rather unrealistic view of how the British 'do' politics. These people seem to think that some sort of electoral reform revolution will happen, some time in the near future, when we’ll suddenly get full PR in whatever form that might take. A lot of liberal or left-leaning people seem to think this way. But the way things stand, the prospect of 'full PR' hasn’t got a cat’s chance in hell. The Alternative Vote – the arguments for which are simple and straightforward – is the only way of achieving the aim of electoral reform at this moment in time.

The only alternative I can imagine, should the Yes campaign fail, is a manifesto pledge by Ed Miliband to introduce the Alternative Vote or another system in the next Labour manifesto. That would probably preclude any possibility of further referendums and would certainly face opposition from the likes of John Reid in his own party.

The No campaign seems to have this one in the bag if we are to believe the polls. But, as I've said before, the future of British politics will actually mean a lot more coalitions. As a socialist I hope that means more governments which stand up for public services, a fairer economic system and greener policies. And we desperately need a voting system that reflects the will of the people – not a Tory-led government elected on less than 40% of the vote, and a Parliament composed of MPs with jobs for life because the electoral system makes it comfortable for them.

If Labour really is as progressive as it would like to think, party members should vote Yes. It’s not about the outcome of the next election, or the last election, or whether you think Nick Clegg is a sell-out. It’s about a long overdue reform to our Victorian voting system which belongs with gas-lamp lighters, workhouses and rickets – in the past.

Cutting to the chase

Where on earth are anti-cuts campaigns leading to?

The left of British politics seems to be stuck between the old, bureaucratic model of rigid union-based organising, and the 'flashmob' style of campaigning which organisations such as UK Uncut and False Economy are encouraging.
UK Uncut have swooped on unsuspecting Saturday shoppers with the likes of tax-dodging Vodafone and Topshop in their sights, building a movement through Twitter and Facebook. The TUC, on the other hand, promises a big demonstration on 26 March ‘All Together for Public Services’ – organising through all its constituent member unions in the workplace. Both marshal support from very different ranks.

Neither campaigns are based on anything insincere, or are fundamentally incompatible with each other. The people who attend the demonstrations, sign the petition or even just ‘retweet’ a powerful statement mean what they do, I’m sure. But I wonder how long ‘just being angry’ about the state of the world, and expressing a generally anti-politics view in reaction to the cuts will achieve.

So what are we campaigning for? Is it a new world order, or just the reinstatement of Joan the lollipop lady? Are we against the flogging off of our forests, and the savaging of our libraries as well as the cuts in rural bus services? And if we are against all these things, what binds this movement together?

If you’ll bear with me, I’m going to indulge in the romance of my Trotskyite days as a student anti-war campaigner and part-time revolutionary socialist.

To me, the different approaches that have been adopted in reaction to the cuts mean that in many ways, I struggle to find a parallel with the enormous anti-war movement which developed after the September 11 attacks on the US. It all meant there was a considerably limited use of the internet as an organising and campaigning tool compared with 2011.

The hierarchical structure of the Stop the War Coalition encouraged a united opposition to a single issue, and it was good at organising. The build-up consisted of rallies in every major town and city, even then encouraging school-age students to protest, and a flotilla of coaches culminating in a million-strong march in London on 15 February 2003. In 2003, there was no social media, and Facebook was just fictional dollar signs in Mark Zuckerberg’s head. Communications technology, in every sense, has exploded since then and it’s not inconceivable that we could witness such a huge scale protest now, if not bigger. But although this movement achieved success in mobilising opposition in quite a substantial way, it did not ultimately achieve its goal – of preventing war in Iraq. The movement which built up towards that demo drifted away, graduated from university, and found new political enemies. Fundamentally, the politics of the anti-war movement was always too fragmented, and too fragile to become anything substantial in the long-term.

Maybe the anti-war movement set an example which has yet to be beaten in terms of sheer support and the steady, long-term building of a core base of support.

Yet the current wave of protests – and they are just that at the moment – means that there is nothing on the scale of the anti-war movement, let alone something on the scale of the Chartists or the suffragists.

In response to latest surge of protests, some on the Labour supporting-blogosphere, including Owen Jones, Aaron Peters and the TUC's Nigel Stanley have begun to comment both in support of and against the two campaigning models. They also argue for a mixture of the two approaches.

But to me, the answers to these conflicts are clear:

1. Don’t 'expect' leadership – become the leaders!
2. If you need a democratic structure to do that, with an elected ‘committee’ – make it happen.
3. Define what you're for, not necessarily what you're against and be absolutely concise about it.
4. Have a clear set of goals in order to get you there, and a coherent view about how we want things to be.
5. Be unambiguous about your politics, even if you’re not aligned to a particular party.

Without any of the above in place, the means is irrelevant. Neither the traditional model nor the flashmob method will endure, because neither can achieve anything on their own.

If there is no consensus on the right approach, I’m wondering if it's as simple as lots of localised anti-cuts campaigns around the country - in which Labour candidates in marginal seats fight the 2015 election in order to ensure Labour becomes the next government. It might be the best hope of the progressive left that the deficit can be tackled in a fairer way. After all, anger may win the emotional argument, but it only gets you part of the way.

Big trouble in the big society

How one local authority is facing a 46% budget cut



Will the citizens of Hastings take up the reins of the Big Society?



Hastings is a seaside resort famous for its connection with the Norman conquest. In 1066, William the Bastard became William the Conqueror after his victory at the Battle of Hastings, defeating Harold II as King. It led to William securing control of most of England, but twenty years of rebellion and resistance.

Today, Hastings is somewhat less concerned with dramatic occupations, and more in keeping the fabric of essential local services intact. A Labour-led borough council – unique south of London – is opposed by a docile Conservative party which steadfastly refuses to condemn the severity of the cuts which have hit the council. The area's Tory MP, Amber Rudd, even goes so far as to call the cutbacks “an opportunity”.

But in the words of the council itself, Hastings has just been handed “the toughest settlement in living history”. And this is a town which knows a thing or two about tough settlements.

Local government took a massive blow in the aftermath of October's comprehensive spending review. Over the next four years, government funding to local authorities will decrease by a total of 28%. Hastings loses an astounding 46% of its total funding; £3.6 million from an Area Based Grant (cut altogether), and its Formula Grant cut from £9.1 million to £7.7 million. A 'transition fund' replaces some of the lost funding - £2.6 million in 2011/2012 – but this too is reduced next year by around a fifth. Like other Labour-led councils, which are suffering disproportionately through the loss of central government grants, Hastings is emerging from the shock of the CSR to deal with the reality of cutting essential services as well as generators of economic growth.

Labour Councillor Paul Barlow “fell in love with the town” when he moved from inner-city London in 2003, just after a substantial amount of government grants had been awarded to breathe new life into the area. “I wanted to buy somewhere for an investment,” says Barlow, who came to work for a regeneration company, recognising the potential of what could have been just another unloved seaside town. His talents have recently been rewarded with a cabinet post, without any single portfolio, helping to run the council in an extraordinarily tough economic environment.

Barlow's 'patch' reflects a personal passion for regeneration and renewal, covering the Castle Ward, which aside from the castle itself, and everything from the railway station to the main shopping areas and the beach. It also includes the famous Victorian pier ravaged by fire in October and now the subject of a Heritage Lottery Fund application to restore it to former glory. A feature of the seafront is distinctive Georgian architecture, much of which seems to be looked after a lot better now than it has done for years. A variety of thriving independent businesses dominate the town centre: only a branch of Costa stands out as a rare concession to the global coffee giants.

Under Labour, Hastings received substantial public investment. The Priory Quarter office development is a prime example of the sort of boost – a speculative office development that has coaxed major employers such as Saga, which brought 800 jobs to the town. The new Sussex Coast College offers degree level courses to a young population habitually bound by the confines of the borough and lacking in aspiration. But despite these redeeming features, Councillor Barlow's ward is still the 29^th most deprived in the UK.

Barlow is understandably proud of the progress over the last ten years or so, and is keen to emphasise the council's overall vision for the town: 

“Many seaside towns like Hastings fell into a spiral of decline in the 1960s and 1970s because there was no-one to drive things forward and councils allowed the downward spiral to continue. When we took control in 1998 much of the seafront was semi-derelict, but using our planning powers we forced landlords to use their own money in refurbish their properties.  

"The council's own 'Grotbusters' team helped out, working with owners of run down buildings to help bring properties up to scratch.

“We've now changed the seafront so dramatically, at one point the town even ran out of scaffolding!” laughs Barlow.

Indeed, the pleasant surroundings of the White Rock Hotel, where I meet Barlow, is testament to the general improvement of the area.

But Barlow is fearful that this sort of progress could be reversed:

“We recently won money for developing the fishing industry in the town from the European Union, but a lot of our regeneration staff are paid for from area-based grants – which are going completely. So, we lose much of our regeneration funding, and the ability to put forward applications for new money.

“These people provide a lot of added value to the town. But we're losing experience that we've built up. And if the council doesn't provide direction and funding, who does?”

In the aftermath of the spending review, Barlow has to help make decisions on what, if any of this sort of work can be continued.

“There are things we have to do, like development control, but there's very little guidance on what you have to provide. We will have to bring things down to a level we think is safe, and look at what else we've got left in terms of savings.” 

In that case, what happens when the council says they can't afford to certain things any more? Isn't the Big Society already waiting in the wings, geared up to provide services more cheaply?

Unsurprisingly, Barlow is sceptical of this notion. 

“It's rather patronising to assume that there are lots of people just waiting to take over – there aren't.”

Barlow questions the benefit of increased involvement by the voluntary sector: 

“They may have a different angle. But it's hard to think what else we could outsource - there's no way any other organisation can provide a lot of things cheaper. Local government is already the most efficient way of doing a lot of things. 

“Much of the regeneration money goes through the council's budget to Hastings' voluntary sector. The Pier and White Rock Trust already has some great people doing a full-time job voluntarily. But as a result of cuts in our regeneration budget, we're going to see a smaller 'Big Society'. It will contract and shrink as a result of the cuts." 

Barlow points out that the council have already begun to consult with local residents about what's most important to them. 

“We had a borough wide conversation about people's priorities. Not what about we improve, but what we dramatically reduce, or cut. People prioritised safety things, environmental issues, cleaner streets - a greener town. 

“Lower down on their agendas are things like arts and the theatre. But we're a small council, and very often services are provided by just one or two people. If you make a 40% cut in some arts services you end up stopping it altogether. The severity of this is pretty much out of the blue, and we're still in the process of going through what's possible”.

Barlow is convinced that central government fundamentally misunderstands what local authorities like Hastings actually do. He argues that local government is an essential co-ordinator of services, not necessarily responsible for carrying them out. 

“They've a weird idea that local government is a monolith, but most money simply goes through us to organisations that work on our behalf. And there's this myth that people will provide things for free - that's not going to happen. Even the Friends of the Park requires office space and structured professional support to keep them going. And we're already engaging local people in the management of the park”.

Does Barlow have any faith in the government's vision for more localism?

“The net impact of localism so far has been zero because we have no resources to achieve it.

“We have some staff for example, who help develop community forums. But when you no longer have the grants for these kinds of things, how do they happen? You just get the same people coming forward at planning meetings and organising petitions”.

In the light of all this, what successes might Barlow have to his name in five years' time?

“We're going to be hard pressed to identify great achievements.

“I suppose I'm quite lucky in that I've been able to take control of a trust which, under an Elizabethan agreement, dictates that an area of land between high tide and low tide would be given for the benefit of the people of Hastings. It got drowned by council bureaucracy, which we managed to unpick. What we have now is a large area of the foreshore which is now land – not underwater – including fairgrounds and a car park – and which has an income. Once the trust pays off its costs, there's an opportunity for the excess to be spent in a targeted way. We can focus it on the most needy in Hastings and St Leonards – and possibly some seafront improvements."

At the same time, Barlow is realistic about his political responsibilities:

“My main role, as local campaign co-ordinator for the Labour party - is to see that our Conservative MP has a short tenure, and that she's replaced by a Labour MP. The previous Tory MP only lasted one term – and the way the current MP is going, she could follow him.

“If we can keep things ticking over in a way that protects the most vulnerable – that's probably the best achievement we can hope for”. 

 

Ed Miliband: the 'honest optimist'

It was supposed to be the speech which broke the mould. Less than three days after being announced as Labour's new leader, a fresh, wide-eyed idealist bounded up to the stage. With an overriding theme of youth throughout the speech - in a marked contrast to the weighty years of experience of his predecessor - this was not an occasion at which the old guard would feel comfortable.
Ed Miliband hammered home, directly to the Shadow Cabinet, his personal beliefs of where New Labour had gone wrong - "I understand that the promise of the new politics of 1997 came to look incredibly hollow after the scandal of MP's expenses". He spared a more traditional vitriol for the Coalition, occasionally verging on the sanctimonious, and constantly referring to government being something that Labour had the right to take back: "If we are not the party, nobody will be". A personal jibe at David Cameron enforced his view of Britain simply being in reckless hands: "You were once the optimist but now all you can offer is a miserable, pessimistic view of what Britain can achieve. And you hide behind the deficit to justify it. We won't let you get away with it".

This speech was both different in tone and content from the dramatic set pieces of Tony Blair and the solid, statistic heavy reports of Gordon Brown (although Miliband teased the audience briefly with an old Brown line "thank you for what you did", interminably repeated at large party events to acknowledge activists' tireless work). Instead, Miliband projected a more fragile, nervous understatement. After all, until just a few weeks ago it was not expected that he would win. There was even a hint of this last-minute nature in the jokes, some of which would not have been out of place in a best man's speech, scribbled on the back of an envelope the night before: "I stole David's football, so he nationalised my train set". And, reflecting the theme of youth and the new generation, an affectionate but pointed remark aimed at Jack Straw "what was it like to meet the man who invented the wheel, Jack?" only served to underline the boyish qualities of the new leader.

Ed Miliband's comradely, fraternal language echoed a political training spent in debating halls. Overwhelmingly, this was a speech to a pitched to "friends" at a Labour Party branch meeting or a left-leaning thinktank - both environments in which Mr Miliband is inherently more comfortable - and not the conference hall of an aspirant Prime Minister. More precisely, it addressed the sort of people with whom he has spent the past four months, and not Great Britain.

Overshadowed by the failure of his older brother's campaign to clinch the leadership, there were key questions of legitimacy to answer. Did Ed possess the oratory skill of his brother? Many people doubted as to whether he could articulate a vision of Labour that was forward looking and believable. Proving that the Labour party had caught up with a sizeable and aggrieved part of the electorate over the Iraq issue, Miliband boldly repeated the conviction which characterised his campaign when he spoke to the party at large:

"We were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that...wrong because that war was not a last resort...we did not build sufficient alliances and...we undermined the United Nations."

Pacing towards a crescendo finish, Miliband adopted a poetic, tub-thumping rhythm not dissimilar to Blair and Brown, with regular nods to the party's heritage. This was a man brought up by passionate activists, which showed as he comfortably referenced the pivotal figures of the Labour movement who, at one time, as Miliband of Brothers told us, most were present in his parents' dining room. Although there was much in the speech to reassure party members, at no time did he excite the audience beyond the polite reception you might normally expect from a Labour conference.

This was a positive, upbeat speech, honest about the past and hopeful about the future. Opposition parties and the press alike were unsure of what to make of his inaugural address; labelling him either as a thoughtful, candid newcomer or a dangerous, left-wing union bidder. But, with just three days in the job, there was a general consensus that he wasn't quite ready for Downing Street just yet. After all it took David Cameron nearly five years to make that transition, and Neil Kinnock, a front-row advocate of Ed, never made it after nine. The recent history of British social democracy reminds us there's a bigger story behind new leadership rejecting past ideas and going on to win elections - particularly when you've been blessed by a predecessor. Another Clause IV moment could yet happen.

Head to head: Oona vs Ken

Oona's helped out Ken on his own campaign trail in the past

One of the annoyances of having a party leadership selection process running in parallel with a London mayoral candidate selection is that Facebook sends me countless invites to hustings events for either. Last Monday 26 July I ventured, in a rare move, out to Southall in West London to what I thought was a Labour Party leadership hustings organised by the Co-operative Party, an organisation with which I hold much sympathy. The latter part of my assumption turned out to be right - as it turned out, when I arrived, there were significantly fewer chairs at the top table than I was expecting. And a surprising lack of party staff to move things along. Nonetheless, our good friends at the Co-op had attracted a significant number of people to the event, compered by the ever-droll Steve Pound MP, which turned out to be an excellent chance for Ken Livingstone and Oona King, as the official Labour mayoral candidate nominees, to make their case.

I have to admit, once I arrived I did have fairly set views on my preference for London mayor, and have been used to having them challenged quite a lot recently by my boyfriend and others. I voted for Ken in 2008 and, for the last few years, and I've been of the view that, with a better campaign less-focused on the inner-London boroughs and an appeal to a more aspirational Labour vote, he could win City Hall back off Boris. After all, Ken's got something of a reputation as a comeback kid, what with his battles with the Labour hierarchy in the early 2000s and entering Parliament in the 1987 General Election, only to leave Westminster in 2001 once he'd returned to London local government. Of course, he's far from perfect, what with his confrontation with Evening Standard Journalist Oliver Finegold and various other skirmishes. But I have a lot of time for a politician with boomerang-like abilities - and his passion for, and ability to speak to, and for London. His words after the 7 July tube and bus bombings were well-judged and sensitively aimed.

But, I'm coming around to the idea that despite Ken's ability to come back from the abyss, London may have moved on. I hope that Oona King genuinely does have the fresh ideas and the new approach which she claims she has. Because, if there really is a palpable hunger within the London Labour Party, and the London electorate as a whole for Oona's qualities, then she really may be in with a chance of ousting Boris Johnson. Several London councils went back to Labour control in 2010, and despite the huge swing to the Conservatives in 2008, the Labour vote still held up very strongly in inner-London boroughs in particular.

Maybe this means that on this occasion, the debate is less about the policies, and more about the ability of a single personality to elucidate a metropolitan, socialist politics. After all, as Oona herself said at this hustings, she was previously one of Ken's greatest supporters- she just happens to think that she can do the job better now. After Ken's big falling out with Labour ten years ago, few party members would disagree the triumphs of Ken's congestion charge policy, investment in the East London Line and his vigorous campaigning for the 2012 Olympics and Crossrail as a catalyst for investment in London for the present, and future. Why would Oona want to undo those (perceived) successes?

The point of this hustings however, was to differentiate between King and Livingstone and their specific proposals for London. On balance, I found Oona to be the lighter of the two on matters of policy. Oona is clearly disadvantaged as the less well-versed in London politics, although arguably this is irrelevant given her experience in Westminster during the New Labour years. Most bizarrely, when faced with a question on Fair Trade (to be expected with a Co-operative party audience), Oona evidenced her credentials with her campaign within the House of Commons to ban Cadbury's chocolate in favour of Fair Trade products. That's all very well Oona, but surely London's ethical trade with the rest of the world is bigger than what you stock in an MP's tuck-shop? I don't wish to denigrate the good intentions of the Fair Trade movement - I support it wholeheartedly - but I expect a mayoral candidate to have bigger ideas than that. It's the sort of politics which I practiced in my student union nine years ago...

There were several questions around transport, and one subject in which a dividing line was evident was on dedicated schoolbuses for London's schoolchildren. I've been in favour of such a scheme since a report was published on the subject five years ago, and found the deadlock between the two candidates rather irritating. Ken adamant that such an idea won't work as "there's no more road space" whilst Oona extolled the virtues of it - quite rightly pointing out that parents,pupils and the public alike want security and safety on their morning and evening journeys - giving the travelling public a break during the school run. Ken did not present any tangible evidence as to why present dedicated TfL schoolbus journeys (of which there are very many in London) could not give way to a dedicated 'yellow' bus system with specially recruited drivers and monitors to look after their young passengers as exists in the USA. Ken further defected Oona's proposals with costs - £350 million to lease or £500 million to buy outright a fleet of buses. It didn't help that in these straightened times, Oona hadn't identified where the money for such a fleet might come from.

My own question was on policing numbers, and whether both candidates thought that the current standard of policing could be maintained with fewer policing officers. The Safer Neighbourhood team is all over my area like a rash, which is a good thing, and it's no surprise that (touch wood) that my bit of Balham has a particularly low burglary rate. Both Oona and Ken were pro-directly elected invididuals to look after policing, which is what we've already got of course with Boris at the head of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Ken had concerns about central government undermining local efforts to deal with crime (the Shoot to Kill policy being cited as an example - where ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) and the Home Secretary had decided on a particular policy decision and the Mayor had not been consulted. A true test of the coalition's decentralising mettle could be to be more comfortable with policing policy decisions being made by directly elected individuals, as opposed to central government. Will traditional law and order Tories be able to resist the urge to intervene if these directly elected individuals become more widespread in other areas?

Both candidates gave inspiring final statements - Ken highlighting his view of the role of the London mayor in an uncertain world where ordinary people are now facing unprecedented cuts, and that "London needs to be at the place where the new world is being born". Oona, once again, summed up by asking the room "Do you want to win London?" implying that the opposite was a distinct possibility for Labour supporters if they failed to back her as Labour's candidate.

Me, I'm still undecided despite a strong case being put forward by both candidates (and with both having very different credentials). But I suspect that whatever happens, the public will have decided that, despite a bike scheme here and a 21st century Routemaster there, people will want a serious candidate in these less stable economic times.

Election 2.0?

If it wasn’t quite the Sun ‘wot won it’, it certainly wasn’t Facebook or Twitter in 2010. The General Election proved that social media did some novel and exciting things to encourage young voters out of their perceived apathy, but put simply, there was no Obama-like mechanism to galvanise the part of the electorate with most recent gift of suffrage.

Whereas the 2008 US Presidential election relied on micro-donations through sites such as Twitter, the UK election showed that the mainstream media were still capable of pulling off more campaign coups than many observers might have predicted. As early as 26 April, the BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones argued that “the bloggers hoped they would boss this campaign, breaking stories, setting the mood, and leaving the flat-footed old media types trailing in their wake…but the newspapers, and in particular the broadcasters have proved far more influential, with the TV debates dwarfing every other aspect of the campaign.”

In the run up to polling day, a convincing argument could have been made that social media would have an almost magnetic effect on the 18-24 age group. There were some political soap operas played out on Twitter, but nothing that turned changed the debate that the three main party leaders couldn’t manage by themselves. Stuart MacLennan found himself rapidly deposed as the Labour’s candidate in Moray after some not particularly probing digging into his Twitter history, but the moments of drama were undoubtedly the preserve of the big broadcasters.

In a more prominent way, the infamous vandalised Conservative billboards maybe signalled a more telling analysis of the way the internet influenced the election, or not. This episode of web anarchy, played out on Facebook, had such a humiliating impact on the Tories’ campaigning strategy that when faced with several hundred digitally manipulated spoofs they were forced to rethink their entire approach to posters - and soon got their own back with their unexpectedly positive approval of Labour’s depiction of David Cameron as 1980s misogynist cop Gene Hunt. It was party political poster wars which caught the popular imagination far more than any web based ‘get out and vote’ campaign - and a great many younger members of the electorate took part in the fun - but no-one yet knows whether these sideshows reflected a genuine interest in the campaign.

In an effort to prove its worth to the national debate, Facebook’s Democracy UK site appeared just weeks before polling day, a belated effort launched with the claim that “social networks will prove to be as central to political debate and the general election as the post, the phone and television have been in the past.” Although political parties have for several years had a presence on the site, amassed through online armies of ‘supporters’ groups, there was never a concerted effort by Facebook to engage its 23 million UK users in anything other than a running commentary on politics. On 10 March however, it linked up with the Electoral Commission to offer every single user the opportunity to download a personalised voter registration form, and has since attempted to track whether those who took part made the leap from clicking ‘I like this’ to marking a cross on a ballot paper.

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Twitter was the place to be during the TV debates, particularly for younger, educated and liberal minded voters - making real time observations on the leaders personalities, policy statements and tie choices. From the insightful and serious, to the sharp and witty, Tweeters upheld a very British tradition of holding their potential leaders to account with a dose of healthy satire.

The evidence infers that younger voters were more discerning in their information preferences though. In Ipswich, a marginal seat that swung from Labour to the Tories at the election, two sisters give their verdict on whether the online campaign affected their vote:

Sarah Clark, 23, said: “Initially, I wasn’t going to vote because I knew nothing about the candidates. But I did watch the summaries of the leaders’ debates each morning before I went to work”

Sarah plumped for the Conservatives in the end, and specifically mentioned the Sun’s ‘dumb guide to the election’ which was published during the campaign - with no access to social networking sites at work, traditional channels of media were her primary source of information.

”I’m on Facebook but I didn’t use it to help me decide my vote during the election” she added.

Online communication, and social media in particular, made more of a difference to Sarah’s 18 year old sister, Angie, a first time voter who says she watched one of the TV debates, but wasn’t sure that newspapers helped her make up her mind in choosing which party to vote for:

“I found there was more information on Facebook groups which I’m a member of, and I went on a lot of the party websites to help me make up my mind”.

Research published in the days immediately following the election appears to reflect the mix of information sources young people preferred. A YouGov survey undertaken between 12-14 May suggests that 36% of 18-24 year olds used Facebook as a source of information during the campaign, with 34% visiting a political party or candidate’s own website - suggesting that social media was a crucial signpost in directing younger users towards more traditional web content. Most significantly, 31% of younger voters said that online information influenced the way they voted ‘not very much’ and 16% chose not to consume election content online at all.

This research, and others surveys since, hints that social media just wasn’t the game changer that it was expected to be. Until we have been presented with the overwhelming evidence that social media paves a direct route to the polling station for the younger electorate, well-established traditional channels may still prove to be what counts during those crucial four weeks.

No surprises there, thankfully!

Well, thankfully I've come out for Labour yet again! Love this site:

Voting with a conscience

I am voting Labour in the European parliamentary elections tomorrow, because I know that the party is standing some excellent candidates who will make great MEPs for London. And I am casting a Labour vote because it is a vote against the BNP and UKIP - which alone is reason enough to vote.

I'm voting Labour with some difficulty however. It's not because I don't agree with the values of the party - I've been a member for so long that cancelling my membership would be like divorcing a member of my family - but the party in government, in its present form has stopped inspiring me. I haven't done any campaigning for the party in months - but then again I haven't felt like defending the record of politicians in general - let alone Labour politicians.

Like the rest of the British public, I'm furious with MPs who have abused the expenses system. A lot of it isn't a massive surprise to me - I used to work in an MP's Parliamentary office and many people I know who work in politics would have been witness to some of these extravagant claims - Labour and Tory alike. But it's the arrogance and the inability to recognise where serious changes need to be made which really makes me angry.

At times like this, we need real leadership - and in this situation, our Prime Minister hasn't led, but followed, and cautiously suggested half-hearted attempts at reforming the expenses system. When our entire constitutional settlement is in question, Gordon Brown hasn't met the political challenges posed by other MPs and the public at large - at a time when we should be going back to the drawing board and sketching out ideas for real changes in the way we do politics. Much as though I admire his command of economic policy and leadership during a time of global recession, there is a distinct lack of communication over what's going on in the PM's head. Does he have any answers to the current crisis of democracy? Or is he happy to struggle on with a big question mark over how MPs should reconnect with their constituents who are spitting feathers over ludicrous and excessive claims? I don't know, and I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The Guardian's editorial had it spot on today - and when the most credible Labour-supporting newspaper of the chattering classes starts to seriously question Gordon Brown's authority. Good luck to the rebels who are, as I speak, attempting to gather enough support to challenge the leadership. I hope we can have a General Election soon because if Labour is proud of its record (and I think it really should be) then it won't be frightened of a test at the polls.

I don't know whether the party can turn itself around in the next year, the next five years, or the next ten years in its quest to become credible with the electorate again. It will need someone articulate, open to new ideas, probably much younger, and less tainted by the battles of the past to succeed. But - and my boyfriend will probably disagree with me on this one - I do believe in voting according to the values you are brought up with and for me, that's about the belief in collective action and the idea that we can achieve more in unity than we achieve alone.

Vote Labour tomorrow if you genuinely believe that Britain should be represented by a broadly progressive force in Europe - but don't feel that by voting Labour tomorrow that you're voting for the current incumbent of No. 10 Downing Street.

Brixton Market, Wednesday afternoon

I really didn't need convincing that this man needs another four years to carry on his excellent work running London. But I took the opportunity to join the Ken campaign team this afternoon to convince the people of Brixton too - and it really wasn't difficult! After a slightly chaotic start, when we were told that Ken would be arriving on the Victoria Line, then by car, then finally arriving at the tube in the rain, an enthusiastic crowd of Labour and Ken-sympathetic people joined Ken Livingstone and Val Shawcross on the campaign trail around the iconic Electric Avenue, and some of the warmest supporters of this man that I've met so far. I lost count of the number of people who wanted their picture taken with him - market traders stopped what they were doing and owners left their shops to get snapped.

We were also joined by slightly random Japanese television crews as well as BBC London and LBC. Each got a fair assessment of the campaign from the man himself, who pronounced he'd enjoyed himself, although I bet by now he's absolutely exhausted, as is Victoria, his press officer, another party person whom I know through a friend. I bet they'll be glad when all this is actually over - it's not been easy from the press side of things.

I'm too tired to write any more now except to say I've had a fantastic time on the campaign trail myself and I can't wait to get down to the polling station tomorrow!

A response to the Time Out editorial, issue 1963 - 3 April

I wonder how the Time Out editorial team think that political parties are run in this country?

You quite rightly took the decision to stand down your candidate Michael Hodges from the London mayoral election. We agree that standing a candidate on the popular ideals of Time Out readers is the basis for a politically confused campaign (and don't get me started on Boris Johnson...).

But where on earth did you get the idea that political parties can pay their members to go out and campaign on their behalf? I've been a member of the Labour party for the last five years, and I can't remember a single occasion when a cheque dropped through the door for my Sunday morning efforts leafleting on a Lambeth council estate. Political parties are made up of people who care about politics and have a shared set of ideals about how they want to see a country or a city like London run. And, apart from a relatively small number of full-time staff, they certainly don't expect monetary renumeration for their efforts.

(Incidentally, political parties get access to the electoral rolls because they are democratically accountable to their members, unlike fringe loony magazine candidates who are accountable to whatever decisions you take over a cosy cup of tea in your editorial meeting!)

One more thing - what are the discriminatory barriers standing in the way of anyone wanting to run for election as Mayor? There is at least one genuinely independent candidate standing in the election this year - as well as representatives from every other major party. In democracies, people naturally join together to form common associations of like minded people. The 'people's manifesto' which you champion exists in every single one of the manifestos promoted by this year's candidates, no matter how much I disagree with the people in other parties. That's genuine democratic choice.

Yours sincerely

Paul Prentice

Time to make a choice...the Labour Party deputy leadership campaign

My two ballot papers for the Labour party deputy leadership contest arrived in the post exactly a week ago. I still haven't sent them off. But, after a week more of reflection, hustings and televised debates I'm going to make the following choices.

1. Hilary Benn
2. Jon Cruddas
3. Harriet Harman
4. Alan Johnson
5. Peter Hain
6. Hazel Blears.

Benn really made an impression on me at a conference in February, and I feel swayed enough to give him my support. There's a lot of passion there, some great ideas to change the party and a real sense of optimism. He really seems to believe in politics, and the ability of the Labour party to change the world through its ideology and values. I hint a touch of Blair in the way he addresses people in his speeches, never a bad thing as far as the media are concerned.

He doesn't try to make any secret of the way he's voted in the past for example. I'm not happy with the fact he voted for the war, but at least unlike Harman, who will get my third choice, he is honest about his beliefs and doesn't try to make political capital about the situation there now.

Cruddas is doing very well, and has brought so much to the debate. As an orator, he's gained confidence in public. He voted for the war too, but he's now making welcome contributions to the housing debate and really excellent ideas on how to re-invigorate our party. He recognises that the fact the party has lost 200,000 members we've lost since 1997 is a real issue. I don't think any of the other candidates have really understood this. I'd trust Cruddas as our campaigner in chief.

Harriet Harman comes across as patronising, too middle-class and ideologically inconsistent. Supposedly courting the 'soft' left, she's also proud to have sent her children to a grant-maintained school - never the policy of this government. Irritatingly, she never quite reveals why standing as a female candidate is so important - she just takes it for granted that the general membership will default to a female deputy leader if Brown is PM. If she's really a feminist, she needs to put forward a better case as to why it's important to have men and women at the top in politics. Oh, and saying 'I'm the southern candidate' is just so ridiculous. She does however get my third preference for being an experienced Minister, who has admirably campaigned on human rights and equalities issues. She also has an excellent, well organised constituency party.

I initially thought I'd plump for Alan Johnson in this contest, but he just hasn't tried to win my vote. He came to a London Young Labour reception in February and stayed all of five minutes, barely attempting to convince the assembled yoof that this cheeky working class ex-postman who was brought up by his sister as a teenager would be someone to lead the party's activists into the next general election. I felt he had nothing to offer the youth movement of the party, but he's no. 4 on my ballot because of his Cabinet experience and the fact he comes across well in the media.

Peter Hain has nothing to contribute to the campaign apart from the fact that he was Secretary of State in Northern Ireland when power sharing was restored. He never fails to mention this in debates. Oh, and apartheid in South Africa. Don't forget that. I actually feel sorry for him, but want him nowhere near that Deputy Leader's office. I think, that despite his achievements, he'd be the wrong man for this job.

Hazel Blears is the Marmite candidate. I've met her personally, and she's lovely, but she has been far too close to the Blair regime. I just couldn't trust her to stand up to Gordon. She's got great working class credentials - 'My brother drives a Manchester bus' - but she's also quite divisive. When I was helping out Hilary Benn in ringing councillors to ask if they'd vote for him, all I got was 'anyone but Blears'.

So, there you have it, I'm off the postbox now!

Finding the way with Tony Giddens

"What's the difference between Tony Blair and God?"

"God doesn't think he's Tony Blair".

I went to meet Anthony Giddens, Blair guru author of The Third Way last week. I had been invited by the London School of Economics' events people to the launch of his new book, Over to you, Mr Brown. It was a really enjoyable evening, which kicked off with a debate on the future of Labour under a presumed Brown government. Giddens was on fine form, a respected public academic whose common touch is so rare in these circles. He's funny, quite charming and down to earth. He also peppers his new book with jokes like the one above. Peter Riddell from The Times gave a fascinating psephologist's view of how Brown is, and might be perceived by the wider electorate. Polly Toynbee, with whom I once had dinner with in Brighton, gave a staunch supporter's view of the Brown record. And, to provide the token Tory, David 'Two-Brains' Willetts added his weighty, albeit right-wing contribution.

After having the customary scribble in my book from Giddens, I got talking to a fascinating bloke afterwards who, a few years older than me, was a mature student and had spent eighteen months in prison for drug dealing. He was quite an inspiration, having enrolled on a Politics BA at Sussex and we nattered for some time. A bottle of university standard red wine later, Tessa Jowell arrived , the errant speaker from the earlier debate, - hot on the heels of the Casinos Bill in the Commons.

The Secretary of State comes across as your favourite auntie and a slightly fearsome Deputy Headmistress all rolled into one. 'Now, what would you say was the most exciting bit of the evening' she asked. I blabbered something about each of the speakers. We both agreed that David Willetts was our favourite Tory - 'he gets better as goes on'. I even managed to give her my card to interest her in attending a London Young Labour debate. Those of you who know me will know that I'm quite involved with them at the moment. I then promptly walked off into the darkness of Holborn and misdirected my new found friend, John, to the tube station. Oops!

But, all in all, a successful evening!