It’s New Year’s Day as I sit down to write. Christmas has come and gone in the usual familiar way – frenetic build up and then the luxury of the world itself (mostly) stopping.

I love the familiarity of Christmas. I’m not Christian – but I adopted Christmas long ago. It really has everything you need for a good family tradition – if you are lucky enough to have a family.

The rhythm and pattern of life and its familiarity anyway is important to me. I sometimes think that’s why I ended up living in Highgate, having grown up here (in Highpoint on North Hill) from the age of five. Much of my childhood was spent in the gardens there or in Waterlow Park – where my uncle took me each Saturday to feed the squirrels and the pigeons. I used to love to put some peanuts in my hand and hold it out for the pigeons to fly up and land on my hand whilst they ate. Now nothing would horrify me more! I am clearly moving towards Grumpy Old Woman status!

I went to Highgate Primary School and played kiss-chase in Highgate Woods – occasionally even letting myself be caught! I was taken to Highgate Police station once when young and lost – and yes it was once open and working – and the officer ‘phoned my mother to say ‘I have your little girl here’. Very Dixon of Dock Green.

So – do we all hanker after familiarity and days gone by? No – I just get sentimental on New Year’s Day. The front page of the Guardian this morning carried the picture of Saddam at the moment of death with the noose around his neck and an account of the mobile phone footage sound track, which was unedifying and distasteful. Back to earth with a bump.

I was horrified that anyone would film such a moment and put it on the net – almost equating it to entertainment. And horrified too on reading that some of those present had hurled abuse and taunted Saddam – as if they were taking part in an act of violent revenge rather than the final stage of a legal process. That way lies even more trouble for Iraq.

So as 2007 marches forward -I wonder and worry about the way the world is going and resolve, as ever, to take more exercise and work even harder to make the world a better place.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

I was discussing horse racing with my sister. She had come over for a coffee between Christmas and New Year and we were talking about possible outings. She suggested going to the races and advised studying the form before going. I said I didn’t know how to read form. Racing pages and form are not my specialist subject – though she pointed out that our mother had taught her how to read the form. When I go to the dogs at Walthamstow, I bet on the trap number – I am that sophisticated, not!

Then she really surprised me and said that she remembered our mother taking her to the horse racing at Ally Pally. Well – firstly – why wasn’t I included? Possibly because I was only about five at the time. And secondly – how extraordinary given how well I know the history of the Pally – that I didn’t know that my own mother had taken to going to the horses and gambling there!

Of course, when the Palace is contracted out to developer Firoka for one hundred and twenty-five years and there is no plan, as far as I am aware, to re-introduce racing. However, there was a big row about the preservation of the birthplace of television – and it still continues.

Whilst there a clause that there will be a museum of TV, there is no contractual obligation to preserve the historic site itself and its one-off artifacts like the Director’s Gallery. There are moves I heard rumblings about, to try and get its listing changed as at present the listing only preserves the outside. And the Charities Commission has had a 30-day consultation to which people I hope submitted their views.

A TV program called me the day before New Year because they wanted to run a story on the TV studios and had picked up that I had tabled an Early Day Motion about this in Parliament. From my early brush with the new owners who were not happy that I had tabled such a motion or that the media had got the story (being about the birthplace of television it’s not that surprising) I gather that they are not keen on media attention – so luckily for them, the TV station decided anyway to go with another story.

But as the Pally passes into new hands, I hope that those who now have this amazing building in their care remember the importance of working with local people and considering their needs and their well-being at the same time as trying to turn it into a viable development for themselves.

And as for horse-racing…

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

Having previously written about the similarities between Ken Livingstone and John McCain, I have since been struck by another US-UK comparison – though this time it is once that cuts across the political spectrum in the other direction. It’s between David Cameron and Jimmy Carter.

For Conservative supporters, I guess this might sound a hopeful comparison – after all, Carter led the Democrats, who had previously lost twice in a row, to an election victory against an opposition disgraced by scandal. But it’s the manner of Carter’s campaign that makes the comparison interesting for me – and less hopeful for Conservatives.

For Carter very nearly blew it. He came in short order from being avirtual unknown to winning comfortably his party’s nomination (soundfamiliar?) Then in the Presidential election itself, from being overthirty points ahead he only just sneaked it at the end.

His campaign was heavy on general aspiration and light on policy detail,typified by the slogan stating that he wanted “a government as good asits people.” These are just the sort of words you can imagine comingfrom David Cameron in his “let sunshine win the day” mood. Cartersuffered from coming over as a nice guy, but not having – when it cameto the crunch – given people a clear idea of what he stood for orbelieved.

As for Cameron – well the modernising, I’m a liberal too, pro-sunshineman is also the man who wrote the 2005 election manifesto for MichaelHoward (not a pro-sunshine politician, methinks!) and who was NormanLamont’s top advisor at the depths of the Tory economic recession (not asunshine period either). Good room for doubt as to what Cameron reallybelieves.

As Carter’s Director of Communications latter put it, Carter “stood forgetting elected.” So clearly does Cameron. The swiftness and apparentsuperficiality of his conversion from Michael Howard’s policy maestro tohis all-new, all-dancing, I’m really a liberal too, persona means thereis very little evidence that he really believes what he is now saying,other than that he’ll say anything different to get elected. When putunder pressure, he views have been remarkably fluid – as on Iraq, wherehe voted for it, flipped to telling the voters of Dunfermline that heagreed with the Lib Dem on Iraq after all, then flopped back to beingfor the war after all, then flipped again to voting for an inquiry.

As with Carter, Cameron has also tried to make something of histransport arrangements. For Carter it was ostentatiously carrying hisown suitcase (to contrast with scandal ridden, complacent and arrogantpoliticians – here was an ordinary chap). For Cameron, it’s been cycling- with the ordinary, environment hugging bloke message. An image justslightly ruined by having a chauffeur driven car following him aroundwith his shoes! Though as Cameron has pointed out – the trailingchauffeur isn’t a permanent fixture. Having only a part-time shoechauffeur makes you a man of the people I guess.

So that’s why David Cameron does not scare me. We should not becomplacent about the different sort of opponent he is from previousones, but he is very vulnerable. It is the same story with Gordon Brown- another person who (at least used to) have the aura of personalpopularity around him and who commentators have predicted would helpspell the demise of the Liberal Democrats.

Being an MP who is very much a child of the 2005 general election,garnering many former Labour voters on issues such as Iraq, civilliberties and student tuition fees, I am just the sort of person whoneeds to keep the support that commentators have predicted Brown couldwin back for my Labour.

My experience, out on the doorsteps pretty much every Sunday through theautumn and early winter talking to supporters, have been rather morepositive than that. Although the public widely expect Brown to becomethe next PM (I’m not quite so sure myself – there may yet be a surpriseor two on the road to Labour’s leadership election), they recognise thatthis is the man who signed the cheques for Iraq, who betrayed our trustin government by failing to ask searching questions about the quality ofthe WMD intelligence, who insisted on part-privatising the LondonUnderground and wasting huge sums of money on lawyers and contracts, whoregularly voted for student tuition fees and who has presided overcomplicated and failing scheme after scheme, as with the tax creditsfiasco.

Moreover, Iraq is not fading as an issue. This is not just because theproblems and deaths in Iraq continue to feature so prominently in thenews, but because for many people in broke a life-long commitment to theLabour party. The loss of that instinctive support and loyalty can’tjust be put back together again even if Iraq was been and gone as anissue. It’d be like an adulterous person turning to their partner andsaying, “It’s all ok now, I’ve stopped having the affair so things canjust go back to how they always were.”

Just as the Tory economic recession and Britain’s crash out of the ERM(remember who was Norman Lamont’s top advisor at that point!) has had along, long electoral legacy for the Tories, beyond even changes ofleaders – there is no reason to think Iraq will not have a similarimpact on Labour.

And if Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister, will the plotting andfactionalism in the Labour party really stop as they rally round him?For the truth is that plotting for and against Brown, and suspicion ofhim, has stretched right back to Kinnock’s days as leader. As PhilipGould has recounted, even back before the 1992 general election:

“The whole thing was so debilitating because every time Gordon appearedon TV, someone in John [Smith]’s camp would say, ‘Look, it’s another bidfor the leadership’, Patricia [Hewitt] remembers.”

Meanwhile, Labour’s big idea – “choice” – sounds good on the surface,but is very vulnerable. For “choice” to really mean something it meanshaving surplus capacity in the best schools and hospitals – otherwisebeing offered choice is just a chimera. Yet simply getting sufficienttop quality school places, hospital beds and so on is a struggle and ahalf – even without having a policy that actually requires you to geteven more. By contrast, the Liberal Democrat emphasis as regards highquality local services for everyone is simpler, more convincing and moreachievable. It also provides an answer to issues such as crime wherechoice simply doesn’t make sense – or will Labour in the spirit ofre-engaging with communities offer them direct elections to choosewhether Group 4 or another security firm will do the policing in theirhigh street next month?

The contrast between the over-complicating, centralising and meddlingLabour party – traits personified by Gordon Brown – and a LiberalDemocrat approach that is based on simplifying government, freeing upindividuals and emphasising fairness is one that we can and shouldexploit.

On terrorism and crime too, whilst Labour likes to talk tough, we can beoptimistic about our alternative approach – believing that the need isto tackle criminals and terrorists, not spending huge sums of moneybuilding up databases of innocent people (ID cards, DNA records). Whywaste these resources on tracking innocent people when they couldinstead go on tackling criminals and terrorists directly – and to sortout records of criminals such as the mess that is the Criminal RecordsBureau? It shows how there is something very wrong at the heart ofLabour’s approach that they are keen on piling up records on innocentpeople but don’t give the necessary attention to keeping proper recordsof criminals.

This weakness of Labour is particularly important not just for MPs likemyself who took their seats from Labour, but also for the party’soverall long-term growth. After all, even if we concentrated all ourfire on the Tories and by some magic managed to win every single Toryseat, it would still leave us short o
f a majority. We need to progressby taking seats from both parties.

That may be certain, but one thing that is uncertain though is what thebig issues are which will crop up between now and the next generalelection. We can all make our guesses, but one regular feature of ourpolitics is how then end up being dominated in a Parliament by an issuethat barely, if at all, featured in the previous election. Who wastalking about Iraq in June 2001 for example?

For this unknown future it comes down to trust and judgement, and justas the party has got it right on the recent big issues that cropped uplike Iraq and tuition fees, I am confident that – looking at the qualityof my colleagues compared with those on the other benches – we willagain. So at the end of a very lively political year, with more than afew ups and downs on the way, I am confident about what 2007 will bring!

This article first appeared in Liberator.