Left Foot Forward is a collaborative political site for progressives. We welcome ideas, tip offs and pitches for articles.
There are three things that we are looking out for:
- A fresh insight or angle you can provide on politics or current affairs. Did a politician flip flop on a position, misuse data or lie? Does a new report or white paper misuse statistics? Did you hear about an administrative failure in a government department or council?
- Unbalanced or biased media coverage or misleading reports. Did you read a story that was badly reported? What about a leader or op ed that was badly researched? Was some data misconstrued? Did a broadcaster give a politician an easy ride?
- Interesting new data, analysis, or causes that are otherwise unreported. Has a think tank, trade union, NGO or campaigning group done some work that other outlets have missed? Is there an international or historical comparison that shines light on an issue of domestic importance? Have you done heard about some analysis or research that is genuinely new?
Please email [email protected] with your ideas.
If you want to find out about advertising, partnerships, and any other business matters, please email [email protected].
Latest tory plans for ‘constitutional reform’, namely, forcing general elections if a new Prime Minister is invited to form a government part-way through a parliament do not bear scrutiny.
In the absence of a presidential system, PMs are not ‘elected’ by anyone, except the Monarch. It is constitutionally illiterate to suggest otherwise.
Progressives rightly favour constitutional reform to end the hereditary principle in UK politics, but this proposal would entrench the party system and is based on the assumption that there will always be a party able to command a majority of its own MPs in the House of Commons. All that is required of a Prime Minister is that she or he can lead a government of democratically elected MPs capable of passing measures in parliament.
What we need is a constitutional convention which would allow these issues to be deliberated upon.
Hi Will,
I just read your article on Questions for the leaders and thought you might be interested in a new Facebook application we’re just launching called “Float your Vote” at http://www.floatyourvote.com.
Float Your Vote allows individuals and brands to create their own “campaign” based on any issue, be it serious or frivolous (e.g. “Extend the London Congestion Charge Zone”, “Save BBC Radio 6 Music”, “Bring back free milk for all school children” etc), and then allows people to vote and comment on the campaign. The application also gives political parties the opportunity to respond to these campaigns and offer their own opinions on particular issues.
As well as allowing individual Facebook users to create their own campaigns and invite their friends and political parties to comment, Float Your Vote is also a platform for commercial brands, charities, pressure groups and other activist organisations to promote and gain support for their own agendas.
When an individual or organisation creates a new campaign, it appears in their Facebook newsfeed. Campaigns then spread virally as people vote and comment on them and encourage their friends to do the same.
The main political parties are being invited to post their own official responses to campaigns.
The application is launching featuring a number of major charities, including the NSPCC and Save the Children.
Diana Sutton, Head of Public Affairs and Campaigns at NSPCC commenting on the application said; “We think Float Your Vote is a great way to spread the word about our “I Stand For Children” campaign, which is about getting every candidate in the upcoming general election to make child protection a top priority.”
Branislava Milosevic, Head of Multimedia at Save the Children, commenting on Float Your Vote said; “We want the next government to make ending child poverty at home and abroad a priority. We’re hoping that, along with all our other activity, having our campaign on Float Your Vote will play an important role in garnering public support for our cause and influencing policy.”
If you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them. You can find Float your Vote at http://www.floatyourvote.com.
Grit
Grit Kuehle
Float your Vote
Hi,
I don’t know whether this is of interest to you or not. I got 3 of the election candidates in my local constituency, Salisbury, to do a Q and A – most of the questions coming from Twitter:
http://salisburyandstonehenge.net/salisbury-news/tom-gann-labour-candidate-q-and-a
http://salisburyandstonehenge.net/salisbury-news/nick-radford-liberal-democrat-candidate
http://salisburyandstonehenge.net/salisbury-news/john-glen-conservative-candidate
Cheers
Matt
I have just seen Will Straw & Billy Bragg campaigning outside LibDem HQ for electoral reform. Did I miss in 1997, 2001 or 2005 these people wanting electoral reform then when only 35% of the country voted Labour? The sheer hypocrisy of these people.
I confess that I’m speaking as someone who until recently unequivocally supported FPTP, but anyway, I’m beginning to revise my position, so here goes… Firstly, there are two great supposed advantages to FPTP. Firstly, it delivers strong government and avoids hung parliaments. Er… Now, I know that hung parliaments are of course MUCH more likely under a PR system, but equally, I don’t think you can argue with voters, and nor can political parties show themselves to be afraid of PR – to be afraid of PR is to be afraid of votes themselves. Secondly, and I think more importantly, FPTP preserves the link between local people and Parliament: the last thing we want is a centrally dictated list of people with no nexus with local voters and communities. People would be unaccountable, and all representation would effectively be controlled by parties.
Now, what do we do about the current system, which seems only to benefit Labour and has delivered a manifestly flawed result? Well, firstly whatever system is chosen MUST preserve the local nexus, the locally driven political movements that FPTP, for all its faults, provides. Secondly, the Lib Dems must be modest in their proposals – whatever you think of the main parties, 4 million more people voted Tory than Lib Dem, and even if the whole country didn’t swing to the Tories, it equally didn’t entirely endorse the other parties’ visions – indeed, a few thousand votes more here and there, and the Tories would have been the subject of fawning headlines about an ‘historic victory’ etc., etc. Third, and I’m saying this as someone who is not a Labour supporter, whatever system is produced, it cannot wipe out the Labour movement. Yes, on a personal level, I think many of their policies are retrograde and outdated, but Labour are a key part of our political system. I have a feeling that, under pure PR, they would find themselves pretty quickly becoming a small irrelevance, as the Lib Dems have hitherto been under FPTP. However much I dislike the party, I would not have this happen.