Constituency profile: Ipswich

A little look at the politics and the people of my home town, which had a Tory-Liberal Democrat administration before it became fashionable.

The historic Wet Dock - one of Ipswich's more sought-after areas

As the administrative capital of Suffolk, and one of the few English counties with no motorways, it's hardly surprising that the town of Ipswich has tried for city status in recent years. Despite first impressions, an 'everyone knows everyone' vibe radiates from the main shopping streets to its football ground. The earliest continuous settlement in England, dating back to the seventh century, Ipswich was, and still is a major East Anglian shipping port. The town's name comes from the medieval Gippeswyk, meaning 'town on the Gipping' (the river Gipping a tributary of the picturesque river Orwell – inspiring the pen name of the author of 1984 and Animal Farm).

Deceptively close to the capital – London is but an hour away on the Great Eastern main line – Ipswich has many parallels with towns such as Reading or Northampton, but none of the advantages of Norwich, its historic rival.

Yet for all its market-town spirit, there's still a somewhat urban feel about the town centre, which in parts retains a weathered 1960s grittiness. The local football team, Ipswich Town, much maligned since its Premier League days is a constant reminder of this contradiction – a large stadium on Portman Road surrounded by tall modern office developments.

Ipswich has actively sought new economic fortunes in the last 20 years or so, with the decline in big industry biased towards agriculture and the growth of the DINKY - 'double income, no kids' - class. Under Labour, the local authority aspired to attract young professionals to new and converted apartments on the Wet Dock, providing desirable homes for the workforce of Ipswich's insurance giants which have clustered there over the past 40 years or so, as well as those who choose to commute further.

Apart from short interludes in the seventies and late eighties, the town's industrial past has unsurprisingly lent itself to long periods of Labour rule. Surrounded by Conservative MPs (Tim Yeo to the south, and Dan Poulter to the north) as well as a Tory Suffolk county administration, it was hardly surprising that the MP for the majority of the town would slip out of Labour's hands in 2010. Benedict Gummer, son of former Suffolk Coastal MP John, keeps the family torch burning in this corner of East Anglia, beating the Labour incumbent Chris Mole by just 2,000 votes.

Yet some locals feel that the sort of growth in evidence in the town just a few years ago has already begun to reverse:

“Ipswich has had a somewhat depressed feel in the last, say, two years compared to the buoyancy of four or five years ago” says Rob Adams, a local financial adviser.

Adding weight to this view was the announcement by French insurance giant Axa, who in recent weeks have announced that up to 56 jobs are under threat. “The greatest indicator of this is the rapid development and expansion of the building around the docks. As well as the new apartments, a lot of bars, restaurants and hotels also opened, making for a very desirable residential area” adds Rob.

“But with the economic 'pulling in of horns' brought about by the banking collapse of 2008, that expansion has ceased."

This new type of development contrasts with the high-end properties around Christchurch Park in the centre of the town, the traditional retreat for those who 'made it' and chose to live within the borough's boundary.

The town has benefited from a higher proportion of students, making for a night-time 'buzz', and as Rob observes, “it's no coincidence that one of Ipswich's most thriving bars is just a stone's throw from the main University College Suffolk building!”. New facilities house clinical skills, sports and exercise laboratories which are giving local young people new opportunities.

It wasn't always like this however. The gap between the old, industrialised town and the new centre of aspiration was hard for some. Like many provincial towns, Ipswich suffered its own brain drain and despite a number of good or outstanding schools, many young people have fled the area.

“I counted down the days to leave, got as far away as possible and won't go back!” said another native, Anna Browning, now resident on the south coast. “I didn't feel it had any character or anything going for it – it was just another place at the end of the A12”.

Some locals are more optimistic about the town's fortunes. The choice of MP for the area will more likely reflect national opinion, but the make-up of the council has pointed towards the 'new politics' for some years. And, if the Westminster coalition government was an unholy alliance in 2010, this was nothing new in Ipswich. The borough council was run by Labour for a solid quarter-century until 2004 when a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition took over. Frequent borough elections have not altered this arrangement and although Labour is currently the largest party - with 23 councillors - it remains in opposition. The controlling majority is composed of 18 Conservatives and 7 Lib Dems and there are few signs that this may change any time soon.

On a county level, Labour support continues to be concentrated in the tough Priory Heath and Gainsborough, and despite the general collapse in support for the party in the Suffolk county elections in 2009, it continues to hang on to two seats in the centre of the town.

This core support, coupled with tendency of this urban concentration to turn red, means that Labour could well regain the parliamentary seat at the next general election.

Political campaigners: friends of democracy?

Deputy Labour Leader Harriet Harman
escapes an example of Grant's
 'outsider' interest groups

In a free society, the right to campaign in politics is held up as a cornerstone of democracy. The art of influencing our elected representatives has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years, with the lobbying industry arguably having better access to government than ever before.

Walking through the exhibitors' areas at the major party conferences highlights the agenda that non-governmental organizations, charities and even government agencies have in policy-making.

Public affairs companies see themselves as gatekeepers to our elected representatives, undermining an individual's right to influence their elected representative directly. Whereas lobbying could traditionally be seen as the preserve of blue-chip companies that don't have a public affairs department, it is increasingly charities that employ public affairs and government relations advisors to campaign for their interests. Inevitably filling these roles are those with a Westminster pedigree - the badge of legitimacy being that they've all either worked as researchers to MPs or Ministers, or in think tanks and policy-making organisations favoured by the government of the day. They come from a background where, unlike their colleagues in the marketing and corporate communications professions, the professional qualification is based not so much on where or what you've studied, but who you know, and where you've worked. There is no recognized qualification for this branch of communications, unlike marketers who are accredited by the Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) for example. Despite the complete lack of transparency and openness, they are the people who get heard in Westminster.

A glimpse of the lobbying industry draws the conclusion that it is the successful political campaigns are the prize of the well funded and educated in the machinery of the British political system. In a key piece of research first published in 1978, Professor Wyn Grant, an expert on interest groups at Warwick University, cited the labels 'established' and 'non-established' to distinguish between 'insider' and 'outsider' type participants (Maloney, Jordan and McLaughlin, 1994 and 2008, various publishers). Grant's typology acknowledged the important divide between the relatively few groups with privileged status, and the greater number of groups who find themselves consigned to less influential positions. The 'insider' is associated with a particular style of policy-making, an organization or institution seen as politically acceptable such as Stonewall, actively consulted on civil partnerships and equality legislation, and child welfare charities such as NSPCC and Barnardos getting the ministerial ear when it comes to youth policies. There are the obvious fringe groups such as eco-protestors, Climate Camp, the superheroes of Fathers for Justice and the gay rights group formed by Peter Tatchell, Outrage. None of these groups seeks a serious role in the consultation process, with their emphasis on direct action and media stunts.

Grant's labels still look familiar 30 years on, although, arguably the growth of social media tools and a general explosion in media coverage of all kinds of interest groups that seek to exert an influence on policymaking make the job of distinguishing between the insiders and outsiders much more difficult. The hardest task for a politician may be to determine which groups have a legitimate say in helping to decide government policy.

These sorts of questions may be asked of organisations such as 38 Degrees, which, according to its website, was set up by wealthy entrepreneurs such as Gordon Roddick, partner of late Body Shop founder Anita, and Henry Tinsley, former chair of Green & Black's Chocolate.Taking its namesake from the angle at which it takes an avalanche to happen, the group employs three full-time staff to encourage over 160,000 38 Degrees 'members' across the UK, to undertake actions ' as simple as signing a petition, or as complicated as hosting a rally'. Its members, who are vaguely liberal and left-leaning, are all 'leaders', with campaigns ranging from calling for the BBC to be saved from cuts to calling for a register of lobbyists, as well as campaigning for a 'yes' in a referendum on the alternative vote. Campaigns effortlessly cross established political boundaries, not seeking the approval of any particular party. There are few well-grounded policies, or long-debated positions - instead, 38 Degrees thrives on user-generated campaigns, less a coherent programme for change and merely a modern form of middle-class moaning.

Its weapon of choice is mass emails, a progression of traditional letter-writing campaigns favoured by non-governmental and voluntary sector organisations. Easy to complete template messages can overwhelm a poorly resourced backbench MP with little notice. Some politicians have been keen to court their support, with aspirant Labour leader Ed Milliband taking part in a phone conference with hundreds of members on climate change. Others have found their methods tantamount to 'cyber-harassment'. Stella Creasy, a newly-elected Labour MP for Walthamstow, became a target of 38 Degrees very soon after being elected in May 2010, tweeting her displeasure:

"Apologising now to any genuine person from E17 who has emailed me - with 1000 38 degrees emails to wade through I may have lost yours!" 11:56pm, May 11th.

The deluge continued to flood into Stella's office overnight:

"@marcushobley 38 degrees campaign completely unacceptable and counterproductive...and still getting emails from them now!" 12:04am, May 12th.

This resulted in Stella appealing to constituents to cease from contacting her with genuine issues so she could get through the backlog of emails "as am still getting 50 emails every 20 mins from 38 degrees so can't see normal ones" in amongst genuine residents of E17".

A phone call to Stella's office resulted in a brief conversation with a constituency worker: "I wondered if it was possible to talk to Stella about the work of 38 Degrees - have you heard of them?" - which met the weary, knowing response, "Oh, yes". The staff had dealt with a reported 1500 emails, out of which only four were genuine Walthamstow residents.

People such as Stella, and no doubt, privately, many of her parliamentary colleagues may question whether organisations such 38 Degrees enhance democracy, or indeed hinder it, with questionable legitimacy and invasive methods. It could be argued that while Grant's 'insider/outsider' model may be blurred, it is fashionable for MPs to ride the wave of social media and web-based campaigns. Little research exists to hint as to whether parliamentarians take any notice of viral campaigns which rely on mass participation - but there is much to suggest that those 'in the know' - with a direct route to Westminster and Whitehall - are ultimately the most successful at getting their voices heard.