Archive for the ‘General’ Category

Mail on Sunday spread

Monday, June 1st, 2009

Following yesterday’s article in the Mail on Sunday I have seen a raft of responses from readers, budding politicians and commentators across the blogosphere. Some of the more interesting reactions were posted on Conservativehome. Although there is a wide spectrum of individual views, the comments appear to fall into two camps. First, there are those who clearly feel that I have “whinged” about my lack of success after such a short period of time on the list and suggest that I should have expected nothing less given my lack of a political footprint or convictions. Secondly, there are those who believe that I have highlighted a particular issue for the Conservative Party and that “something should be done”.

I would like to thank everyone who took the time to comment on the article. Debate is the essence of our democracy and the ability to criticize should be defended at all costs.

However, I should like to take this opportunity to point out a few issues contained within the article which have been misunderstood.

I was not complaining that I felt let down by the Party after less than a year on the list. Rather, I was highlighting that, having got on the list and tried to “start at the bottom”, I was annoyed about Mr Cameron’s reopening the list for “ordinary people”. I noted that his announcement specifically stated that applicants need not have a political history. The absence of this “political history” is central to many of the less positive comments about the article. I am happy - as I stated - to acquire a political footprint. I am less than happy that it would appear that this is now not necessary.

I have not given up trying to be an MP. Quite the reverse. In fact I am off to a local campaign (Zac Goldsmith) meeting in the next half an hour. However, I believe that we should use all the talents at our disposal. Yes, I am able to write for a national newspaper but is that not one of the key skills required for a politician? I note that most of the shadow front bench have, at one time or another in the last 12 months, contributed to newspapers. Indeed, Michael Gove makes a living that way. Being able to communicate on this basis should not preclude my standing and does not, in my opinion, compromise my claim to “ordinariness”.

Finally, let me say that I would like this debate to continue so please keep the comments coming.

Office Politics

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

The BBC has usefully, and without fanfare, published the list of expenses claimed by MPs during the 2007/8 Parliamentary year. While the Additional Cost Allowance, which captures expenses relating to second homes, has dominated the headlines, it is by no means the largest cost to the taxpayer when supporting our elected representatives in their Parliamentary duties. In fact, the largest single expense claimed by MPs is the cost of their offices.

During this 12 month period, the 645 MPs listed in this analysis claimed a total of £92,933,748 or an average of £144,176 per MP. Of this, the second home allowance cost the taxpayer £11,584,454 or an average of £17,960. The total second home expenses accounted for just 13% of the total. The cost of supporting MPs’ offices was £66,877,327 or £103,686 per MP. This is equivalent to 73% of the total expenses claimed by MPs in the last reported year.

Without wishing to pre-empt the Telegraph newspapers’ next analysis, I am concerned that some MPs will be unable to justify staffing expenses of over £100,000 in one year. For the record, there were 17 MPs in this bracket with a further 212 MPs claiming between £90,000 and £100,000 for staff in their offices.

Clearly this is all above board but the suggestion that MPs are employing family and friends, thereby further boosting their income, is likely to follow any such examination.

The problem remains the defence offered by MPs when questioned about the issue of expenses. This appears to be nothing more than the system is to blame and everything was done with the approval of the Fees Office. This is insufficient. Particularly, if the largest cost to the taxpayer is the expenses claimed for the running of offices with, as far as I am able to discern, little or no official over-sight.

The case for total transparency is proven. The defence of “playing within the rules” is redundant. The time to cease these “office politics” long overdue.

Down at the School Gates

Monday, May 11th, 2009

Down at the school gates they think I am mad. Why? Have I gone vegan, dyed my hair purple or run off with the games teacher?

No. According to many of my friends I have joined the ranks of the truly crazy people. I have decided to leave “ordinary life” behind and try to become an MP.

Many of my friends and family are stupefied. I have no background in politics and although I have been a journalist all my working life, I have never reported from the lobby.

But for five years I have reported on some of the worst social issues to face this country and what I saw was a perfect storm.

Pregnant teenagers, the fall-out from 24-hour drinking and a nation living on credit, co-joined with too many politicians looking for a sound-bite with precious little front-line experience of life in Britain on the edge.

Last summer I did not even belong to a political party. I did not know any MPs, any councillors or any political advisors other than the ones I had interviewed for ITV, Sky or the Daily Mail….and some of those have crossed me off their Christmas card list after encounters on ITV’s Tonight programme that did not go their way.

But I have always been a Conservative at heart so I joined the Richmond Park Conservatives Association and started doing some research.

I discovered I had to sit the Parliamentary Assessment Board in order to get on the list of approved candidates. I was, by now, so close to the deadline I had to mail the forms from my holiday, having slipped into a French supermarket photo-booth for the pictures first.

Twelve weeks later I found myself in a Cheshire hotel room with six hours of tests ahead of me. I was only slightly more nervous covering the overthrow of Indonesia’s President Suharto. I also remember registering that I was the only woman, the only person with children and the only person with no political footprint whatsoever.

Still, I passed the tests and got onto the List. I still find it hugely impressive that a political party is prepared to move that quickly when they see someone with potential.

Since then I have had a great deal of support from the Candidates’ Committee and from individual MPs I meet along the way. Senior Shadow Cabinet Ministers have taken the time and trouble to give me their advice. But now I am concerned.

I can see that there is sometimes a very big gap between the candidates favoured by the local associations, and the ones on the list. This is understandable. The associations develop relationships with potential MPs over many years. They can be resentful of anyone being parachuted in.

Alternatively I can understand our leadership wanting a more diverse range of candidates. It is the only way to get to the widest range of voters. We already know how important it is to have accessible women MPs – some commentators have called it the Grazia effect.

There is a disconnect here, but it is not insurmountable. At least we are able to fast track promising candidates in a plausible way, even if it does not always work.

But while I agree with much of what David Cameron had to say this week, I feel strongly that the debate over the selection of women has become mired in party politics rather than a discussion over how the selection process can accommodate the practicalities of life as a woman in Britain.

The simple fact of the matter is that many women who could be persuaded to represent their communities do not have the time or the support system to start a political career in the current system. Representative women are not single barristers, special advisors or scions of political dynasties. Representative women juggle a combination of family budgets, child-care and supporting partners – if they are lucky enough to have one.

Take one afternoon this week. I had a letter-writing panel to re-structure, a ward committee meeting to chair, emails to write thanking people I met at the previous evening’s Conservative Women’s Organization’s dinner, three children to feed, two sets of homework to supervise, a partner whose business had spent the day under intense pressure. To cap it all, the cleaner did not return from Poland.

Oh. I forgot about the day job. I run my own company, DuberleyMedia, which underpins the whole endeavour.

Now, I am a determined person, but even I had pause for thought when I found myself in the middle of Northwood Hills on a cold winter’s night last year, with a sack of leaflets, a torch and a map for company. Did anyone know I was there?

Since then I have had many enjoyable trips but I am beginning to wonder about the opportunity cost to my fledgling business.

My day out in Waltham Forest was fascinating. I was helping with a local by-election. I spent a pleasant morning with the ex-chair of the association - a charming woman but I am not sure that it increased my political footprint. Maybe I now leave a slight indentation.

As part of Zac Goldsmith’s campaign team I spend a lot of time – as he does – on street stalls or out canvassing and leafleting. I love it. My local association is packed with genuine people but it is time consuming and does it help me get a seat? I am not so sure because no other association will have any contact with me before they see me on the day of a selection.

Recently, I made my first applications. I got to the last eight for Holborn and St Pancras. The selection panel was nerve-wracking but then so was being shot at in Jakarta and tear-gassed in Seoul. I received some very useful but retrospective advice from Teresa May and I will be using it next time.

The trouble is I can overcome my nerves – three years of covering riots and mayhem in the Far East and hundreds of live-shots for 24-hour news saw to that. I can polish up my performance but I know from years of experience in raising children and running a home while working in a pressurized environment, that the way forward is with a clear framework. Without that many women candidates will end up either exhausted or broke - or both.

I

Denis Envy

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

As a woman on the Conservative Party’s list of approved candidates, I read the comments from David Cameron with interest. While I agree with much of what was written, I feel strongly that the debate over the selection of women candidates is mired in party politics rather than a discussion over how the selection process can accommodate the practicalities of life as a woman in Britain. While we fret over Jacqui Smith’s expenses, we do little to understand the issues which face women in particular in seeking political office.

The simple fact of the matter is that women who could legitimately represent their communities do not have the time or wherewithal to start a political career in the current system. Representative women are not single barristers, special advisers or the scions of political dynasties. Representative women juggle a combination of family budgets, looking after children and supporting their partners. They are not given time off to run round the country, fighting every seat that comes available nor are they likely to be tipped the wink on the selection process like Georgia Gould, reported in Daniel Finkelstein’s informative article.

I support David Cameron wholeheartedly. However, when I am out canvassing the people I meet feel an abiding sense of distance from their political representatives. They are not like us, they tell me. Little wonder, if we are only able to choose from a group of people who have the ability to put their lives on hold for a prolonged period of time with no financial recompense.

Our claim to live in a democratic society must extend to the ability of all to seek office. The day-to-day needs of representative women must be taken into account when setting selecting procedures otherwise the current problem will persist.

In the run up to the next election, while candidates are still be selected, all parties must consider that representative women need more help to become involved politically. This need not be preferential treatment. However, it should not penalise women who can bring insight to the problems of today simply because they cannot campaign 200 miles from their homes and children.

Not every budding political woman is Margaret Thatcher but, then, not every budding political woman has a Denis.

My article in The Mail on Sunday has provoked a range of comments; both positive and negative. At least it provokes debate.

  • You are currently browsing the archives for the General category.