The Leadership Question: The Future is David

 

To the frustration of some of my comrades I have, thus far, remained firmly on the fence over whom to support, and therefore campaign for, in our party leadership contest.

I took this decision not through indecision but through an intention to try and better understand each of the candidates in the best ways that were available to me.

I must say that it proved a difficult task with part of me feeling completely uninspired by the largely New Labour elite line up (perhaps being more excited by the possibilities associated with our new intake of MPs who look to contribute and lead an exciting future for our movement) yet intrigued by the many qualities of each candidate. It seems to me that a clone of all five of them would prove fantastic but, alas, this cannot be done.

And so I was faced with having to make a decision; excited by the grass roots edge of Diane Abbott, attached to Andy Burnham’s message of aspirational socialism, impressed by Ed Balls opposition work on education and dazed by the professionalism and the record of the Milibandici. Along with this came my dilemma of only knowing and living New Labour, never having studied politics or holding experience of living under a non Labour Government (as far as my political memory goes, of course) – how could I possibly come to an informed decision?

The one thing I do know is that, with a two to three year campaign run in to the next general election (and with locals and Europeans in the process) our party has to be ready as a party of Government significantly sooner rather than later. Whilst having a fatal election result only a few months ago we are, as many have already commented, in the position of opportunity with the Liberal Democrats suicidal decision on power over principle and the clear Conservative decisions on harsher than needed public spending cuts, the prioritisation of business over people and the marketisation of education and health care; and all of this after only ten weeks in power.

In order for us to provide the real choice that people desire – a Government focused on securing front line public services, on protecting jobs, on economic growth over harsh cuts, on fairness – we need a leader to re-build, re-energise and re-organise our movement in order to win. But beyond that too, we need a leader that is a credible Prime Minister, with the experience and clear ability to do so both at home and abroad, whilst providing a credible and progressive policy agenda.

Holding these various elements in mind there is, to my mind at least, only one option – David Miliband – and this is why I am not only supporting David but why I will be campaigning for him to win; to win the leadership, to win the policy message and to win the next election.

I can understand that it any competition rival camps will campaign vigorously in order to win but recent examples of animosity between the camps has proven quite hard to swallow. I think it will do us all well to remember that, regardless of what happens, we are all part of the same team fighting the same fight.

Our priority now is to collect ourselves in order to take on that fight in a cohesive and positive way as an opposition whilst preparing in an absolute and powerful way to win the next election. This is our priority and it is the priority of our people and the millions of people across this country.

All of the candidates have their obvious attributes and many people are attracted to them for their differences but I am now firmly of the opinion that David Miliband is the only leader able to win.

Time to Re-build our Bridges for the Fight Back

 

 

Last weekend I had my first experience with a trade union, attending a young members seminar to learn more about the union and to map out how we would all work together to help engage young members across the South West region and beyond.

I only joined my union about a year ago having left the period of being involved in students’ unions and the weekend seminar, which was twinned with a presence at the Tolpuddle Martyrs Festival in Dorset, was an inspiring yet challenging time.

The most important element of the weekend was meeting and working with people that I wouldn’t normally work with during my day to day life – as a postgraduate student training as a corporate lawyer I’m generally surrounded by Tories (albeit who, minus their politics, are lovely people nonetheless!). My current environment and my New Labour upbringing showed as, on the first day, I piped up in support of business in a bid to reject a generalisation of a battle line between ‘them and us’ being drawn by a particular presenter. This, I fear, did not go down too well.

But the overwhelming message I received from that weekend was how few people were members of the Labour Party, how many were angry with the Labour Party and yet how many cared and campaigned on the same issues as we do. It just didn’t make sense.

At Toldpuddle, after marching with other unions and left groups, a singer sang “we hate the Tories, we hate the Tories, and Tony Blair” and, whilst trying to raise money for Labour South West, I was shouted at being told how people hate the Labour Party. I found this quite uncomfortable and yet equally as confusing, as I unpinned my ‘I love Tony’ badge.

Now it might be that the people I was with are just old lefties and that, as New Labour showed, we need to be a broad church as a political party in order to win Government which is, quite frankly, more use to all of us when compared to being in opposition. But I’m just not sure that that’s right.

Last week a blogger analysed the importance of Trade Union support for Labour leadership candidates showing that they don’t correlate to actual union vote, with Tony Blair receiving over 50% of the vote in 1994. But what I do know is that many of us focus too much on exactly that – votes. Whilst important we need to be sure that we hold what is truly important at the centre of our strategies – people – and this is a vitally important message for the leadership candidates.

I’m still convinced that, when used in the right way, the third way has as important a place in our society today as it ever has but throughout my time at Tolpuddle I recognised that the unions, the organisations and most importantly the people all have the same thing in common – a fighting spirit for fairness, equality and social justice. We need to put our past disagreements behind us, join forces and get ready for the fight back; for we have the biggest attack on our public services, on our principles and on our people that modern society has ever seen. We must work together in order to succeed for the principles and the people that we all campaign for – preventing the most vulnerable aspects of our society bearing the weight of Condem pro-business policy – for if we don’t, only time will tell what the outcomes will be and I for one am not willing to let that be the case.

 

Have we forgotten the importance of our people?

This leadership contest has given us the opportunity to reflect debate and assess our defeat and our future as a party, providing a timely opportunity to iron out any creases from being in Government for 13 years. But whilst we’ve had policy debate I’m left with a lacklustre feeling on the debate on how we regenerate our party to become, in the eyes of the electorate, a party of Government once again. I’ve recently wondered if our leadership contest has highlighted a deeper, more intrinsic problem within our party. A problem at the root of our very establishment that may, if true, cause us more severe problems than we can gauge by purely the extent of our electoral defeat alone.

The media have openly criticised the “white-middle aged-oxbridge-special advisor” nature of our leadership candidates (minus Diane Abbott, of course) and I wonder if they have something more than just a newspaper headline.

I’m a few years off now of having been involved in the Labour Party for about a decade and I, like many of us, have been active on the doorstep, in the plethora of meetings, in student politics and more recently in local and national elections as a candidate. I’ve learnt a great deal, I’ve been inspired by many and I continue to be passionate about our party and the progressive future that we all campaign for.

But I’ve witnessed things I don’t like too – lack of grass roots engagement, the decrease in power on policy via conference and constituencies, elements of central control and a potential clique party elite – and it makes me wonder if the party of the people is in fact disconnected from the people, disconnected from the communities we strive to represent and disconnected from the people that really matter in our party – those hard working members who ask for nothing in return but who work hard every time we need them to.

I’ve seen parachuted candidates, career politicians working constituencies with ulterior motive because of their desire to become an MP for MP sake and support from senior figures in our party based on prior established relationships.  Geographically too, we have become London centrists, at times forgetting that we are a party of Government, of Britain – not a party of traditional strong holds – and when a leadership contest neglects to even consider the South West, where I come from, until they are lobbied to do so, we know we have a problem on our hands.

I should add a quick disclaimer – I know MPs who were ‘parachuted’ in to their seats and who have been fantastically hard working representatives for their communities and this discussion isn’t a criticism of our leadership contenders; we are where we are and I’m sure that our next leader will do a great job but I implore the leadership candidates to consider these arguments, for I fear that it is the elephant in the Labour Party room, an elephant that may keep us in opposition longer than we want to be.

Is it a naive dream to want to see active policy discussion in our CLP meetings and actually see our input translate into national policy? Is it a naive dream to want to see candidates selected based on their real local stories, their genuine concerns and histories within their communities and not their manipulation of winnable seats, or senior party position, in order to create a sense of entitlement in order to fulfil a selfish dream? Imagine if our leadership candidates had a story like Foot or Bevan – wouldn’t that be exciting?! One of the reasons for our defeat was because many of our supporters felt neglected by our party and felt unable to make a difference – how are we to win elections if our supporters and voters can’t connect with us as representatives, as leaders, as comrades?

This argument is not from the view point of a traditional ‘left winger’ either for I am a product of the New Labour project, whose brand may be tarnished but whose values are still crucial to our future, both electorally and in our policy. We must remain a broad church and work to prevent the coalition from using the progressive message, as they did in the budget; how we can let them wave the flag of modern progressivism I just don’t understand.  To do this we must re-establish the importance of localism, we must select candidates who are authentic and leave careerists at the door and we must be true to our founding principles to ensure that we are indeed the party of the people.

I can only really remember a Labour government and I can’t stand to see us nearly powerless in opposition but I pray that we utilise one of the few positives of being the opposition by using the extra time we now have to debate and solve these problems. We need to reconnect, we need to re-energise and we need to rebuild our bases right across the country – these are not the sound bites of a leadership contender but words with real meaning – if we do not we will remain in opposition and we will fail to recreate an exciting, member engaged party of our progressive tomorrow.

Is the South West not Labour enough?

 

Labour activists have always had somewhat of a hard deal in the South West but we have a proud history in the region and the leadership candidates leave us out at their peril.

We may now be reduced to a handful of Westminster seats but activism is strong throughout the region and we have vital representation in Local Government – our strongest being in Plymouth – as well as in the House of Commons. I’ve learnt this first hand – from founding Plymouth Labour Students at the University of Plymouth, working with student comrades in Exeter and Bristol, to campaigning in local, national and European elections (and living) in Plymouth and Bristol to my time as the Parliamentary Candidate in Torridge and West Devon at the last election (where even in a strong Conservative seat we had active, campaigning members).

We have a strong history in Bristol, returning many high quality members to the House of Commons election after election (as well as, I hope, a new Deputy Speaker in Dawn Primarolo) as well equally strong and ministerial histories with Ben Bradshaw in Exeter (who wrote a very interesting article on Labour and the South West this week), Linda Gilroy and Alison Seabeck in Plymouth and, of course, not forgetting our strong campaigning history in Cornwall (where Jude Robinson organised and executed a fantastic campaign in Camborne and Redruth).

But one thing I have grown to appreciate throughout my experience at the grass roots level throughout the region is how alive the Labour membership is – old and new – every year I have the pleasure of seeing old faces in my Labour friends whilst enjoying the opportunity to welcome new faces to our cause. What’s more, I’ve had the privilege to work with, and learn from, many high quality candidates – both in local and national elections – who will, I know, continue to work hard and form an exciting future for Labour in the South West.

We should not forget our other elements too, including the work of trade unions in the region, of the co-operative movement and indeed our European element having had European representation for many years indeed with Glyn Ford. Not forgetting too our recent addition to the House of Lords, Lord Knight (Former MP for Dorset and Minister for the South West) and, of course, the fantastically hard working Labour Party staff for the region.

Having been the PPC in Torridge & West Devon I know what the effects of long term neglect can bring but I equally recognise what attention, engagement and campaigning can bring and that, quite frankly, is a vibrant, active and vitally important region to the Labour movement.

At this time of reflection and re-organisation its vital that those seeking our support in their leadership bid come to the South West – to a sufficient number of locations – to bring that attention and engagement to the region so that we can play the vital part that we deserve in helping to shape the future of our movement and the future of our fight back into Government.  

Will the Liberal Democrats sell out on their proud history of Human Rights?

 

In his first major speech as Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg spoke of repealing excessive laws whilst advocating a string of parliamentary reform which has been advocated for hundreds of years. But one area of vital importance was left relatively unmentioned – which was especially interesting as it’s an area of clear disagreement between the newly wedded Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg – and that is the Human Rights Act.

The Conservative Party has openly wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act – one of the greatest achievements of the New Labour Government – and replace it with a Bill of Rights for some time now. Indeed David Cameron has referred to the culture developed by the Act as ‘infecting’ society – how such a negative interpretation of the protection of fundamental Human Rights is justified I don’t know!

On a softer note, Cameron has argued that the ‘culture’ of Human Rights has developed a nation of rights and not responsibilities (which has supposedly led to the ‘Broken Britain’ that he so much referred to). This message was further developed in the Conservative Manifesto but provided no detail as to how, in reality, they expect to link greater social responsibility with the replacement of the HRA to ‘protect our freedoms from state encroachment’.

We in Britain have a proud history in promoting Human Rights at home and around the World, we have a proud history as a welcoming nation and a proud history as a nation that many in the World look to for inspiration for what is moral, what is just and what is fair in our modern globalised world today. This proud history translates into the wide popularity of our protection of Human Rights today by a majority of the British people.

It seems that the Liberal Democrats agree with this sentiment, with manifesto commitments to extend and protect the rights of people under the HRA. Indeed, in his ‘big reform’ speech Clegg proclaimed that “any government would tamper with it at its peril”! Whilst the day before Cleggs speech the Home Secretary, Theresa May, supported the continued used of control orders which – quite frankly – is dodgy Human Rights ground (See the Amnesty International Campaign on this here).

When it comes to any protection of Human Rights through the law one must remember that it is the outcome of the agreement that is important, it is the protection of the vulnerable from the potential abusive power of the state and the protection from negligence of those with a duty to protect that is important – it is not the name or packaging of the agreement that is important. I fear that one of the drivers for change is fuelled by yet more Eurosceptasism by the Conservative Party which, if true, is just foolish.

Many prominent members of the new Government, however, have challenged this Conservative policy including Ken Clarke and Chris Hune. At a time when the Government is shouting about their ‘New Politics’ – and filling the House of Lords with unelected party political rent-a-crowds, centralising power from the back benches to the executive, trying to prevent a fundamental constitutional right to force a dissolution of Parliament and slowing down reform of the voting system – one has to wonder how ‘new’, indeed how ‘liberal’ the Coalition are and what this means for the protection of Human Rights in our country.

Let’s hope the Liberal Democrat history of protecting and extending Human Rights powers through the Coalition and allows us, as a Country, to continue to be proud of this protection and recognition of the fundamental rights of people in our World today (thanks to a Labour government!).

The Legal Series: The Future of Europe under The Coalition

Firstly, I’ve realised I’m already calling this Government “The Coalition” which, quite frankly, makes me think of Star Wars. I’m not sure if this is a good thing or not or who David Cameron would be (although I’d like to go for Darth Vader – with an image of him lifting off his face and Margaret Thatcher living inside creaking “I am your mother” to Nick Clegg (who is now clearly a big Tory) or something like that!) But I digress…

My next few blogs are going to focus on Conservative and Liberal Democrat (and, as it comes, coalition) policy on key constitutional and legal issues -such as Europe, parliamentary reform, human rights and so on. The first of these blogs will focus on the future of Europe from the Conservative perspective.

The future of the European Union is, no doubt, going to be a hot potato for The Coalition with well documented and diverging views between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is easy for one to spot the lack of conversation in this area from the coalition agreements that have been published so far (correct me if I’m wrong) so this will prove an interesting topic.

To begin, let’s compare headline manifesto pledges from both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat manifestos of 2010.

                Conservative Manifesto 2010

“We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people. We will work to bring back key powers over legal rights, criminal justice and social and employment legislation to the UK.”

                Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010

“Liberal Democrats believe that European co-operation is the best way for Britain to be strong, safe and influential in the future. We will ensure that Britain maximises its influence through a strong and positive commitment”

It doesn’t take a genius to see the difference, does it? It seems the Liberal Democrats are pro-European whilst the Conservatives are anti-European. The Liberal Democrats want to maximise its influence through a strong and positive commitment whilst the Conservatives want to bring back key powers and continue to have their MEPs in the far right, non-influential European Conservative and Reformists (ECR) grouping. This is fundamental, values based stuff! But moving onto the law…

                Conservative Manifesto 2010

“We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum – a ‘referendum lock’. Our amendment to the 1972 Act will prevent any future government from doing so without a referendum”

Well to begin with, unless I’m mistaken, this is utter tosh. It is a key British constitutional doctrine that Governments can’t bind their successors – “leges posteriors priores contrarias aborgant” or later conflicting Acts of Parliament take precedence over earlier conflicting ones. So it is, quite frankly, regardless what a Conservative Government does because a future parliament can just change it – this part of the Conservative manifesto is therefore not legal or factual. It is wrong. (For my legal followers, I understand the precedent in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council that said this doctrine does not apply to ‘constitutional statutes’ but I disregard this case as Parliament has the power to change constitutional statute – defined in the British sense – by expressly wording a reform bill.)

                Conservative Manifesto 2010

“Unlike other European countries, the UK does not have a written constitution. We will introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament”

Firstly, it’s a dangerous thing to just start codifying our constitution as a ‘solution’ to our relationship with the EU. Secondly, this is once again legally and factual incorrect. It is once again wrong. As a member state of the European Union, brought about by the 1972 Act enacted by the then Conservative government we are subject to the treaties of the European Union. Article 4(3) of the Treaty of the European Union states:

“The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union. The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives”

In addition to which, EU law is supreme over national law. This is a well established principle of union law and has been recognised in our own courts, most famously in the case of Factortame. In this case, the judge, Lord Bridge, held that it had:

“…always been clear that it was the duty of the United Kingdom court when delivering final judgement, to override any national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of [union] law”

An Act of Parliament that contradicted with our legal obligations under a treaty of the European Union would, therefore, be useless. To be fair, a UK Act of a constitutional nature in clear contradiction with EU law has never occurred and Lord Denning has mentioned in the case of Macarthys v Smith that the courts would be obliged to obey domestic law over European law. But I would argue that the nature of a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill would be so radically against the objectives of the union that they only way it can be enforced in the UK is by leaving the EU altogether.

Is this perhaps the motive? Are our eurosceptic Conservatives trying to move us towards withdrawal from the union on the sly? Either that or they don’t know the law. I’ll let you decide.

Well I’m going to leave it there – this has been quite a long blog after all – but I hope that the limited points I have raised not only show the dangerous eurosceptic nature of the Conservative party but also the fundamental difference in its position to the Liberal Democrats.

Being at the heart of the European Union is crucial to our future influence in our globalised world, it is crucial to our success in key areas of climate, food and energy security, economics and financial services and much more besides. The Conservatives have already marginalised us in the European Parliament, let’s hope they don’t continue to marginalise use in the EU in order to conserve some old fashioned sense of ‘British-ness’ pushing us into a future of unimportance and inability to tackle the big issues of the day.

Only time will tell how this one will pan out…

PS – For any lawyers reading this blog please do comment. After all, what use is it having a bunch of lawyers together if they can’t disagree!!

We must make sure we own the progressive message

The morning after the night before proved that the Condem coalition was, in fact, not a bad dream but a reality. But for all the hard work and emotional of the past weeks we are now, I would argue, in a fantastic position.

Before 1997 the Labour Party was the party that formed the ‘interim’ Governments of one term here and one term there, amidst generations of Conservative rule. Now, I’m confident that the Condem coalition has formed but a mere interim amidst generations of New Labour leadership. I’m a firm believer that things happen for a reason, that these events challenge us and allow us to better ourselves. We had 13 years in Government – a major stint at the helm – and now we must take a breath and revitalise, we must take a breath and reorganise and we must take a breath and win.

Gordon’s decision to resign was humbling yet inspiring, as I recognised in him that his decision was taken for the right reasons in order to allow us to play the long game. Watching how Gordon handled himself over the past few weeks only made me prouder to be a part of the Labour Party.

So now – with a Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition – we are the only major party in opposition. We are the only party that can provide the alternative, that can own the progressive message and that can excite the electorate with our possibilities after what will be a very unhappy Parliament indeed. Let’s make sure we own it. Because at the next election, whenever that may be, I’m confident the electorate will be unhappy – perhaps not through the complete fault of Government – but unhappy enough to vote them out of office and we need to continue to be that party of Government, ready to govern and ready to lead. Let’s get the leadership contest done, let’s pick ourselves back up and let’s get campaigning as an efficient and effective opposition ought to. Whilst we lost c100 seats in Westminster we made significant gains in local Government providing a strong local base on which to build, with a quickly increasing membership (including many disgruntled Liberal Democrats!) we have the army with which to get back on our streets and to win.

The Liberal Democrats dropped their policy on higher education funding (which was clearly used as a vote winner and nothing else), they didn’t get agreement on proportional representation, they’ve agreed to the cap on immigration that they so strongly argued against and the public conversations on Europe, fox hunting  and public spending cuts have yet to even begin. The cynic in me might think that the prospect of some power and position made the Liberal Democrats forget their values, forget their supporters and forget their purpose. The Labour in me welcomes that, as we welcome new members with open arms and take the right position on many of these issues.

I’m proud that we haven’t forgotten who we are, what our values are and where we are going. So let’s re-energise, be sure to own that progressive message and get on towards where we are going – back into Government.

Why I’m Proud of Labour: Primary Education

 

Audioboo: Primary Education (Click –> Listen Here!)

PS – This was supposed to be my first ‘vlog’ but the camera was pointed too low and missed my face, I therefore changed it to my first ‘audioboo’ which was then too long! I’ll get it better next time, promise! 

Today’s post came from a meeting I had last night at Avon Primary School in Bristol which is my old primary school and where I now act as a school governor. One of the meeting points that really got me last night was the progress being made my children who either hadn’t come to the school with the appropriate attainment or who were falling behind in areas such as reading and math.

It occurred to me in the meeting that the progress they were making, thanks to Government funded 1-2-1 and small group support programmes, was very much thanks to a Labour Government. A Labour Government that recognised that not all children have the luxury of home tuition when needed, or sufficiently small enough class sizes or extra support in situ at the school and that it was Governments job to intervene, to fund and to support that extra help that makes such a difference to so many of the kids I talk to at school, inspiring them and allowing them to reach their aspirations.

It was amazing how much these statistics, printed in black & white, made such an impression on me. I hope the Tories (or whoever goes on to form the next Government) keep the image of that child – who may have originally been sat at the back of the classroom, frustrated with not understanding or being able to take part – coming back into the classroom after some support with a smile on their face, with a sense of achievement and with the knowledge that they can very much achieve their dreams.

A Very British Revolution?

 

In some countries revolution is the method of reform when the people become unhappy with their constitution. In Britain it appears our revolution comes in the form of a hung Parliament (excluding the historical blip that was the English Civil War, of course) which I for one prefer.

The British constitution is a complex piece of art and not a science and as such requires an artistic and innovative approach – with an essence of formality – and it is for this reason that I am so disappointed with the Liberal Democrats. An artistic approach would surely be based on what is in our hearts, about our values, our purpose. It is not a painting by numbers. The core values of equality, of social justice, of fairness are fundamental common ground between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. The policy values on fox hunting, trident, electoral reform, inheritance tax and much more besides are clear symbols of the differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The mind boggles.

What we do have to ensure, very much so, is that we treat the electorates request with the respect that it deserves. If negotiations continue for too long, if any particular party hangs on for the sake of hanging on and – I would imagine – if the Liberal Democrats form a coalition with the Conservatives, the people of this country will be very unhappy indeed. A coalition is likely to fall apart, another costly and time consuming election will happen and yet another result will come. Many pro and anti Europeans criticise the European referendum method utilised in Ireland over the Treaty of Lisbon – namely the, get it wrong the first time, re-do the referendum and make sure you get it right the second – but is this the inevitable solution in Britain to our hung Parliament situation?

We must also recognise the importance of the markets response to our current political entanglement. If we seem unable to form a Government able to deal with our structural deficit, investment will flood out of Britain and away from sterling, making the whole situation so much harder to deal with.

So what is the solution? I have no idea. I doubt people will want another election, I imagine a large sway of the population will be very unhappy with a LibCon coalition so perhaps the LibLab coalition is the answer – but for how long?

What is sure is that this election has highlighted the inability of our constitution to handle the modern electoral situation that we are currently in. Whilst the Prime Minster sits waiting in No10 and the Queen continues as normal above politics, the leaders of the opposition and the third party squabble over policy intricacies above the values and principles of the people that elected them.

Is proportional representation the key solution? I doubt that on its own it is. I’m starting to come to the conclusion, against my instincts, that we need much more radical reform in this country – a reformed House of Lords, a reformed and strengthened House of Commons, reformed voting systems and increased public involvement and perhaps, dare I say it, even a directly elected Prime Minister.

Perhaps a revolution is needed in this country after all, but I for one hope it will be as it generally always is, a very British revolution.  

We shouldn’t hold on for the sake of it.

Well the last week has been hard work and emotional but energizing too with endless motivation to continue fighting for a progressive future. I had a fantastic experience working my own seat of Torridge & West Devon as well as campaigning hard for the out going Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton & Devonport, Linda Gilroy.

Losing Linda from Plymouth was the low point of the whole campaign for me, personally having founded my active politics whilst at university here in Plymouth and working with Plymouth Labour, Alison Seabeck MP and Linda Gilroy MP for many years indeed. Linda, Alison and the team have always welcomed me with open arms, provided an inspiring forum in which to work and have all taught me so much. I will forever be grateful to them.

However, the local election results in Plymouth were fantastic and we kept hold of our hard working and dedicated councillors (including the re-election of Cllr Mary Aspinall who will become the new Lord Mayor of Plymouth) as well as gaining a few too, such as the fantastic Pauline and Dave in Efford & Lipson. Well done to them all.

Also in Torridge & West Devon – my first ever seat as a Parliamentary Candidate – was an amazing experience. It was so much fun, so much hard work but just so exciting as I was given the opportunity to experience a general election campaign and life as a politician. The people of Torridge & West Devon are a lovely community, were always charming to me as their Labour candidate and provided me with an excellent experience for which I will always hold fond memories.

It was a difficult election for Labour but was no where as near as bad as many were expecting – Camerons plan to replicate the Blair landslide election of 1997 totally failed and was evidence of the continued reserve the British people have of the superficial and non-substantive Conservative Party.

But whilst we are in a hung Parliament we must consider both our short and long term strategy as a party. I, of course, do not want a Conservative Government. I couldn’t think of anything worse. Just the prospect of seeing our comrades on the opposition benches pulls at my heart strings. But if we hang on for too long we risk leaving a bitter taste in the mouths of the electorate which could replicate our declined vote in elections to come.  But whilst many swings were disappointing for us at this election we must not lose hope as many are ripe to be regained.

We too must not resort to internal argument – especially if we do end up in opposition – remembering to keep our focus on being a party ready for Government and a party ready to take back a majority.

The negotiations of a hung Parliament is like an intricate game of chess and I for one have no idea what is going to happen (although my earlier concerns over the fickle Mr Clegg and his unexplainable admiration for an ideologically distant Conservative Party have been proved correct).

I, as many of us, hope we can form a workable agreement/coalition with the Liberal Democrats (the prospect of actual Parliamentary reform will be welcomed of course!) and that we can get on with the work of Government with a progressive and fair values base at the core of our policy and decision-making. I just pray that David Cameron stays well clear of No10.

A small video from polling day and my count in Torridge & West Devon: