Wednesday 17 February 2010

Political porn - no, thanks

Ok, I am coming clean - I did watch Gordon's interview with Piers Morgan, well about 30 minutes of it. It was like watching political pornography. I felt dirty, sullied and guilty - indeed I still do. Yes, I completely understand why GB decided to do it and I am sure that Downing Street will have been delighted with the result - real people got a glimpse of the real Gordon and all is well. Except it is not, for me at least. I hate the Hello-isation of politics, too much focus on personality and celebrity, not enough on policy. And Gordon is not alone, this morning David Cameron featured on the front page of a free magazine distributed at London underground stations. The interview within is all about getting to know David Cameron the man, so we learn that he shops at M&S and Gap, favours Paul Smith for his suits, loves TV (Larkrise to Candleford and Silent Witness in particular) and darts. Where is the policy? It distresses me no end that politicians are wooing voters with their personal lives. I can't be the only one who wants to know what they are going do to about health, education and the energy gap. Ironically in his interview this morning when asked if there is something politics could learned from Simon Cowell, Cameron said "Politics isn't show business and shouldn't try to be". Exactly.

Friday 12 February 2010

Lobbyist and proud of it

It has been an interest week, with David Cameron turning his attention to my industry, when he warned about the dangers of political lobbying and the "far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money". Interesting indeed. Now, I know what I am about to say will be tinged with a touch of "well, she would say that, wouldn't she?" but that doesn't make it less true. So here goes - there is nothing wrong with lobbying per se. Lobbying plays an important and fundamental part in the workings of our democracy. We lobby when we sign a petition, write a letter to our MP, go on a demonstration, or give a local councillor a hard time about rubbish collection times. In my experience the most effective lobbyists are in the voluntary sector. Macmillan Cancer Care, Royal British Legion and Oxfam - all brilliant at it, all know who to speak to and want to say to make their point, getting their funding, change the policy. And no-one objects to it - and nor should they. They are just doing their job. It is the work I do that some would have you believe is inherently wicked. Somehow, helping organisations understand how policy is made and how best to influence it, is being positioned as a bad thing. I don't agree. With so few politicians having experience of the world beyond politics, I see it as essential that organisations, be they PLCs or NGOs, help them understand the implications of their policy thinking. That is why disgraced MPs quitting the Commons following the expenses scandal like Andrew MacKay (a member of Cameron's inner circle) are being employed by political consultancies. Yes, I know there have been one or two cases of bad behaviour in the past - cash for questions being the obvious example - but in the vast majority of cases the work that lobbyists like me do is ethical, open and for the good.

Tuesday 2 February 2010

AVS - What's it all about?

Can someone please explain to me why the Alternative Voting System is such a good idea? I am honestly interested. Ok I understand the politics of it - Gordon Brown is trying to woo Lib Dem voters. I have never really understood the appeal of AVS or proportional representation. As far as I can tell AVS will have no real impact in constituencies with large majorities and I fear that in marginal seats it will encourage candidates to be as vanilla as possible in the hope they can pick up second preference votes. Doesn't an AVS system result in the triumph of the least worst candidate, rather than the best or indeed most popular candidate? As someone recently pointed out to me, it was the system by which Harriet Harman became Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

And while I am at it, I would love to know why we are thinking giving the vote to 16 and 17-year olds. With fewer and fewer under 24s are bothering to vote, it seems slightly odd that we would wish to the extend an invitation for apathy to school children.

Instead of trying to tinker with the voting system, shouldn't the political parties be seeking to engage effectively with voters to restore confidence in politics and the political institutions?