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