Researcher Blogs

A debate that caught my eye yesterday was the discussion on whether the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed to use the House of Commons Chamber.

Naturally the various voices from the Tory old-school bucked at the very suggestion – Nicholas Winterton naturally leading the charge. For them, the Chamber is sacrosanct and debating in that Chamber is a privilege that should only be bestowed on elected politicians. Fair point, but in my view, based on a misunderstanding.

The polished wood of the despatch box (a gift from Canada), soft green leather of the benches, and sharply demarcating red lines – precisely two sword-widths apart to prevent conflict claim the tour guides – undoubtedly posses a magic capable of silencing anybody who has the pleasure of entering the Chamber. This of course, only once one has muttered "how small the Chamber looks in real life."

Yet, as breathtakingly powerful the Chamber is, haunted as it may be by the ghosts of famous debates past, it is not from the Chamber that the Commons derives its legitimacy. Rather it is the Speaker's Mace – without which, any decisions made in the Chamber are rendered null and void.

Constituents elect their MPs to act – i.e. debate/vote on record, on their behalf. They do not elect MPs simply for the act of sitting in the Commons Chamber.

Since it has already been noted that the Mace would not be present during any UK Youth debate, any discussion about the electoral legitimacy of that body is surely rendered irrelevant. Notably however, the UK Youth Parliament is elected, and does adequately reflect the diverse society it purports to represent (53 per cent female, 2 per cent with disabilities and 21 per cent BME).

In short, the Commons should throw open its doors to energise a new generation of politically engaged citizens with the magic of the Commons Chamber – questions of electoral legitimacy need not pose a concern.

One of the pleasures of a researcher's lot is dipping into the Parliamentary postbag to see what enticing policy papers, briefing documents or freebies lurk inside.

The freebies quickly cease to become interesting/useful (last year's free 'fighting prostate cancer' underwear aside). However, good policy papers and briefing documents shift to an ever-increasing pile for reading a later date during a long tube journey.

Out of the bag this morning was Open Europe's 'The Hard Sell: EU Communication Policy and the Campaign for Hearts and Minds'.

Being honest, I was never going to read something by Open Europe dispassionately and I will declare that I tend to view their theses through a lens of thick cynicism. Yet regarding the 'Hard Sell', I think that cynicism was particularly justified…

Open Europe's meagre bone of contention is that in 2008 the European Union spent more on "promoting itself…than Coca Cola spends each year on advertising worldwide."

The question has to be asked – is this such a bad thing? Surely a vital component of any democracy is a well informed public, who understand the institutions which impact on their lives so they are in a better position to participate in that democratic process.

This money goes on organising tours and open days for visitors to the EU; booklets like 'The EU: What's in it for me?' and 'How the European Union Works – Your guide to the EU institutions'; and the 'Eurodesk' programme which in Open Europe's own words “provides young people and those who work with them with information on European opportunities and funding.” Is this evidence of a sinister hand of creeping federalism…I think not.

Ahead of this year's European elections and in a popular climate where the EU is so widely misunderstood – efforts to explain how Europe works should be encouraged, not discouraged.

The success of University Challenge contestant Gail Trimble has littered the press this week, revealing a peculiar aspect of the British psyche – as a nation, we don't embrace and applaud intelligence.

For the Sun, Trimble is "Universally Challenged", (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article2262112.ece) castigated for now knowing: who won the ‘best female' award at the Brits last week; who Chelsea's new manager is; the name of the lead British actor in Slumdog Millionaire; and the winner of the most recent series of Celebrity Big Brother.

I concede that Trimble clearly has not had the pleasure of picking her way through the London Lite on a cramped tube journey. Yet isn't it sad that, upon hearing of the record "intellectual blitzkrieg" (Paxman) of 1,200 points she wracked up for Corpus Christi on their way to the final, our knee jerk reaction is to find a flaw; to wrap ourselves in the comforting notion that Trimble is not like us.

General knowledge is all very well and good, but knowledge is not the same thing as intelligence – the two cannot be conflated.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with reading the London Lite – the ink, after all, doesn't come off on your fingers. But why do we feel the need to criticise Trimble just because she chooses to pick up a book instead.

The ripples of Barack Obama's spectacular election as President of the US last November will no doubt go on to define political generations to come. Yet it is interesting how the buzzwords of that new generation quickly become another stale part of the political lexicon. Specifically, "time for a change".

There is no doubt that President Obama captured the zeitgeist when proclaiming that it was "time for a change". But this message worked for him given the specific context in which he campaigned. "Change" was not the language that others were using. In the context of America in 2008, "change" was a fresh concept and specifically, Obama embodied it.

The mistake politicians, certainly in Britain but probably globally, are now making is to try and capture the language of "change" and adapt it to their own purposes. For instance, in a speech on January 5th 2009, David Cameron used the word change ten times. "We should have the opportunity to vote for change because we need change"; "Change is going to come"; "environmental change, cultural change; change in the way the country is governed, change in the way responsibilities are shared. But today I want to focus on just one part of the change we will bring: economic change". http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2008/12/David_Cameron_Britains_Economic_Future.aspx) I'm sure you get the picture…

The problem is that, ironically, "change" is now old news. It no longer stimulates public attention, as an unexpected fissure from the otherwise all-to-predictable landscape of political speech. Rather, references to "change" now wash over the public conscious unnoticed.

In short, its time to "change" the record.

View the gallery
The House Magazine Parliamentary Researcher of the Year Awards 2009 took place last night. The awards, held in association with the Federation of Small Businesses, mark the hard work and skills of the staff who help keep Westminster running behind the scenes.

Gillian Dalrymple, parliamentary assistant to Labour MP Rosemary McKenna, was named Overall Researcher of the Year at the ceremony.

James Purnell, work and pensions secretary, who nominated Gillian, said: "MPs' researchers are the unsung heroes of our democracy. As a former parliamentary researcher who is now an MP, I know the things we as politicians take credit for are more often than not thanks to the efforts of these overworked and underpaid champions.

"Researchers like Gillian, working with parliamentarians, give a voice to people who feel powerless and make a real difference to people's lives. People like Gillian never appear on the six o’clock news but she deserves recognition for the dedicated work she does."