The post-election dust begins to settle


What can we expect from the political parties?

I’m not going to be one of those commentators who tries to explain how they predicted the correct general election result when the record shows anything but. I didn’t expect the Conservatives to have an absolute majority, nor did I expect the almost total takeover of Scottish seats by the SNP. I also didn’t expect the Lib Dems to get as few seats as they did – and ditto with UKIP.

For the most part, I sat on the fence saying the whole thing was too close to call. Given that neither of the two main parties said who they’d negotiate with in the event of a hung parliament – predicted by pretty much every opinion poll, it was difficult for anyone to see who was going to emerge with the confidence of the Commons to become Prime Minister. That’s all academic now – apart from the opinion polling industry who have some serious questions to ask of itself.

Osborne’s July Budget

It’s due on 8 July if this report is correct. The Financial Times ran a headline predicting 100,000 further job cuts to the civil service. I can’t see how these are going to be delivered without some serious changes to the Whitehall machinery of government. These are combined with further tightening of laws on trade union industrial action. I can understand why politicians are saying there needs to be a minimum level of turnout for votes in favour of strike action to be legitimate – but then shouldn’t the same apply for politicians & elections? I remember in my university days that student union AGMs would be inquorate so budgets could not be passed & thus student union services closed until they got a quorate meeting. (Not having a room big enough to hold the minimum threshold of students to pass a budget didn’t help…). However, the closure of student union bars had the desired effect: lots more students turned up to rearranged meetings. What would happen to democracy if turnouts below say 40% at elections meant bins didn’t get collected until a rescheduled election? ‘Democracy’s not a spectator sport’…and all that

Conservatives hitting the ground running vs opposition navel-gazing?

Labour and the Liberal Democrats are currently in the extended processes of electing new leaders. Both parties at a leadership level appear shell-shocked (understandably) at the general election result. Their online activist roots perhaps less so – being younger, more energised and perhaps feeling less tied to decisions made by politicians at a time when perhaps some of them were still at school.

Yet just as in 2010 with Labour, do both parties run the risk of sorting out internal issues while the new government sets in concrete a new narrative that becomes impossible to undo for the next decade? Remember the problems Ed Miliband had with TV cross-examination by the public – they were all asking about issues about the 2007-2010 Gordon Brown administration. It was as if they were still waiting for the former Prime Minister to publicly account for his failures in office. The lack of his open public and media appearances over the past five years haven’t helped in that respect. Ditto with Blair. The public has not seen either former Prime Minister scrutinised in detail post-Downing Street in a way that might have drawn lines under the more controversial aspects of their times in office. Not that there’s necessarily precedence for doing so – or that repeated public appearances would help. Think Thatcher during John Major’s years in office.

How can Labour escape the shadow of Blair & Brown? 

It’s one of the reasons why so many seemed to pin their hopes on Dan Jarvis MP, the former soldier, as a new leader. But he declined due to family commitments. For me I’ve felt Labour needed someone from the post-2010 generation of MPs. The electorate took out two possible candidates – Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander – at the recent general election. The recent ‘Progress’ hustings indicated that cabinet ministers under Gordon Brown were more prepared to defend the latter’s legacy than the rest. But as Sunny Hundal said in a talk in Cambridge recently, Labour need to select someone who is a much better communicator than Brown or Miliband were – and pick someone who in the minds of the electorate looks like they are a Prime Minister in-the-making.

Rebuilding from a near-wipe out for the Liberal Democrats

For them it really is a case of going back to their grass roots. Former Cambridge MP David Howarth (who was MP before Julian Huppert) summarised the issues for the Liberal Democrats here. The most interesting part for me is on coalitions. From my perspective, one of the central pillars of the Liberal Democrats is voting reform towards proportional representation; something that increases the likelihood of either minority governments or coalitions. Yet at the same time, experiences from other countries – and now the UK – shows the electorate punishes junior coalition partners harder than the senior ones.

With only eight MPs and one MEP, the Liberal Democrats may find the level of media exposure plummets. With so few politicians in national public office, there will be a huge burden on those nine. This means that the hundred or so peers appointed to the House of Lords for the party will need to step forward and take a fair share of the burden – for so long as the House of Lords remains unreformed.

What will the SNP do for England?

This for me is one of the big unknowns. Historically the SNP have refrained from voting on matters that only affect England. Labour controversially used their Scottish MPs to vote through the Higher Education Act 2003 that brought in top up tuition fees in England that ultimately gave powers to the government to bring in the even higher fees with just two debates in Parliament. This self-inflicted sore remains an irritant for those on the left who in principle don’t like tuition fees. The question for the SNP is what time and resources they’ll use for debates/campaigns that only affect England. The first test of this looks like being on fox hunting – the SNP stance angering anti-hunt campaigners in England.

UKIP and The Greens?

Over 4 million votes, only two MPs. Yet both Douglas Carswell and Caroline Lucas between them seem to have had more influence as backbench MPs than most in terms of influencing agendas. Recent headlines about power struggles in UKIP means it’s too early to know what will happen with them. The massive rise in the number of MEPs plus Douglas Carswell holding onto his seat means that there a growing number of political power bases within the party that are alternatives to Nigel Farage.

As for The Greens, aside from the widely-expected loss of minority control of Brighton Council, progress has continued at a slow but steady pace as far as politicians elected to local public office is concerned. While the Greens have benefited from the decline of the Liberal Democrats, 2015 may mark a low point at which the Lib Dems start fighting back. The challenge for The Greens is to hold onto those that switched.

Cameron with a smaller majority in the Commons than John Major

It will be interesting to see how disciplined the Conservative Parliamentary Party is compared to the Coalition. What concessions will Cameron need to make to his backbenchers to ensure is program for government can be implemented? Will he look to do deals with MPs from other parties (such as the Northern Ireland unionists, or even the Liberal Democrats?) in the face of rebellions? Would Labour or the SNP step in to save the government from defeat in the face of something (in their minds) even worse brought in just to placate Conservative rebels? Expect the House of Commons to play an even more central role in the workings of Whitehall than in the Coalition years.

New views for new ministers with old views?

Something that has been widely commented on has been the attributed views of various new ministers given their new portfolios.

To be fair to Morgan, she changed her mind & publicly said so, as did Lib Dem leadership candidate Tim Farron here. I think it’s refreshing when politicians can account for when they got things wrong & explain how & why they got things wrong. (As well as what they might do differently in the future). It remains to be seen how some of the new ministers get on in their new posts given past comments.

Cameron as a ‘hands off’ Prime Minister

One of the major differences between Cameron and his Labour opponents is how he’s seen to allow his ministers to be ‘the faces’ of his parties policies. Under Blair and Brown, I always got the sense that ministers under them were never really in control of their policy areas. The result in the late 2000s was policy paralysis. They were all too busy looking over their shoulder towards Downing Street – but there weren’t enough hours in the day for the Prime Minister to approve everything. I never really got that sense with Cameron & Clegg. After five years of a more devolved setup, I’d be surprised if Cameron resorted to the Brown-style command and control. For a start Cameron doesn’t have the parliamentary majority to ram through measures unpopular with his party.

The world in 2020 will be a very different place – but will the parties have evolved sufficiently to account for this?

Are we at a stage where the big political names of 2020 are yet to emerge? It might be that both The Greens and Lib Dems go into the 2020 elections with leaders who do not hold national elected public office. UKIP may have imploded, disbanded following an EU-exit referendum victory or they may have solidified their gains to become more of a permanent parliamentary and local government presence. We may have PM Boris or Osborne coming face-to-face with a Labour leader who would have succeeded the one about to be elected by Labour members this autumn.

At the same time, we don’t know how resilient society will be to another round of public sector cuts in the face of ever-rising housing costs, growing visible inequalities and continued global instabilities.


Parties report rise in membership after Conservatives win general election

Summary More thoughts on the next five years – including training, development and support for those with desire and potential to stand for election

I mentioned to a friend earlier today that in Whitehall & Westminster, the traditional big offices of state are:

  • Prime Minister
  • Chancellor of the Exchequer
  • Foreign Secretary
  • Home Secretary

Boss, money, outside stuff, inside stuff. Looking back at the general election result, Labour had Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander and Yvette Cooper in those roles. I’ve mentioned to a number of people in times gone by that if a party is going to resemble ‘a government in waiting’ in the run up to the general election, the people in the shadow ministerial roles need to be extraordinarily talented individually, compensate for each others’ weaknesses and collectively look & feel like a competent team. Did that team of four have that? Did they have the dynamism, energy, competence and people-friendliness to inspire those outside the party? The fact that both Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander lost their constituency seats speaks volumes. If they cannot inspire their constituents to vote for them, how could they be expected to inspire the rest of the country? Similar applies to the Liberal Democrats – on the receiving end of a nationwide pounding. Their nominal ‘shadow quad’ of those roles (Scroll to the end here – Lib Dems, is the final row correct?) were Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander, Tim Farron and Lynne Featherstone. Alexander and Featherstone lost their seats.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats blown wide open – for new talent to step up

There are eight Liberal Democrat MPs left. (Should someone be sacked inside parties for these results?) Clegg’s resigned as leader, which means it’ll be one of seven men (including Tim Farron, Norman Lamb & Greg Mulholland) who will become party leader. Their party rules say the leader must be in the Commons. (Which means it won’t be a woman as the party has no women MPs left). The ejection of Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander also creates two huge voids within the Labour Party at the very top. I’ve found watching the Twitter chatter from both parties to be interesting – as well as the numbers of people joining/rejoining both parties.

“Was 2015 the general election no one wanted to win?”

From a political commentator’s viewpoint, perhaps – given the state of the economy, the world and public finances. But that’s easy to say if you’re not dependent on public services. For those dependent on public services, the prospect of even more public service cuts or job losses is quite frankly frightening. It’s all very well saying that Cameron will have a tough time keeping his Euro-sceptics in line, & that after 5 years of that an alternative centre-left party will come in & sort things out. It’s all very well saying that any other party would have struggled, leading to an even more harsher alternative in 2020, but in five years something that might have been thought of as extreme can then become the political norm. Think tuition fees. What will be the 2015-2020 policies brought in that cannot be reversed by any incoming government?

“So…why have thousands of people started joining/rejoining political parties?”

The Liberal Democrats are claiming over 3,000 since the election, The Greens over 400, and Labour claiming ‘thousands’. (None of these figures have been independently verified, so it’ll be interesting to see if the numbers hold true). I’m going to try and get a sense from the local parties in Cambridge over the next few weeks. My sense is a combination of fear and opportunity. Fear over what’s about to hit us over the next five years, and opportunity because with such a defeat and a clearout of long-standing senior politicians, now is a once-in-a-generation chance to make an impact on political parties from within.

“What will they do with all of these new members?”

The Green Party also faces similar issues regarding new members – as does the SNP & UKIP. One of the things that’s struck me attending local council meetings in Cambridge is how few members of the public who are members of political parties come along to take an active part in those meetings. Much is left to the sitting councillors, few of whom seem to have any desire to change systems & processes to make council meetings more appealing to the general public. While there is a time & a place for formality – especially given propriety & accountability, what we currently have seems to suck the life out of what could otherwise be interested & energised gatherings. Given the further looming cuts to local government, I simply cannot see how the existing models in & around Cambridge are sustainable. (The amount of administrative time spent on working out how to fill in a pothole or how to get cycle racks installed is unreal).

If anything, there’s no time like now to invite people to step forward as potential candidates for the local council elections in 2016. In my ward in recent years, all of the candidates bar myself & Simon Cooper had stood before, and the incumbent this year who was re-elected first became a councillor here when I was doing paper rounds in this ward in the early 1990s. (Phil Rodgers has the lowdown on Cambridge’s election results here).

“What would you like to see on the back of these membership surges?”

Some new faces, some new activists, and perhaps some longer-standing community activists putting themselves forward for elections (whether as party or independent candidates).

But that involves parties and civic society helping prepare and support people to stand.

I keep on saying that Democracy is not a spectator sport – so don’t expect to be spoon-fed. A number of politicians have mentioned to me how they have found the presence of me and Richard Taylor with camcorders filming as intimidating or off-putting. That was one of the reasons why I deliberately made things easy for the candidates with the interviews I did in the run up to the elections – & will continue to do afterwards. Essentially I ask ‘Daytime TV-style’ questions about their human experiences of being in local politics rather than on specific detailed policy issues. My aim is to get local politicians feeling comfortable in front of camera, and the viewer to be able to decide whether the politician being interviewed is ‘a nice enough person to have a conversation with themselves’.

Formal training matters too

After various hustings and public debates I attended, I spoke to a number of candidates and party activists advising them of who needed what training & coaching to improve their performances in the set piece debates. Poor public speaking had a direct impact on the footage I filmed because it meant that I had to edit the audio to artificially amplify some of the voices of the speakers. I could have simply left the footage as was, but chose not to because I felt it was important to ensure the viewer could hear what was said by whom, and not feel the desire to cut off before the following speaker. A number of people have said they found the video footage really useful, but I don’t know of anyone who changed the way they were going to vote as a result – yet! Nationwide, the organisation I recommend is the charity The Media Trust. As local parties there is nothing stopping you from hiring them to do workshops for your activists & potential candidates on:

  • media interview training
  • public speaking
  • social media
  • making short video clips
  • effective newsletters

The above isn’t about turning new members into clone-town politicians.

“What about activism outside of political parties?”

Because there’s a place for it, that’s for sure. A couple of long-standing Twitterfriends who have been longstanding non-party activists have commented that independent political organising had been put ‘on hold’ in the run up to the election. See @MediocreDave here. Given the experience of 2010 when Labour spent months deciding on a new leader & having an internal debate, the Coalition hit the ground running, brought in austerity, shaped the narrative/line of ‘Labour spent too much/all their fault’ which, supported by a sympathetic print media & an uncritical broadcast media meant that it stuck. By the time Ed Miliband had started to get things together, it was too late. We saw that when the Leeds’ audience for the leaders’ TV appearances tore Gordon Brown’s record to pieces in front of Ed Miliband without a response that seemed credible in the minds of the people asking the questions. Clegg and Cameron also struggled on that show to be fair. Campaigns I’ve seen gathering some steam via social media have included:

  • Keeping Britain in the EU – an acceptance that we’re going to have a referendum by 2017
  • Saving the Human Rights Act – given the Conservative policy of replacing it with a British Bill of Rights (and the recent appointment of Michael Gove as Justice Secretary)
  • Reforming the voting system on the back of millions of votes for the Greens & UKIP but only 2 seats to show for it
  • Protecting people with disabilities and wider anti-austerity demos.

I wouldn’t be surprised if something kicked off should tuition fees rise again either. It remains to be seen what, if any interfaces these and other campaigns have on established political parties.

Encouraging women into local democracy – featured examples


Featuring some of the women I filmed & interviewed during the general election campaign 2015.

Here’s Amelia Womack, Deputy Leader of The Green Party with an appeal to students & young people in Cambridge

In terms of student activists:

I also featured regional and national volunteers, such as:

I also covered existing holders of public office prior to the general election too.

I featured candidates

And even a national party leader

Feel free to share.

Why the battle between Daniel Zeichner & Julian Huppert matters for Cambridge


Some thoughts on what either might be like as MP for Cambridge.

The bookies have Julian Huppert of the Liberal Democrats slightly ahead of his rival Daniel Zeichner of Labour. We know what Dr Huppert will be like given the past five years. In the grand scheme of things, Dr Huppert has been an excellent constituency MP. The number of constituency cases is testament to that. He’s also been a hard-working MP on the high profile Home Affairs Select Committee and an almost single point of call for the various national science campaigns. If Dr Huppert doesn’t get re-elected, then those in Cambridge in the science communities who support Dr Huppert  will only have themselves to blame for not matching the buzzing ground campaign fought in particular by Labour students. While there are a growing number of scientists engaging in public policy, more need to make the jump from policy to politics & stand for election. Otherwise too much falls onto the plate of too few MPs with an understanding on science.

What would Daniel Zeichner as an MP be like?

I can’t help but feel that people are underestimating Mr Zeichner. As a non-party type whose spoken to Mr Zeichner on a regular basis during this campaign, I don’t completely buy the idea that he will be the stereotypical ‘New Labour clone’ who only breathes in & out when Peter Mandelson tells him to. People have generally commented to me that Julian has come out stronger at the hustings as a public speaker.

Part of the problem Mr Zeichner has is that he has no record of public office in Cambridge – hence it’s harder for him to recite a list of achievements & successful campaigns other than ones inside the Labour Party. At the same time, with no immediate record in government to defend, he’s been able to go on the offensive in this campaign in the way he could not in 2010.

Daniel Zeichner as a minister?

Mr Zeichner is extremely knowledgeable on public policy, as well as being a negotiator for a trade union. With his degree from Kings College, Cambridge and along with his strong connections with Labour shadow ministers, should Mr Zeichner be elected I strongly suspect he would be offered a junior ministerial post should Ed Miliband become Prime Minister. Think of Mr Zeichner as a sort of Labour equivalent of David Willetts – the former Universities Minister in the Coalition for the Conservatives. Mr Willetts is softly spoken like Mr Zeichner, incredibly cerebral but is not the sort of person who comes across as someone who relishes the rough & tumble of party-political brick throwing. (That’s not to say they cannot do it – more that they’d rather be involved in the public policy problem solving side of politics than continually berating their political opponents).

Ed Miliband will need MPs with the disposition and talents that Daniel Zeichner possesses in his administration

You normally have about 100 ministers in a government in Whitehall. Not all of them will be the limelight-seeking media-friendly types. You need within your cohort of ministers the more reserved, cerebral types who are quietly effective behind the scenes. I get the sense from Mr Zeichner that he’s one of the latter. I can picture the scene where he’s able to use ministerial offices to bring people together and unpick some very complex problems. That’s how I think he would operate in that role.

“What would that mean for him as a constituency MP?”

This for me is what makes the choice interesting between Dr Huppert & Mr Zeichner. Should Mr Zeichner be elected for Cambridge, & should he be appointed a minister, he would need to be responsible for a transport/housing/infrastructure portfolio where what’s happening in Cambridge informs his ministerial work & vice-versa. In the latter case it would be as simple as saying to a non-co-operating local authority that he’ll put his ministerial hat on to deal with the infrastructure issues Cambridge faces.

Being a minister though means two things:

  • The ministerial convention of not being able to speak on the floor of the Commons on constituency issues – and having to toe the government line on ****everything****
  • Having to spend at least four days a week on ministerial work – which is massive.

Dr Huppert has been able to be an effective back bench MP because he’s dedicated himself full time to the role. Being a minister means you’ve got three days max on constituency issues. It also means you can’t go to all of the constituency-related events held in the evenings during the week. This means a significant burden will inevitably fall on sitting councillors in Cambridge. Are they ready to take up the excess workload?

Dr Huppert has also used social media incredibly effectively during his time as MP. Should Mr Zeichner become both an MP & a minister, he simply will not have the time to use social media in the way Dr Huppert has. He’ll be stuck in ministerial meetings, signing off decisions and running his policy area instead. That would inevitably mean he would be less accessible. How would Mr Zeichner and his team compensate for that? Should Mr Zeichner get elected but stay as a back bench MP, it would be interesting to see if his approach to social media evolves from a broadcast approach to one that’s more conversational in the way Dr Huppert has used it.

So…to summarise the similarities?

Both are talented men. Be in no doubt that whichever of the two gets elected (if the bookies are right that it’ll be one of these two), Cambridge will be very well served. Both are intelligent, cerebral, hard-working and are passionate about making our city a better place. They just happen to have different dispositions and slightly different policies and approaches on how to achieve it.

…and the differences?

With Dr Huppert you’ll get a politician who is content to speak out against his party when it goes against what he believes. You’ll get the social media savvy, well-connected and scientifically literate communicator and public speaker who will continue to raise the profile of the city in the media & beyond. Will Dr Huppert’s party be in a position to form a new coalition or will they find themselves in opposition? Either way, I think Dr Huppert will still be able to influence either way. Cambridge is too important an economy for Whitehall to ignore – & Whitehall knows it.

With Mr Zeichner you will get the lower profile but quietly effective influencer working behind the scenes to get what Cambridge needs. Should Mr Miliband become Prime Minister, Mr Zeichner (if elected) could have a significant influence on how a Labour administration deals with Cambridge & the challenges our city faces. While Mr Zeichner might be less likely to speak out against his party, he might argue that it was on his party’s platform that he is campaigning on, so why would he want to rebel against it?

…And so…?

That’s the choice between the two if you choose to frame the election in Cambridge as one between Dr Huppert & Mr Zeichner. I’m not going to tell you which one to pick. You’ve got to decide which assuming you think it’s a straight fight between the two. This post highlights the similarities and differences between the two and how this might impact on Cambridge over the course of the next Parliament. Which one works for you? Because what works for me might not work for you.

Personally I think the framing goes beyond it given the 12,000 votes that UKIP & The Greens got in Cambridge last year in the European elections. The interface between the top two parties and these two newer arrivals is a huge factor in this election. Will the smaller parties be able to hold onto their gains? Will tomorrow set a new local baseline for the health of the smaller parties in Cambridge? Finally, given the leftfield interventions of two Tory-supporting national tabloids calling for Conservative voters to tactically switch to Lib Dems in Cambridge to keep out Labour, how much of the 2010 Conservative vote will hold up? How much will switch to Lib Dems or to UKIP? My guess is that the number and proportion of the vote share for the Conservatives will fall, but not enough to put deposits at risk.

Democracy is not a spectator sport – so don’t expect to be spoon-fed.


Some thoughts on the bare minimum people can do in order to cast an informed vote – should any of the candidates impress them.

This post is mainly targeted at people in & around Cambridge, but the sentiments apply more widely. I’m not going to go off in a lecture about how it’s your public duty to vote, or to make a recommendation of who to vote for. Even now, I am still torn between the various candidates in Cambridge. Whoever I choose to vote for, it won’t be because the other candidates didn’t bother. By & large they’ve worked their socks off and have taken huge risks to stand up and be cross-examined by the general public repeatedly. That takes a huge amount of courage – as many of the first-time candidates can testify. (I found out the hard way last year with Puffles).

“Well I’ve not received anything from the candidates or from the political parties!”

Most activists & candidates ***do not get paid*** for what they do. Those that don’t get paid are effectively providing you with a free service. For whatever reason the number of grassroots party activists has fallen over the decades. At the same time, our ability to access our paid-for politicians in national public office has significantly increased. Compare the caseload of what MPs used to have to deal with in times gone by (when they would seldom return to their constituencies) with the 30,000+ cases Cambridge MP Julian Huppert dealt with between 2010-15. Many of us have access to the internet, so it’s not beyond us to do the most basic of searches to find candidates, manifestos & policies.

“But it takes ***soooo long*** to search for each party and candidate!”

Type in your postcode to and you’ll find the links to candidates standing, their websites, email addresses, social media pages & leaflets they’ve delivered that you may or may not have received.

“But I haven’t met them! I want to see/hear them in their own voices!”

You could have done what thousands of other people have done & gone to a hustings/public debate, or alternatively you can see some of the video footage that people (such as me & Richard Taylor) have uploaded for anyone to view. For example:

All of the above cover all but two of the candidates standing for Parliament in & around Cambridge.

I’ve interviewed as many of the candidates as I can get my hands on, plus a series of activists and visiting politicians. See my video playlist here. Clearly more than a few people are watching the footage – since 01 April I’ve had over 10,000 minutes (over 166 hours) of video footage viewed. That’s before the recent final few days of footage. My view of ‘success’ for each video equals more than one person viewing the video who was not able to attend the event concerned. For the interviews, success for me = people being able to decide whether the individual was someone who they could have a reasonable conversation with. Success for me isn’t about voting generally or about voting for a specific party. That’s someone else’s metric; not mine.

Ask your local candidates and activists questions.

It could be something as simple as a statement – such as:

“I think all politicians are the same. Convince me they are not. Inspire me to vote and vote for you.”

…and give them a chance to convince you otherwise. It’s also worth recording audio/video of candidates with a high chance of being elected to national public office – especially if they are promising things. Locally in and around Cambridge, candidates know that being filmed at debates and being interviewed by local community activists is now the norm – despite the fun & games me & Richard Taylor have had. (See Richard’s example here). To be fair, most of the candidates have welcomed the presence of us filming – some proactively inviting us to events to get them on video for wider audiences to see.

“So…who should I vote for?”

For incredibly busy parents, you could do what some parents in Cambridge have done: Get your children to come up with a short list of questions, put them to the candidates & say you will vote according to your children’s recommendation following their analysis of the candidates’ answers.

In 2010 I sent 10 questions to all of the candidates. Everyone bar Daniel Zeichner responded. When Daniel collared me at the station asking me to vote for him, I had already voted & told him that I could not vote for him because he didn’t answer my email – despite all of the other candidates having responded in full. Hence I excluded his candidature by default. It’s up to you whether you choose this route in 2015.

“No, really, who should I vote for?”

It’s more ‘what do you want to vote for?'” Do you want to vote for:

  • The person you think will best represent the place you live in?
  • The party whose values you most associate with?
  • The party whose policies/manifesto you like the most?
  • The individual who you think will make the best prime minister?
  • The individual who has the best chance of keeping out the party/candidate you dislike the most?

What weighting/prominence do you want to give to each of the above?

“So…why have you done this? Why do lots of filming & … let’s be honest, asking lots of soft interview questions to the candidates & activists?”

My interest is in getting more people into local democracy. I’ve been to too many council meetings where big decisions impacting on our city have been taken with very little external scrutiny. I’ve seen elections where too many paper candidates are ‘recycled’ time after time. I’ve tried numerous approaches over the past few years. From offering (& delivering) free social media training for Cambridge councillors, to assertively challenging them at council meetings, to finally standing for election myself. All of the above had a very limited impact if I’m brutally honest.

Hence for the general election I’ve run around Cambridge filming as many candidates and activists as possible with the following aim: To show them in the best possible light so that the general public feel that they can have a reasonable conversation with them. It also changes the previous dynamic between me and the local politicians: instead of having to convince someone who eats, sleeps and breathes politics, they have to convince the wider public. I’ve also deliberately disabled the comments on the videos too.

I’m not too bothered about the discussions people have about the content of who said what. That’s for the person being filmed/speaking to account for, not me.  I don’t need, nor want to be part of every conversation. My role is to help stimulate conversation informed by what people see and hear from the candidates. How the public holds the candidates accountable is entirely up to them. In most cases the videos give a social media link for them to do so.

Life after the election

Whoever gets elected for your area, my recommendation is to follow them on social media and stay informed about what they do in your area. Once they are elected, they are then responsible for everyone who lives in the area they represent. Make this a start of an ongoing conversation with those elected to represent you. In the meantime…choose wisely!

‘Tory turmoil as ex-council chief quits amid social media firestorm’


A busy day for Cambridge Conservatives 

They say 24 hours is a long time in politics. Earlier on, former Conservative councillor & leader of Cambridgeshire County Council, Mr Nick Clarke, switched allegiance to UKIP. Around the same time, Cambridge Conservative candidate Ms Chamali Fernando found herself in the middle of a social media firestorm following remarks made at a recent health hustings. See the full transcript here recorded by Jon Vale of the Cambridge News. Then do a Twitter search for “@Whereis007” (Ms Fernando’s Twitter handle) and compare your judgement of the transcript with responses from across Twitter.

From Richard Taylor's tweet to front page of the national papers.
From Richard Taylor’s tweet to front page of the national papers. Screenshot via @CllrRJohnson (Lab)

Note too that this story has now hit the national newspapers. This piece on the BBC News was put out presumably by Conservative Central Office to help clarify things. From my perspective, this episode underlines the importance of recording these debates on video/audio.  Note the Twitter exchanges here on the accuracy of the tweets.

My original thoughts reading the tweets from those there was that Ms Fernando’s was trying to articulate where people could choose to wear a discrete piece of jewellery that contained information that might be useful to emergency services when responding to an emergency call. Hence posting a few links & asking if this was the case – but otherwise left it at that as the Twitter storm gathered pace.

At the same time, I can also see how through the spiralling of social media exchanges how vulnerable people wearing bands identifying mental health conditions would inevitably be seen/visible, and could lead to further discrimination against people who already (like myself) struggle with mental health issues. Note the context of the latter is disability hate crimes – see here.

As soon as it became clear Mr Vale of the Cambridge News had recorded the entire debate on a dictaphone, I took the view that this and any further clarifications from the Conservative Party would deal with any issues of who reported what/accuracy.

The final straw for ex-county council leader Nick Clarke?

Here’s Mr Clarke in his own words on his blog, and here’s his interview on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire. What’s noticeable in both is his dissatisfaction with Conservative Party leadership at the very top – focussing on the issues of immigration and the UK’s relationship with the EU. It’s worth noting that Mr Clarke’s views on climate change are also more in line with UKIP – the party he’s rejoined, than those of Ms Fernando. In 2012 Mr Clarke & Dr Huppert clashed over climate change – see here.

The timing of Mr Clarke’s switch is interesting – the day of the Conservative Party’s manifesto launch. Given his remarks in the radio interview, Ms Fernando hardly gets a mention – certainly not by name. To what extent was it the party’s national manifesto that made him think in his heart of hearts that he could not publicly campaign with those policies? Remember that at the time of posting (& at the time of Mr Clarke’s switch), UKIP had not yet published their full manifesto.

How are the campaigns going in Cambridge for the Conservatives?

It depends which part of town you’re in and who you ask.

Certainly on my side of town (mid-south Cambridge) the Conservatives are much less visible than their Labour and Liberal Democrat opponents. Labour on one side, the Liberal Democrats on the other, & in between 89 votes for Puffles. Even in some of the most expensive houses in the city, Labour and Liberal Democrat (and even Green Party) posters/boards are conspicuous by their presence.  It’s one thing looking down a road full of 3-4 storey town houses or quiet roads with expansive detached houses without any party banners if you’re a Conservative activist, but quite another if you see them full of banners of your political opponents. Where do you start?

Remember that the Conservatives barely have a presence on Cambridge City Council. This means between elections, they don’t have a presence in grassroots city decision-making. Add to this that displaying posters/boards may indicate a long term friendship with (or even the address of) an elected representative of the party concerned. Note Cambridge has more than a few former Labour ministers who have returned or retired to the city too.

At the same time, general election time could be the time where the higher turnout boosts their chances in their target wards such as Trumpington (where they have one councillor) and Queen Edith’s ward – where Andy Bower (who’s also my webmaster) is standing again. That said, Queen Edith’s ward as far as the Parliamentary constituency is concerned sits outside Cambridge City. Will the more visible presence of Heidi Allen in the ward compared to her predecessor Andrew Lansley help Mr Bower? If the Conservatives are going to revive their long term political fortunes in Cambridge, they need to be winning wards such as Queen Edith’s & Trumpington.