Who is eighth is line to the throne is usually only of interest to the die hard royalist who wants to make sure they have got their souvenir plates in the right order.

But when Prince Edward’s youngest child was born last month an age old tradition of sexual discrimination took place.

For no reason other than her gender, Lady Louise Windsor, the Prince’s elder child, was quietly demoted to number nine in line for the top job.

No doubt this has happened countless times in our history, but this time there is one slight difference – the small matter of sexual equalities legislation.

Being bumped down a list is hardly the most gratuitous act of sexual discrimination, particularly when you consider the hundreds of thousands of women struggling to earn the same as the male counterparts.

Nevertheless, the sovereign is our head of state, the head of armed forces and our top ambassador – Britain’s face to the world. What will happen when Prince William is an expectant father, should we play genetic roulette and hope that it’s not a girl followed by a boy?

What might have suited grey bearded king makers of old is completely at odds with how a head of state should be selected in modern Britain. Any system based on the notion that you should make do with a woman until a man comes along should quite frankly be consigned to the history books. It is for this reason I have asked the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to investigate Lady Louise’s demotion.

No doubt there will be the traditionalist aghast with the barefaced cheek of a mere commoner like myself questioning century-old royal tradition. However, tradition is the reason that women used to be denied the vote, the reason women were not allowed to have professional aspirations and the reason women were expected to be subservient to men. Thankfully attitudes have moved on – well mostly.

We have had a female head of state for half a century and she’s not done a bad job of it. In an ideal world we would have a full constitutional convention to look at all aspects of the monarchy including if we should have one at all. But until that day we must make do with our piecemeal constitution and I for one think this particular discriminatory piece must end.

This article first appeared on the New Statesman blog.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

Being a politician I am – not surprisingly – happy to stick up for politics and politicians in general.

I think politics is essential for our country – imagine what a country where government ruled without elections would be like – and I think most (though not quite all!) politicians are in it for decent reasons. I don’t think they’ve got their snouts in the trough (after all, most could easily earn more and work fewer hours outside politics) nor do I think that MPs get ridiculously long holidays (Parliament being “in recess” isn’t the same as being on holiday – conscientious MPs work through recess, researching policy, meeting constituents and so on and on). And I could go on.

But the point at which I draw the line in defending my profession is Prime Minister’s Questions. What an awful testosterone-fuelled bear pit of badly behaved boys (and it is overwhelmingly boys!) that is!

To be more precise – the flaws with PMQs fall under five headings. First, the Prime Minister only very rarely faces any detailed, forensic questioning – because the format makes it far too easy to avoid the question.

Second, too many questions get eaten up by patsy soft questions from the government’s own side. “Would the Prime Minister confirm how wonderful he is?” is only a slight paraphrase – and is a waste of everyone’s time.

Third, the atmosphere and ethos is far too much about verbal strutting and intimidation. Take for example the Labour Party’s response to Gordon Brown’s dodgy first outing at PMQs. It was to ensure that Labour MPs made lots more noise next time round, heckling and shouting down Tory MPs as they rose to ask questions. Can you imagine running a workplace on that basis? Judge a manager but how loudly his or her staff shout and heckle other managers at the weekly staff meeting? Bizarre. Yet this is meant to pass for normal adult behaviour in the Palace of Westminster.

Fourth, because there are not that many questions asked – and so much time is wasted with points two and three – individual MPs only very rarely get the chance to ask a question. This means lots of names go into the hat each week, and a small lucky number gets pulled out.

Using random draws to choose who gets to ask questions may sound fair – but it means that some MPs (the unlucky ones) almost never get called. Why should their constituents suffer from having an MP who is less able to raise issues at PMQs (in as much as that does some good) than people who live elsewhere, just because of the luck of the draw by Mr Speaker?

And it means you cannot choose when you want to ask a question. You just have to bung in your name time after time hoping it eventually pops up. Hard luck if there’s a major issue that has blown up in a particular constituency. Chances are – the MP won’t get to raise it at PMQs for months.

And fifth, because PMQs only take place when Parliament is sitting, there are large chunks of the year when if something happens – sorry, no questions allowed.

So – PMQs are, to use the phrase of the moment – not fit for purpose. They don’t do a good job at holding Prime Ministers to account, and the awful behaviour of so many MPs leaves a dreadful impression on the public as to what politics and politicians are about. And alas, for all that the media loves to take an instinctive cynical and negative approach to politicians, when it comes to PMQs they are deeply complicit in the establishment game. Atrocious macho posturing? Oh, that’s never newsworthy.

An MP can pretty much do anything except strip naked and hurl themselves across the Chamber and they won’t get a whisper of media criticism for their behaviour at PMQs. It’s just boys having fun, and that’s all ok isn’t it?

Well no – I don’t think it is. It’s time to blow the whistle on the sort of behaviour that – if it took places elsewhere, such as from pupils in a classroom – would have the self-same politicians clamouring for tough action, the smack of firm discipline and probably the introduction of a few new criminal offences too.

In the absence of a few ASBOs being dished out to the serial hecklers and shouters, what then is to be done?

First, the Speaker should take a much, much tougher line, including reviewing the recorded pictures and sounds after each PMQs to catch out those miscreants who think they can get away with it just because the Speaker doesn’t immediately see or hear that it was them personally misbehaving. And each time someone is caught out – let the Parliamentary broadcasting authorities release the relevant clip and transcript, all ready packaged up for the local and regional media for that MP’s constituency. Perhaps when handed an easy story on the plate, we’ll then start seeing some media pressure! Even if we don’t, I am sure many bloggers will take up such information voraciously – and spread the embarrassment and political cost for the offenders more widely.

In other words – let’s not have MPs lecture others on zero tolerance without also holding themselves to standards of decorous behaviour. There has been some welcome move towards a clamp down on bad behaviour by the Speaker recently – with him twice upbraiding Labour MP Ian Austin for – well – just shouting out abuse after abuse. But that doesn’t go nearly far enough.

Second, PMQs need to take place in more weeks of the year and for a longer period of time. This will give more MPs the chance to ask questions and even open up allowing backbench MPs (rather than just opposition party leaders) getting to ask a supplementary question.

Outside of Parliament’s normal sitting weeks, why not take PMQs around the different parts of the UK? Indeed, this would open up all sorts of possibilities for allowing members of the public to ask questions. It would be good to get the public more involved directly.

But also this means there would be a ready supply of people willing to tell the media what they thought of their experience, whether they were happy with how their question was answered and so on – all extra pressures for people to behave and to answer questions in fact.

We know from past general elections how the few questions that have really cut through to politicians have been those where a member of the public has confronted a politician in person. So let’s have more of that.

Third, you may have heard of this new-fangled internet thing. Let’s use it to bring in the public more, even where logistically it is too difficult to get everyone in the same room. Part of what we could do is to have the public being able to ask questions via the internet – such as by submitting video clips and then getting the PM to record his answers. This sort of exchange of clips has worked really well (via YouTube) as part of the Republican and Democrat presidential nomination contests. Having people film themselves asks questions is not only a good protection against faked spam questions, it also gives more passion and humanity to the questions – all of which adds to the pressure on those on the receiving end to answer properly.

Fourth, the Prime Minister should be open to more frequent questioning from MPs outside of PMQs. In particular, his appearances before the massed ranks of all the Select Committee chairs tend to provide a more in-depth and considered line of questioning – so let’s have more of those.

But above all, what we need is a real desire to put an end to the current embarrassing unedifying display of “he who shouts loudest shouts last”. It doesn’t hold those with power to account and it demeans politics. And it only continues that way because no-one has cried foul. It’s time to cry foul.

This article first appeared on Liberal Democrat Voice.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

Once upon a time – not long ago or far away – the snow was falling gently onto the still and frozen Great River by the Cold Stone Palace. The Great River had never before been stilled – but strange things were happening in the land.

The Strong-Willed Prince had finally departed the Stone Palace – forced into exile by his Chief Red Elf. And the Chief Red Elf, having brooded and plotted for this moment for ten years or more, finally ascended the throne and became known thenceforth as the Dark Wizard. This was his land – at last! His icy grip, cold and hard, spread like Mordor across the land – as he vanquished foes, floods and foul diseases. Invincible and stern, he swept away the years of Camelot and shadows lengthened across the land.

Perhaps swelled by the arrogance of high office and just like the Emperor who Had No Clothes – the Dark Wizard began to believe his courtiers who told him how wonderful, clever and all-knowing he was. He stopped listening to the people. He took no notice of what was happening outside of the Palace environs. He didn’t notice the darkening sky or the icy blast from the North. And having plotted against and threatened all other contenders for the throne -thus ascending without contest or joust -he believed that he could safely now ask the people of his lands to show him their love and obeisance by a pledge of allegiance. His subjects would each sign a paper telling him of their loyalty to the throne – and seal it with their blood.

His Red Elves went out through the land far and wide telling scribes and gossips that the Dark Wizard would seek the people’s allegiance. The scribes, and indeed the runes, all said that his omnipotence would be confirmed. His ascendance to the throne would be revalidated through the proof of the people’s love of their new ruler.His star was ever rising. The Red Elves readied their huge supplies of pen and paper, ready to dispatch to all four corners of the kingdom to gather in the pledges of loyalty.

But, being a cautious and (in the author’s view) somewhat cowardly being, the Dark Wizard sent his favourite Red Elf to the Lands of Changing Fortunes. And when his Elf returned he brought sad tidings. In the Lands of Changing Fortunes the runes read badly. The Dark Wizard knew not which way to turn and the people waited to know what would happen. Just before the Voting Clock struck Midnight, at the last possible moment of halting – the Wizard decided that he didn’t need to ask the people for their approval – in fact that had never been his intention. The piles of pen and paper were always meant for something else, you understand.

But the people did not believe him. He had mislead them. He said it wasn’t the sad tidings from the Land of Changing Fortunes that changed his mind. Now the people were not stupid. And the tide began to turn. Suddenly this colossus of control, this Dark Wizard, looked weak and feeble. He had dealt himself a mortal blow and ashamed of himself, he retreated further and further inside his Stone Palace, and wouldn’t see what was really happening – or talk to anyone.

Everything around him began to crumble. He had lost his confidence and his judgement.There was an important meeting of Princes and Wizards to sign a blood treaty. He arrived too late. There was uncertainly and fright in the land. People were scared that their homes would be taken away and they would lose all their gold. Afraid of what might happen if more people took fright, the Wizard threw all the wealth of the lands into the Goblins Fires to assure the people their gold was safe. But still the uncertainly raged – and then it suddenly came to light that much of the Dark Wizard’s gold had been passed on in secret from a mysterious gold mine in the North.

No laughter was heard and the birds stopped their chorus. The people who at first were glad to have a new ruler began to believe that the Dark Wizard was not, after all, their legitimate ruler. And whilst the Wizard’s attention had been so focused on his own desires – he had failed to notice that the world had grown colder. The globe was warming ever faster and as the Gulf Stream stopped its warm flow – our land no longer was protected from the icy northern blasts.

Sadder and sadder and more alone than ever, the Dark Wizard rocked back and forth on his cold stone throne.

As for the Chief Blue and Golden Elves – who you may have noticed have barely featured in this fairy tale – there really was no need – as the Dark Wizard did this all to himself.

And I’m the Christmas Fairy!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

It’s not really the done thing is it, saying “oh, politics should be about personalities”? Well – I’m certainly a fan of substance and policies in my politics (and that’s one reason why I’m not a fan of a certain Mr D Cameron!) but I think someone should speak up occasionally for the role of personality.

Whether it is Tony Benn’s oft-expressed lament that modern politics is too much about personalities, or the comments from some Liberal Democrat members that the current Liberal Democrat leadership contest should be more about policies and less about personalities, the general assumption is that policy discussion equals good, discussion of personalities equals bad.

But that’s an argument I don’t buy. The example of Bill Clinton, particularly is his early years as President when he (and Hilary) so stuffed up on health reform, is a shining warning against thinking that personality is enough to make a success of governing. Clinton was the pre-eminent campaigner and charmer of his political generation – but when it came to health reform, the policy substance was sorely flawed – and reform failed, with all the subsequent tragic costs to millions of Americans denied basic health coverage.

It is wrong though to leap from such examples to wanting to squeeze out personality completely. So much of governing (and, to a lesser extent, being in opposition) can be a success or failure depending on the personalities of the key people. Do they have the courage to stick with their beliefs in difficult times or do they waver at the first hint of a negative tabloid newspaper headline? Are they open-minded and willing to listen to others, or closed-minded and prefer to lock themselves away with a small clique? All this is about personality – and it all can and does make a substantive difference to how policies are formulated, selected and implemented.

I wouldn’t go quite as far as Zeev Mankowitz, who said, “people don’t believe in ideas, they believe in people who believe in ideas” but there is a partial truth in that – the personality of the messenger, their credibility, their ethics, their persuasiveness all help people choose between the different messages because it is not just enough to have beliefs – it is also about the ability to turn them into outcomes.

And so the importance of the ability to inspire, persuade, cajole – and given that even the most faceless, out-of-touch bureaucracy still has within in the beating hearts of real human beings – the ability is get the best from people, to raise their sights to doing their utmost, is one that we should also prize.

Moreover – and this was a point Charles Kennedy made particularly effectively about the 2001-5 Parliament- politics and life often throw up challenges that weren’t in people’s minds when policies were adopted or voters given a choice of manifestos to choose between. Many of the biggest political issues in that period – including top-up fees and the granddaddy of them all, Iraq – were completely or nearly-completely absent from the parties’ manifestoes in the 2001 election. So choices made between parties purely on the basis of their policies on offer in 2001 would not necessarily have given you the politicians you wanted for the challenges that did actually face people in the 2001-5 Parliament.

Judging Blair by his personality (including his willingness to go out on a limb for what he though was right, regardless of what others said) would have been a better way of getting a Prime Minister who would have acted the way you wanted over Iraq than judging Blair by a close reading of the 2001 Labour manifesto.

And to get down to brass tacks. When people go to the voting booths at the next general election in Hornsey & Wood Green, yes – I hope they will judge me and my party on issues of policy, such as our commitment to the environment – but also, I hope people will judge me on criteria such as, “does she have the persistence to nag away of behalf of constituents who have raised issues with her?”.

Personality and policies – we need them both as each helps get the best out of the other.

This article first appeared in Liberal Democrat News. For subscription details, click here.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

Traditionally every Shadow Secretary of International Development has issued the same rallying cry: give them more money. There is general agreement that the government should increase the amount of aid they give to the developing world. Let me say that I would like to be the first to buck that trend. I cannot wait for the day when we give absolutely nothing to developing countries in aid; after all, that will be the day when we finally achieve the development goals we have set ourselves over the last fifty years.

The British government has, for decades now, been pumping resources into international development, with little tangible effect. So what has gone wrong? Why is the developing world still saddled with the same burdens it was carrying twenty and more years ago? Africa remains, as Tony Blair noted with more skill than his actions suggested, “a scar on the conscience of the world”. Clearly then, there must be some major issues undermining and jeopardising our well-intentioned aid programme, and it is these issues, combined with the government’s incompetence in addressing them, that I would like to consider in this article.

There are three main areas which seriously threaten to destabilise development progress: the three Cs of Corruption, Conflict and Climate Change. Whilst, we have cottoned on to some of these problems fairly recently, I will turn first to an issue with a long and not particularly distinguished history in the developing world: corruption.

Like many of these issues, corruption damages both ends of the aid chain: destroying the faith of British taxpayers in the efficacy of their aid contribution, whilst, simultaneously producing no tangible benefit for those who most need it. Simply put: it’s robbing from the rich to give to the rich.

The corrupt ends to which our money is diverted vary greatly: from the superfluous military fixations of unhinged dictators, to the bloated public sector patronage schemes that often reinforce a fragile grip on power. The only two things that remain constant are the immorality of those siphoning our funds, and the inability, or disinclination, of the British government to tackle the problem. The government must, wherever possible, filter money directly to local and regional projects, thus ensuring the money arrives where it was supposed to, and also creating a sense of project ownership amongst the local community, which will aid sustainability. Where it is necessary to deal with a questionable regime, strict laws must be in place and enforced to make sure that what goes in one end, comes out the other!

Even when aid does filter through to the people, there is insufficient direction, with regards to how it is spent. In some cases the international development community is effectively acting as a proxy welfare state. Whilst, this may achieve short-term results, it is certainly not how I would define sustainable growth. The government’s failure to address this problem will lead to a perpetual aid cycle of mutual dependency from which neither the donor nor the recipient country will be able to escape. The governments of developing countries must be encouraged to create their own public infrastructures so that when the NGO’s and the money is gone, the country is in a position to support and administer itself.

However, it is not just the corruption of governments that renders development ineffective. Shadowy figures in the corporate world have also sought to exploit the extreme poverty of a continent for their own financial gain. By purchasing the national debt of impoverished countries at discount rates, and then using British courts to aggressively pursue the full amount, these so called ‘Vulture funds’ have been picking at the carcass of international development, operating in legal ‘grey areas’ and putting progress back by a generation. So what has our government done to halt this immoral practice from taking place in our courts and under our noses? Absolutely nothing, actually that’s not true, they’ve done next to nothing. The idea ofintroducing voluntary codes of practice surrounding ‘vulture funds’ has been muted but is yet to materialise and would be toothless in any case.

The savageries of conflict have perhaps done more to wreck the progress of development than anything else. Civil and regionalised wars have the ability to ravage the livelihoods of whole communities, obliterating a generation of the workforce, and destroying the national infrastructure, almost overnight.Eighty-percent of the world’s twenty poorest countries have endured major conflict in the last fifteen years, and of the others, many will have experienced the spill-over effects of a local conflict, not least the public resource drain of an influx of refugees. The combined result of these factors is not only to destroy our previous attempts at stimulating development, but also ensures we will be pouring aid into this war-torn region for decades to come.

Whilst, I would recognise that we must tread carefully in certain areas of the world, in view of our, not inconsiderable, ‘colonial baggage’, that is no excuse for this government’s policy of procrastination. More than 200,000 Darfuris have died in the struggle between government and rebel forces, and yet still we wait for a combined UN-AU force to be deployed in the region. This is utterly incomprehensible. The people of Darfur need action now, and it is down to Gordon Brown and David Milliband to exert all the diplomatic influence they command to ensure that peacekeepers arrive without further delay, even if this requires targeted and effective sanctions and stopping British companies from indirectly funding the genocide. Instead David and Gordon are threatening action if things get worse, someone should tell them things are already about as bad as they can get.

Finally, I want to consider an issue that, at first glance may not appear as urgent as the other two, but yet has the potential to wreak havoc of apocalyptic proportions, and undermine all other efforts at achieving sustainable development: Climate Change. Of course, the cruel irony of climate change is that those who have done least to contribute to its emergence will be the ones who suffer most, as they lack the resources and coping mechanisms of the developed world. Already, the developing world is witnessing natural disasters of biblical proportions, and this will only get worse, potentially destroying any tentative steps towards prosperity that developing nations have made.

There are several key steps that our government can make to counteract the effects climate change on the developing world. Firstly, I call on Gordon Brown to deliver a Climate Change Bill that meets the needs prescribed to it. If we are to keep the global rise in temperature to a manageable 2˚C we must set a target of an 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050, not the feeble 60% Labour is proposing. In addition, the government’s proposed exclusion of shipping and aviation emissions from this figure is nonsensical, and simply another case of strong words being matched by pitiful actions.

Paradoxically though, climate change can also present a tremendous opportunity for the developing world. As more and more developed nations face up to the severity of the threat posed by climate change, they will be forced to consider other energy resources, notably renewables. With technological developments marching on relentlessly, there is a real possibility that solar power could achieve for Africa in the 21st Century, what Oil did for the Middle East in the 20th. Yellow could be the new green. The government simply must do more to counteract the effects of climate change or the next generation will not forgive us.

The world of international development can seem like a tough slog. Endless and recurring obstacles mean that despite the vast resources being pumped in, we see minimal effects. However, one thing that never fails to restore my faith in humanity is the swelling undercurrent of compassion the British people show for their fellow
man. From the remarkable generosity shown following the Asian Tsunami, to the unprecedented scale and success of the ‘Make Poverty History’ and G8 campaigns, we have shown that we do care about what happens to people on the other side of the world.

The Labour government has spectacularly wasted the political capital and media profile that these events had accumulated and has managed to return the international development agenda to the dustbin of public affairs. What we want is to see is our money being used effectively, not being poured straight into a leaking bucket. Sustainable development is the key, and this means addressing the underlying, destabilising forces that I have briefly outlined here. Without this all progress will be meaningless and inherently unstable, and then, and only then, can we achieve my dream of giving nothing to the developing world.

This article first appeared in Public Service Review (November 2007).

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

Before this issue was brought to my attention by a constituent, I was, as I’m sure most people were, blissfully unaware of the horrific fate befalling Iraqis who had been employed by the British Forces.

For example, many Iraqis employed by the British are tortured when found by the Iraqi death-squads. Like Haidr al-Mtury, a translator for the British, who had holes drilled into his hands and knees before both legs were broken and acid was poured over his face. Only then did a bullet to the head put an end to his suffering. These Iraqis are people whose intelligence and work the British Forces lives have been dependant upon. Yet the fact is that the British government is treating these people as if they are applying for means tested benefit – not like people who are fleeing for their lives.

The British treatment of Iraqi employees stands in stark contrast to the employees of the Danes. When the Danish government pulled their troops out of Iraq at the beginning of August, they foresaw the perils facing their staff and immediately acted, chartering a flight that took all 60 of their Iraqi staff, and their families, straight to Copenhagen and a new life without fear.

Unfortunately, our government has adopted a rather more pedestrian approach. Since The Times newspaper and the blogosphere first brought this issue into prominence in early August the government has amazed us all with their impotence and incompetence. Eventually, a two-month review into the situation was commissioned by Gordon Brown, which must have been a great comfort to the Iraqi employees staring death in the face every time they walked a Basra street.

Eventually, on October 30th David Miliband issued a statement clarifying the situation. Iraqi employees could come and start a great new life in Britain, and all they’d have to fear was our nanny state. So that was problem solved wasn’t it?

The deafening silence from the media and Conservative Party would suggest so, but as so often is the case, the devil was very much in the detail. Even though Mr Miliband was kind enough to acknowledge the blatantly obvious truth that: "we owe our Iraqi staff an enormous debt of gratitude", he still felt that it was important that rigorous criteria were applied in order that the plan was "practical, realistic and preserves the integrity of wider immigration and asylum policy."

Thus, an eligibility criterion of 12 months continuous service has been put in place to make sure the numbers are kept down. This is frankly absurd, from both a moral and a practical standpoint. Firstly, clearly our debt of duty is owed to all whose lives have been put at risk by working for us: the death squads in Iraq don’t stop to ask how long interpreters have been employed, so why should we. This isn’t means tested benefits they’re applying for; it is escape from near-certain death.

Secondly, there is a clear practical impediment to setting the bar at 12 months service. Army tours typically last six months and so that is also the length of employment for most interpreters. Whilst some then take up positions either with other units, government departments or US Forces, collation and record-keeping have been inexcusably poor, in some cases non-existent, and so at-risk employees struggle to prove their eligibility.

Furthermore, employees who worked for the British in the two years prior to 2005 also find themselves with no right to asylum; abandoned to their fates and very much at risk.

The Liberal Democrats are leading the fight to force the government to rethink their policies on Iraqi employees. This is a matter for moral not political consideration. We must grant asylum to anyone who worked for the British and now faces mortal danger. Assessment of risk; not length, or time of service must be the only criteria.

The government’s protracted review has brought us a remarkably poorly thought out policy that is practically unsustainable and morally unforgivable. The death squads won’t wait and neither should we; the government must act immediately or it will have the blood of Iraqi employees on its hands.

Sign our Iraqi interpreters petition here

This article first appeared in Liberal Democrat News. For subscription details, click here.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

No school should tolerate it. No bully should get away with it. No child should experience it. And yet we know it goes on day in and day out in our schools.

There were two sets of bullies in my class at secondary school. They terrorised their victims with threats and intimidation. They were ghastly girls and most of us, who were not the target, just kept clear. There was also bullying of the ‘exclusion’ variety – less obvious but just as diminishing for the victim who was left out of everything and made to feel ugly and unwanted.

Most schools now (unlike then) actually have bullying policies – and bullying is taken much more seriously now than then. But it’s still a problem we have to face up to and work against.

This week is anti-bullying week. To highlight this locally Haringey Youth Council are marching today: about 250 young people, ending the march at Spurs football ground with a series of events. It is fantastic to have a youth organisation taking this on and taking direct action on such an important issue. Congratulations to them.

Bullying damages lives – it isn’t just about harming a child’s schoolwork. Whenever I listen to programs on bullying (sometimes the subject of a phone in on the radio) and I hear adults – sometimes in their sixties or seventies – talking about having been bullied at school, what strikes me is that the hurt has never really gone. They often cry as they talk about those long ago experiences. Those are the psychological hurts that can and do blight entire lives.

Bullying often has a focus such as race or gender – and then displays itself as racial prejudice or sexual harassment. Homophobic bullying is more common than many people imagine. As www.standuptobullying.org (a Liberal Democrat website about homophobic bullying) recounts:

A 14-year old girl, after disclosing to a friend she might be a lesbian, was forced by the PE teacher to sit outside the changing rooms before and after sports lessons until the "normal" children have changed.

A boy who came out when he was 12 was persecuted at school as a consequence. He had a camp way of speaking and walking, which the other children didn’t like. "People would put up signs saying I had Aids, that I was a dirty, HIV faggot and not to go near me. I was punched and kicked."

So – we all need to be active and alive to these issues, whether as parents, teachers, classmates or politicians. There are some key measures that need to be taken. All schools should be required to keep a record of each bullying incident to create a reliable database to make it easier to tackle the problem. Peer bullying mentors in each school seem to be effective too and the Government needs to do urgent and comprehensive research to quantify the occurrence and trends in bullying and the effectiveness of different anti-bullying strategies. Why? Because the Government has thrown good money after bad on bullying because without these records and research no-one really knows what works and what doesn’t. If we had the information, action could be more effective.

And we need to look at the bully too. Bullying happens to disguise flaws in the bully – so they need their anger, low-self esteem and behaviour tackled too. Low self-esteem is a key factor, highlighted in all studies of bullying.

Finally – parents have a key role If your child has been bullied – and if they have had the courage to tell you about it (as some are too ashamed to tell) – then take action. And if you don’t get the response or action you think appropriate – then take it further. There are organisations out there to support you and your child. We adults all have to act together to stop the tears and the terror that bullying brings.

I doubt we can ever end bullying completely, but we can – and must – work harder to reduce the numbers of kids who have their schooldays scarred by bullying.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

Politicians are self-seeking, egotistical, lazy good for nothings who only care about self-promotion, getting their snouts in the trough and doing sweet FA for their constituents. They drink themselves into oblivion and eat lavishly all evening, every evening at the House of Commons. In life’s pecking order – they are the bottom of the pile.

Well – that’s what how we lot are variously described. Now – I don’t believe that is an entirely accurate description of the majority of MPs! From what I see of colleagues from all parties in the House of Common – they seem on the whole to be an industrious and committed group of people who work pretty hard. There will be, amongst any group of 650 or so people from any industry a variety of competences and work rates, but many do 70+ hours a week, with work spreading all through the weekend as well as the week.

So – we have a big disconnect between image and reality. There is only one true way to fight back against such an appalling image – and that is to blog! In a time when the media – national, regional or local – give so little time to what politicians are really up to, getting your own account over of what you are doing is often the only option.

I started blogging back in 2003 because I could not bear the ‘you politicians you’re all the same’ type of comment. I’m not the same as that somewhat exaggerated introduction I just gave.

I may not be perfect – but I have committed myself to public service for the last dozen years in one political form or another – and the essential driver for me – as it is for many colleagues across all parties – is to make the world a better place. That can be anything from helping an individual with a problem through to world peace – but the ambition is quite clear.

I wasn’t an MP at the time I started blogging – but I was a local councillor (Haringey) and also on the London Assembly, and I wanted to tell the people who elected me what I was doing and what I was thinking about what was going on in my working world – the world they had elected me to. I wanted to create a relationship with readers of my blog, that would give them an insight not just into how I spent my day on their behalf – but also some sense of me as a human being.

A blog, with its chronological diary like structure and natural invitation to write in a more personal manner, can do that in the way that a website (and I’d already had one for nearly five years at the time I started blogging) isn’t really suited.

Apart from giving those who elected you an inside track on your activities – a blog is also an opportunity for two-way communication if you open it for comments. I didn’t go this for this for the first few years of being a blogger as my previous experience of looking at those comment blogs was that you got the same seven people making comments – generally opponents just being foul. However, the blogging community (which in itself has grown and flourished) itself gently persuaded me to open for comment – and comment can be pretty useful and instructive.

When an issue blows up locally over something really divisive in the community or worrying for the community – posting it on my blog not only gives local people a chance to see what is going on or gives out really relevant information – but the comments can illuminate both sides of an argument – and (crucially) it is a very good way of people seeing and understanding that there are other views. I say “crucially” because – sadly – the general tenor of comments on the internet is one of unswerving certainty – the writer of the comment is absolutely sure they are correct and can’t see how anyone who isn’t a fool could possibly disagree with them – though I am lucky to have acquired a handful of regular commenters on my blog who do engage in more thoughtful expressions of views.

I don’t get a huge amount of comments (nothing like Iain Dale or Political Betting) but enough to be helpful and instructive and most months, even if not most weeks, I learn something new from a comment or pick up a useful lesson in how to be clearer in expressing my views. In addition, when blogging about an issue you also get people contacting you (not in the comments but often privately) with insider information. It is a great source of information and knowledge.

Blogging has become an important communications channel and people all over the country, even world, check in. Certainly the opinion formers and media do – both locally and nationally. And it would be disingenuous to say that isn’t an advantage to those MPs who blog to be accessing that valuable community – but it isn’t and can’t be the main purpose – the media are not stupid.

And neither are my constituents – so you need to be as real and open as is humanly possible without committing political suicide. If MPs are going to simply bleat the party message without any personalisation – then no one will bother to read their blog. It has to be a bit edgy, a bit dangerous politically – and more than anything – be what the MP actually thinks (and actually written by them too!).

I think it is essential to keep writing in bad times as well as good. Difficult or embarrassing issues for the party – I still blog. Difficult or embarrassing issues for myself – I also still blog. Otherwise you are letting down your audience – and also missing out on the chance to put over your side of the story, with your own words and as briefly or as verbosely as you wish.

The main danger for wannabe MP bloggers is what they say on their blogs being taken and used against them. Being the author of hundreds of thousands of words that are published for all to use and abuse is a danger. But you can pick what you say without making it anodyne or 100% tediously on message.

Which brings me to the last benefit – having to assemble my thoughts on my day or on an issue helps me decide exactly where I stand on issues in particular.

So – my advice to MPs generally is to blog. Other MPs have very different types of blogs and an MPs blog can be anything that MP wants it to be. However, if you hate writing – don’t do it. If you think you can get one of your staff to do it – don’t do it. It is something that demands you yourself and constant devotion. Your blog must be the essence of you if you are to succeed. It is a modern medium for modern MPs – at least the brave and the good!

This article originally appeared in Iain Dale’s Guide to Political Blogging in the UK.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007