Budgeting for the future

I do love budget day in the UK. Yes I am a geek. You can make an educated guess about what the Chancellor is going to say but you just don't know what rabbits will be pulled out of the hat. I am sure to those outside the UK it will seem a bit bonkers that with probably six weeks before a general election, Alistair Darling presented his economic and fiscal plans today and that parliament will spend the time between now and the Easter break debating them. It is one of the quirks of the British political system. We don’t have fixed term parliaments but we do need to have a budget at the end of the financial year.

It was exciting viewing. Clever politicians debating real issues that matter to real people. This is what politics should be all about. Unfortunately, for much of the past year, it hasn’t been and it is depressing. When children in the future study British political history of the early 21^st century, this period will be known for grubbiness and sleaze and this parliament will be known as the Rotten Parliament. A group of politicians, some greedy, some foolish, some both, have reduced the reputation of Parliament to the lowest levels for decades. This is a huge problem, especially with an election coming up. British politics is in dire need of a rebrand. I don’t mean parties softening their logos and coming towards the centre, but politics as a whole repositioning itself. For our democracy to work, people need to have a reason to stop being cynical, they need to want to vote and voters need to start trusting politicians again. That means politicians have to reconnect with voters. We have to believe that politicians understand the challenges of raising a family, running a business, holding down a job. Politicians need to engage with us on real issues, the ones that really matter. The economy, jobs, health, education, crime, transport. The politicians who get this, will be the ones who ought to get the votes.

Lobbyist and proud of it - part II

I have just completed the Sport Relief three mile challenge - ok I know it isn't that challenging but while I love sport, I eschew physical activity. So walking three miles is something of an achievement for me, especially since I was walking with an over-excited eight-year old and a very stroppy teenager. But the purpose of this post is not to boast (although you are welcome sponsor me). No, I want to have a bit of a rant about lobbying (yes, again). What has this got to do with Sport Relief? Well Comic/Sport Relief is one of the most effective lobbying organisations. It does a brilliant job of engaging with organisations of all kinds (government, private sector and voluntary) to achieve its objectives. And it is, quite rightly, applauded for its efforts. Compare this with the increasingly hostile attitude political parties and the media are adopting when it comes to lobbying companies. We are being portrayed as, at best, unnecessary and, at worse, responsible for the ethical decline in politics. What utter nonsense. Yes of course organisations don't have to use political consultants, they could do it themselves, just as they could do their own legal work, accounts and advertising. But let's be honest, to do it effectively needs knowledge and experience which is why they call in the professionals. As for our corrupting the system, it has been politicians themselves who have done that. The greed and poor judgment of a significant minority have reduced the levels of trust and faith in the body politic so low. Today's Sunday Times/Dispatches story is about politicians selling access and favours not professional consultants. Don't confuse the two.

Its written in the stars

I am smitten, I have fallen in love, I have even wondered if I can make a life change. And what is the object of my affection? Physics. Yes, I have become obsessed with this branch of science. I know it is hard to believe, anyone who was at Copthall School with me will testify to the fact that I was a very poor student with very low levels of commitment to Newton, Faraday and Boyle. But on Sunday night I had something of a Pauline conversion. Prof Brian Cox (very different to the actor of the same name) successfully wooed me with his wonderful documentary on the sun. It was truly amazing. I was rapt. Certainly if the good Professor had been my teacher back in the day I certainly would have been more inclined to study. He brought the subject to life. To be fair, Radio Four podcasts (In our time and Material World) have prepared the ground for Prof Cox. But without doubt, he is a brilliant communicator, engaging with his audience, infecting them with his enthusiasm, making them want to hear more. For my part I did wonder whether I might retrain as an astronomer or physicist before realising that interest - no matter how passionate - was no substitute for a good grounding in maths. Oh well there goes another chance for a Nobel prize.

Blind justice, not blind panic

Oh my god, the handling of the Venables case is driving me to new depths of despair (or is that heights of fury?) The Ministry of Justice has let this story spill from news cycle to news cycle. It should from the outset of this media feeding frenzy made clear that if there was even the slightest chance that Venables might face new charges, it was not going to comment. Ministers, civil servants and even journalists know that the entire apparatus of the criminal justice system has an obligation to ensure that an ensuing trial is untainted. It is not a question of protecting Venables but of protecting the rights of any victims of any alleged crimes which Venables may have committed. The MoJ should from the start have stood up to the baying mob. It should have reminded everyone of the strict court injunctions in place which prevent the publication of material which might led to the identification of Venables (and Thompson) and pointed out that the chances of any future trial being deemed fair would be seriously reduced if the defendant had been identified as a convicted child killer. Instead, there was much panicking and wringing of hands. I hope it has now got its act together.

But don't get me started on the person (police officer? probation officer? social worker?) who sold the information about Venables to the media . . .

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.

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.

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?