whilst still being far too soft on crime

Nice.

Just after her 19th birthday last year, Claire was selected as Labour candidate for Skipton and Ripon

Ouch. That’s a tough, tough seat. Very big on garden centres and grammar schools, but not so much the Labour Party. Kudos for taking it on.

“In the first of our series of interviews with young, progressive candidates”

Um, Sunny she is young, yes, but where’s the evidence she is progressive? Very on-message with the party line…

Well, what’s Claires views on CIC?

Seriously. Does it go far enough or not?

I think the electors of Skipton and Ripon deserve to be told. Though it is probably not a doorstep issue.

New Labour have recently been at pains to demonstrate they are determined to get immigration under control copying a Conservative border control idea and introducing a points system ( an admission of ten years of error ) . New Labour are also keen to crack down on welfare scroungers again following the Conservative Party with a gesture towards penalties for failing to find employment ( an admission of ten years of error ). Jack Straw is now saying the Human rights acts or at least its embedding in UK law was a mistake as it introduced rights without responsibilities ( an admission of ten years of error ).
No-one claims any longer that the prodigious amounts of money flung at education have been well spent , our pensions system has been destroyed outside the public sector . Social mobility has reduced, freedom has been attacked over 42 days , DNA data bases CCTV habeus corpus and by insidious disdain for Parliament in many ways .
It is now clear that we have over-spent for ten years which whatever we do about now is making a down turn far harder to cope with . Suddenly vital small companies have been regulated out of existence, violent crime has increased, there are actually less police in evidence than in 97 despite gigantic public spending .
Labour now rely on a clear democratic con over the Scottish settlement in effect counting a client state twice and they actively manoeuvred to avoid a promised referendum on the Lisbon because they would lose it .

Ten years of tax control and disdain for democracy .If this makes you proud , what would make you ashamed and would you admit to any mistakes at all since 97 ?

How is she a progressive?

Of New Labour achievements since 1997, what are you most proud of and what do you disagree with?

I think this Labour government has achieved a lot since 1997 – from introducing the minimum wage to dropping the debt in the world’s poorest countries, from negotiating peace in Northern Ireland to introducing the New Deal, which helped over a million people left unemployed by the Tories back into work – this Labour governement has worked tirelessly for all the people of this country, and not just the privileged few.

Sounds to me like she’s just read that off a Labour briefing sheet…

And no disagreements with about the Iraq war or tuition fees for example?

Of course no one within any party will ever always agree with everything that party does – but I think it’s much more important to look at the bigger picture – the Labour party at large represents what I believe in, and any discussion over issues should be definitely be had, but had within the party, and with the people, but not within the press.

She’s a real politician in the making!! Didn’t answer the question, evaded and then blamed the media for not being able to tell the truth.

Oh I see, she works for Tony Blair hence not touching Iraq issue with a barge poll:

Claire is a Faith Ambassador for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation

Of course the best part of this interview (which for me falls in to stereotypical comedy)….

“To me, the Tories just do not support the same ideals and causes that I do in the same way, and in fact halved overseas aid and let class sizes frequently reach above 30 – my own class had 37 of us in it”

When did her classes have 37 in it? I assume never after she was 9, after which it will have been the fault of Labour for not reducing her class size.

Here are some questions for her:

1. Why does she support a party and a Govt that took the country to war in Iraq on a false premise.
2. What does she think about ID cards?
3. She wants to help people of all backgrounds, etc. What in her own background helps her relate to the many varied people she wants to help?
4. Does she believe in the Labour Govt.’s promotion of faith schools?
5. There are more than 5m people of working age on benefits. What does she think should be done about this problem? Does she believe it is even an issue?
6. Does she support the Govt.’s expansion of airports? How does that correlate with her concern for the environment?
7. What does she think about the huge public sector pension liability? Does she believe the Govt should recognise it in their own balance sheet, as companies are required to do?
8. What does think about the postcode lottery for NHS treatment? My wife is on a 2yr waiting list for treatment, readily available on the neighbouring PCT.
9. She is big on overseas aid. What’s her view on the corruption that sees large portions of that aid diverted away from the poorest people?
10. What’s her view on this Govt’s policy of importing cheap labour, yet often qualified or experienced workers, from poorer countries? How does that help their country if some of the best people are cleaning toilets for the middle-class in the UK?

I know there’s generally loathing on this site towards new labour but do the words ‘give the person a break’ not mean anything?

Leon does Iraq always have to be a dealbreaker?

I’m all for giving folk a break, all for a fair hearing too, Sunny. What’s piqued my curiosity is how you identified her as progressive: nothing at all in her responses indicates much by way of progressiveness, indeed there’s little but new labour verbiage, evasion and flim-flam, yet at the head of the interview you (and I’ll quote again) say
“In the first of our series of interviews with young, progressive candidates”

Her youth is evident, but how did you identify her as progressive?

Leon does Iraq always have to be a dealbreaker?

Mate, don’t insult my intelligence; you know full well what my point was.

She didn’t answer the question. She came off sounding like yet another clone Neo Labour politician. That’s a deal breaker right there.

Again, I ask: what makes her a progressive? Seriously, it’s an honest and pertinent question.

Chavscum has asked some very good questions above too. Although going by her interview I’m not holding my breath for decent answers…

Well given that you’re touting her as progressive, I’d be very interested as to why her analysis of the Lib Dem’s is little more than a stereotypical condescending remark, and what exactly she see’s as “unrealistic” in the Lib Dem policy book.

Given she sees Lib Dem’s as soft on crime is she also against the moves towards restorative justice that Labour have started to make due to their tendency to lock up as many people for minor crimes as they can, thus causing prison space shortage? Indeed, what is it that makes the Lib Dem’s “soft” on crime specifically?

I can see where this is going. We ask loads of inconvenient questions, she doesn’t answer or gives evasive non answers. Sunny offloads on us for wrecking this thread/not being constructive/or giving some politician ‘a break’….

Well in a friendly spirit I am genuinely interested to know how a Labour Party candidate would approach talking to people it cannot bribe with welfare and public Sector sinecures

Lets say you have an audience of middling single income families working in the private sector. They do not claim benefits ,they are not a criminals they do not suffer prejudice especially except by virtue of not being victim group .They feel over taxed and despised by New Labour who only care about single mothers criminals immigrants and unionised Public sector clients . They resent the constant implication that they do not earn their money , they are on a tight budget after mortgage costs and they are bemused at the suggestion they should be handing the income they work hard for to you for the purposes of overseas aid or charity as decided by people who appear to do little themselves and know nothing of life

How do you persuade these very ordinary people to vote Labour ?

Blair did

I have no problem with giving the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Skipton and Ripon a break.

But we were lead to believe that she was up for answering questions?

Claire is happy to answer questions, but please keep them civil and within comment guidelines.

Chavscums’ questions are all completely valid and within the oeuvre of what Liberal Conspiracy claims to be about, I’d have thought.

Ré your idea about supporting, financially, candidates we agree with, answers to these fairly fundamental questions would be useful, wouldn’t they?

I think we should be careful not to condescend this candidate, nobody should be discouraged just as they are starting out, but I would like to see some evidence of her credentials.

An ability to do more than mouth platitudes would be nice, but I guess that is too much to hope for. I would like to have heard how she responded to and enquiry about what her most difficult decision was.

Still, it will be interesting to keep an eye open for her name to see how and/or if she survives the grooming process. Does she have enough steel in her character?

Right, I’ve had a think about, and without wishing to scare Ms Hazelgrove off any further, I have questions. You’ll have to forgive the parochial nature of them, but politics begins at home, and all that:

1) Skipton high street, whilst very pretty to look at, isn’t particularly big, and there’s been quite a bit of tension in recent years between market stall holders and the bigger & more powerful retail outlets. What, if anything, can an MP do to ensure that the rights of traders in this historic market town are protected?

2) Where do you stand on the unpopular & rejected plans to merge North Yorkshire councils? Do you think it makes sense for services like refuse disposal to be handled by a single authority or do you think it’s more important that each small council retain its independence?

3) The Tory incumbent is quite vocal in his opposition to Post Office closures. Would you campaign to keep the Post Offices in your constituency open?

I’d be particularly interested in a response to that second question, if you have the time.

Does Iraq have to be a deal breaker – a question that surely exemplifies a complete failure to appreciate the relationship between outrageous (political) actions and the absolutely horrendous consequences that arise from them.

Some estimates put the Iraqi death toll at over ONE MILLION souls.
Officially American troops have suffered 4,000+ fatalities, with a further 30,000 casualties.
At least 176 British troops have been killed in Iraq, while 1,000+ have suffered serious injuries.

Now, we can only speculate as to why Western governments acted so aggressively toward an oil rich territory like Iraq, but we now know (with certainty) that:
*no weapons of mass destruction were found, with little evidence that they ever existed in the first place.
*political impatience trumped more methodical, and certainly less violent means, to establish Iraqs weapons capability (through the work of Hans Blix & Co).
*Saddam Hussein was a murderous leader, but only one brutal dictator amongst many.

The crimes of NuLab grow longer by the day but they all pale into insignificance compared to this unilateral act of aggression.

No self respecting person should touch NuLab with a barge pole – and if aspiring political wannabe’s really want to make the world a better place, then there is no better place to start than by challenging the shameful antics of a war mongering government.

I’m also interested in her reasons for choosing the Labour party.

She admits she didn’t go to the same lengths to investigate the other parties, so why does she feel qualified to pass judgement on them?

What were her formative experiences? I can’t really believe “I saw a documentary on TV about poverty” cuts deep enough and it certainly doesn’t give her any exceptional insight.

Another question for Claire. Is Leon right here? :

Claire is a Faith Ambassador for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation

Now, that is an interesting question.

Ha ha! Got to love some of the astonishing self-righteousness here from a bunch of blokes towards a 19-year old girl.

Come on, guys, take a look at yourselves and ask what you’re trying to achieve other than apparently wanting to drive her out of politics just because you don’t like her party? Any 19-year old selected as a party candidate for any main party should be applauded when we complain about political engagement amongst the young – although for some of you, it seems that you only want young people to take part in the political process as long as they agree with you.

I have a question. Claire – you’re 19, taking your finals this year and at the last election, Labour placed a distant third in the seat. You are plainly not going to win this seat (possibly ever), and you have had a taste of some of the feelings towards you just on the basis that you’ve chosen to support the Labour Party and a short interview. What will keep you going? Do you hope perhaps to turn Skipton and Ripon into a winnable seat for Labour (unlikely, in my view), or are you hoping to get a seat elsewhere?

You don’t mention getting involved in student politics, which is interesting. Were you involved? If not, why not?

Do you see yourself as staying in politics for the long haul?

Have you encountered any overt misogyny so far?

What were her formative experiences? I can’t really believe “I saw a documentary on TV about poverty” cuts deep enough and it certainly doesn’t give her any exceptional insight.

I remained pretty oblivious to the politics around me until I read ‘A Kestrel For A Knave’, but that didn’t make me any better equipped to actually talk about politics – it just made me begin to read & think about it more. Political beliefs are a confluence of many experiences – some deeply personal – and I think that makes it difficult for anyone to define their most formative experiences.

Well, I think the whole thread shows what a non-starter a liberal conspiracy “PAC” is.

A lot of the questions above are good, and if we are going to look at Q&A with candidates, if they won’t even answer those then whats the point? Chavscum has the basics down.

As for giving a break, I’ve stood for election (not parliamentary or labour, but then haven’t had a GE yet) and am around the same age as her. I felt no need for anyone to “give me a break”- I am perfectly capable of answering questions, and furthermore don’t sound like I’m reading a party briefing while I do it. I know other young labour candidates who, while not especially progressive, would at least give a more combative, original answer. If you can’t even manage that what good are you going to do in parliament?

But really, I think theres one question that still hasn’t been answered that doesn’t even require the candidates input, and I don’t see the point of asking anymore until it is. What exactly made you identify her as progressive, Sunny?

“Any 19-year old selected as a party candidate for any main party should be applauded when we complain about political engagement amongst the young”

Well there is a whole other cynical angle to be discussed about why a 19 year old was picked. Because she is definitely the best PPC for the job, or because she is part of the only demographic Labour have a chance of gaining traction with in the area? Even more cynically, could she have just been picked to give Labour the appearance of “engaging with the young” while knowing full well that she is extremely unlikely to actually win the seat off of the Tories?

I don’t know, and unfortunately the interview above doesn’t really show whether this is the case or not.

“although for some of you, it seems that you only want young people to take part in the political process as long as they agree with you.”

I don’t think we limit that to young people, do we? On a more serious note, I wish this woman well in politics, I just hope she doesn’t have to resort to as much script reading and tired old stereotypical behaviour that was evident here, otherwise all this “engagement with the young” is ultimately pointless in the greater picture of changing British politics.

Lee, I am afraid that my point still stands.

I think we all have a view as to why the PCC have chosen her. But that’s not an especially interesting question, from my point of view, *to Claire* (to the PCC is a different matter, but they’re not here to ask). That’s why I have asked the question about how she feels about fighting an unwinnable seat.

But ultimately, it still comes down to ‘Do we want more 19 year olds with this level of engagement in politics?’ For me, it is an unequivocal, ‘Yes’, because if we want parties to produce more politicians and policies we identify with, it’s going to be from people who have a fresh perspective and are not more interested in self-interested point scoring than in actually doing things.

“For me, it is an unequivocal, ‘Yes’, because if we want parties to produce more politicians and policies we identify with, it’s going to be from people who have a fresh perspective and are not more interested in self-interested point scoring than in actually doing things.”

I’d agree, if it looked like we were getting a fresh perspective here. I want more 19 year olds with engagement in politics too, but not ones that have the audacity to repeat the same old bullshit that has been circling the political sphere for the last decade if not more. It’s perhaps too early to see here, and from an interview we cannot be totally sure, but I see as much “point scoring” in this interview as I do from any other devout partisan politician… 19 or 99.

If you think young candidates are in some way immune to self-interested point scoring then you are sadly mistaken, Ken. I know a lot of young candidates from all three parties, and they are much like the old candidates. I don’t mean that as a blanket insult- there are plenty of great old parliamentarians, as well as awful ones and boring party line ones. People are people, being younger probably makes them more likely to be, say, a pro-gay-rights tory, but its not that transformational.

Meet the new MP, same as the old MP.

Well, Ken McKenzie, lets say we interviewed the 19yr old Tony Blair or Maggie Thatcher. Does our young wannabe exhibit a similar degree of narcissism or indeed sociopathy as the other two nutters ?

The desire to make the world a better place (through political means) makes me shudder.
Hell, look at the relentless squeeze on drinkers, motorists, or home owners to levy yet more cash to service the ever growing national debt.

Yes, Tinter, good point.

IF young people are capable of being good candidates, then they are equally capable of being bad candidates…

Lee, how can you tell from a short interview? You really can’t. Some sensible questions might help, and I’d like to judge on her actions and not what she is quoted as saying in this piece.

Tinter, she might not be immune to self-interested point scoring. I don’t know. I’m not pre-judging on the basis of a short, pre-edited interview, and I’m not going to write her off because she isn’t saying what I’d say.

‘Pre-edited’? What on earth was I saying there? That comes of writing when I’m doing something else. Please ignore that, I am clearly demented.

Ultimately, what does it really matter how old she is? It is too much of a blanket statement to say that getting more 19 year olds engaged in politics is a good thing – would you extend the same sentiment to, say, the BNP. NOTA BENE: I am not accusing Claire Hazelgrove of being a fascist; I am favourably comparing her to one. There is a scale of my happiness with a 19 year old being involved in politics that runs from “that person being a Nazi” to “that person holding Political Views That I Agree With” which includes “that person being a Blairite supporter of the Iraq war” somewhere in between (I arrogantly draw from her refusal to comment the conclusion that she supported the Iraq war – “I think it’s much more important to look at the bigger picture”, for the love of god). I could do without quite a lot of those in the final category being involved in politics, in all honesty.

From the interview, the only conclusion that I can draw is that she is Just Another New Labour Drone, but I hope I am wrong. The dismissal of the LibDems as “far too soft on crime” was almost enough to finish me off. This is not the hectoring of a 19 year old woman, and claiming that it is strikes me as a little patronising. While I’m slightly sympathetic to Sunny’s “give her a break” comment (not least because I would despise the 19 year old me), she surely wants to be an active politician and so should be fairly judged as such. Given that, I think all the questions asked so far are fair enough.

Sunny’s question of whether Iraq has to be a dealbreaker is close to unbelievable: I echo the comments of a&e charge nurse, only without the “NuLab” bit.

Good interview.

The article and links show that Claire is someone whose main interests are education and international development, who this year volunteered with the Obama campaign and who doesn’t just talk about these issues but spends her time working to bringing together members of different religious faiths on reducing malaria in Africa and volunteering to help send gift boxes to orphans in Tanzania, as well as challenging political disengagement by running a high profile campaign for Labour in a seat where the voters are normally taken for granted.

And the most popular question here appears to be “how is she progressive?” For pity’s sake.

Er, the first post of ta&ecn, not the last one.

donpaskini – fair comments, apart from the faith bit. I find it hard to see how the TBFF is a Good Thing at all.

I know there’s generally loathing on this site towards new labour but do the words ‘give the person a break’ not mean anything?

OK, instead of questions about disengagement and the surveillance society, I would like to ask Claire what she feels about Diana Vickers’ split from her boyfriend after an emotional on-stage hug from finalist Eoghan Quigg!

Dan,

I originally wrote ‘any party other than the BNP’, but then thought that was superfluous as only a real hair-splitting nit-picker would infer that I was implying that having 19 year olds involved in the BNP was a good thing.

Of course, I forgot I was on the Internet. Foolish of me.

donpaskini – if only you’d come along earlier the rest of the board would have been spared my much less pithy peroration. You’re spot on.

I originally wrote ‘any party other than the BNP’, but then thought that was superfluous as only a real hair-splitting nit-picker would infer that I was implying that having 19 year olds involved in the BNP was a good thing.

Of course, I forgot I was on the Internet. Foolish of me.

a) did you miss the bit about there being gradations between “fascist” and “person who agrees with me” (I use that term only partly ironically)?

b) have you heard of rhetorical questions?

Doug @ #21

I took that directly from her website linked to in the post…

Ken McKenzie @ 26,

Well, what sort of engagement do you want us to have with her? Is she supposed to get a rain check for policies we have spent ages arguing against? I haven’t seen an unfair question yet on this thread.

Leon,

I didn’t doubt you for a moment. It was just a cheap rhetorical point.

“Do we want more 19 year olds with this level of engagement in politics?”

We have already questioned what her level of engagement with politics is, as it appears from her answers that she may only be engaged with propaganda.
It really doesn’t matter what her age is if she is capable/incapable of representing the constituents, so it is fair to ask why anybody thinks her lack of experience is a vote-winner.
Are there not other, more valuable ways of engaging with politics than by being a PPC?
Isn’t it degrading to the older generation to have their accumulated knowledge so easily dismissed – what does she think of Brown’s statement that this is ‘no time for a novice’?

“if we want parties to produce more politicians and policies we identify with, it’s going to be from people who have a fresh perspective”

I’d be interested to know how anyone gets a fresh perspective from watching TV and hanging around with established figures.
I’d be interested to know how a 19-year-old has any perspective at all, but then she has essentially told us in her answers that she doesn’t have any perspective, so this is a bit of a non-sequitur – she’s certainly not acting independently.

Got to love some of the astonishing self-righteousness here from a bunch of blokes towards a 19-year old girl.

I was wondering how long it’d take before the Palinesque accusations started…

Look, she’s a political candidate, that means she has to be scrutinesed. The level of scrutiny is based soley on her own words! Her age or genitals have nothing to do with it.

Or are you seriously saying we should be all softly softly because she’s a little girl who might cry?

Ok, how are we defining ‘progressive’ then? Does not wanting to criticize the party on Iraq automatically take you out of that label?

I think she’s progressive, but that doesn’t mean I’m obliged to agree with her on everything.

Lee – a bit bizarre of you to accuse her of being partisan given how much you criticize Labour on here. No?

Sunny, why do you think she’s progressive? What are you basing this on?

Sunny,

Is Claire Hazelgrove actually going to respond to questions, or not? I’d have thought most folk here would welcome the opportunity to talk things over with a progressive candidate. I seem to recall Lynne Featherstone MP, getting a fair hearing.

Sunny, I don’t mind what definition of progressive you use. Just list some of her views that you think make her progressive compared to other labour candidates.

I don’t understand why people are acting like its so amazing for a young person to become involved in politics. I believe over 20% of both Labour and Lib Dem members fall into their youth wings, which probably represents a higher proportion of activists. Sure, the younger generations may vote less but I don’t think this has resulted in them producing in a sharper drop in those actively politicing than in other age groups.

Just being young isn’t that special! I don’t want plaudits for being Dr.Johnsons dog, and nor I imagine does Claire. I, and I imagine she, will both be involved in politics in 30 years, young no more, and I imagine both of us would like to be able to stand on our merits then, with the novelty having worn off.

His increasing drift to the right, if the dismaying comments/articles of the last month are anything to go by…

Damn you, thomas, douglas clark and Tinter!

You have ruined my contextualism!

(grrrr…)

Ahh…..Progressive now that word seems to be the subject of a property dispute ,I noticed a while ago . Janet Daley said (In July ) …“ I believe it would be best for the country if the entire policy debate was conducted in progressive terms “ meaning right wing . Now last I heard progressive described a dog eared set of baby boomer bourgeois Liberal errors , does “Progressive” now mean something good ?Then I was pestering Hopi Sen. He was , at that time , counselling against ditching Brown and this exchange occurred with one of his commenters about the meaning of ‘progressive’ .““the progressive agenda is strongly represented in the Brown government.”( said Hopi)
“If my decoding is any good, you mean ‘Blairite’ (non -social/permanently pro-’more market’). Progressive never used to mean that…” (said Miller 2 )
So Ms. Scaredy little rabbit may be a progressive which may well mean Blairte which in turn means following on after the Conservative Party like a lost dog .

I am also progressive its just that I progressed all the way out of the Labour parry into the Conservative Party .

Hoorah for me and confusion to the forced of regression

Can’t see anyone else agreeing to be interviewed on here!

I never said anything about her age or being female. Others are making that inference. She’s done volunteering in other countries to help disadvantaged people – she’s interested and strongly supportive of poverty alleviation and international development. She says: that everyone deserves the best possible start in life, no matter their background, gender, education, wealth, race or religion.

- which sounds like the sort of ‘equality of opportunity’ basis on which many within the Labour party base their ideas. She wants to invest more into education. What the hell else do you guys want in a short blog interview designed to introduce the candidate? A manifesto?

And I also find it extremely hilarious that some are so mind-bendingly hypocritical here.

Thomas (and others) accuse her of ‘propaganda’ or ‘nu-labour’ plattitudes like this is Guido Fawkes or something. thomas – remind me, weren’t you just defending Silvio Berlusconi’s idiocy and the Italian ministers just a few articles ago? Suddenly you’re more into rhetoric then you were then, because I’m sure you said that people shouldn’t take Italian politicians at their word.

Similarly – Lee is all about non-partisanship, except that he spent a fair amount of time cussing the Greens and Labour at other occasions… and if a candidate says they don’t like Libdem policies then suddenly people get their backs up.

Donpaskini’s already covered some of the more progressive policies she has. If this seems to be the main sticking point, then maybe people would like to explain why she isn’t one, apart from the fact that some of you seem hurt she didn’t loudly declare she was part of the anti-war march 5 years ago. FFS.

Can’t see anyone else agreeing to be interviewed on here!

I can, quite easily but you know answering questions properly and not just parroting party lines with cheap shots about other parties may help them get an easier ride.

Sorry Sunny, but your are wrong to say that she volunteered in other countries – she was sent there as part of the Faith Foundation program she is part of. That is a very different thing.

If she really believes in equality of opportunity then she why is she in the party of equality of outcome?

I did not accuse her of being a propagandist, but that she is unable to distinguish between politics and propaganda.

Regarding Berlusconi – I did not defend his actions I argued that attacking him as idiotic was insubstantial. And I did not say that politicians shouldn’t be taken at their word (I’m really not THAT cynical), instead I stated that on should be sensitive to their motivations for what they say (be it culture, character, class or anything else).

Ms Hazelgrove is clearly very PC and obviously wants to be liked, so I’d really like to know if she can stand up to the intense barrage which she has let herself in for.

As the smoothness of the ride is down to the ability of the rider it can be concluded that she has already made some serious mistakes in the conduct of this interview.

Perhaps if she feels unable to answer back she would be better with some additional experience behind her after all. How else is she going to learn?

“In the first of our series of interviews with young, progressive candidates, we ask how it all came about.”

Its the first of a series of interviews with young people. Its why you are interviewing her. Its not an unreasonable topic of discussion.

So she is progressive because she supports equality and third world policy reduction? Thats a bit thin, Sunny, and hardly sets her apart from any candidates for any of the main parties. Its in no way unreasonable for us to ask a few follow up questions.

Beyond that, this is a polticial blog and you asked us to put questions. If we can’t ask about policy issues what do you expect us to talk about?

Do you expect us to say, “well answering some simple policy questions is beyond you but I am sure you would do a great job in parliament anyway?” That hardly seems reasonable to say about anyone.

She might be great. The interview doesn’t give that impression, but we are asking questions to find out. Surely thats the normal thing to do?

“Similarly – Lee is all about non-partisanship, except that he spent a fair amount of time cussing the Greens and Labour at other occasions… and if a candidate says they don’t like Libdem policies then suddenly people get their backs up.”

Well I may have once cussed the greens, twice perhaps in passing, and yes I am clearly no Labour fan…though I think it’s a long stretch to equate partisanship with hating bad policy makers…especially given that I have not once said I dislike Labour simply because they’re Labour. I always have a reason as to why I don’t like what someone has done, based on what they’ve done and not who they are.

The Lib Dem issue in this interview gets me because she is quite happy to simply say “Tories aren’t my bag” but, like a million other partisan Labour supporters and politicians, can’t simply say the same about Lib Dem’s. There seems to be this acknowledgement from them that Lib Dems aren’t that bad, that there is common ground, and so rather than sayinbg “they’re not for me” it’s… They’re soft on crime and, you know, their policies are unrealistic.. Any substantiation for these slurs? No, it’s just the same crap that’s been repeated for years without any justification given by those repeating it. It’s as partisan as it gets, it’s pathetic and it’s lazy.

Ok, how are we defining ‘progressive’ then? Does not wanting to criticize the party on Iraq automatically take you out of that label?

No, but not eanting to criticise them on anything, that’s a different story.

What’s particularly commednable about this individual beign selected as a PPC at the age of 19? Nothing. Many people who are 19 and a whole lot younger engage with politics without being selected as PPCs. Possibly the difference in this instance is that we’ve got somebody who’s a bit more ambitious than the others and who’s looking to get on the career ladder a bit earlier?

There’s absolutely nothing in anything Hazelgrove has said to suggest they’re progressive except the most general of bromides that almost any political candidate would come out with. Really all we know specifically is that she thinks the Labour Government is great and she’s prepared to use the deeply distasteful “soft on crime” line about the Lib Dems.

Donpaskini’s already covered some of the more progressive policies she has

Hang on, none of that was anything to do with policy. It was to do with volunteer work she’s been involved in. It’s not policy. I am damned sure that Don at least knows the dfifference.

So what have we got? Individual who’s done volunteer work becomes Labour candidate, shows no sign of supporting anything specific that New Labour wouldn’t, says intrinsically objectionable things about Lib Dems. If they weren’t nineteen what would be of any interest about them? This being so, what difference does it make that they’re nineteen?

“Does not wanting to criticize the party on Iraq automatically take you out of that label?”

“…some of you seem hurt she didn’t loudly declare she was part of the anti-war march 5 years ago. FFS.”

Hang on, there’s a difference between holding an opinion (“yes, I support/oppose the Iraq War because of bladeybladeyblah”) and witholding one’s opinion for fearing of offending one’s party. I think that some posters here – myself included – are a bit sick of Labourites treading the party line, and Labour’s party line is not progressive.

Still, I agree with Don. Alleviating international poverty is as progressive an aim as one could hope for, and Claire has, admirably, taken an active role in it. I just wish that people could be more willing to lay a few well-deserved kicks into their own side; if Corbyn, Abbott etc. can do it, then I’m sure that others can try.

Laurie’s latest post is good on youth politics. Get it onto the front page…

Ben

1. I think that this young woman deserves to be applauded and encouraged – her aims are clearly basically decent, and before we attack her for not being ‘progressive’ enough, we should admire her for attempting to work within the system to change things, from a very tender age indeed. At 20, she will have a lifetime of experience and learning ahead of her, and we should not expect her to have hard and fast positions on every issue of the past 10 years right now. That’s not what being 20 is about, no matter what your job is.

2. That said, I worry about the off-pat ‘politicese’ answers she’s given to some of the questions above – especially the way she evaded the Iraq/tuition fees issue. If the party wants her to engage with young voters in S and R, she’s going to have to address these issues, and whatever her position is, she needs to say it. Does she think that Iraq isn’t as important as we make out, that Labour have done enough good to make up for that error? Then, like David Lammy does, she should say so.

I am incredibly heartened to see a progressive young woman standing as a Labour PPC- my only worry is that she has not done enough growing up outside the party (if I understand correctly she has been involved since she was 15 and under Sally Keeble’s wing?) to develop her own ideas. I say this as someone who’s now working for the Labour party myself on a part-time basis.

Don’t worry Ben, it’s scheduled for 5pm, I just wanted to see where this discussion went first!
L.x

Hi everyone,

Thanks for reading the article and for taking the time to comment and ask all these questions. I’ll try and answer some of them now for you, I apologise in advance because I won’t be able to get through all of them right away, but here are answers to some of them –

I agree that there is a massive problem in terms of ensuring that aid sent to certain states actually gets to the people who need it the most. For example, from my own experiences in Tanzania, there were so many people living in very poor conditions with little access to clean water, whilst some state buildings had waterfalls of clean water just for decoration. I think that by imposing conditions on aid as we so often do in the west (through the IMF and/or World Bank) this can in fact make the situation worse. Whilst we certainly need to work with the governments of each state in order to promote good governance, I also think the work carried out by NGOs is invaluable. Through charities and other NGOs money can be put into the communities themselves, for example by giving people the money to set up market stalls and craft making shops, which not only ensures that those who need it get the money, but also allows individuals to help themselves as opposed to us, as westerners, assuming that we can just drop money and resources on a country and that they will be in any way helpful for those who truly need them.

I agree that the so-called ‘brain drain’ is a real problem. Whilst our NHS simply could not survive without doctors and nurses coming from other countries, we need to consider the other side of the argument in that by employing these individuals here, their home countries suffer as a result. The same with the people mentioned in the question who do many of the less desirable jobs. Yet, if these people want a stronger quality of life and are here legitimately then who are we to say they cannot further themselves or earn money for their families, as many British people move for work too. Many migrants do in fact send money back to their family members and return once they have made a helpful amount through work and/or completed their training, and so this can actually help. But yes we absolutely do need to be aware of the situation and encourage individuals to take up posts in their home states if possible, whilst accepting that some may rather work and live here.

Being a student myself, in fact part of the first cohort to by paying top-up fees, of course I would like to be paying less, who wouldn’t? But I realise that paying back our fees after graduation and when we are earning is a lot fairer than expecting people to be able to pay before hand as with the way with the previous system. This actually allows many people to consider university for the first time, knowing that it is up to them to pay back the fees as opposed to having to reply on their parents’ ability to pay upfront. As nice as free tuition would be, I just don’t see it as fair that the taxpayer, and therefore many who didn’t go to university, should pay my fees in full for me. If I decide I want to do a degree, then that is my choice, and it is only right that I contribute.

The work I do for the Faith Foundation is voluntary and involves me being one of many working to bring different faith communities together to both raise awareness of and money for the hopeful eventual eradication of malaria, and focusing on other Millennium Development Goals. Tony Blair did indeed set up the foundation, and my work with this is entirely voluntary and based around my views of international development and social cohesion, and has absolutely nothing to do with political point scoring. Many things are just more important than that, and I consider the amount of lives lost in parts of Africa and other parts of the world due to this disease to be one of them.

I think the ‘postcode lottery’ is utterly wrong. The quality of healthcare on the NHS should be available at the same standard for everyone, no matter where you live. When you pay tax, you quite rightly expect to be able to receive high quality treatment. The government has made healthcare better in this country, but definitely has a long way to go. For example, prescription drugs for cancer patients are to be made completely free of charge – as they absolutely should be- and this is a massive step in the right direction. We need to work to completely eradicate what remains of the postcode lottery.

Many people who are on benefits would much rather not be, despite some headlines we see today, and if people genuinely need help then it absolutely should be available for them. What we need to work on is helping people back into work who now can work again, perhaps by looking at what each person can do as opposed to what they cannot, and suggesting employment that fits into their specific situation. Many people want to work but just don’t think that they can given their situation, but say someone has injuries that prevents them from moving around too much, then possibly a job answering phones would be preferable to working on a building site. Each person and each case is different, and we need to remember that whilst encouraging those who can work into work, and respecting and helping those who cannot.

With regards to the question asking my opinion of the merging of North Yorkshire Councils, I am personally pleased that this was rejected, because each area is different and should be able to prioritise local needs. Promoting cohesion between the areas is a positive idea, but would not be achieved in the way that the merger suggested. People want their council to take up their issues, such as mending holes in their street, and to know that this is more likely to get done sooner if the council understands the needs of their local area, and that they are not at the bottom of a list that spans miles and miles.

What keeps me going fighting an ‘unwinnable’ seat, doing a degree, trying to find a job and live my life as a 20 year old as well? Honestly, I absolutely love what I do. It’s not the easiest thing to be doing at any age, and of course there is always criticism, but I really do want to spend my life working in politics in one way or another. Maybe that won’t always be in this direct way, but I do want to keep working in a field like this that allows me to focus on issues that matter. People won’t always agree with me, and I’d never ask people to vote for me just because I’m young, as many young people already disagree with me, but I think that what I can do is provide a real and clear alternative for the people of Skipton and Ripon, and hopefully show that politics can include more young people and individuals from all backgrounds too, and not just your typical politician. If we don’t get involved, then who are we to complain if we don’t like what happens?

I know there are many more questions you’d like me to answer, and I will answer as many as I can as soon as I can.

Thanks again,

Claire

Look – much as I love Laurie, and the post will be on the front page soon enough, I’m afraid this is a very journalistic – I’ll say what I bloody well want without having to worry about consequences – way of politics. The actual world of politics doesn’t work like that. There are nasty things like compromise, having to bite your tongue, making alliances with people you may not necessarily agree with on everything – and all the rest. Sitting on the sidelines and screaming is easy, but you’re not going to change much, comrade. Youth politics is similarly idealistic, but really bereft of how things actually work out.

Not to say being idealistic is wrong – but if LibCon readers want to actually see a largely progressive group of people get into politics – they’re going to have to be much more strategic, much more willing to accept faults, and not being so dismissive. In other words, if you think John McDonnell is the only guy worth supporting, then you’re unlikely to become part of any broad movement.

To answer other points more specifically:
thomas: she was sent there as part of the Faith Foundation program she is part of. That is a very different thing.
And does that make her any less progressive?

Ms Hazelgrove is clearly very PC and obviously wants to be liked, so I’d really like to know if she can stand up to the intense barrage which she has let herself in for.

Why would anyone want to discuss anything with people who have made up their minds, are negatively disposed towards anyone touching New Labour, and start getting angry if people don’t post long manifestos spelling out every minutiae of every policy?

Tinter:
Its in no way unreasonable for us to ask a few follow up questions.

There’s a difference between asking follow up questions and actually questioning how this candidate is actually progressive. I didn’t read the bit where she said she killed kittens for a laugh.

Lee:
I always have a reason as to why I don’t like what someone has done, based on what they’ve done and not who they are.

I’m afraid this interview wasn’t meant to be a list of ’101 things I dislike about the Libdems’. I asked for a para or two per question because people usually get bored in reading more than that. But you accusing others of not being non-partisan really is laughable.

I think that some posters here – myself included – are a bit sick of Labourites treading the party line, and Labour’s party line is not progressive.

I have a feeling this is what it comes down to.

Firstly, ‘progressive’ is a relative word, and it depends on what issue you refer to here. On minimum wage, poverty alleviation etc the party is far more progressive than the other main party. My question would be: why would you expect anyone who has entered politics to immediately cast themselves as a trouble-maker by loudly denouncing many of the party’s policies? Is it not blindingly obvious that Abbott and Corbyn are in a different position and place?

I say this as someone who’s now working for the Labour party myself on a part-time basis.

Ah. That explains it.

There are nasty things like compromise, having to bite your tongue, making alliances with people you may not necessarily agree with on everything – and all the rest.

Heh, I remember the days when you’d criticise organisations such as the 1990 Trust for doing exactly that. So you’re now saying that they were right to work with HuT because that’s the nature of the game then.

why would you expect anyone who has entered politics to immediately cast themselves as a trouble-maker by loudly denouncing many of the party’s policies?

Can you really not tell the difference between critcising everything and criticising nothing? I’m sure you can. But it’s easier to come up with a straw man. Talking of which, there’s another one contained within this particular homily:

the actual world of politics doesn’t work like that. There are nasty things like compromise, having to bite your tongue, making alliances with people you may not necessarily agree with on everything – and all the rest. Sitting on the sidelines and screaming is easy, but you’re not going to change much, comrade

Gosh, you reckon?

Well, that might be what we’ve got. Or it might be that we have somebody young and on the make, of which variety of individual Labour politics has never been bereft.

So how do we tell the difference? We wait to see some substance. Of which we have had none. As opposed to a gap-year CV, which was pretty much all we got. In retrospect I’m surprised it wasn’t reproduced as such

“I’m afraid this interview wasn’t meant to be a list of ‘101 things I dislike about the Libdems’. I asked for a para or two per question because people usually get bored in reading more than that. But you accusing others of not being non-partisan really is laughable.”

I asked a question, as the end of the article here suggested we do. She made a comment, an inane and lazy comment, about the Lib Dems while not being equally asinine about the Tories…I’d appreciate a clarification. It is clear however that the idea of you interviewing people on this site is to further the image of “progressive” Labour poltiicians and, if they’re ever called on anything they say, to shut the discussion down with a tirade of sarcastic and petulant insults

“Firstly, ‘progressive’ is a relative word, and it depends on what issue you refer to here. On minimum wage, poverty alleviation etc the party is far more progressive than the other main party. My question would be: why would you expect anyone who has entered politics to immediately cast themselves as a trouble-maker by loudly denouncing many of the party’s policies? Is it not blindingly obvious that Abbott and Corbyn are in a different position and place?”

What it comes down to is you need to stop making out that you and those you interview are happy to “discuss” the outcome. Like you say, you can do what you like, so just present your candidates for a progressive future then ignore those of us that don’t agree with you in the comments.

Love you too, Sunny, and we can discuss what we think about my post when it actually goes up – but I think that that’s why we’re going to need people like me AND people like Claire over the next few years. I love politics, I’m working in Westminster at the moment in order to learn more about the system, but I’m far too contentious, argumentative and weird to go into it full time. Claire is well-spoken, polite and very much a centrist with a progressive mission – that makes her a good politician. I’m outspoken, rude, and a radical socialist-feminist who likes to stir things up but sees the value of centrist bridge-building. That’s why I’m a journalist. In progressive politics, we need both – journalists and politicians keep each other in check, especially in a country without an open selection process for politicians and with an incredibly nepotistic media industry.

That said, I’m all for -’nasty things like compromise, having to bite your tongue, making alliances with people you may not necessarily agree with on everything – and all the rest.’ In fact, that’s what I’m trying to do in the feminist movement at the moment, pretty much on my own. But I don’t think youth politics is necessarily antithetical to bridge-building and alliance formation: just look at how we organised around, for example, the STW march and this week’s anti-Stanstead protests.

Claire, I was very impressed by your answers, although I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. Don’t listen to these whining libertarian dad-a-likes: you bloody go, girl.

my only worry is that she has not done enough growing up outside the party (if I understand correctly she has been involved since she was 15

What Laurie , as a “journalist, blogger, student and feminist activist. ..” have you ever done that bears any realtion to real life ?

I also think this interview shows an interesting dichotomy occurring. Sunny, you want progressive politicians, and (like all of us I’d hope) new perspective from young new politicians that are able to engage with the youth of the country. However you also want “strategy” and politicians that are obviously there to tow the party line so that they can get the most power with their progressive credentials (arguments over credentials in this case aside).

My issue is…how can you engage with the youth if you’re acting like every other politician ever has in order to get power? There is the problem, and there is where truly progressive politicians need to start standing up…ones that aren’t going to be afraid of saying what they think and actually acting upon what they hear. It may mean that in absolute power we will be waiting longer for truly progressive politicians to take the reigns, but it’ll also mean that when they do they will have, hopefully, dragged up a level of support and confidence from the public.

The most interesting thing in the article for me was this:

“in fact volunteered for the party for a year before I joined in order to be sure that the party did respresent my beliefs in the way I thought it did.”

I thought this was refreshing, and showed the mindset of someone who wants to help create change rather than just have influence/access.

I hope that the fact that she picked Virginia to be active in in for the US election is indicative of plenty of activity in her local marginal seats.

I did dislike one statement: “I have friends in all parties” but at 19 she’s got plenty of time to learn to hate the Tories on both a conceptual AND personal level with the vitriol the rest of us do :p

Oh, and I am a little confused with the mindset of some of the commentators here – seems a bit Militantesque. Whether she’s progressive or not depends on your starting point, but she’s clearly not stupid & so made the choice to be interviewed for this website knowing the political leanings of most people who write for it. That suggests that she wants to have a dialogue with people who might have honest disagreements with her and her party.

Sunny, we had nothing to make us think she was progressive. most of it could have come from a Tory. It was perfectly reasonable to ask that question.

Anyway, I’m slightly more upbeat after the follow up.

Its good to see your positive tone on immigration. Personally, one of the things that alarmed me most from labour recently was the wave of “British job for British workers” rhetoric. Given that you agree immigrants make a positive contribution to our own and their own countries by worknig here, how do you feel about plans to introduce a points based system and tighter controls? Won’t this only worsen the “brain drain”?

Lee: Like you say, you can do what you like, so just present your candidates for a progressive future then ignore those of us that don’t agree with you in the comments.

Don’t worry, I fully intend to

Leon: Heh, I remember the days when you’d criticise organisations such as the 1990 Trust for doing exactly that. So you’re now saying that they were right to work with HuT because that’s the nature of the game then.

I’m afraid there’s a difference between making compromises and working with an organisation like HuT that is directly opposed to your principles. No surprise to see that 1990 has subsequently imploded, given they didn’t even know what their direction was. I’m also frankly amazed that while working within BME orgs you’re willing to allow much more leeway but not in national politics.

ejh – Or it might be that we have somebody young and on the make, of which variety of individual Labour politics has never been bereft.

Hmmm… Sure, but the question is, what is Labour bereft of? Ideas? Energy? Vision? My problem is that none of this is really present outside the party either – so simply blaming Labour for all the problems with left-wing politics is rather short-sighted.

Yesterday we saw Plane Stupid take over Stansted. Frankly, I’m fully supportive of them. But environmentalism and feminism are the only two areas where I see a broad range of good ideas, discussion and energy. Everywhere else is like a barren wasteland. Any surprise Labour is in the same place?

Laurie – love it.

I said:

it might be that we have somebody young and on the make, of which variety of individual Labour politics has never been bereft.

Sunny responded:

but the question is, what is Labour bereft of? Ideas? Energy? Vision?

Can anybody explain to me what the response had to do with the initial comment, other than sharing the word “bereft”?

Claire,

Very glad to see you write the following:

“Yet, if these people want a stronger quality of life and are here legitimately then who are we to say they cannot further themselves or earn money for their families, as many British people move for work too. Many migrants do in fact send money back to their family members and return once they have made a helpful amount through work and/or completed their training, and so this can actually help.”

As I’m sure you’re aware, migrants sending money home is usually a much more efficient way of promoting local economies than direct aid. Of course, both have their downsides and both have their role to play. Migration isn’t often talked about as a way of promoting redistribution to shattered economies though, and this ought to be highlighted as one of the positive consequences of migration.

I’m also pleased to see that your instincts are towards treating British people moving for work and foreigners moving for work similarly. Personally I think the same whether they’re here “legitimately” or not – I’m not quite sure how a person can be illegitimate.

Tim

Newmania: what on earth do you mean? I am a member of several activist groups and help to facilitate direct action within and outside parliament. I am a feminist blogger, journalist and speechwriter, I’m involved in several feminist campaigns, I’ve done voluntary work for the Labour party as well as for several anti-war organisations, I do occasional work as a solicitor’s clerk of court, representing asylum seekers and drug mules, I’ve been an English and Classics teacher and I’ve volunteered with educational/mentoring projects for disadvantaged kids. I’ve been a waitress, a barmaid, a burlesque dancer, a functioning student alcoholic, a psychiatric inpatient, a traveller and a citizen of the world and ultimately a journalist, and I’ve also worked for several national newspapers.

My memoir will be coming out soon – I’m calling it ‘sex, booze and prescription drugs: my travels with the British middle classes’ (available in all good bookshops priced 8.99). There’s an anecdote about an armadillo and a syringe full of skag that I’m sure you chaps will just love.

I’m afraid there’s a difference between making compromises and working with an organisation like HuT that is directly opposed to your principles.

So you agree that raising Iraq as an issue is justified on here then? Great moving one…:D

No surprise to see that 1990 has subsequently imploded, given they didn’t even know what their direction was.

I’m sure you know that Andrew Gilligan had more to do with that than HuT.

I’m also frankly amazed that while working within BME orgs you’re willing to allow much more leeway but not in national politics.

You seriously can’t compare working with resource starved grassroots organisations (in a field that far too many white people are hostile to) to a political party that’s actually in government can you??

Or it might be that we have somebody young and on the make, of which variety of individual Labour politics has never been bereft.

ejh – my point was, Labour’s problems isn’t being bereft of people (which isn’t the issue) but being bereft of ideas and vision as a whole.

Leon – I’m sure you know that Andrew Gilligan had more to do with that than HuT.

I’m afraid the rot was there regardless of how it was funded. There’s no point going over people since Karen Chouhan who left or were forced out for reasons of internal politics.

You seriously can’t compare working with resource starved grassroots organisations (in a field that far too many white people are hostile to) to a political party that’s actually in government can you??

Politics works the same everywhere – compromise, alliance and presenting a united front in face of enemies. I’m not saying their circumstances are the same, though Labour around the country is hardly cash rich. I’m saying people and how politics works is broadly the same.

“why would you expect anyone who has entered politics to immediately cast themselves as a trouble-maker by loudly denouncing many of the party’s policies?”

Actually, I’d recommend to any young, ambitious politician that they pick at least one issue or policy area where they disagree with the party line and mention it whenever the opportunity arises. There is essentially no downside to this politically, it impresses lots of people who want to see more independent minded politicians, and as Claire says, no one is going to agree all the time with what their party does.

As a related point, since essentially everyone now recognises that the war on Iraq was a disaster, it is a positive benefit for the Labour Party if our candidates say so.

These are both examples where ‘the politically savvy thing to do’ and ‘the right thing to do’ coincide as well, which is nice.

Claire, with the best will in the world, I think it’s a little unwise for you to be making loud pro-Purnell and workfare pronouncements when the world of work is so new to yourself, and you’ve not experienced the vagaries of the job market, been on benefits etc. Just a tip: it won’t go down terribly well…

Claire,

Interesting answers. I’m glad to see that Woolas’s warblings haven’t spread far.

What sort of changes would you like to see within the Labour Party?

Sunny,

Firstly, ‘progressive’ is a relative word, and it depends on what issue you refer to here. On minimum wage, poverty alleviation etc the party is far more progressive than the other main party.

Considering the policies of the “other main party“, that’s not one for Labour to list under endorsements. Especially considering that, on the issues of immigration and wages, they’ve been bested by Boris-bloody-Johnson.

“My question would be: why would you expect anyone who has entered politics to immediately cast themselves as a trouble-maker by loudly denouncing many of the party’s policies?”

I’d reply…well, I am replying…that it’s a terrible reflection on the state of British politics that criticising one’s own Party is seen as “troublemaking”. This isn’t comparable to walking into an office and denouncing someone’s management strategy, this is recognising that the policies of one’s Party have had awful effects upon the lives of hundreds of thousands. If Labour is going to change then that recognition is absolutely necessary…

…Is it not blindingly obvious that Abbott and Corbyn are in a different position and place?”

…from the bottom tier upwards. And besides, Labour sycophancy isn’t exactly popular with the populace.

Laurie,

“Don’t worry Ben, it’s scheduled for 5pm, I just wanted to see where this discussion went first!”

Aaaah, makes sense.

Nu-mania,

We can’t all go the University of Life, y’know. The bastards established top-up fees

Love to you all,

Ben

Politics works the same everywhere – compromise, alliance and presenting a united front in face of enemies. I’m not saying their circumstances are the same, though Labour around the country is hardly cash rich. I’m saying people and how politics works is broadly the same.

Well you said:

I’m also frankly amazed that while working within BME orgs you’re willing to allow much more leeway but not in national politics.

And I think I’ve answered that fairly well. Politics doesn’t quite work the same, there is a question of scale and circumstance, there is a big difference between how much slack you give a marginalised people compared to a mainstream, funded and in power (the last point being particulary pertinent) political power.

@ donpaskini #80,

Fair and good points.

*funded and in power (the last point being particulary pertinent) political power.

should read:

funded and in power (the last point being particulary pertinent) political party.

Fecking busy at work and really shouldn’t wasting my time with this shit!!

Sunny,

Yesterday we saw Plane Stupid take over Stansted. Frankly, I’m fully supportive of them.

You support a counter-productive interference with other people’s freedom of movement?

my point was, Labour’s problems isn’t being bereft of people (which isn’t the issue) but being bereft of ideas and vision as a whole.

Yes, but my point was nothing to do with Labour’s vision or otherwise, it was to do with the fact that Labour has always had certain number of younger people using it as a a career ladder, it being no different to the other parties in that respect. You seem to be seeing the word “bereft” and applying it to everything except that to which it was originally applied.

(The point, which has probably been lost by now, was that there is nothing particular about being young-and-a-Labour-PPC which in and of itself is demonstrative of anything except ambition.)

We need to work to completely eradicate what remains of the postcode lottery

…closely followed by

each area is different and should be able to prioritise local needs

Have you actually thought any of this through?

Many people want to work but just don’t think that they can given their situation, but say someone has injuries that prevents them from moving around too much, then possibly a job answering phones would be preferable to working on a building site>/i>

Fantastic.

Claire, thank you for engaging. I would like to ask for your thoughts on Labour’s law and order policies, its apparent predilection for intrusive mass surveillance, and how to reduce public disengagement from formal political processes.

I appreciate the response, Claire, and wish you well.

Perhaps we will see you more often in these parts as the discussions definitely benefit from the addition of a different and measured centrist perspective.

I see I am a bit late to this party.

Claire is very pretty

Please… The idea that anyone at 19 has enough, or any experience appropriate for representing a constituency is ridiculous.

I realise this is totally off the thread here, and I apologise for this. Not usually one to post comments – I tend to loose interest in a thread once the petty shin bashing starts – this interview and its thread have left my mouse in critical condition. So rather that than move on to the laptop I thought it best to just blurt it out.

Now not wishing to offend Claire, I simple wish to say that she may be better served by spending the next few years as Laurie Penny has, but maybe avoid the armadillo.

The fewer middle of the road automatons we have the better. At least get a little experience with real life before you start to tow a bland party line.

Bugger, I think I just not only agreed with Newmania but also ended with a cliché. Not a great start here.

Apologies,

Ranter

the awful poverty that so many people in the developing world suffer from and realising that not only is so much of it avoidable, but that a large part of it is caused by western countries like ours, and that we have a duty to help these people in any way that we can

No. But we do have a duty not to make it worse, e.g. with respect to trade and intellectual property

@7 Leon: Claire is a Faith Ambassador for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation

Does that mean she has an imaginary friend, and sees the world through superstition rather than rationality and science?

First – Hi Claire: a good interview and a worthwhile and brave thing to do.
Second – A few things to correct or comment on in the comments. Labour did not come a ‘distant’ third in the last election; it was one of the only seats in the country where there was a swing to Labour in 2005 and consistently there is a larger anti-Tory vote than a Tory vote. I’ve always said that the way to win Skipton is to get all the first-time voters and destroy the Liberal Democrats, and I’m quite sure Claire is capable of both (!) though the electoral forces may not entirely be in our favour at the next election.
The Common Wealth Party won in Skipton in 1944.

The comments range from people thinking that it’s impossible to progressive and Labour (something I completely disagree with as a Labour member – and actually the defeated candidate in Claire’s selection in Skipton and Ripon) and saying that the signifier of progression is one’s attitude to certain single issues. Now some of those issues are indeed of massive importance – one’s position on the Iraq War is, of course, an indicator of one’s politics beyond a ‘single issue’ but even somebody as radically anti-war as myself would have to say that I know lots of progressive people who were not opposed. Personally I think they were completely wrong on the issue, but being wrong doesn’t necessarily mean that you can never be described as progressive.

I’ll probably stop there for now, but it’s an interesting discussion.

Don’t stop, go on. Your contribution is just as valid as anyone else on here. Perhaps more so.

Well, I don’t know if Claire is sticking around, but in the hope she does two more things for her anyway. Firstly, you really should consider how you can condemn the postcode lottery and demand local decision making; its important to be consistent.

Second, on tuition fees. I’m not going to argue my own anti-fees view. Rather, looking at your own view that it is only fair that graduates should contribute, are fixed loans a fair way to do this? If it is about graduates contributing, should the amount the do so by not be linked to how they earn? A graduate tax, for example, so that those who work for little for NGO’s and the public sector do not get stuck paying the same as someone who gets rich in the city (admitedly hard to do these days).

Duncan- the tories got 49.7%, UKIP 4.5%. “Anti-tory vote” indeed! Thats even ignoring that substantial proportions of Lib Dems perfer the tories to Labour and that you will never eliminate their vote entirely in any case, especially from third place! The mighty 1% swing in 2005 followed a 5% drop in 2001.

Skipton is not a realistic Labour target, its a Conservative stronghold. If Claire is willing to put some effort in working there then even as a non-labour supporter thats great; strongholds rarely recieve that kind of attention and its a good thing. But there no point being unrealistic about what can be achieved.

You know we wouldn’t need fees if we didn’t waste billions invading other countries, on things like ID cards or 76 billion on new nukes….which is why discussing all policies enacted by this government is important. It’s not just about the morality of killing people, about how our money is spent.

On a related note, I’ve got no problem with paying taxes for people to go to university. None at all.

“that everyone deserves the best possible start in life, no matter their background, gender, education, wealth, race or religion.”

“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”

Says that on the back of my membership card, it does.

Well done for entering the lion’s den, lass. I think you’re possibly a bit misguided to nail your colours QUITE so strongly to the new Labour mast – sinking ships and all that – and like someone said above, criticism from within the party is the only way parties evolve – it’s how Blair transformed Labour for starters.

I disagree fundamentally with a lot of what you have to say here, but I admire your brass balls for coming on here and saying it anyway. You’ll need more of that if you’re going to succeed in politics. Especially if you’re going to leapfrog my party in my home county.

See you on the ground?

Tinter – true we did very badly in 2001, but I don’t think the gains in 2005 should be made TOO little of (bear in mind that Labour lost a lot of ground across the board in 2005).

Of course S&R is not a realistic target seat, but I don’t believe there should be any such thing as a no-go seat for Labour. And there were plenty of Labour MPs elected in 1997 who though they were contesting seats that were not ‘realistic’. Okay, 2009 or 2010 will not be a 1997 for Labour but, long-term, there is potential for Labour progress in the area. We used to have a lot of councillors and I do feel Claire has revitalised things in the party locally somewhat (we made a much better fist of the district council elections in 2008 than we have for some years – in terms of contesting more seats, etc).

On the fees point – I have to say that society benefits from university education – if I go and see my dentist I rather hope that they’ve been to university and studied dentistry (and I rather hope that kids at college are learning from people with proper subject knowledge, etc.) – as such I don’t think there is anything wrong with the idea of paying for university education out of general taxation – even if those paying didn’t attend university themselves – so long as the taxation system itself is progressive and fair. If you take the least well off out of tax, and tax the rich more, I see no problem with a rich person who didn’t go to university paying for students’ education. It is much better to be taxed because you’re rich than taxed because you’re educated.

But – again – I can’t say that people who disagree with me about fees can therefore not be considered ‘progressive’ – they can just be considered WRONG on that particular point )

“Of course S&R is not a realistic target seat, but I don’t believe there should be any such thing as a no-go seat for Labour.”

Perhaps you and others in the area can join forces and add to the voice for a more representative electoral system then…because until then there are, in practical terms, plenty of seats that can be considered a no-go seat for Labour, and vice versa, etc.

But, Duncan, you sound like a very switched on guy, and I wish you well. If there’s any type of person I’d like to see more of in politics from this thread then it is yourself.

In an ideal world I’d like us to be able to pay for people to go to university, but I’m actually with Claire here that if we accept roughly the tax settlement that we’ve got (big if) then I’d rather we put money into early years intervention which benefits a more underprivileged group of people than your largely middle-class university types.

Well, like I said I believe university should be funded from general taxation. But Claire clearly doesn’t and I thought it would be more productive to try and engage on her terms.

Duncan: Believe as you like but you aren’t winning S&R. Thats just the statistics and the demographics. If people don’t want to vote labour they don’t want to vote labour, and work will only take any party so far even with target funding- which S&R will never have.

but I don’t believe there should be any such thing as a no-go seat for Labour. And there were plenty of Labour MPs elected in 1997 who though they were contesting seats that were not ‘realistic’

Yes and no asnwer to my question…. until there is Labour cannot win

“Lets say you have an audience of middling single income families working in the private sector. They do not claim benefits ,they are not a criminals they do not suffer prejudice especially except by virtue of not being victim group .They feel over taxed and despised by New Labour who only care about single mothers criminals immigrants and unionised Public sector clients . They resent the constant implication that they do not earn their money , they are on a tight budget after mortgage costs and they are bemused at the suggestion they should be handing the income they work hard for to you for the purposes of overseas aid or charity .How do you persuade these very ordinary people to vote Labour ? …..Blair did”

96. Duncan .Destroy the Liberal Democrats. What is your chosen method- gassing, shooting , stabbing, bludgeoning? Have you chosen your executioners?

105. Newmania. Persuade Blair to return to run Labour and Major run the Conservatives. Persuade a dozen Tory MPs to accept freebies from businessmen with dubious pasts and talk continuously about the EU. Train Brown to become emotionally literate. Select a few more Labour MPs like Frank Field and Gwyneth Dunwoody. Sack all administrators taken on by Labour over the last 11 years. Civil servants to retire at 65 not 60. Brown to remove the tax he placed on private pensions. Close down most of the new universities and humanities courses in older universities and give money to early years education and good quality craft training. A good electrician is of more use than someone with a humanities degree from a new university. Grants to those reading engineering, science and medicine in 5 Star departments. Ensure the UK trains people with the skills and a correct attitude we need rather than having to import them.

I very much suspect Ms Hazelgrove is being pragmatic by choosing Labour over the Liberal Democrats or Greens. It is odd she vaguely explains her identification with Labour on issues such as international development that are also major concerns of the Lib Dems and the Greens: perhaps she wants to become an MP and get stuck into working on those issues as soon as possible, and Labour is surely the quickest, if not the most principled, way to do that.

Whilst her unwillingness or inability to directly answer questions about how she disagrees with her party is not an endearing trait for someone so new to politics, as it is something we would expect from those who have been in the game for a while, I also suspect she is just practicing for the future. Fair enough: if she wants to get into a position of power within Labour she is probably going to have to keep schtum if she does indeed disagree with their policies. Again, pragmatism: not necessarily progressive in itself, but the new generation of progressives would do well to be pragmatic to the hilt.

She did a good job of responding to some of the other questions she was asked: I disagree with her on tuition fees but I suspect she like some of my fellow students simply accept they’re a price worth paying for a university education. Education benefits society as a whole, which is why it should be paid for by taxation: most graduates end up paying more tax anyway, and should those who didn’t go to university grumble about having to pay for the training of tomorrow’s doctors, lawyers and scientists?

I would like to see her articulate what she think Labour should change tack with regards to her core issue, international development. A big, bold and progressive shift in direction would help her stand out amidst the many young pols looking to Labour as the only viable vehicle for (broadly) progressive politics – I’ve met quite a few in the course of youth work that I’ve done, and their ambition is considerable.

Indeed, Rayaan, I can think of no better way to advance my political views than to pretend not to have them. All progressives should follow this line immediately. We could be militant for the modern era!

It’s not so much about advancing her political views as it is about advancing herself: clearly she believes that with enough power you can make enough of a difference, but of course on the way to gathering that power what constitutes a ‘difference’ in your own mind will probably change a great deal. Like I said, it’s not necessarily progressive in its nature, but it may or may not have some progressive outcomes.

You seem to ignore the last paragraph of my post – that arguing her party needs to change on a big issue can get her attention and subsequently an influential role with which progressive change can be wrought, if indeed the change in direction she initially argues for is progressive to begin with.