I can’t help but observe the contrast between how Britain and China deals with protestors. In Britain – the police’s response to protests during the passage of the Olympic Torch through London was to pop the torch on a bus for a bit. How very English! And then in China we have the dark side of the contrast – the violence, gunshots and even deaths that are the frequent response to protests.

Standing in Bloomsbury Square last Sunday chanting ‘China Out’ in reply to a young Tibetan shouting out through a megaphone ‘Free Tibet’ reminded me not only of the issue in question but also of the feeling you get when you go out onto the streets to claim your democratic right to peaceful protest. It is active. And it makes you feel that you are not taking it lying down; not abjectly rolling over, tut-tutting at the pictures on the news whilst saying there is nothing I can do.

Indeed, in a world of global, near-instant media, protests in one part of the world can garner coverage all over the globe – including, directly or indirectly, in China itself. (I know how well the internet reaches all sorts in China from when I was on the London Assembly – and got a three page marriage proposal from a fisherman in a remote part of China!)

As you may have guessed – I don’t buy the argument that Olympics = sports = you mustn’t say anything about anything other than sport. The Chinese Government has been repeatedly and politicising the Olympics for its own ends – so simply mouthing that formula means conceding it is ok to politicise the Olympics to promote thuggish authoritarianism but not ok to speak out against such behaviour. Where is the morality in that approach of self-censorship and unnecessary deference?

It’s a question of morality that, I hope, our Prime Minister will consider more carefully as the Olympics approach. So far, Gordon Brown seems too timid to show any real displeasure at China’s repeated abuse of basic human rights. Numerous other government heads have spoken and acted – but not our own. What is the point of having the privilege of holding a post such as Prime Minister if you’re not willing to use it to speak out when needed? Will Gordon Brown continue to jump through every hoop the Chinese present to him, or will he find the moral voice to speak up for the rest of us?

I am luckier than most people in that as an MP I can raise issues in a way most people cannot, including in Parliament where I have also criticised China for failing to fully use her influence with the Khartoum government to stop the genocide in Darfur. But there is nothing like physically making a public statement the way you can in a protest.

It was inevitable the second China was awarded the Olympics that there was going to be a need to use the opportunity both to engage with China – and also to clearly state the sort of behaviour we find acceptable – and that certainly does not include what we have seen directly in Tiananmen Square, what we are seeing in Tibet or what we are seeing via China’s failure to act in Darfur.

On Sunday we saw people in London coming out to show China our disapproval of her behaviour. Who would rather it any other way? Would the silence and compliance of Gordon Brown’s meek appearance in Downing Street really have been preferable?

But events do not stop with last weekend, nor with the Olympics this summer. I am part of a group of British MPs who take part in a forum to build and strengthen Chinese/Anglo relationships. The Chinese Ambassador to Great Britain, who is a delightful and disarming and extremely personable woman, said at one of these sessions that we in the West have a responsibility to help China understand what being a responsible world power means. That is a challenge and offer I am happy to take up.

It has to be carrot and stick. The Olympics are a significant carrot. Our protest – a small but necessary stick. I have no doubt that in the long term all our interests will be best served by engagement and the formation of sustainable bonds – set alongside clear and unequivocal speaking out on human rights abuses and similar issues.

Photo credit: Flickr user http2007

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

My normal columns are usually about local issues – Post Offices, parking and so on. But I know national issues matter to local people too, and one of the touchiest at the moment is the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill – and whether MPs will vote to represent their constituents, their party line or their conscience.

So much of the media coverage and debate over the Bill has been on whether or not Labour should or would allow a ‘free vote’. But all this focus on the logistics of the political process misses two points.

First – the political process story is being presented as if the only way that Labour MPs get to vote with their conscience is if there is a free vote. That’s wrong – a vote being whipped doesn’t suddenly mean all choice is taken away from you. Sure – it’s harder to vote ‘the other way’ if there’s a three line whip in place, but we shouldn’t be so blinded by the Parliamentary whipping system as to think that if a whip is in place you have all your freedom of choice removed. And indeed- the more it is a matter of deeply held conscience to you, the easier it should be to ignore what the whips say and vote the way your head or heart tells you.

Second – all the process stuff has so dominated discussion that we are in danger of losing the larger moral picture. How can I look in the eye of a constituent who is suffering from a disease such as Alzheimer’s and say, “I am going to oppose giving scientists the best possible chance to cure your disease?”

Letting scientists use the empty shell of an animal cell (one without its nucleus) to house human genetic material and then create cells from that for use in research does not get anywhere near some of the extreme “Frankenstein monster” type arguments that have been rolled out.

When it comes to health care there are many difficult issues – too many opportunities, and not enough money to pay for them all (regardless of which party is setting spending levels). But when we have opportunities that resources do allow – how can I turn my back on people and say, “No, I don’t want the best research carried out into healing you?”

For me, the only moral, conscionable choice is to say – “yes, we’re going to do our best to give scientists a chance of curing your disease”.

I appreciate some people will disagree with that – but for me too, this is a moral choice. Not being a Christian myself, I am naturally wary of telling Christians how they should interpret their religious beliefs, but I am taken by the interpretation many American Christians have taken during the similar debates over stem cells in the US: in the words of Senator Claire McCaskill, “My faith directs me to heal the sick. God gave us the miracle of human intelligence to find cures … I come down on the side of hope, hope for cures and supporting science”.

Whether we believe human intelligence is a creature of God or not, we should all come down on the side of helping the sick and the ill by supporting the search for cures.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

My recent blog posting about Twitter (it’s a text message blogging service, which I’ve just started using) was unusual – unusual in that in triggered off a sequence of other blogs posts, both on Liberal Democrat sites (e.g. here and here) and on others (e.g. here).

I say unusual – because it’s rare to see a story start on one Liberal Democrat blog and then be picked up and spread across the Liberal Democrat blogosphere, let alone beyond the confines of the party.

The contrast with the American political blogosphere – and even right-wing blogs in the UK – is, to me, striking. And I say that particularly because, from what I’ve seen of the stats, my blog has one of the largest readerships of any Liberal Democrat blog – not in Liberal Democrat Voice’s class, but possibly second only to it. So why is it that it is so rare for my stories to be picked up and spread online, even when they are newsworthy enough for mainstream journalists to be picking them up and running with them?

Perhaps you think it’s because of something I don’t get right with my blog – but the same question applies to all the Liberal Democrat blogs I’ve seen. It seems very rare for a story to be picked up and spread. Where stories do get spread you see two benefits – they reach a wider audience and also along the way they often pick up more facts and details as different people chip in with their own pieces of information. So to go back to Twitter – if you read the three pieces linked to above, you’ll end up with a rounder picture of how politicians could and do use Twitter than if you’d just read my original piece.

Bigger audience, better information – that’s got to be a good thing, hasn’t it? So why doesn’t it happen more often?

It’s not as if we don’t know what each other is saying. Indeed, through things like the Blogger of the Year awards at conference, the excellent LibDemBlogs aggregator, the group blogger interviews with leading party figures etc etc I think there is a real sense of community amongst Liberal Democrat bloggers, and everyone spends time reading each other.

So overall I think this is symptomatic of a wider issue – and that’s that Liberal Democrat bloggers tend to be either fairly inward or local looking. There are many blogs that really talk all about what is happening in the party, along with a smaller number of – often excellent – blogs which are clearly aimed at a particular local audience (e.g. a councillor’s blog such as Mary Reid’s, which seems to be largely aimed at her constituents – understandably enough!).

What we seem to be missing are those combative, outward looking souls who spot a story and want to help spread or extend the message or the point or the attack, as opposed to inwardly looking expressing their own views on it. So you tend to get stories not spreading, and where they are commented on, they are only commented on by those who have reservations to express.

Mark Pack made a similar point at the first Blogger of the Year awards in 2006 :

"A lot of people feel that blogging is very much them commentating on something. They’re expressing they’re views; they’re putting them out there; they’re letting people see what they think. [But] one of the trends that is very clear in the US is that a lot of bloggers feel that rather than being commentators actually they want to be really active participants in the political process and quite deliberately use their blogs to campaign."

At the moment, it is as if Liberal Democrat blogs provide the online equivalent of committee meetings and pizza and politics events – vital but inward looking – but don’t provide the online equivalent of those outward looking activities such as leafleting and canvassing.

To me, that is the collective challenge we face if we really want to help build the party into leading a wider liberal movement that doesn’t just bring greater electoral success for us, but also brings a stronger voice to liberal causes and which reaches out and engages with those audiences that are so often disaffected with politics.

This article first appeared on Liberal Democrat Voice, where you can also read the subsequent discussion.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

How do you want the police to operate? Local police on the beat in thesame area week after week, or ever-shifting faces occasionally poppingup from a distant mega-police centre? And what about health services? Alocal site where you can see the same doctor time after time, or adistant one you have to travel to where you never see the same person?Or what about benefits? A local office where you can talk to someone whoremembers your case from visit to visit or an anonymous automatedtelephone system where it takes ages even to talk to a person – and it’snever the same person as last time?

The answer time and time again is that what people want – and whatdelivers the best services – is for public services to be deliveredlocally, by people who know the community and are rooted in thecommunity. People don’t want to get in their cars or on a bus to accesspostal services, their local GPs or have access to a police frontcounter – especially in an age where so many roads are clogged up andwhere curbing pollution is so necessary.

But our Labour government, so often want to centralise – stripping awaylocal services, closing local facilities and undermining localcommunities. The Labour steamroller seems to believe that ever moredistant services are desired – but they aren’t.

The latest travesty (and tragedy) will see (if they get their way) PostOffices after Post Office close in Haringey and all across London.Before that it was polyclinics – and the idea of moving GP practiseslike the Highgate Group Practice and Dukes Avenue Practice away fromtheir patients and on to the site of the old Hornsey Central Hospitalinstead. Thankfully, I think the Health Trust may by now have got theidea that local people don’t want to lose their local GP practice.

And I don’t think there is a person in Highgate who isn’t keen on theHighgate Safer Neighbourhood Team being stationed in Highgate ratherthan as currently at Muswell Hill. And having stomped the Archway Roadwith police officers looking at likely properties (shops mainly) it is aplain as the nose on your face that the best and most suitable place tostation our local team is on the ground floor of the old Highgate PoliceStation.

So – who is the Government doing this for? Not us – for sure. It’s time that the powers that be realised that they are not there to destroy our lives as we want to live them. Our communities are just that – our communities – andpolice, health and postal services are integral to our everyday livesand everyday needs. To take just one example: our local parades of shopsare supported by people using postal services. Older people, motherswith buggies and people with disabilities would have enormous extraburden to have to get to services further away – let alone all of uswaiting in ever-lengthening queues.

It doesn’t have to be like that though. It’s not a question of localservices not being financially viable – some of the Post Officesearmarked for closure are actually making a profit, and the long termfinancial (let alone any other) cost of seeing areas spiral down intodecay and neglect as services are stripped away is huge.

What we need is real energy and inventiveness being applied tosupporting local services – such as by making our local Post Offices thehub for the provision of a wider range of public services, bringing themto our doorsteps whilst also safeguarding the Post Offices. Essex CountyCouncil are leading the way on this – looking to take over some PostOffices that are threatened with closure, and to then combine them withlocal council services to end up with Post Offices that are local, openand pay their way: it’s a case of win, win, win. That’s just the sort ofimagination we need in Haringey too!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

This Labour Government is determined to destroy another key part of the very fabric of our community in Muswell Hill and the wider area with its insane closure of the Alexandra Park Road Post Office and several others.

Our local Post Offices are a much loved and vital part of our community. But Labour’s obsession with trying to squeeze out yet more financial savings (whilst wasting millions in other parts of government) would see another 2,500 Post Offices close across the country as they force the Royal Mail to follow their central targets.

For us locally it’s not just Alexandra Park that faces losing its Post Office – Highgate Village, Weston Park, Ferme Park Road and Salisbury Road are all also facing the same axe. Not all Post Offices face the axe mind – Labour is not wanting to chop any of the three Post Offices all located within the Palace of Westminster. So – no Post Office for Highgate, but three just for the Palace of Westminster!

With a very short consultation period (surprise!), we all need to pull together to fight to save our Post Offices. We need Alexandra Park Road’s Post Office. People use it and like it. How dare they decide that it should close and we must all off to some other Post Office instead?

And given the problems with traffic congestion in the area – how short-sighted to want to take away another local service and make many people, especially those who find it hard to move around, to take to the roads, whether by car or bus, to get to their services. In particular, for older people, people with disabilities, mothers with pushchairs and so on – think how much more difficult lives would become without a local facility.

This proposal has all the hallmarks of out-of-touch bureaucrats who don’t understand the local situation running amok.

For some older people, their walk to their local Post Office is the only time they go out of their house all week. Labour don’t seem to understand the nature of the life-line and fundamental structural nature the local Post Office plays in the fabric of our daily lives.

Some of the Post Offices facing closure are in fact making a profit – so the argument that they aren’t viable doesn’t stack up! Even where their viability is less certain – with political will there could be Council and Government services put through a local Post Office. Instead – the Government has simply stripped away and eroded their functions.

So – please back the campaign to save Alexandra Park Road Post Office and sign up at ourcampaign.org.uk/haringeypostoffices.

We must demonstrate the strength of public feeling at this short-sighted and gratuitous attack on our local services and community.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

A bomb is about to go off, blowing up hundreds of innocent people. One terrorist knows the location. You’ve got them in custody. Do you torture them to find out where it is?

Thus runs the common moral dilemma beloved of Hollywood movies and TV shows, frequently these days it seems staring Kiefer Sutherland. Are you a mealy mouthed liberal or are you willing to take the tough action necessary to fight terrorism?

Real life isn’t that straightforward – it doesn’t present such clear-cut scenarios, and anyway evidence from torture isn’t reliable: could you really be sure the terrorist told you the truth rather than a fib to waste your time? And the tough-guy macho act in real life all too often results in the innocent being harassed, tortured or killed as you charge off in the wrong direction based on incomplete or misleading information (remember Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly just waiting to be found by US and UK troops?).

However, a case a constituent raised with me recently got me thinking about the placebo effect – and the genuine dilemma it presents, particular for those – like myself – of a liberal mindset who believe in giving people as much information and power over their own lives as possible.

The placebo effect is seen when people are given treatment, such as pills, where the psychological impact of thinking that the treatment will make you better actually does – even if the pills are inert, containing no health-giving recipe at all. Give people a “medicine” that is really nothing such, but tell them it will make them better – and, lo, it can do.

It’s a weird display of the power of the mind when given a suggestion; a happy flip side perhaps of the power of the mind over the body you so often see when one of a couple who have been happily married for decades passes away – and then the other slips away shortly afterwards as if their mind simply no longer has any desire to keep their body going.

Of course it doesn’t work for all people in all circumstances (that would make the NHS’s job easy if it did!), but it’s a real, solid, verifiable effect – and one that medical scientists have to take into account when testing new medicine because, without allowing for it, their tests may otherwise fool them into thinking that some possible new medicine really does have health-giving properties when in fact it is only the placebo effect at work.

This to me seems as close as we get to modern magic in the sciences. It sounds a mad idea really in many ways isn’t it – the idea that if you think something will make you better, it really does? And yet – that’s just what modern science has found time and time again.

There are all sorts of wonderful details around the placebo effect – such as the colour of the pills impacts on how strong the effect is, because some colours are implicitly more strongly associated with making you better than others – and of course the colours that work best vary from culture to culture!

Which brings me to the dilemma. If a GP telling me that a treatment is extremely likely to work makes it actually more likely to work (because of the placebo effect) then shouldn’t they perhaps lie to me and tell me that even if it isn’t really that likely to work?

Ben Goldacre (I think) made the point well in The Guardian a little while back that this perhaps helps explain some of the popularity of alternative medicines compared with traditional medicine. For traditional medicine, GPs have shifted hugely in their outlook – being told to tell patients the full range of information about possible treatments, their chances of success and possible side-effects – and thereby sowing doubt into patients’ minds. But alternative medicine is often presented by its practitioners with absolute confidence – and so (regardless of any other benefits) scoring an immediate win on the placebo front.

Now – there are all sorts of benefits about keeping patients properly informed, including keeping a checking on conventional wisdom or vested interests getting out of control.

Yet here is the riddle: if doing that means they are actually less likely to get well in that immediate here and now case, who wouldn’t be tempted to shade the information? Would you be tempted to tell you child or partner a small fib about how sure you are the treatment is to work even if you know otherwise? And would that really be wrong?

For that personal circumstance – I am happy to let others make their own judgement in their own circumstances. But overall – there doesn’t seem to be a way to square the circle. Interesting dilemma…!

This article first appeared on Liberal Democrat Voice.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

The risk with keeping a public diary (as I do with my blog) is that it means your words are out there, in full public view – and (thanks to search engines, caching and all that malarkey) even still there to be found if I hit delete on my own site.

So – when Brian Paddick, a former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, put his name forward to be the Liberal Democrat candidate for London Mayor, I went through two immediate emotions. Firstly – pleasure, because my experiences of dealing with him whilst he was serving in the police and I was serving on the Metropolitan Policy Authority were very positive. But secondly – anxiety, because I did wonder whether I’d ever written something critical about him – and if so whether therefore my words would get quoted back at me or Brian for evermore – or at least, until polling day.

Thankfully – searching the blog revealed that my views had indeed all been positive, not just in retrospect but also at the time. Hurrah!

But what was it about him that impressed me? Well – it was the combination of a successful record of actually tacking crime whilst also being open and willing to address those issues about the police which can cause the public, particular members of ethnic minority communities, concern.

Take stop and search – it has a valuable role in fighting crime, but when misapplied by over-enthusiastic police, it results in innocent people being harassed, police time wasted by stopping the wrong people and worsening community relations – bad in themselves and also bad for the cooperation needed to tackle crime.

Some police do get very defensive about any questioning of this tactic – and some even feel that if you don’t 100% support unlimited stop and searching of anyone, anytime in any circumstances then you are not really on their side.

Brian Paddick though was one of the police officers smarter than that – he understood that abusing a technique loses public support and actually hinders the fight against crime – and was always willing to engage in debate over how the policy should best be shaped.

I really can’t therefore think of someone better suited to become London Mayor and to head up the drive against crime in London. Thank goodness then Brian Paddick turns out to be a Liberal Democrat – I must admit I would probably have had some real conscience pangs if he’d stood as an independent against a Liberal Democrat candidate!

It’s not just in the area of policing that I think Brian would be the serious, effective choice – rather than cheeky chappy Ken or talk show celebrity without a previous track record of interest in LondonBoris Johnson.

Look at the serious allegations hanging around over money and the London Development Agency. Six grants under scrutiny by the police. Lack of proper financial controls over grants totalling £18.5 million (including millions given to the Bernie Grant centre here in Haringey) criticised by financial inspectors. One of the top GLA aides forced to resign after lying about receiving a freebie trip overseas. And a host of other allegations too.

Ken’s response to all this? Either to crack jokes or to shout “racism”. Well no Ken – it’s not racism to want money to be looked after properly. After all – it is the very members of ethnic minority communities who suffer most if funding designed to tackle poverty in those communities has ended up being wasted, diverted or stolen.

So sending in a former top policeman to sort out City Hall could be rather advantageous in other ways too!

Having spent five years myself as an Assembly member and seen how tough it is to deliver in London – this is no job for an amiable entertainer. It is a grown up job for someone who knows how to deliver. And both crime and fear of crime is still a key issue for Londoners. Having a top cop at the helm – and one with a record of delivering crime reduction is clearly an advantage. Brian has already pledged to cut crime by 20% in his first term or he won’t stand again – and he has the track-record of having delivered the best crime reductions in London on his commands.

I think you can therefore guess who I will be voting for!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

Just imagine Highgate Village on a summer day – with no bus stand! A beautiful pedestrianised area with no noisy, smelly buses with engines idling – and local people able to stroll happily – stopping to chat with friends and neighbours.

In a period where Mayor Ken Livingstone is about to face the electorate – and having publicly called for improvements to the public realm – this is his chance to put his money where his mouth is.

However, when the Highgate Society put together a very comprehensive paper regarding the possible relocation of the 271 bus stand, Mayor Ken didn’t want to know – Mayor Ken in the form of Transport for London that is.

Despite the well-researched paper the Highgate Society presented, and the many pleas for a meeting – Transport for London resisted all approaches. Even their response to the report failed to significantly address the very cogent points raised by the Highgate Society – points such as danger to pedestrians forcing them into the street to get past the buses, the confusion over whether to wait at the bus stand or across the street at the stop – resulting in people often running across the road at the last minute, traffic congestion, the huge petition in favour of it being moved and really a whole raft of other equally good reasons to at least seriously consider moving the stand.

Ken wants to pedestrianise Oxford Street and Parliament Square and has already done part of Trafalgar Square (which is much improved). It is all in the name of improving the quality of public space and the ambiance for us human beings. Well why should we local people not have an equal right to improve our own local environment? There shouldn’t be one rule for Ken and another for us peasants!

Anyway – I harangued Peter Hendy (Transport Commissioner for London) at Transport for London – and the good news is that they have now agreed to a meeting on site. My office is now in process of arranging for that meeting to take place.

We want to work with Transport for London to really make sure that we can both have a more peaceful, less polluted and pleasant village – AND ensure that the public transport links that serve the village and us are improved!

So fingers crossed that we get Transport for London officers with vision at this meeting. With a bit of vision and good will – Highgate Village could be transformed.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

That is the question facing Arts Council England over our Jacksons Lane Community Centre.

Just over a couple of years ago I went to the thirtieth anniversary celebrations of the centre – an evening thick with reminiscences about the excellent community campaigning that went into bring about the creation of the centre in the first place. The event included a production called ‘Motions in Time’ by Daryl Beeton – an actor with a disability – and highly appropriate given how Jacksons Lane led the way in its work making disabled actors a parity in the profession. That is but one example of the benefits Jacksons Lane has brought the community.

Its courses and events have brought so much enjoyment and knowledge to the community – and, like any great community resource, has enriched and strengthened our community too. Whenever I’ve visited – whether on official business or to sample its offerings myself – I’ve been struck by the breadth of events and range of people involved.

Sadly, though, this much loved community centre now faces losing key funding (a £125,000 a year grant) because the Arts Council have questioned Haringey Council’s commitment to the centre. And if Haringey Council isn’t committed to the centre, why then – goes their logic – should they also put money in? Wouldn’t their money be better spent on, and get more value from, projects in other communities which do have full local backing?

The problem is that Haringey Council is the landlord at Jacksons Lane – and for years and years did nothing much on the maintenance of the building. The Centre itself is in an invidious position as I guess it has always been difficult for it to criticise the hand that feeds it – and so it has always tried to get help without making a big fuss and been reluctant to attack the Council publicly. The need for some major renovations work built up – a situation made worse by a storm causing roof damage in early 2006 that was so severe the centre had to close.

Haringey dragged its feet for a long time on sorting this, though in the run-up to the last council elections suddenly found the money the repairs after all – handy thing, elections! But this reluctance to fund repairs – combined with Haringey Council’s refusal to give the centre a 25 years lease – have made the Arts Council doubt Haringey’s commitment. If the Arts Council cuts its grant, things will be very grim for the Jacksons Lane.

Already the refusal of the 25-year lease means Jacksons Lane missed out on applying for a £1 million grant from the Community Asset Fund (one of the lottery funds) and now with the Arts Council grant under threat too things are not looking great. So I’ve been busy lobbying the Arts Council and also working with the area’s councillors (Bob Hare, Justin Portess and Neil Williams) to mobilise the community to make sure that our voice is heard.

I think Neil Williams (Liberal Democrat Council Leader) got it spot on when he said, “Jacksons Lane is a wonderful community asset for Highgate, providing classes and a space for meetings that is really valued by local people – but it has been badly neglected by the Labour Council.”

The Arts Council may have good reasons to doubt Haringey Council’s commitment – but we must make sure they hear loud and clear the message that the rest of the community is committed to the centre. As well as collecting signatures door-to-door on a petition, we have also been running an online petition – which I hope Ham and High readers will sign to. It’s at www.ourcampaign.org.uk/jacksons – please do sign it!

In the meantime, for me it’s back to lobbying, lobbying, lobbying – otherwise know as nagging which, as I’ve commented on before, is right up my street as a middle-aged woman’s life skill!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

It’s 80 minutes into an Arsenal-Tottenham football derby. Tottenham lead 1-0. Arsenal are piling on the pressure. The Tottenham manager shouts at the ref, “OK, that’s it – can we have the final score now please?” The ref agrees, all the players troop off the pitch 10 minutes early and Tottenham get the three points.

Sounds absurd doesn’t it (and I don’t just mean the idea of Tottenham beating Arsenal!)?

But that’s what passes for normal in the world of Palace of Westminster politics when it comes to general election dates. The Prime Minister – and the Prime Minister alone – gets to choose the date. Now – in theory Parliaments last for five years and the monarch has to agree to any earlier election, but in practice – the PM always gets his or her way.

Yet why should the PM get to choose the election date? We all know how PMs have chosen the date – they choose a date when they think they have a decent chance of winning. Fixing part of an election system just so you can maximise your own chances of winning – isn’t that normally called rigging an election?

You might think that is a rather drastic charge, but what other part of choosing the terms and conditions of an election could be left to the Prime Minister to choose – and choose just on the basis of what maximises his or her chance of re-election? Imagine the outrage if a Prime Minister got up and said, “You know, I think we won’t let the over-85s vote this time round.” The power to set the date of an election is an extremely powerful tool to influence its outcome – and so one that shouldn’t be wielded for partisan advantage.

Democracy after all is for all of us – it’s for the public to control who runs things, not for those in power to manipulate the public into re-electing them.

And that’s why the case for fixed-term Parliaments is so persuasive. Don’t let the Prime Minister fiddle the system to suit themselves – instead fix the date of election. (Personally, I’d prefer scope for two variations on this – an automatic general election on the appointment of a new Prime Minister, because although we don’t have a Presidential system in practice many voters do cast their votes based on who the leaders are, and the possibility of cross-party agreement for a general election at other times to cover unusual circumstances of crises. But both of these are only elaborations of the core point – elections are for the public’s, not the PM’s, convenience).

There is a glimmer of hope after the Grand Old Duke of York farce of Gordon Brown’s nearly-but-not-quite calling of a general election after the Labour Party conference in 2007 where he marched all his troops up to the top of the hill ready for an election, and then marched them all back down again. Such blatant posturing poured particular discredit on the exercise of the power to fix the election date.

It also highlighted the significant costs and inconvenience to others – such as the staff who have to actually organise the running of elections – when they are messed around with weeks of “will he? won’t he?” stories rather than having a clear date and timetable to work to.

We now have the best opportunity since the early 1990s to see fixed-term Parliaments introduced. Back then the Labour Party – including one Mr G Brown – supported them in their 1992 general election manifesto. Shame that when they got their hands on power those views never saw the light of day again – convenient, hey? But after Grand Old Duke of York saga, even some in the Labour party are muttering about the need to change the rules. The same too is true of the Conservatives – not a party traditionally warm to such ideas, but having nearly been on the receiving end of such an abuse of power, there is hope there too.

Of course my own party, the Liberal Democrats, have consistently argued for fixed-term Parliaments. But with signs of movement in the other parties too, we now face the real prospect of being able to secure change.

You can help bring about this change by backing the cross-party campaign at www.fixedterm.org.uk.

This article first appeared in Liberator.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008