I recently attended a Youth Question Time in Haringey. A large proportion, if not an actual majority, of the young people attending were non-white. Apart from the fact that the audience at times appeared a lot brighter and more lively than we politicians on the panel (three Labour, one Lib Dem – me – and one police officer), what struck me incredibly forcefully was the real sense of fed upness among the audience with being labelled ‘ethnic-minorities’.

One of the Labour panellists was talking about ‘ethnic minorities’ and a young black boy (name of Justin I believe) shot up his hand and said he was fed up with being labelled; fed up with being always thought of as ethnic minority; felt it put him in a box. He wanted to be taken as him – as a person.

I have to say that the Labour panellists appeared a bit taken aback – after all Haringey Council (Labour) has spent years cultivating separateness and shoring up the ‘ethnic’ vote by keeping and feeding the separation – encouraging dependency – or divide and rule!

One Labour panellist put forward in response the view that you do need some special funding for vulnerable ethnic groups (women in this case) to help them access public services and so on – which is fair enough and a valid point – albeit it didn’t address the bigger question.

But what I found so interesting – thrilling actually – was the welling up of ‘I am a person first and foremost’ and hurrah I say! That is what we need our young people to feel – that they are valuable as individuals – not just as block votes.

A girl in the audience followed the same tack. After some debate about how to deal with poor educational attainment amongst ‘ethnic minorities’ this girl (black) said basically that she was fed up with hearing about the non-achievers – what could we offer to those who were really clever and able. Hurrah again!

So – you can see from the way this discussion was going – that these young people were incredibly bright and forceful, bursting with energy, brains, talents and enthusiasm – and most important of all in my book – confidence! Of course, there was an element of self-selection in terms of which kids get involved in Youth Council, Youth Parliament and so on. Nevertheless – I came away from that meeting with more food for thought than most of the ones I attend with adults.

And I guess – in that hall – is the nitty gritty of the issue at the heart of our society. How do we keep our incredibly important cultural or religious differences – and yet be part of mainstream society? There are difficult questions for us all in this. Realistically, Church Schools are not going to disappear – and there seem to be more and more state-funded faith schools being demanded – but I am not a great fan of separation. On the whole – I’m with Justin! I have always thought that human beings have more in common than they have apart. That culture and faith is for the home and the family – and the rest be that school or work – should be neutral. Of course -within that neutral areaobviously those with religious or cultural needs in terms of what is worn or expected in terms of behaviour must be free.

So -removing barriers and fighting discrimination remain a real issue – but perhaps these young people are telling us something important. If you treat me as if I am just a colour of skin or an ethnic group- then you limit my aspiration, you dictate my place in life and you perpetuate the stereotype.

Therein lies a lesson for all us politicians!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

But it’s a wonderful vice – it’s growing things! Having attended a number of horticultural shows this summer, including the Highgate, Muswell Hill and Hornsey Horticultural Societies – I have been staggered not only by the produce and exhibits – but the commitment and participation by so very many local people to this raging passion.

Now a veteran of a number of local shows – I am wise to the fact that most of the First in Show honours are collected either by Gary Sycamore or Eric Gurman – who basically clean up on each occasion. However, as one woman who kept coming second to Eric said to me at the Muswell Hill show – that when she does get a First Prize and beats him – it really means something to beat such a master. And there are so many categories – that others do get their chance to shine.

A tremendous amount of effort goes into organising and arranging these shows – and they are all incredibly well attended and very much enjoyed by everyone. Personally, I love them. I cannot grow things myself – for two reasons: a) incapable and b) time poor! But one day, when I have time – it’s on my list – because it is such a joyous thing to do.

I am always amazed at how such beautiful flowers and vegetables come into being – despite last summer with no rain and this summer with nothing but rain. Over my two years of shows, I am learning about what makes a perfect vegetable or bloom and that the National Horticultural Society judging has very strict, high and testing criteria.

It is also clear that there is a wonderful community that grows up around allotments and horticultural societies. This year I ‘launched’ the new ‘shed’ for the ‘Golf Course’ allotments – the result of lots and lots of work in terms of bidding for a lottery grant. Now we have a splendid shed – and a community who all know each other, where the kids can play and where actual food is grown! This isn’t just about shows – this is a real opportunity to bring people together, make people feel part of a community – and to produce wonderful vegetables which save a lot of money.

I was given a basket of vegetables to take home from the Muswell Hill show – and the vegetables just tasted heavenly – completely different from the ones I buy. It makes you think!And it is not just the taste that appeals – it is knowing that there is a vibrant community behind the growing of the fruit and veg that appeals too – because so often, especially in our urban areas, community ties are so weak and hardly anyone knows anyone else.

Anyway, this is just one of the best of local community activities and individual pastimes that you can get. I ran into one of my Liberal Democrat colleagues at the Hornsey show, Cllr Errol Reid (Hornsey) who is now campaigning to expand horticultural horizons. Errol wants to get the National Horticultural Society to extend its judging categories to window flower boxes and stuff grown inside – so that not lucky enough to have access to an allotment or garden can join in the fun!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

In a class a couple of years above me at my secondary school was the most beautiful girl imaginable.To those of us less physically blessed teenagers – she embodied all that we wished for. She became a model at about sixteen gracing the covers of the top fashion magazines. One day at assembly, the Headmistress said she had some sad news to give us. This girl, this beautiful being, had been found dead in a suicide pact with her boyfriend in New York.

Of course, I don’t know the story behind what happened – but it was a salutary lesson about how there is so much more to life and happiness than physical appearance.

We all have a hard time growing up. Some of it really painful. Much of it to do with will I be liked? Will boys ask me out? And even if they do -that never really assuages the self doubt. And even if it does – just wait until you next see the TV, read a newspaper or pick up a magazine. Look younger now, Be slimmer tomorrow. The pressure to be self-conscious and anxious about your image is nearly relentless – and that much harder to deal with the younger you are.

At the recent Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton, I was invited to speak at a fringe meeting where the report ‘Under 10 and Under Pressure’ was launched. The Girl Guides along with Beat (the UK’s leading eating disorder charity) had commissioned research into girls between 7 and 10. It seems incredibly young – but there is an increase in eating disorders amongst this age group – and that’s only one aspect of the pressures so many young children seem to be under from our modern society and media And what kind of identity does Western society offer to women and girls? Why does this lead to such dramatic problems of self-esteem, such as depression and eating disorders?

Well – if you ask a woman what she likes least about herself, she will rarely say “I hate my personality”; instead she will say “I hate my teeth”, or thighs, or some other physical attribute. I am as guilty as the rest.

Of course, the younger a person is, the less capacity they have to counter negative influences, due to their lack of experience and intellectual maturity. Children will be influenced by myths of perfection much more easily than adults. And it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to resist, given that ever-younger demographics are being targeted by advertisers, acting on behalf of business wishing to sell products to a new market.

Now, it’s very easy to blame the media as regards promoting these superficial values, where physical perfection is prized over internal integrity. And certainly, the media IS the primary arbiter of our culture; its influence is ubiquitous and provides the benchmark by which we judge ourselves. However, laying the blame solely at their door is not desperately constructive.

The lifestyle of the pre-teens has been the focus of a relatively recent campaign of commercialization, including adult-style clothing and makeup at the same time as they have unprecedented access to the media via the internet.

So the pressure to become mini-clones and mini-consumers is immense – and the effect on some girls has clearly been the same as on their teenage counterparts.

The answer is to seek balance – to value forms of status other than simply appearance. So, friends, activities, sport, study – and just being a nice person – kindness, humour, gentleness – need to become valued virtues.

Part of the solution lies with the media – and what a fantastic service it is that the BBC provides with its CBeebies channel, allowing children to enjoy the best of what TV can bring – the fun, the entertainment, the education – without being subjected to a commercial barrage of advertisements. That is public broadcasting at its very best.

But the clear message from the research was how important peer relationships are to young girls’ self-esteem.

This is why girl-guiding, or groups such the Girl Guides are so important, as they offer the perfect environment for girls to develop in a safe and secure environment – helping them to improve and develop positive self-esteem and to see values both in life and in their compatriots that go beyond appearance.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

I believe that, deep down, all humans are good. That is a comforting ethos, handling a portfolio of international development where you are constantly faced by cries for help. People want to help each other if they are able to and if they know how to.

I also believe that countries which have increased their standards of living have done so through trade. It is therefore important to make the point that trade is overall a good thing – the least developed countries are those which have virtually no trade at all, whereas countries like China and India are getting wealthier and seeing big falls in poverty because of trade. These two premises could and therefore should be combined.

Buying a foreign product might help encourage trade and cut poverty. Yet buying a foreign good made by a child who should have spent the day in school and not at an 18 hour-day factory will not. Similarly, in some stores, British shoppers can earn more through their club card points than the people who produce the goods they are buying – that is also unlikely to cut poverty. The practice of Corporate Social responsibility (CSR) therefore has immense potential to connect British shoppers with the hidden face of those who made the goods in the first place. We deserve to know the human cost of our choices and we are beginning to demand an opportunity to make an informed choice when buying goods.

However, while there has been significant progress in this area there is a real danger of CSR becoming window-dressing, a promotional gimmick, rather than actually doing some good in the world. The proliferation of ethical labelling schemes and own-brand fair trade products are especially threatening to the integrity of the voluntary codes of ethical trading initiatives. Shoppers are being overloaded with information – can anybody honestly decipher the myriad of different labels we find on our products? The proliferation of labels of this kind will not only lead to confusion, it will also undermine confidence in labelling in general. Moreover, with so many different labels, how can a shopper judge who is telling the truth, who is bending the truth and who only discloses part of the truth? Different standards allow unscrupulous producers to claim ethical values – and charge a premium for them – which is unfair on those companies who do actually apply ethical standards. This creates a perverse incentive to reduce standards rather than make them better.

It is clear that voluntary codes of ethical conduct have not done enough and it is time to face facts – we need to legislate to give British shoppers the chance to prove that deep down all humans are good and will want to treat others fairly and ethically.

Subsequently, I have often asked the question why there can’t be a single simple label measuring both the environmental and the human cost in producing a good. That would mean that any good would have the same type of label – be it an apple, a radio, or a jumper. The answer from people on the street has always been “yes, why can’t there be such a label?” The answer from supermarkets and companies has so far been “it’s impossible”. But it is possible. We have seen simple standards across areas such as organic food and labelling. My question now, therefore, is why do we have a European wide legal standard for the treatment of vegetables, but not for people?

This article originally appeared in House Magazine

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

I gave this speech when presenting the first Lib Dem blog of the year award.

I blog therefore I am!

I exist for great swathes of people because I blog and I blog to exist (and keep existing) as a politician.

I am trying, in an era when so few people vote and so many people dismiss politicians as being all the same – to demonstrate that I am me, to let all those who read it get to know me as a person, and to do so in a medium which (sometimes!) reaches the parts conventional politics often doesn’t.

When I started my blog – nearly three years ago – I had no idea what I was letting myself in for.

But to write a blog and keep it up over the weeks and years you have to love writing. And I love writing. Politics is so busy, so out there, so frenetic – so blogging is my space for thought and sorting out what I think.

My blog is a personal record of my work in my own words: no middlemen, no media interpretation, just my view of issues and events and activities – with the ability to explain points of view at much greater length than you get in the nanosecond TV soundbite culture. It enables me to get at and be got at by my constituents, the media, local party activists, members of the party, the wider party and my opponents.

And of course – there are pros and cons. The pros are as I have described but there are cons. I’ve been asked nicely, and not so nicely, to remove bits; I have had bits quoted out of context to whip up anger; I’ve had a virtual stalker and of course my political opponents search every word for their own ends.

And it can get difficult – when your party is going through convulsions and you would rather not be accessible or saying anything – you have to be true to the blog. You can’t pick and choose and ignore the embarrassing or the challenging.

I’m not talking about personal matters – but when there is a political issue of the day – such as when Charles’s drinking and the consequent leadership contest was happening – I had to say something. I had to keep it real – or what would be the point of a blog.

Through good times and bad in fact you have to keep writing. In bad time it can be good though to have to keep writing – as with earlier this year when I was one of the signatories on that final letter to Charles Kennedy – and with so much misunderstanding amongst the wider party and general public – I was able to write and explain, not in a sound bite compressed way, what I was doing and why. Fully and in my own words. It was invaluable in dealing with what was a genuine, albeit brief, schism whilst the wider world came to understand the seriousness of the situation we as a party were facing.

You have to keep it real. I read David Miliband’s blog last week – not a dickie bird about Blair / Brown. With all hell breaking loose in the Labour party -you can’t go coy when the going gets tough. Miliband by name Milibland by nature.

And blogging itself is now a major force on the political scene. Blogs now sometimes lead the news as happened with part of the Prescott story.

But how will blogging develop? Where can it go from here? What advantage do I get from blogging and how can I keep ahead of the game. And how can the party use this tool. So much territory to cover and so much to look forward to.

I am just thrilled to see how from little bloggie acorns has grown a veritable army of LibDem bloggers.

Whilst Labour fear blogging and do not wish their MPs etc to blog – clearly for a controlling party blogging would send them into a nervous breakdown. But for us – there is no central control whatsoever. It is still a fledgling tool – but one which can influence the debate beyond its actuality.

As more and more bloggers, Lib Dem or others join our merry band – it will become more challenging to be distinct or win awards or attract people to one’s blog – but in the end – that is one of the real beauties of blogging – the audience is and audience of interest – and that can be whoever you choose.

And I was spoilt for choice in the judging of these awards. There is a wide range of approach – but what is clear – there is real talent out there.

Note: the winner was Stephen Tall.

I’m on the war path! Children in Hornsey and Wood Green are getting less funding per head from the Government than children in neighbouring boroughs – even though the cost of teaching them is the same!

It’s all because the Government uses different rules for costs and for funding – causing a £736.00 gap for each child every year. What happens is that our local schools are classified as ‘inner London’ when it comes to costs like teachers’ wages. But when it comes to Government funding to help pay them – then our schools get classified as ‘outer London’ – which brings a lower level of funding than if they were ‘inner London’.

It should be a matter of common sense to use the same rules for both costs and funding – but as the Government doesn’t, local schools have to find a way to deal with that £736.00 gap. No matter how excellent the teachers, other staff and heads are – and many, many locally are just that – they can’t do as good a job as they could if it wasn’t for that £736.00 gap for every child every year.

I know from the trail of desperate parents to my surgery door how important education is to local people. The first week in September will see scores of parents whose children will not have got their first, second or third choice of school.In some cases this leads to the absurd situation of parents being able to see the school from their house but not seen their children there as the catchment area is so small.

If our area had more funding for education, perhaps we could not only have better education but also expand schools to make pupils more likely to get the school of their choice.The outdated system of inner and outer London completely fails to deal with the realities of our area.Is it right that Hackney, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster pupils get more than a Haringey child?Greater ‘revenue’ from the government in the form of higher per pupil allocation would give that extra boast to allow proper planning for school places.

It is a little known fact that pupils in Haringey are only guaranteed a school place in year 1 and year 7.That means if you move into the area in any other year and that year group is full, then there is simply no place for your child.I believe this is currently the case with year 10 in Haringey schools.This in effect means that if you happened to move into the area and your child was due to go into year 10 your child will be given part-time tutoring until a place comes free.This is the bare legal minimum of an education and hardly the proper educational environment that will see our children flourish.And we wonder why social mobility has slowed down?When you take into consideration facts like this – it makes you realise how wrong this bizarre education funding system is – and what raw deal we get given, and what some children are having to put up with.

Obviously when this government says that every child matters they mean some children matter more than others. I have also written to the Secretary of State for Schools, Ed Balls, to put Hornsey & Wood Green’s case. I await his response. I am also seeking a meeting with him to press home how unfair this situation is to the education of children here in Hornsey & Wood Green.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

Imagine you’ve been burgled and (by a small miracle!) someone is up in court, charged with the burglary. How impressed would you be if the accused said, "OK, I did do it – but you have to understand. I’m a poor student at the local university and all the French and US students there steal things too, so it wouldn’t be fair if I was left out and had to make do without the proceeds of crime too?" Not very I think! But that’s pretty much the excuse so often rolled out to brush away corruption around international arms deals – everyone else gives out bribes you know, and it would be so unfair and unforgivable if we didn’t too.

So – despite the allegations involving huge sums of money and numerous senior people – both Labour and the Conservatives have been happy for the corruption investigation around the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia to be dropped. And it’s the only area of crime (other than graffiti!) where – when campaigning against it – I’ve encountered a handful of people saying, "but it’s ok".

Well – I beg to differ on several counts!

First – paying bribes to get a contract like this is illegal. This is not a matter of business – this is a matter of criminal behaviour. If you don’t like the idea of your burglar or mugger just shrugging off the law and saying, "why should it apply to me?" you’ve got to address head on the question of why the law shouldn’t apply to arms corruption, rather than just shrug your shoulders and say, "oh, but others do it, so it must be ok".

Second – and perhaps the argument that will be most persuasive to those who say that any rocking of the boat (or upsetting of the gravy train) will damage our ability to get contracts – and so cost us jobs – many in the City and British business have in fact said that British business and our export trade have been damaged overall by the Al Yamamah affair. The damage to our reputation – as honest people to do business with – has hit people in many other walks of business.

Third – corruption begets corruption. Corruption and bribery seeps out to a wider and wider range of behaviour unless it is tackled firmly. The long-term damage from a government sinking under corruption and bribery is massive – to the country itself and also to the UK’s own long-term interests. Governments falling into chaos are often the breeding ground for extremism and catastrophes that hit innocent people and fuel violent conflict.

Fourth – because of this, turning a blind eye to high-level corruption isn’t a necessary compromise to work with countries like Saudi in the fight against terrorism. Rather, it makes the work of terrorists easier because tapping into anger at corrupt governments is one of their sources of support.

Fifth – stopping corruption in big arms deals is a realistic aim. There are a very limited number of players in the field capable of supplying these massive contracts, and there is a strong international will – from governments and suppliers – to cut out the corruptions. After all the business will still be there to be competed over – but cutting out corruption will actually cut out a business cost to them all.

The UK’s behaviour has seriously hit this international anti-corruption drive – but with our full backing it has a real chance of success. Far from other countries taking a soft line on corruption – they are taking it seriously: the US regularly deploy the forces of law, France has prosecuted eight people under the OECD international convention that Labour here so likes to walk away from and earlier this summer South Africa signed up to the convention too.

Finally, just to be clear – I am talking about bribes and not about commissions. Commissions are legitimate and paid to those who have done the work to bring a project and its contractors to a deal. Corruption is something different – and the need for legitimate and proportionate payments for people who do legitimate work does not somehow make bribes necessary or inevitable.

So, for me – corruption is a crime, and I don’t think criminals should get away with it.

This article first appeared on Liberal Democrat Voice.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

The media keep banging on about MPs going off on their 10 week ‘holiday’. I can only think in my own case – if only! I will have two weeks and two days actual holiday – for those particularly interested in my private life one week sorting out my house, one week in France and two days at the Edinburgh Festival. That’s it.

As for the other near eight weeks? Well – Parliament being in recess gives MPs (at least, the conscientious ones) the chance to do the sorts of things that get squeezed out during the manic schedules when Parliament is sitting. Some of that is dong research and learning – having the chance to study topics in more depth than you get in the nano-second media and Parliament culture. But also it gives more time to engage with the public.

In my case, one of my main thrusts of activity this recess is to get round as many of the small shops, restaurants, pubs and businesses in my constituency as I can manage.

These establishments are the lifeblood of the local communities that depend on them. As a former businesswoman I know only too well how hard it is for businesses to keep their head above water. Contrary to a view I hear expressed from time to time about businesses coining it, most of the small businesses I know find it pretty tough to keep going against the ever-imposing burdens of bureaucracy, costs and competition from multiples. Yes – there are those that make a decent profit – and good luck to them, but many are just holding their heads above the water.

Business rates, rent reviews, employment law, red tape – and in some places poorly worked out parking schemes – all take their chunk out of business profits – and in my constituency (Hornsey & Wood Green) a recent slew of rent rises threatened the future of some of our favourite businesses.

No one says that landlords should not raise rents when the five-yearly or whatever reviews comes around, but just sometimes you have to say that they appear to really push it – often to the point of pushing out the local independent business who has been a good tenant for years. Such businesses cannot always afford the massive hikes put forward and they decide to give up as the rent hike takes virtually all the profit they have struggled to make in a whole year’s work at a stroke – and we lose our long-serving and much loved community shops.

You could take the view that it is a free market and if the landlord can find someone to pay more – then s/he is entitled. I don’t take that view. The market doesn’t work fully and effectively as many of the costs and benefits involved are not reflected in the market prices – for example if the loss of small local shops makes more people travel to big shopping centres, the congestion and pollution that can cause doesn’t get costed and included in the rent level negotiations for the small shops in the first place. Another example – a good range of shops can help regenerate an area, bringing all sorts of benefits in terms of reduced poverty, reduce crime and happier communities that at best only tangentially feature in the profit and loss accounts of the landlord.

Moreover, the little businesses cannot pay the key money to get into the market or the high rents that the multiples can afford. That sort of obstacle to small businesses competing with large firms is another market failure, and that’s why we need policies to address them.

Two in particular appeal to me – landlords should be more willing to let small and new businesses pay a smaller proportion of their rent in advance, until the business and the cash flow builds up. In addition, just as we are used to the idea that property developers should provide some affordable housing when making housing developments, why shouldn’t shopping developments have similar conditions – if you get to make a big new retail development, part of the quid pro quo could be that you have to provide some affordable retail spaces?

And the other key necessity – is for local authorities to please, please, please, properly consult with local businesses and residents before they next come up with parking plans that will affect trade!

And – that’s just one of my summer campaigns. So next time you read in the media that MPs are off on 10 weeks hols – you will know better!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007