Shhh, Don't mention the election

A reporter from our local newspaper the Chronicle and Echo phoned me today to ask me for some information on a rather tame story to do with the Borough Council's Community Centre strategy. I got the phone call because the only answer they could get from the Council was that they "Couldn't comment due to election purdah" The Purdah is a period whereby no council officer or Councillor can say anything that in any shape or form can be seen by others to be political or preferring one party over another

Although the Borough Council has no elections it was felt that as some Councillors are members or candidates on both authorities then this ridiculous rule should apply to all it's officers and members.

Equally our local press are reluctant to publish "political" stories and as such we have to suffer a pretty lame month of "equal" coverage for the three main parties, it seems at times to the exclusion of anything else.

In essence what the establishment are saying (now backed up by the local press) is that the only time that local politicians cannot be political is at election times!

What a complete nonsense this purdah rule is. It wasn't always like this, and it shouldn't be like this now. Has Parliament closed for a month because we are in purdah? Did the Daily Telegraph think about "purdah" before starting it's current exposure of MP's abuses of their expenses?

How on earth can voters make informed choices if someone is "controlling" the political information they receive?

In my view this is just another example of how our local governance is being sanitized and made ineffective and remote from the masses. Turnout at local government elections is already at an all time low and whoever decided that this years "local government trend of the year" would be election purdah, needs their head testing.

Let parties and candidates say what they want, let the electorate see them warts and all. Let the press print (within the laws of decency) what they see fit to print. The public are not stupid, we can see through the spin, we don't need all our information censored by big brother, and if someone goes over the top then Councils and/or the police should take action against the offender rather than punishing everyone else who wishes to stand for election.

The press maybe have another, perhaps more understandable reason for their stance, perhaps by only concentrating on the "big three" then they can deny fascists like the BNP the oxygen of publicity? but why should I as an Independent candidate or the Green Party or some of the smaller local party's suffer in order to silence the unsavourable?

How will people know how ridiculous the BNP's policy's are unless they are allowed to judge for themselves? I as a political animal take an interest, I think it is laughable that the BNP have a leader who believes the holocaust did not happen, and have a policy to repatriate all non white Briton's (bang go our chances in the next World Cup if the fascists ever get in!)

So to hell with censorship I say, let them all do their worst and in doing so give the public some credit for being grown up enough to spot the difference between political spin and genuine intent.

After all at the moment the only people benefiting from election purdah seem to be the big three parties? Perhaps if they didn't get preferential treatment then they might all become the little three? and perhaps that's why they reinvented political purdah in the first place?

Localism is the key to cleaning up politics

Whenever I was asked as an MP if I would "do as I promised" or "Why should we trust you" I used to honestly answer by saying "I won't be an MP for ever you know, and when I am not I will still have to live in the same street, drink in the same pubs, eat in the same restaurants, Northampton is my home and if I don't keep my integrity and good name then I will have lost a damn sight more than a seat in Parliament"

When I was first elected to the Commons in 1997 it was of course as part of a massive Labour landslide and hidden amongst the celebration and false hope was a little written about added extra, that in winning well and going way beyond the '100 Key Seats' needed for a majority in the Commons, the party had returned to Parliament a number of additional MP's who in their plans, were really not meant to have been there.

Joining me in Parliament were people like Phil Sawford in Kettering, Andy King in Rugby, Ivan Henderson in Harwich all local constituency based candidates who had done their apprenticeships working hard in their local communities and on their respective local councils.

The 100 Key seats on the other hand were stacked full of careerist and opportunists who would have traveled anywhere, and said anything to land a prize of a seat in Parliament. People who lived in one place represented another and saw their constituencies as places to visit rather than places to live and bring up their children.

So if you have a few moments to spare dig up a copy of Labours 100 from 97 including all the Blair's babes and match it against the morally bankrupt individuals who have disgraced parliament over recent weeks with indefensible claims for adaptations, building works, furniture, gardening and luxury goods for their second homes.

Surprise Surprise, the two lists are well matched.

It's not just the Labour Party though, the Tories and the Lib Dem's all have favoured lists of placed candidates parachuted into constituencies at their Party's behest. And in return they get pliant, obedient, voting fodder to do their bidding and sell their policy wares in the House and to the wider electorate.

Local candidates on the other hand are less likely to simply go along with the Party flow, more likely to stand up for what is right for their localities and their constituents, and are bad news for the whips. Mp's should represent their constituencies views in Parliament, not represent the views of their Parties within their constituencies.

So in essence we have the Parliament we deserve, stacked to the brim with individuals with little loyalty to the town's and cities they represent and whose priority in life is the advancement of themselves first and foremost and the needs of their constituencies are way down their list.

So when all the Parties are through with their Star Courts and Chambers, and they have culled their ranks of the greedy and corrupt, then they would do well to thinking about some form of proven local connection when choosing replacement candidates. We have had all women shortlists and secured positions on shortlists for black and minority ethnic candidates, so perhaps it's now time for system that concentrates the mind and the vote on people who truly represent their seats because they know the people who live there and want to improve their own own areas not just see it as the place where their fees office paid for property portfolio is based.

Add in a dash of Single Transferable Vote and a generous sprinkling of transparency and we might just have a recipe for real change.

In the meantime though I will steer clear of the lot of them, and the only way I see a lot of constituencies getting proper representation is through them electing Independent candidates into office as Local Government and at a National level.