On Friday night an exhausted David Cameron returned from hours of negotiating with Europe’s most powerful to predictably announce he’d got a deal worth staying in for.  By Sunday the PM had met his cabinet and claimed he’d had a good night’s sleep before appearing on BBC’s Marr show. He said repeatedly that linking arms with Nigel Farage and George Galloway to take a leap in the dark was the wrong thing to do. Galloway had made a surprise “special guest appearance” at an out rally the day before only to see many of its supporting walk out on his arrival. Remarkably the mad cap former respect MP and celebrity big brother cat impersonator accused the daily politics presenter, Jo Coburn of misleading him into appearing on the show on Monday, and claimed he wasn’t there to talk about him.

The other big name outer of course announced his intention to back the campaign to leave the EU late on Sunday evening as London Mayor Boris Johnson said he thought Cameron had not got enough. He later said that he thought an out vote would force the EU back to the negotiating table. Cameron then responded that he had never known a couple start divorce proceedings in order to renew their wedding vows.

Johnson immediately became the bookies favourites to be the next leader of the Tory party although his Dad has been quoted as saying that his son was “unlikely to get a cosy seat in the cabinet” after his announcement and called it potentially career ending. 

Not surprisingly many jumped to say Boris’ announcement was more about his own personal ambitions to be become leader rather than his opinion on Europe. With Cameron already declaring he will step down before the next election Boris was already many people’s favourite to succeed him before he was even elected as an MP. Increasingly, people are saying if the electorate decides to leave the EU in June that Cameron would be forced to resign at once. Personally I agree with that opinion. Having slung weight behind the in campaign, to go down in history as the Prime minister that failed to keep the country in Europe would be a disaster for him. The media pressure would force him out in days if not hours, as was the case after the general election with defeated Ed Miliband and obliterated Nick Clegg.

For months there has been hours of debate and yards of column inches from both sides of the argument, yet still most people have little or no idea what the consequences will be. Staying in Europe will mean refugees will continue to steal our houses, our women, our jobs, our benefits and our hospital beds. Europe will continue to force laws upon us that we don’t want like not being allowed to sell straight bananas and banning us from leaving poor people to starve to death. Others claim that countries such as Iceland do fine without EU membership while their opponents claim that they pay a premium for the pleasure.

Remaining in Europe will absolutely make us more vulnerable to attack from Isis say some while others say coming out would make us vulnerable to attacks from everywhere. Over 1000 immigrants ran amock on New Year’s eve in Germany as organised gangs ran feril molesting women – they will be here next New years eve if we stay in Europe. If Turkey are allowed to join the EU thousands of Syrians will flood into Europe and the UK will forced to provide housing and benefits for them. If we leave the EU we will no longer be able to enjoy Indian food as all the chefs will be forced to leave. Even worse news is that the referendum will held during the 2016 European football championships and exit could see England thrown out of the tournament even before they are beaten on penalties by the Germans.

I don’t know if any of these claims have any factual basis at all. Like most people I sit and listen to these argument being spewed out across our TV networks and read the pages of expert anylisis from people in the know and think is it really worth the risk of coming out. Some will no doubt decide that coming out will mean all the brown people will have suddenly leave our once beautiful country, while more sensible people will think that actually it’s nice that their children go to school with kids born on the other side of the world and play happily without any discrimination. For many it is a joy that it is now the norm for a diverse community to enjoy each other’s culture and respect each other’s beliefs.

Most will not be able to decide whether we will be financially better off in or out and most people have no comprehension of our government’s sovereignty or the rules of the games the politicians play.  What they will be able to judge is which of the players they trust or dislike. On the side campaigning for exit form Europe are Eton educated buffoon Johnson and publicity whore Galloway. Also on the outside is DWP minister Iain Duncan Smith, the man who fist punched the air when the chancellor announced punishing cuts to benefits.  Former Scots Guard Duncan Smith has faced calls to resign after being found inventing figures to support his policies. He has been anti Europe for many years since opposing former leader Joh Majors pro EU agenda. There is a great debate to be had about which of the two former leaders were dullest with IDS famously once saying “never under estimate the quiet man”.

Michael Gove is another high profile Tory to jump on the out band wagon. Justice secretary Gove said that Britain would be freer fairer and better off outside the EU. “by leaving the EU we can show the rest of Europe the way to flourish” he said after wrestling for weeks with what he called the most difficult decision of his political life. Gove was formerly secretary of state for education where he received votes of no confidence from the association of teachers and lectures, the National union of teachers, and NASUWT.  The national association of head teachers accused Gove of creating a climate of bullying, intimidation and fear.

Chris Grayling former Justice secretary and current leader of the house of commons is another top Tory backing the out campaign. When home secretary Grayling was accused of being creative with statistics when he claimed that every constituency in the country’s crime rate had increased, failing to mention that they were using a new measure.  During his time in Justice he dubbed Failing Grayling when his department lost important personal documents in the post.

The loudest and most gleeful champion of exit will of course be UKIP leader Nigel Farage. With one MP his party still manages to get more air time and talk time on the BBC than most other parties. When he appears on such shows he displays an incredible talent of turning whatever topic is being discussed into a debate about the EU. The former Tory party member who was a founding member of UKIP was once quoted as saying he would be concerned if a group of Romanian men moved in next door to him and has said that the basic principle of Enoch Powell’s rivers of blood speech were correct.

On the stay in side are leader of the Labour part Jeremy Corbyn and Prime minister David Cameron and his Chancellor George Osbourn.  If it comes down to vote of trust in the mouth pieces for the argument then England may well get chance to lose on penalties to Germany while remaining in the EU.

As a man in my mid 40’s that still doesn’t really know what I want to be when I grow up, I wouldn't readily describe myself as having a career. Yes, I’ve always had a job, apart from a short few months in my early 20s when I chose to drink for a few weeks instead of job hunting. Next year will be my 30^th year being employed. In those 3 decades I have been a post man, a bar man, a car cleaner a philosopher and a manager. In none of those roles have I suspected any of my colleagues or managers of being a child sex offender. Maybe I’m lucky.

Imagine the soul searching one must have to do when considering whether it is worth ruining your blossoming career prospects to report someone in a position of authority or trust for doing the most cowardly and vile thing possible, hurting a defenceless child for some sick self-gratification. I suppose if I was a BBC tea lady or errand boy, hoping for a shot at the lime light in twenty years- time I would spend many a sleepless night pondering "what if the bosses don’t believe me and give that position to my friend". If I had chosen to be a police officer, one of the highest positions of trust in the world, rather than deciding to pound the streets with a massive bag of gas bills and giros on my back, I would have faced the decision to turn a blind eye or prosecute a high profile well known politician after receiving over 20 complaints against him.

It could be that I’m lucky to not have had to face those decisions but I can easily put myself in their shoes and say unequivocally that if I suspected anyone, no matter how high in any organisation they were, of crimes against children, I would have thrown my career away in a second. No golden hand shake or carriage clock and hefty pension would help me sleep at night or look in the mirror, or at my own children, knowing I had stood by and let that happen to someone else’s children.

This week it was revealed by an independent enquiry that the police and prosecution services missed three chances to prosecute former Labour peer Lord Janner.

The enquiry found that there was sufficient evidence to provide a real prospect of conviction in 1991, 2002,  and again in 2007 for indecent assault and serious sexual assault. In 2002 the police failed to provide evidence to prosecution services, which resulted in no case being brought against the late peer.

The enquiry also revealed there was enough evidence in 2007 to search his home and arrest him. His family of course deny all the accusations against Janner, who died in December last year. They would, wouldn’t they?

By the time the investigation was ready to be brought to trial Janner was suffering from Dementia and was unfit to stand trial. The trial of facts which was to be held prior to his death has now been shelved.

Alison Saunders, Director of public prosecutions said “The enquiry’s findings that mistakes were made confirms my view that failings in the past by prosecutors and Police meant that proceedings were not brought”.

Mistakes? Is it a mistake that people made a conscious decision not to tell of their suspicions and people explicitly employed to bring despicable criminals to court decided that it was in the best interest of everyone to allow the accused to go unpunished? Is it a mistake that police failed to investigate claims that a 14 year old child had shared a hotel room with a rich and powerful man, despite it being relatively easy to prove or indeed disprove? Was it a mistake that they failed to ask the right questions at the care home where the alleged victim lived? Liz Dux, the solicitor who represented 8 of the alleged victims was absolutely right when she said that sincere regret was of little consolation.

A spokesman for the children’s charity NSPCC said “it is vital that victims of child abuse have the confidence to speak out knowing their allegations will be investigated”. If I was a victim I would not be in the slightest bit confident that my allegations would be investigated after a series of high profile names were revealed to have been suspected of crimes only after it was too late to be brought to trial.

Janner, a former QC and member of parliament was given a lucrative role as a peer despite the earlier accusations against him.

There has been a string of allegations brought to light in recent years accusing politicians and TV personalities of some terrible crimes, many of which were apparently widely rumoured for years.

Anyone who purposely hides or withholds information about crimes of abuse, particularly against children ought to be dealt with strongly. It is weak, cowardly and selfish to worry about your own career or financial security when lives are in danger. Abuse isn’t harmless. It ruins lives. It doesn’t only ruin the lives of the victims but that of victims’ families, and it never goes away. Every time a new name is produced and a new allegation surfaces many of the victims are forced to relive the torture of their own experience. I would welcome naming and shaming at least – if not prosecution for those who protect abusers.

On Tuesday night Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn began his first shadow cabinet reshuffle. Prime Minister David Cameron has had several and it was almost inevitable that Corbyn would do the same, but the right wing media have been whipped into a frenzy in recent weeks, labelling it a revenge reshuffle. The same media outlets of course have been printing pages of hype about the lack of unity in the Labour party so the biggest surprise was possibly the fact that Corbyn only moved two people.

Barnsley MP, Michael Dugher was sacked, supposedly for being disloyal which came as little surprise to anyone- probably including Dugher. He has been very vocal in his opposition to his party leader and was particularly defiant over Syria.

He wasn’t alone in that defiance of course and the highest profile victim of the reshuffle was thought to be Hilary Benn, who many are tipping to replace Corbyn as leader following his impressive, impassioned speech during the Syria debate. Benn though survived the reshuffle amid more claims that he has been muzzled in exchange for keeping his place at the table. Benn of course denies this. Anyone who has followed politics even in passing will know that no elected MP would admit to such a muzzling whether it be the case or not.

The anti-Labour, anti-Corbyn dialogue has continued since his election with bias of the BBC and several newspapers becoming increasingly frustrating for many critics.

Such is the bias and get-Labour agenda that the BBC, afraid to upset David Cameron and his friends under threat of losing the licence fee, desperately sunk to new lows on Wednesday by persuading a shadow minister to quit his role in the shadow cabinet live on the beeb’s flagship politics show The Daily Politics.

BBC political editor, Laura Kuenssberg and Andrew Neil were visibly excited and thrilled to have such a coop on the show. A blog on the BBC Academy site (which has since been removed) written by a producer of the show, described how the team led by Kuenssberg persuaded angry Stephen Doughty to resign live on air, referring to the conversation as sealing the deal.

Two other Labour MPs; Kevan Jones and Jonathan Reynolds, also resigned from the shadow cabinet, although they had the dignity to do so less publicly. Jones, a shadow defence minister, who came to prominence after talking about his personal experiences of depression, accused the party leadership of dishonesty. Jonathan Reynolds, a shadow transport minister who was one of the youngest MP’s elected in 2010 at just 29, quit his position on the front bench claiming he could best serve the party as a back bencher, and expressing his support for sacked Pat McFadden.

McFadden said he was sacked for comments he made following terrorist attacks in Paris, but shadow chancellor John McDonnell said McFadden was sacked for disloyalty and undermining the leaders view.

So much nonsense is printed these days about the party that it is difficult to decide what the truth is but there can be little doubt that claims the party is in disarray are  accurate. Corbyn very publicly gave his MPs a free vote on Syria and 9 of them chose to vote against his wishes. Benn was most loudly praised for his speech by most people, some of whom didn’t necessarily agree with the points he raised.

One of his most vocal critics Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk, has apparently come undone in recent days after inappropriate texts were sent to a 17 year old. Mr Danczuk, who has been in the Labour party since the 1980’s faces expulsion from the party after the teenager revealed the sleazy exchanges to The Sun. Before focusing his energy on attacking the leadership, Danczuk revealed he had suffered depression and alcohol abuse caused by his campaigning historical child sex abuse cases, predominantly alleged to involve former Liberal  MP Cyril Smith, which is widely credited as contributing greatly to an independent inquiry into CSA.

 

I’m not defending Mr Danczuc’s recent actions – attacking the leader of the party that you have a member of for almost 30 years is never going to help the party, the electorate or the leader. His position is one of great responsibility and as such he should not be engaging in such conversations with teenagers, however it does seem convenient that the details of these private texts fell into the grubby hands of Rupert Murdoch.

The BBC and its editor should remember that the job of a journalist is to report the news not make the news. They should offer fair and unbiased commentary that allows the viewer to make an informed opinion on matters that are important. Successive governments have failed to halt Murdoch’s power instead courting his approval and friendship, whoring their true values in exchange for a few inches of positive press. The Shambles in which we now find ourselves will not be resolved until the journalists and the presenters stop giving us fiction and opinion and start dealing in facts.

Paul Scriven is the former leader of Sheffield City Council. Born in Huddersfield, the son of a bin man, and a Labour party member until his early 20's, he is now Liberal Democrat in the House of Lords.

In 2010 he stood as a candidate in the general election losing by just 165 votes to Labours Paul Blomfield. Today I asked him what he thought made the difference in securing the victory for Labour. He said that he thought to a large extent it was the Manor Castle ward in the city that had helped get Blomfield over the line. He also acknowledged that Labour had a bigger machine behind them going out on the doorsteps in areas of the city like Manor Castle which have traditionally been Labour households for decades.

Mr Scriven (who incidentally asked me to call him Paul rather than Lord Scriven) has recently been selected as the candidate in Ecclesall, in Sheffield, to stand as a local councillor again. I asked him what made him want to do it again. He told me that his heart is and has always been in local government and local community politics. He wants to help individuals in personal issues as well as helping develop the local area’s policy on highways, housing and fiscal concerns. I asked if this would interfere or hamper his role in the House of Lords. His response was that his experiences in local politics and local issues give him an invaluable insight into what happens in real life. When Lords and politicians are making policy that does not benefit the larger community, he is able to draw on his years of experience as a local councillor and leader of the council to have input that represents the people of his area.

I first spoke to Paul Scriven some years ago while he was leader of the council and recalled him talking about the lib-Dems being the party of fairness. With the disastrous 1015 election result in mind, which left only a handful of Lib-Dem MPs left, I asked Paul if he thought going into government with the Tories was a bad idea or a God send.

He says it quickly becoming clear, and the public are already acknowledging, that Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems contribution in Government was to put the breaks on the Tory ideologies that are now unfolding. He says they had many successes, not least the pupil premium, which has been a huge boost to some schools budgets in poorer areas. He said that Labour and the media had demonised Clegg and the party, blaming them for many of the difficult decisions that had to be made, resulting eventually in the part being given a bloody nose in the election. He thinks the country is now realising that perhaps they should have had a slap on the wrists instead of the brutal beating they took.

The media portrayal of former leader Clegg is that he was somewhat of an absent representative in Sheffield and I put it to Mr Scriven that Clegg’s popularity in the city was still low. I asked if in 2020, should Clegg decide not to stand if Paul Scriven will again stand to MP for Sheffield. He said that he had no idea as to whether Mr Clegg would stand down and had given it no thought, as he is a Lord why would he? He said that as a councillor, if elected, the city has many challenges which he intends to be involved in. From HS2’s station in Sheffield, to the devolution debate currently taking place, he will do whatever he needs to do to best serve his city in whichever role allows him to best do that.

On the issue of devolution I asked if he thought it was a good deal for the city. He was clear that in his mind what’s on the table is not full devolution but decentralisation. That said, he thinks much of decentralisation is a good thing if it gives power to the people of Sheffield rather than decisions being made in Westminster. He does wonder though how much input people of the region will have, considering the deal has been done before the consultation. He said the deals gained by the emerging West Yorkshire and the north East were better, stronger deals as they were able to push back more to gain real powers to make a difference for the people in those areas. He questioned the openness and transparency of deal done by just four people that will be affecting the whole are area.

 I suggested his experience and position in the area makes him an obvious candidate the role of Mayor.  While not ruling it out, he said humbly, that he will take one election at a time and is concentrating on being a councillor again at the moment.

I tried to frame a question for Paul around the debate he was involved in in the House of Lords yesterday about investigatory powers. I told Paul I had tried but the argument is so complicated I failed to understand it sufficiently. Was the, I asked the case also in the Lords. He said on the subject of internet porn many of those in the House were unable to grasp how technology worked and that simply putting blocks in place were not the answer but parental influence and education about the use of pornography was the key. When talking about the proposals to allow access to browser history and emails Paul became most passionate and animated.

He likened the idea to our letters being opened in the delivery office and read by the postmen and then photocopied and saved for twelve months. He said if this was the proposal then the public would be rightly outraged. The threat to our privacy and liberty is wrong. In this country, he said we are proud to assume that one is innocent until proven guilty but if these powers are given to the home secretary that this assumption will be in jeopardy.

I asked if the lack of understanding issues is generally an accurate description of modern politicians. He said many politician seem to leave school, go to university, leave there for a job as an advisor, and then go on to be an MP. He elaborated if you ask the public what many politicians actually stand for few would know.

Paul Scriven had agreed to meet me for half an hour, as he is undoubtedly a very busy man. He is a politician, a public figure, and a business man (although he doesn’t like to label himself as any of those things exclusively) and yet he was good enough to spare over an hour talking to me in coffee shop on Ecclesall Road. I think whether he wins the seat on the council next year or decides to stand as an MP or Mayor , we will be seeing Paul Scriven for some time to come. 

I am very clear that I am elected by the people of Rotherham

This week I had the opportunity to congratulate Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham on her appointment to Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet in roll of Shadow minister for preventing domestic violence and abuse. I asked her if she now saw herself as a Westminster politician or as a local politician. She said “I still struggle to see myself as a politician. I am very clear that I am elected by the people of Rotherham to represent them and campaign for them local and national issues. While I have Labour values, and I am proud to be a Labour MP, the people of Rotherham are my bosses and its them I feel responsible to”. She went on to add “I guess that’s a long winded way of saying that I see myself as a local politician who has to travel to Westminster to serve Rotherham the best I can”.

In July last year after the shocking revelations of sexual grooming in Rotherham, Ms Champion helped secure a change in the law that meant Police can act sooner in child grooming cases, meaning that someone arranging to meet a child with the intention of carrying out a sexual offence can now be convicted immediately, rather than having to be caught twice. I asked Sarah if getting the law changed was her biggest achievement so far. “Legislatively, undoubtedly”, she said. “It is virtually impossible for a backbencher in opposition to change the law so I’m delighted I could do so as it will protect children for generations. However, I am most proud at being able to lobby on behalf of the victims of child sexual exploitation, to get them support and more importantly, listened to both locally and nationally”.

Sarah was one of the 36 MP’s who nominated Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership race. I asked her if she thought he could lead the party into the next election. “Looking at the major climb-down the government has had to do over tax credits, yes, if we keep going in this vein, I believe Jeremy can lead us into the next election and to victory”. She told me. With this in mind I asked if she thought that regaining power should be secondary to sticking to principles, or should the party be looking for power at any cost.

“Personally, I believe that our principles and values are the thing that will get us re-elected”.  She stressed that losing them would be a disaster but added “However I do fully understand that principles and values without power are simply hollow words!”

Before entering into politics in 2012, Sarah Champion was Chief executive of charity Bluebell Wood children’s hospice. Prior to that she ran the Rotherham Arts Centre and volunteered for St Luke’s hospice. I put it to her that in contrast to many other MPs she had started her career in a proper job.  I asked if working in an environment like St Luke’s had better equipped her to understand the issues facing normal people.

She began her answer by saying she didn’t make a distinction between herself and normal people. She added that would like see politicians fully representing the diversity of our country in both their life and work experiences. That is the way that we will get the best legislation and the best democracy she insisted.
When standing successfully for election as deputy leader of the Labour party, Tom Watson said that he wanted to see a much more digital approach from politicians. Pointing out to Sarah that her personal twitter account boasts more than 12,000 followers, I asked if she agreed with Tom Watson that politicians need to connect more digitally to engage with young people.

“I am a huge fan of Twitter (not least because without it she and I wouldn’t have connected, she said kindly), I think it is vital that politicians use as many forms of communication as possible so that we can reach the broadest number of people. I get very frustrated when I hear that young people aren’t interested in politics, as that is not my experience at all. Young people don’t engage in politics through the old channels so it is our duty to reach out to them and make ourselves accessible. Social media really helps me hugely with that”.

Sarah Champion followed me on twitter after I posted a tweet saying; “oh! How I wish Sarah champion would follow me”. She did, showing she has a sense of humour as well being good to her word.

 

Last August comedy actor Robin Williams shockingly took his own life by hanging himself after years of suffering mental health and depression issues. His battles with addiction were well documented but few knew that he was still troubled by demons that led him to take his own life at the age of 63.

3 days before Christmas last year, former footballer Clarke Carlisle threw himself in front of a moving lorry in a suicide bid. It later emerged that Carlisle had been charged with drink driving a couple of days earlier. In 2013 he presented a TV documentary where he spoke about his own and other footballers battles with depression.

Last week performer Professor Green appeared in television programme where he spoke about his Fathers suicide after a long battle with mental health issues.

Mental health does not only affect the rich, famous and successful. It has no prejudice. Old, young, rich, poor, males and females are all susceptible to the crippling effects of it.

Today over 200 high profile celebrities started a campaign for parity between mental health issues and physical health issues. Former mental health minister Norman Lamb, Conservative MP and former whip Andrew Mitchell and ex Blair advisor Alastair Campbell launched the campaign.

The Government increased its spending  on mental health to over £11b recently, but Mr Lamb said that people with mental health problems don’t get the same right to access  treatment on a timely basis that everyone else gets.
The campaign which has been backed by politicians, musicians, sportsmen and women  as well as famous names from stage and screen highlights the lack of access to treatment, particularly for children. It says that 3 out of 4 children with mental health problems are receiving no treatment at all. These figures are shocking and cannot be ignored.
In recent years there has been an increase in public figures openly admitting to such problems but there is still huge stigma attached to the illness with many ashamed, afraid or simply unable to admit it. This can’t go on.

Comedienne, Ruby Wax who has struggled for years with depression said that depression was like the Devil has Tourette’s inside your head. She told ITV news that mental health leads to physical health issues. She said there would be less of a burden on the NHS if there was earlier intervention as many mental health issues cause other chronic health issues such as heart disease, dementia and some cancers. .  

Many employers have poor or no knowledge of the illness and many feel awkward or out of their depth when dealing with such issues in the workplace despite disciplinary action due to mental health related time off being on the increase and I believe trade unions can play a part in this trend being reversed.  
There needs to be open and honest debate publicly, in the workplace, in the houses of parliament, on TV and in living rooms, and even in class rooms up and down the country. By making it acceptable we can make it easier to gain access to help.

It is ludicrous that people are reluctant to talk about what is simply an illness. Men and women would have no hesitation in talking about their arthritis or gout but will not admit to their closest friends that they are depressed. This can change. This must change.

On Wednesday 15^th May this year I wrote what I thought were the reasons Labour lost the general election. I said that despite what Tony Blair said, Labour didn’t lose because it was not left wing enough, it lost because it lacked authenticity.

As I wrote about a need for integrity within the party, its senior figures queued up to criticise and blame their former leader Ed Miliband.

Front runner to replace Miliband, Chukka Ammuna threw his boomerang into the ring and as a group of well-known figures ruled themselves out of the leadership race for a couple of days he looked the most likely to succeed. I’m fairly sure at this point that very few people had heard of Jeremy Corbyn MP. Ammuna quickly decided that leadership from the front was not for him and siting the intrusion of the press as his reasons he quickly withdrew from the race.

I have no evidence to prove it but I strongly suspect that the Labour elite, those at the very top of policy making and decision making had decided the party needed to move further right. I believe it was this intention that led them to put the name of Corbyn forward. If he had failed to get the nominations necessary to get on the ballot paper the party would have a clear mandate to say the members had a left wing candidate and ignored him. That was the turning point. Instead of failing to get the nominations Corbyn got on the ballot with minutes to spair, relying on favours to get him on the card. Even then, most expected him to be annihilated.

During the general election campaign I noticed and wrote about a shift in opinion of the public, who had tired of the bickering and back biting of politicians leading to a surge in green party membership, due to the party’s refusal to be dragged into the sniping.

Now, with Corbyn on the card, the previously disillusioned, disengaged public had an anti-establishment figure to pin their hopes on. As story’s surfaced of Corbyn’s previous rebellion and refusal to follow the whip, support for him grew. I think many people wanted Jeremy Corbyn to win the leadership election because they wanted the established contestants to lose. The more the right wing press and Tory television channels attacked Corbyn, the more support he seemed to gain, selling out appearances and mobilising thousands of supporters. By the time the results of the leadership election were announced on Saturday lunchtime bookmakers were tipping a convincing victory for Jeremy Corbyn.

I said in May that Labour needed a leader that we the voters could believe and believe in. The landslide victory Corbyn enjoyed in the first round, taking 60% of the vote, suggests that he is that man.

Immediately after his victory several Blairite Labour MPs refused to be in his shadow cabinet, others who had little chance of being invited to it criticised and talked of overthrowing him. They really don’t learn!

The public wants a politics where fairness and decency are key. If the best man (or woman) wins, we expect him/ her to be magnanimous in victory and those who lose are expected to hold their head high and congratulate the victor. It is not acceptable to say we don’t accept the will of the people. The whole point of democracy demands that we the voters, get to choose. If our vote is for the leader then good, we should celebrate the victory briefly then move on to the job that was on the table.

In the Scottish referendum a year ago, the SNP vitalised the electorate and engaged young people in politics that suddenly had an audible voice. No longer was the word of a couple of middle aged men in Westminster enough. People on low pay, in rubbish jobs on poor estates, working class people woke up the realisation that they had a voice. Sadly, this contributed to Labours defeat – almost entirely wiping out the party’s representation North of the border. It was said that Labour were finished in Scotland and would be unelectable in England for decades.

The momentum gained during the leadership campaign even saw people in Scotland saying they would consider returning to Labour if he won.

Since his victory the BBC, terrified of being punished by their Tory Generals have continued their shameless attacks on Corbyn. The majority of the written press has gone along with it leaping on any little fault they can find. The paper’s who have for years slated the Royals, were horrified when Jeremy failed to sing the national anthem.

They talked for days of whether he would refuse to kiss the queen’s hand or refuse to bow to her trying relentlessly to turn the people on him. In reality few care whether he sings the song that even fewer actually know the words to these days. Had he sung the anthem the same newspaper men would have called him a hypocrite.

Arguably, he was a tad rude to not sing-along but the authenticity and believability I spoke of required that he did what he has done for years, stuck to his principles. The people in this country, even the young, quite like principles.

Even the most vocal of Corbyn supporters is reluctant to claim he can be prime minister but what he can do is return the party to its roots and engage a generation. The student movement, the community branches and the left wingers have been looking for someone to relate to for decades. Normal people don’t talk the language of Westminster. They don’t dress like Westminster and they don’t think like Westminster. Normal people talk in everyday language and relate to people who speak in their tongue. They want to be told the truth in language they understand. They don’t trust men and women who are so polished that any mud skids straight off them leaving not  a mark. They don’t trust the propaganda offered by the Murdoch rags or posh sneering millionaires in the cabinet talking about hardworking families.

Labour now has the opportunity to engage young, old, experienced and inexperienced; to ask the members who have signed up in their droves what they want from their party. Now is the chance for

normal, grass roots writers and thinkers to tell their story, for the doorstep activists to say this is the kind of country I want to live in, this is the kind of community I want to belong to.

It is time for those in power at the top of the Labour party to say what do you think public? It is time for newspaper barons to say what do you think public? politicians are elected to represent the people who voted for them, not the businesses they hope to become directors of. Newspapers are supposed to report the news, not make it. The days of middle class, middle aged white men dominating the country are gone. The electorate gave Jeremy Corbyn a clear mandate to challenge the authority of the establishment. The establishment of Westminster, the establishment of the Labour party, the establishment of CLP’s and wards is there to be challenged.

If you build it they will come! Those thousands of new members signed up to have their voice heard and if they are allowed to express their desires they will stay. If they are ignored and over ruled they will turn their backs on the party once more and the sooner some members of parliament realise that the better.

Newly elected deputy leader, Tom Watson promised to “rebuild our party from the grass roots up, with councillors and members at the heart of our movement”. He called for a digital revolution that helps members shape policy and campaign priorities. He is right. It is no longer realistic or acceptable to allow elderly out dated men and women who don’t even have internet access to set the agenda. MPs need to make themselves accessible on social network sights such as twitter and Facebook, like many local councillors already are. By accessible I mean indulging in interaction, not simply employing someone to run their accounts but debating and discussing with members of both their own party and others. They need to win votes from UKIP and the Tories not just secure the support they already have. They need to be visible and touchable, reachable open to suggestion and held to account.

Dinosaurs like Lord Mandelson should support the democratically elected leader of their party or shut up and go away. The man has been in place for less than a month give him a chance. Give the normal people a chance.