Not a Village in Westminster

Where now for Scottish Labour?

2011-05-24T03:32:00.000-07:00

There is no doubting that the Holyrood election was a significant moment in Scottish history, a day when the last lingering doubts that the SNP are a fringe party and Scotland is a Labour country were put to bed. Well actually it was more the case that they were taken out the back and unceremoniously shot, such was the devastation inflicted upon Labour by the Nats. Sure we can try to pretend that it was all the Lib Dems’ fault for selling out and then voting for the SNP, but ultimately it was the rejection of an inane, inappropriate and ineffective campaign by the wider electorate.

The Scottish Labour campaign failed on every level. A focus on the Conservatives was utterly out of tune with the growing understanding amongst voters that elections to Holyrood and Westminster are completely different beasts (a mistake, interestingly, that the SNP made last year). There was an over the top attempt to out-promise the SNP on spending pledges, regardless of the looming spectre of savage cuts to the Scottish budget. And the few policies which didn’t seem to be identical to those in the Nationalist manifesto, such as the pseudo-macho posturing on knife crime, were ill thought out and turn offs to those choosing where to cast their vote.

Ultimately, it was a monumental failure by a supposedly professional political party. We demonstrated that we had learnt nothing from 2007; that we had failed to adapt to the Scottish political environment as it now exists; and that our presumption that we would simply be handed back power by a grateful electorate following the brief flirtation with the Nats was woefully misplaced.

Personalities definitely played their part in the debacle, with Iain Gray horrendously mismatched against the big beast of Alex Salmond. It ironically didn’t need to be that way – Salmond’s greatest strengths (humour, confidence, vision) are also his biggest weaknesses (smugness, arrogance, undeliverable promises) and the voters could easily punish him for that if they didn’t believe he was the best man for the job (and regardless of the actual fact that voters do not directly choose the FM, the election definitely had this as a motivation). But Scotland did believe that he was the best First Minister available, with polling consistently showing that Labour voters thought Salmond would do a better job than Gray.

However, more so than personalities, I feel that the hammering meted out at this election boiled down to two key facts – the misnomer of Scottish Labour and the geographical exclusivity that the party has allowed itself to become restricted to.

We talk of Scottish Labour and yet, in reality, there is no such thing. As the party who prides ourselves on having delivered devolution, we have demonstrably failed to devolve our own party structures, leaving the SNP free to use the term ‘London Labour’ with such great success that our own MSPs now apply it. Iain Gray was not my leader as an ordinary member of the Labour Party, his leadership extremely limited to the pool of MSPs. Not the councillors across the country, not the MPs either when they were in Government or in Opposition, not the MEPs and not the membership, the supposed pool of future representatives. This is a very important point, explored by Ross Martin and others. I know that colleagues are wary of devolving Scottish Labour too far, of creating a body which conflicts with the UK wide party, but we are already past this stage. For example, Labour at Holyrood firmly opposed the minimum pricing legislation of the minority SNP administration at the same time as Labour at Westminster was considering it. The very reason we have devolution is as recognition that there are legislative, cultural and historical differences between Scotland and England which require different approaches. If the country requires different approaches from its legislative bodies, then it definitely requires different approaches from its political parties.

The next Leader of the Scottish Labour Party should indeed be the leader of all Scottish Labour. He or she should be seen as having the ability to take the party forward in Scotland, working closely with our colleagues in Westminster, local government and the European Parliament as a coherent but distinct team. Councillors do not look to Westminster to drive their decisions, and our MEPs are actually members of a separate political grouping which sets its own agenda, yet we have retained an impression that our MSPs are to remain subservient to Westminster. This does not benefit us in either context, and effectively concedes the debate to the SNP, allowing them to dismiss the party as uninterested and uncommitted to Scotland.

We are not alone in finding this a struggle – the Scottish Lib Dems had the impossible task of trying to explain that as a federal party they were not directly supportive of the Coalition Government at Westminster, whilst the Scottish Conservatives have long struggled with the fact that they are, well, Conservatives, with all the history and connotation that that brings. However, our responsibility is to find a new approach for Scottish Labour, to create a party which remains connected to the broader UK movement but which can also demonstrate our relevance to the electorate in Scotland. This requires distinctive policy and an ambition to use the Scottish Parliament as a vehicle for reshaping Scotland. The SNP propose big visions of changing the country – we can argue that the vision is not correct or indeed deliverable, however it is still a vision. It is not simple management of the status quo, but rather a belief that Scotland can achieve great things. This motivates and inspires, particularly at a time of challenge and particularly in contrast to a negative campaign of “Vote SNP, get Armageddon”. A positive, ambitious vision for Scotland should be the fundamental drive of Scottish Labour – if we are not dreamers then we are nothing as a political party. The Scottish Parliament offers us opportunities for the kind of policy which is far harder to achieve at Westminster, particularly given the political arithmetic of the first past the post system, however we are not successful in explaining to voters that we understand the opportunity, and responsibility, of this resource. We have the opportunity to be proudly Scottish, British, European and Internationalist, and should trust in the positive appeal of that message.

Tying into this challenge is the geographical exclusivity of the Labour Party in Scotland, which was shown to be a fatal flaw at this year’s election. We talk proudly, and complacently, of our heartlands in the Central Belt and Western Scotland, the areas in which it is claimed, previously with a degree of truth, that you could stand a monkey in a red rosette and they would win. Part of the reason that these areas are heartlands is due to their contrast with the rest of Scotland. The Labour Party is virtually a fringe party across the expanse of the Highlands and Islands, the North East and the Borders. We are seen as out of touch and irrelevant to rural communities, to the farming and fishing industries, to the non-Glasgow populace in Scotland. We lack the traditional support of the Lib Dems and Conservatives amongst these constituencies and the ability of the SNP to be a very broad church, the drive of independence bringing together disparate political stances. Furthermore, our safety in the industrial belt left us not needing to reach out to these areas, particularly in an electoral environment which was believed to make majority government virtually impossible.

2011 turned out to be the perfect storm, as the SNP made massive inroads into the Central Belt heartlands at the same time as the Lib Dem vote vanished into the abyss. We lacked any sort of ability to mount a challenge for the falling Lib Dem seats, and would have lost the overwhelming majority of them in a ‘good’ election. Every Lib Dem seat which they lost turned to the SNP, an instant gain for the Nats of monumental proportions. This was further heightened by the sheer scale of their vote in the NE and other areas, where they managed to take MSPs off the list as well as in the constituencies.

At the same time they cut a bloody swathe through ‘safe’ Labour seats, removing MSPs in a raft without Labour being able to replace them elsewhere. Every city in Scotland is now predominantly, if not wholly, SNP reflecting their success in appealing to the electorate in its widest sense. As we had seen at previous elections, Labour’s geographic exclusivity left the party with nowhere to go when the SNP made inroads, with no fall back seats to challenge the SNP in or to gain from the other parties. The conditions were all in place for this defeat, we just failed to address them at any stage of the process.

It is an overused cliché for political parties in the UK to look to the US for answers, however there is something that Scottish Labour should learn from – the Democratic Party’s 50 State Campaign. This shift in approach, led by Howard Dean, moved the Democrats’ focus from simply their safe blue states of the East and West Coasts, to finding ways to connect with the forgotten voters in the Republican red states of the South and Centre. This was a challenge and a controversial step, with some of the elite of the party worrying about the impact on policy of listening to the electorate of those states, however it also brought great success at every level of politics in the US.

Scottish Labour needs to devolve its structure and to develop a 50 State approach for Scotland, one which shows that we have relevance to the voter in Sutherland or Aberdeenshire as much as we do to those in Springburn or Dumbarton. We need to discover a new generation of Scottish Labour representatives, those working and living with the reality of a devolved Scotland, who see Holyrood as a key means by which to change Scotland. The beauty of the Labour movement is, and always should be, that we appeal to a broad spectrum of the electorate, particularly in Scotland. I think that the frequent descriptions of Scotland as a centre-left country oversimplify the situation dramatically, ignoring the strong traditional small ‘c’ conservative tradition in Scotland, however it is true that the political, cultural and electoral environment offer opportunities which are hard to achieve at Westminster. We should not simply be the party of the working class communities of the urban conurbations, who in any case are starting to reject the expectation that we are their only choice. We should also be the party which represents our rural communities as they struggle with the challenges of employment and population dispersal; of our aspirational communities looking to harness the power of Scotland’s education system and traditional entrepreneurial spirit to break free from poverty; of ethnic minority communities as they contribute to developing new ideas of Scottishness, broad and beautiful in their multifaceted nature.

Regaining success in Scotland cannot simply be a case of winning back the Glasgow seats, Clydebank, Airdrie and other seats we consider rightfully ‘ours’, of merely patching over the cracks and waiting for the inevitable drift of voters back to their true home with us. If we wait for that to happen, we will be finished as a party, our credibility and commitment washed away in arrogance and complacency. We have to create a party which matters, which is optimistic yet realistic, which believes Scotland can be a better place and that we possess the abilities and resources to do so. I believe we need to be a party which is willing to challenge the consensus, to question the unquestioned truths of how Scotland functions as a society, and yet which is willing to work with other parties for the common good, to demonstrate that our first priority is the progress of Scotland and the people we represent.

We ironically have a unique opportunity to do that now. Our body of MSPs has been wiped out, leaving space for new candidates and ideas to put themselves forward. The review which is taking place, alongside the election of a new Leader, is welcome but we have to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of believing that the status quo is good enough. We have to change and we have to reconnect with the electorate – we ignored the signs in 2007 and have been punished for it. 2011 was not just a blip, it was the third national election (Holyrood 2007 and 2011 and the European Parliamentary elections in 2009) that we have lost out of four, with the UK General Election being our only success. The pattern is now for the SNP to win – they out finance, out resource, out campaign and out think us. We are no longer the favourites, the big players of Scottish politics – in Glasgow we face the reality that by next year we could be in opposition at every level of government. We are now the underdogs, and we need to start fighting back with that mindset.

Scottish politics has changed forever – it is now time for the Scottish Labour Party to catch up.

Ideological Warfare

2010-11-03T05:10:00.000-07:00

There have been many areas of note and contention in the midst of the Comprehensive Spending Review, issues for commentators to pour over and speculate upon. For me, as a non-economist looking in from the outside, it has been the politics and ideology which has struck me most, rather than the specific budgetary decisions.

From the Coalition Government’s position, I feel it has been a strong case of before and after politicking. Before, was a case study in political nuance, a demonstration of skill and media management to put Alasdair Campbell to shame. The careful management of expectations (let them think the cuts will be even higher so that they are a pleasant surprise when they arrive); the creation of a bogey-man to pin all the blame on (darn these evil benefit scroungers); the repetition of a concept until it is forced into the public psyche regardless of reality (fairness, fairness, fairness, fairness...); and the sidelining of internal opponents and contention (the negative briefings against Liam Fox and the announcement of Defence cuts at a separate strategic review) – this was political management of the highest level, made all the more remarkable by the fact that this is (however cosy and ideological compatible) a coalition government.

It was therefore surprising to see the success of this political manoeuvring, demonstrated in the broadly supportive polling figures following the CSR’s announcement, undermined by the self-indulgent cheering of the Conservative benches to the proclamation of savage job cuts, and the back slapping self-congratulation of the Quadruplets (Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Alexander) as they delighted in the most radical gamble in the history of Britain’s economy. Suddenly “We’re all in it together” seemed a rather more empty statement.

The careful management of the CSR will carry the Coalition through the initial stages, the war on scroungers keeping everyone distracted for a wee while. However, as the job losses mount, the less obviously scrounging get hit, the research showing that this review is anything but fair piles up and, God help us, the mass recovery of the global economy and private sector doesn’t happen – suddenly these pictures and video footage will come back to haunt the coalition.

The current saving grace for the Coalition is that Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition have taken the decision to play the politics of Opposition rather than set out clear and realistic alternatives to the direction the Government is taking. This is understandable from a purely political stance; however I also believe it is an abdication of responsibility, a surrendering of the debate in order to retreat to the comfort of disagreement. Ed Miliband demonstrated this very clearly with the choice of Alan Johnston as Shadow Chancellor – this was a clear political decision to attack Osborne rather than to set out concrete economic alternatives. Alan Johnston is a very competent political opponent, but he will not be creating an alternative review. This is disappointing in my opinion, and perfectly reflects the fact that neither side is actually engaging in the reality of the decisions that need to be made, but rather are returning to the delights of ideology.

The Conservatives, with their pseudo-Conservative Orange Book Liberal allies, are ideologically committed to removing the state in a way that Thatcher could only dream of. They have seized upon the crisis as an opportunity to destroy, swathed under the comforting illusion of the Big Society. If the Big Society really was a commitment of the Government (and there is much to be commended in it, as I shall explore later) then they would not be ripping apart the voluntary sector. It is ridiculous to expect that charities, churches and ill-defined communities can fill a sudden void in provision at the same time as their own budgets are savaged. The Conservatives have attacked the paternalism of Labour’s approach and the damage this has done to initiative and entrepreneurism, and there is much to be explored within these criticisms; however what they are doing does not address that properly. If those skills have been undermined then it is not just naive but quite frankly irresponsible to just presume they will magically spring up to fill the abyss left by the removal of the state’s presence. A reasoned, balanced approach to this would have legitimised the Conservative’s view; this approach instead shows it for the smoke and mirrors it has become.

However, Labour’s slide into criticising without creating is equally irresponsible. Spending has to be examined, the public sector is crying out for reform and innovation, and the opportunity for bringing positive change to communities which have stagnated requires a radical departure from simply repeating what has gone before. There must be something quite comforting for Labour MPs in Opposition – after being the enemy for a decade to many traditional supporters through the realities of being in Government, they are now able to become popular again. Ed Miliband won the Leadership on the basis of a move to the left and a rejection of much of the previous Government’s legacy, and so this is chiming nicely with the rhetoric of the Unions. Yet, to merely oppose misses the point of discussion and debate, and ultimately will struggle to convince the wider public that we as a party are ready for Government again.

For me, the most worrying political statistic was the voting intentions of the Sun/YouGov poll – 41% Conservative, 40% Labour, 10% Lib Dem (their lowest since YouGov started polling). While on one hand this makes for good reading for both the Conservatives and Labour (and the stuff of nightmares for the Lib Dems) it is actually a very worrying indication of the polarisation of the political debate, with no space in the middle for exploration of what is a shared problem.

The Big Society concept has much to commend itself in the current environment, if it was backed up by legitimate support. The role of the public sector across the UK, but particularly in the devolved nations and areas such as the NE of England, is overly pervasive, often stifling innovation and filling roles that it should not be in. Unlike the approach the Conservatives are taking, it is not because the public sector in and of itself is an evil – the public sector is a vital component of our nation. However, it can also not be sustained that the public sector’s role and presence is not open to debate, review and evolution.

Part of the problem is that we are still, even in these supposedly post-ideological days, rooted in the public versus private dichotomy, regurgitating arguments which focus on the negative aspects of the opposing view rather than the positive aspects of the one we are supporting. Rather than rehashing the public sector as inefficient against a private sector which is cheap and cruel; it is possible to celebrate the public service of the public sector and the innovation of the private sector as two sides of the same coin. Neither has all of the answers, yet equally both have much to bring.

The point is that new thinking is required, dare I say it a Third Way between private and public which seeks to compensate for their shortcomings. Within the current delivery of public sector services, this would lead to a greater development of alternative delivery models, such as social enterprises and co-operatives. Ironically they represent they opportunity for both sides of the argument to claim success, introducing the innovation of the private sector whilst retaining the moral high ground of the public sector.

The Big Society could be a powerful motivator for the nation if it seriously meant creating a new citizen-led society, where Tony Blair’s mantra of rights and responsibilities could actually be implemented through new contracts between individuals and the state. However the way the Conservatives are actually using the Big Society as a poorly disguised excuse for ideological warfare is both disappointing and, in the long term, likely to be seriously damaging to the causes of reform and localism, as the entire conceptual framework risks being tarred with the same brush.

What would an alternative look like? Well, it would involve a degree of acceptance on the main parties’ behalf that we are in an extremely challenging time, where serious debate and shared solutions are required. Sadly, this is virtually impossible as the two parties gallop into ideological bunkers, fixated on the purity of their respective views rather than the potential for the nation. The Conservative coalition’s drive to destroy the state will leave co-operation with Labour impossible; while Labour’s return to the left under Ed Miliband will likewise remove the centre ground as a meeting place. Meanwhile the Lib Dems plunge into obscurity, their attempts to justify their own existence as a political entity lost in the all encompassing embrace of their new Conservative masters.

Unfortunately in the midst of all this politicking, it is the country which suffers. True we are an innovative specified, and I don’t doubt that incredible ideas will spring up from society to fill the vacuum looming ahead of us. Organisations such as the RSA, who I work for, are contributing ideas and resources, working with other organisations and individuals to try and make some of the Big Society’s ideas come to life.

It shouldn’t be left to luck though, and it shouldn’t be without the involvement and contribution of our elected representatives. In these times of austerity and challenge, where will we find true leaders, with ideas and honesty to take us forward?

Here’s hoping that those figures make themselves known to us.

Why I believe David Miliband should be the next Labour Leader

2010-09-17T05:52:00.000-07:00

As I blogged back at the beginning of this incredibly long leadership campaign (not that the length in itself it is a problem) I wanted to be swept off my feet, caught up in the giddy rush of new love with an impressive, exciting leader. This hasn’t happened. Rather, it has been a case of a slow building relationship, starting as friends before beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, this could be something special...

Ok, I’m going to quit the incredibly cheesy romantic references there before we all die of forced saccharine overdose. However, I think that the analogy stands, in that my belief that David Miliband should be the next Leader of the Labour Party has been slow to build, fuelled partly by vision of the direction of the party, and partly by the approach of his main opponent.

I’ll get the negative out of the way first. I started this campaign fairly evenly split between the two brothers, not quite sure who should win. I leant towards David through policy and stature, however thought Ed could be a positive new figure, a breath of fresh air following the unending rumour and innuendo surrounding David Miliband during the Brown years. However, I think Ed Miliband has taken the wrong tack with his campaign, the impression of negativity towards any of Labour’s record not filling me with confidence or pride. Don’t get me wrong, Labour needs to own up to mistakes, particularly in regards to the disconnection that we fostered between the electorate, the membership and the party apparatus (for an interesting article about the price politicians pay for failing to apologies, check out the Post’s article about Adrian Fenty’s fall from office as Mayor of Washington DC). However, the enthusiastic dash to appear removed from anything vaguely uncontroversial during Labour’s time in office is both disappointing and uninspiring. Firstly, it is easy to criticise decisions made when you weren’t in office, and particularly when you weren’t part of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet – I don’t remember any reports of Ed Miliband joining the anti-war marchers. More crucially, I think it misses the point of what Labour needs to do. Yes, the public want some contrition – but fundamentally they have already punished us for our failings at the ballot box. What they want to see now is an energised party with a realistic, attractive vision which stands in contrast to the Highway to Hell which the Coalition Government is hurtling us along.

I believe that David Miliband offers this direction, through a sensible approach which can unify the different wings of the party in fighting back as a political entity. As I have often moaned in the empty sanctity of this blog, Obama’s focus on change has become a curse on the world’s political environment, being attached to every utterance, even when they come from right wing conservatives who find the very concept of change anathema to their entire ideology. Interestingly (and my scepticism towards the change agenda is pretty rigid) he has taken some of the better aspects of Obama’s grassroots campaign in the concept of a Movement for Change (check out an interesting article on the Huffington Post about it). This approach is looking to redesign the engagement of activists with the communities, breaking free both of the distant, unresponsive party hierarchy and the unsustainable ‘paratrooper’ approach, where activists hit an area in the run up to an election and then vanish into the aether, leaving nothing behind them of note.

This offers the potential of a fundamental redistribution of power and energy from the structure to the people, a chance for communities to rally together and produce result s which matter to them. Cameron’s Big Society campaign often seems vague and ill defined, an excuse for cuts rather than a realistic empowerment of society. It takes the approach that the State is too big – really it is the flip side, that civic society is possibly too small, that is the crucial if we really want to change power in the UK. David Miliband’s Movement for Change targets the grassroots as a resource for energy, which should complement the State rather than replacing it. Rather than ideologically (and naively) presuming that harsh cuts will automatically be replaced by an unsupported upsurge in civic activity, it acknowledges that communities need support, training and encouragement to be able to find new ways of behaving and engaging. Local leaders can stimulate this behavioural shift, alongside creating a new generation of politicians who are rooted in the real world, rather than the artificial environs of the political sphere.

I think that David Miliband’s political approach is also what the Labour Party, and the country, needs. One of the reasons that the Conservative Party took so long to recover in the public’s perception as a realistic political entity was because their reaction to the 97 election was to race to the right. Under Hague and Howard they were out of touch with public opinion, and had David Davis won the last Conservative Leadership election they would have remained there. It is therefore vital that Labour doesn’t replicate their mistakes in falling over ourselves to retreat back to some perceived left-wing utopian, enjoying the fun of ideological purity in the safe environment of opposition, but removing our chance of returning to power.

The Labour Party is a very broad movement encompassing a wide range of perspectives (as any legitimate political party should be) and I know that there will be dedicated fellow members who fall more to the left than I do, and who would welcome a return to a more traditional left wing rather than centre-left approach. I respect their commitment and ideas (and believe the times when that vital part of the party was excluded from deliberations under previous leaders was wrong) but personally I believe that we need an approach which listens to the public, which is responsive to national priorities while moving forward a progressive agenda which is open to a broad coalition of supporters, within and without the Labour Party. The Coalition Government is following an aggressive ideological agenda in power, the economic challenges the country is facing an excuse for changing the country to fit their worldview. We cannot be a party of narrow ideology but one which can create a vibrant, inclusive country.

We need to be asking the questions about the failure of the banking system without merely using it as an excuse to indulge in rhetoric. We need to be reshaping the structures in place so that the market works for us rather than us being slaves to the market. We need to build on our international alliances, particularly with the US, rather than falling into anti-American sloganeering in response to a misguided view of what we think the public want. We need to be defending the vital role of the State in creating and sustaining our country, whilst also critically examining how it can work best and most efficiently for our citizens.

David Miliband is a politician of international standing, who was a successful Foreign Secretary and will be a welcome and respected leader of the country in future years. I believe that his vision is the best one to move the country and the party forward, and I strongly hope that he is successfully announced as the next leader of the Labour Party, on my birthday on the 25th September.

Ending in Failure

2010-08-22T04:23:00.000-07:00

I am not one to quote Enoch Powell on regular occasions (and even less likely to agree with the quote) but his much used misquote that all political careers end in failure has had me thinking recently. It has been particularly prompted by the dramatic fall from grace of the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Obama.

Of course, as longer term readers of my blog (if such a creature really exists – I don’t exactly reward perseverance with regular writing!) will be aware, I was, and indeed remain, firmly in the Clinton camp. I did not support Obama during the Primaries, arguing that the gloss and presentation which so many people were raving over was a very shallow covering for a substantial lack of delivery. I should emphasise that I don’t actually like being proven right – as an Americanophile I want to see the country strong and successful, fulfilling its essential leadership role in the world. And god knows after the Bush years anybody was going to be an improvement in terms of the US’s standing on the global stage. I’m also aware that Obama was cursed before he began – no mere human being, let alone a politician, could hope to live up to the Messianic furore which surrounded him, the ecstatic religious outpourings which accompanied his every utterance. His election was a historical moment, one we can tell our children about in future years, but it was also a poisoned chalice which could really only lead to disappointment.

This grim foreboding has indeed turned out to be the reality. The slick, populist rhetoric which he employed in the campaign quickly became empty seeming when produced within the weighty environs of the White House. The confident assurance with which he outperformed better qualified candidates for PUSA in Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the public spotlight, has been surprisingly absent since his election, his mishandling of various challenges such as the AIG bonuses and Gulf oil spill more akin to the “rabbit-in-the-headlights” approach of his predecessor than we would have presumed possible. In a position which other Democratic Presidents would have killed for in terms of control over the full spectrum of US political power, he has found legislative priorities hard to pursue despite these majorities. Admittedly some of these have been massive and controversial (health care reform has been impossible for all Presidents) however they have demonstrated a lack of control, poor media presentation and mishandling which stands in contrast to the assured figure we were presented with, the young dynamic visionary standing opposite the aging statesman John McCain. The end result is that he appears weak and unsuccessful, despite pushing through a stimulus package of unparalleled proportions and delivering, however unconvincingly, on his election promise to pull troops out of Iraq.

At the time of the primaries, campaign and election, it was considered heresy to criticise Obama. I know that I received dismissive comments from many of the self-proclaimed Obamabots springing up on this side of the Atlantic for daring to pose the question that he might not be the best candidate to be the Commander-in-Chief of the world’s sole superpower. Tellingly this reaction, while still present from some of the more loyal supporters, has definitely become muted. Obama’s triumph, which was a massive victory for the Democratic Party and him personally, was rooted in his overwhelming control of the independent vote. This grasp has now been loosened, if not removed altogether. Polling figures for the independent voters have seen them swing against the President, as his own support has plummeted.

The problem is that the strengths of politicians can very quickly become weaknesses when the public starts to turn against or tire of them. Just ask Alex Salmond – in 2007 he was confident, funny and charismatic; now in 2010 he is arrogant, conceited and out of touch. They are actually the exact same qualities – he hasn’t changed, but the public’s view of his personality has. It is similar with Obama – he was the smooth tongued man of the people; now he is clumsy in his speaking and disconnected from the concerns of his electorate.

He is lucky in the sense that the Republicans, whilst rallying in the Gubernatorial, Senate and House races, seem to be trying to destroy their chance of regaining the White House in 2012. The Tea Party movement, with Sarah Palin as its figurehead, is a pain for the Obama Administration; but it is even more of a pain for the Republican Party. It will not capture the independent vote with the extremes of the Tea Party or by appealing to the hard right. It is true that US politics lean to the right, but I believe that there is a fundamental desire for the centre which the Tea Party quite frankly doesn’t get, let alone appeal to. However, if the GOP gets their act together and picks a serious, politically attractive candidate then Obama may struggle to achieve re-election.

First terms can be notoriously difficult for Presidents, but Obama needs to start turning his fortunes round if he is going to gain a second term and, more importantly, make the legislative changes which he wants for the US. Democratic candidates are abandoning the President in droves in term of the Midterms in November – these are almost unfailingly disastrous for the incumbent President, particularly given the Democrat’s control (and rather unsuccessful control at that) of all the levers of power. However, considering how short a time it has been since Obama was the best electoral addition in town (heck, all our politicians on this side of the Pond have been quoting him as well – if I hear the bloody word “Change” from one more politician...) it is a dramatic collapse in his personal prestige.

So do all political careers end in failure? Powell’s full quote pointed out that the failure came “unless they are cut off in midstream at some happy juncture”. I have always been wary of introducing term limits to elected office – it surely forces us to run the risk of losing good politicians when we most need them. However, I think that there is actually a lot to recommend them. I think it is impossible as a decision maker to know when it is time to go – there is always more that can be achieved, always legacies to be rescued or delivered. Term limits create the disappointing reality of lame ducks, but they also ensure that there is a turn over and fluidity to the political system. Unlike just now where we have our politicians in place for decades, and where leaders fight on long beyond when their energy and interest has been sapped, we could potentially see renewed energy, new generations of political figures.

(Damn it, the reality is that I’m wanting to use that thrice-cursed “C” word. But I will not give in, I will not boost its usage any further.)

The truth is that President Obama needs a dose of his own rhetoric if he is going to make it to his term limit. He needs to reconnect and deliver, to find a way to live up to his own image. And for all other politicians, current and future, it is important that lessons are learned from his example. Glory is fleeting in the political world, and eventually the public falls out of love with all politicians – such is the nature of the difficult choices which decision makers have to bear. When you set yourself up as the Agent of Change, you have to accept that you will also be subject to that very same process, and that your moment at the pinnacle of the world may be painfully brief.

Obama is falling, and it is going to take a change of style and direction to arrest that decline.

Anyone for VP Clinton in 2012?

Being the Change

2010-08-15T11:12:00.000-07:00

I go through spells with politics. Sometimes I am fired up with the enthusiasm of believing it to be a worthwhile pursuit, my idealistic, optimistic side pushing me to believe that the impossible can be achieved through common endeavour and humanity’s limitless potential. Other times, I struggle to see the point of the whole process, losing touch with its purpose and instead becoming immersed in my own lack of importance, dissatisfaction with the political world and lack of energy.
I have recently been stuck in the latter cycle. I don’t know why exactly, but my motivation to be involved in politics has been at rock bottom. I haven’t been involved in my local party activity and have allowed the Labour Leadership campaign to pass me by entirely; I haven’t blogged in months; and even my following of political developments has been disjointed and negligible. Effectively I haven’t cared, losing any motivation to be involved under a morass of sapped energy and sheer feduppedness.

Being in Belfast for the last couple of days with my Fellows has changed that. In a very stimulating debate about the impact of cuts on public services, every single point was political, every single solution was political. To paraphrase Homer Simpson, politics is the cause and solution of all life’s problems.

This was rammed home even more powerfully by taking a walk around the section dedicated to the The Troubles in the excellent Ulster Museum. Politics, in all its glory and shame, is documented across the walls of the room in unavoidable form. There is the tragedy of those killed, the bravery of those willing to make decisions unpalatable to the communities they represented, the cowardice of those who refused to listen to those selfsame communities. We take so much for granted about Northern Ireland, allowing the horror of those years to quickly slip unremembered amidst the normality of peace, yet with recent developments we must always remember the sacrifices that were made, and the progress which was secured. We in the Labour Party should be proud of the achievements of Tony Blair and his Government, a pinnacle of triumph in his premiership – yet we should also discard the veil of partisanship and recognise the achievements of John Major, for whom compromise with the IRA in particular was a painful political decision given the loss which his own party had experienced to bombs previously. Yet his decision helped to shape the environment for the Good Friday agreement, allowing for change and progress to occur.

Yet most of all, above the contributions of the British, Irish and American Governments, was the political push made in Northern Ireland itself. The movement by David Trimble and John Hume, crossing the divide to deliver for their people, restores faith in humanity. Despite differences which seem irreconcilable, peace can be delivered, eventually resulting in the surreal and previously unthinkable reality of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness sharing power, happy Chuckle Brothers working together (however limited the real impact of that work).

All of this was politics. All of this reflected political decisions, shaped by community and social pressures but delivered through the democratic process of politics. All of it is a welcome slap to the chops for the disillusioned onlooker like me, wallowing in self-pity about the impact politics can have. Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to imply that I can have an impact on the world like the Good Friday agreement. However I can guarantee that I won’t if I spend my whole time moaning and contributing. Politics is the means by which humanity changes, progresses and shapes the world around it. It is the way in which society can change for better and for worse, and it continues inescapably whether I choose to participate or not. It offers us the potential to make the world a better a place, whether that be in the massive ways of Northern Ireland, South Africa or the creation of the Welfare State in post-war Britain; or the more modest (but no less important) ways of changing our local communities, helping our fellow citizens or promoting tolerance, progress and pro social thinking.

So, the moral of my trip is to get my finger out and get involved. If I believe in this process, which I do, then I need to justify this belief, I need to fight for it and deliver it. I am lucky enough to be in a position whereby I actually can participate, through my work and my personal political involvement. There is a major election coming up next year in Scotland, and I want to be a part of that. There is a Coalition Government implementing decisions for this country whilst the Opposition challenges them, and I want to be a part of that. There is a debate taking place about the future of my political party, and I want to be a part of that.

The call to action is that we need to be the change we want to see in society. It’s about time I lived up to that challenge.

The Next Labour Leader

2010-06-02T05:20:00.000-07:00

The Coalition is wobbling after its first high profile resignation and the Tory backbenches are revolting. They are also having a go at PM Cameron. The first stage of brutal cuts are about to swing into action, with the overly gleeful Chancellor of the Exchequer only just at the beginning of his attempt to recast the country in his, I mean his leader’s image.

Needless to say with so much going on, the question I keep getting asked is who the next leader of the Labour Party should be!

I know that this sounds like a drift into partisanship, but it is actually a crucial question. We are not in 1997 again – following Labour’s landslide victory in that election the Tories collapsed, providing no effective opposition to the Government and leaving themselves isolated in the wilderness for 13 years. It is imperative that the Labour Party does not make this mistake – both for the party and for the country as a whole, which needs Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition to be a strong and challenging force in these difficult times.

So who am I supporting for the leadership (a question that I know keeps the respective candidates awake at night, fretting with anxiety about whether they will receive my backing!)? Well, the answer is that I don’t know at this stage in time. There are some very good candidates in the race, but really I am waiting to be excited, to be swept off my feet, to become giddy as a teenager in the first throws of infatuation.

Ok, I am maybe looking for a little bit too much – this is still a political contest after all! However, there is an important logic to my jesting. One of the key reasons why Labour is no longer the party of Government in the UK is because we became tired, worn out and boring. It was the same situation as we encountered in Scotland in 2007 – we were not innovators or visionaries, we were managers, steering the country without trying to take it down new paths.

In 1997 the country bubbled with the possibilities of the brave new world under Tony Blair, the promise of a new progressive realignment of the UK tapping into the desire of the electorate for excitement and for change. After the grey uninspiring latter years of Tory rule, Tony Blair and the New Labour project tore through the British political scene, casting aside the cobwebs of boredom and complacency. We witnessed the enthusiasm of President Obama’s victory in the US, born of centuries of racial prejudice and discrimination, but it is important to remember that the reaction in 1997, although not arising from the same base, was of an unprecedented (and unBritish!) level.

It is also easy to forget, due to the decline of Tony’s popularity and the contentious decisions such as Iraq, that the first term of the Government was one of the most radical in British history, rewriting the fabric of the country. Devolution started the process of giving power to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which they had long been denied. The minimum wage, tax credits, New Start and other economic policies started to provide the opportunities for all which had not previously existed. Civil partnerships and other social legislation changed how the country viewed its citizens, starting to demonstrate that everyone had a role to play, that everyone was welcomed and celebrated regardless of sexuality, gender, disability or race.

These were exciting and vibrant times when the Labour Party was a campaigning force for change. Of course not everyone agreed with the direction that the Government was taking, but they certainly knew that there was a direction, that the country was changing. This was lost amidst the infighting in the Party, amidst the tiredness of justifying Iraq, amidst the realisation that the oft-stated belief that boom and bust was gone forever, that growth would be never ending, was not possible to guarantee in an interconnected, globalised world.

Now, as we sit in opposition to a coalition Government united in its ideological desire to scale back the role of the state, it is crucial that the next Leader of the Labour Party has ideas, has a passion to change the world that can inspire the membership and indeed the country.

The candidates talk well about their opposition to inequality, their desire for fairness and all the other issues like that – but as someone recently commented to me, who is it that is actually for inequality and unfairness! What is needed is practical, inspiring ways to change the country which enable everyone to be an active citizen.

The party needs to move beyond the stale, pointless New/Old dichotomy, which serves only to put off the electorate who view it as self-indulgent at a time of economic hardship. Whilst I’m sure others would be happy to place me in one of the camps, I personally consider myself to be Labour, part of a broad church of activists united by belief in working together even if how we conceptualise that covers a wonderfully broad spectrum.

In some ways I am glad that I currently don’t have a clear favourite in my head, as it leaves me free to be convinced by the debate and competition itself. Here is a chance for a group of people committed to the future of the party to demonstrate to us, the activists, why they have the ideas that will take us forward. Electoral defeat has been painful and carries the risk of much of our work being undone, but it also offers the opportunity for a fresh start. This is not a call to rush blindly away from our record in Government, falling over each other in a bid to distance ourselves from all that occurred, but it is a chance to take stock and to find the spark, the passion, the reason that we believe we need to be in Government.

Government is hard, it involves making decisions which are unpopular and challenging. But it is also the only way in which we can change the country. No matter how scunnered people feel with politics and democracy, it remains the essential means by which decisions are made, the key means in which society is influenced and changed. Sitting in Opposition is an important role, but it does not bring change. Instead we sit as bystanders, challenging but also watching as a centre-right Government takes the country down a path of their choosing.

Labour needs to reengage – party democracy (which let’s face it has never been all that democratic) must be adapted in the light of a changing level of engagement and membership. Despite the upsurge in new members since the election overall membership of our party has fallen drastically over the years, the number of activists plummeting and leaving campaigns in many areas struggling to function. Members must believe that they are part of something worthwhile – meetings must move beyond mindless bureaucracy becoming vibrant opportunities for discussion and debate. Selection processes must be opened up to encourage greater participation of all elements of society serving as Labour representatives – we have much to be proud of in our record of electing minorities to represent us, however, we can and should always be striving to do more.

The new Leader must demonstrate that they are committed to developing the Labour Party into a modern, democratic body, enthusiastically welcoming everyone into its folds and working as an active force for change in local communities. Across the country people should be aware that the Labour Party works for them, represents them, is owned by them, serving as an irreplaceable element of their communities and country. The Labour Party in Scotland and Wales should be devolved, allowing it to work as a local body responding to the specific challenges and requirements of those contexts. This is not to create a situation of needless conflict with the UK wide Party – we are committed to the integrity of the UK and should be proud of our role as a major representative force in all of its constituent parts (other than the case of Northern Ireland of course, a topic which deserves its own blog). However, we introduced devolution because we recognised the difference in policy context for Scotland and Wales – our internal structure should therefore match that recognition.

My hope for the leadership contest is that it is a vigorous but collegiate affair, which allows the candidates to engage in open debate and discussion. Gordon Brown was hamstrung from the very beginning by his unopposed election, it is vital that the next Leader does not suffer from this fate. The different wings of the party must be allowed to contribute – I personally think it would be a disappointment if either Dianne Abbott or John McDonnell did not make it onto the ballot – as recognition of the fact that we can and should contain a broad range of opinions and approaches. Recent years saw a growth in the belief that debate was bad – we must counter this by demonstrating that we can debate and disagree, yet still work together united by our belief in the shared goals we have.

That is my hope. I have touched less on policy as I don’t think this should be the primary goal of the contest – we are not looking for a President who will decide in advance what we are doing but a Leader who will work with and for the party. We need an inspiring Leader, one who believes in politics as the best way to make the world a different place and who can share this belief with us. We need a Leader who we can follow, who can bring the party back to life and who can become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

I am waiting to be swept off my feet. Candidates, the floor is yours – go make me giddy.

The future of the Scottish centre-right

2010-05-18T02:40:00.000-07:00

The PM is a Conservative, they head up a majority Government (albeit with junior coalition partners) and they have wrested back control of the country from over a decade of Labour Government.

You would think this is a good time to be a Conservative.

And of course in most of the country, putting aside the bitter sting of failing to secure outright control, you would be right, Conservative activists are revelling in David Cameron’s ascent to power and the chance to bring their own ideological approach to Government, scaling back the power of the state and bringing back the all important right of the ‘countryside’ to hunt foxes.

However, one key part of the Conservative membership remains in the doldrums, the national success tainted by their own failure. This is the activists, supporters and elected representatives of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

At a time when their party has seen gains across the UK, including the continued resurgence of the party in Wales, the Scottish aspect of the Conservative Party has remained stagnant and, under the electoral system of First Past the Post which the Tories hold so dear, effectively irrelevant in the Scottish Political scene at Westminster.

There are numerous reasons for this situation, with the spectre of Maggie “Milk-snatcher” Thatcher looming over them all, but one of the fallacies which I think is trotted out too often is that Scotland is an unchangeably left-wing country. It is true that centre-left politics have appeared to dominate Scottish national politics in recent years – all but 17 of Scotland 129 MSPs hail from self-defined parties of the centre-left after all. However, this misses out the realities that flow underneath the party definitions and which actually demonstrate that there is a vibrant centre-right tradition in Scotland which lacks the correct political outlet.

The Conservative Party used to be a dominant force in Scottish politics, with the oft quoted statistic that they are the only party to have secured over 50% of the popular vote in Scotland at a national election. Seats in Glasgow used to be safe for the Conservatives – now the city is an electoral wasteland for the party, their candidates often lucky to finish in the top three. Seats such as East Renfrewshire, which should be safe Conservative seats according to demographics, remain firmly in the Labour column, whilst the Conservatives impact in the rural constituencies (other than in the Borders) remains minimal, restrained by the Liberal Democrats and SNP.

The problem for the Conservatives is that their brand of ‘conservativism’, particularly since Thatcher’s individualistic revolution of the 80s, does appeal to the Scottish conservative tradition. Scottish culture actually lends itself well to many small ‘c’ conservative traditions – self-reliance, the value of hard work, loyalty to the church and state, moral conservativism. Yet it is also infused with a strong tradition of community loyalty and moral responsibility to the wider society. This fitted with the historic Conservative Party, but the link has been lost in the self-serving greed of the Conservatives in recent years.

This was summed up perfectly on a BBC Scotland programme screened just after the election entitled “Why didn’t Scots vote Tory”. During the programme, in which Sally Magnusson followed Conservative candidates in the Borders and East Renfrewshire, a female voter in East Renfrewshire was asked whether she would ever vote Tory. She answered negatively, explaining that although a vote for the Conservatives would like benefit her and her family financially, as they were relatively well-off, she believed that she had a moral duty to think of others who were less fortunate when she cast her vote.

This position was mocked by the Conservative candidate who felt she should think only of herself – and in doing so he clearly demonstrated the gulf between his party and the Scottish electorate. If Cameron truly believes in the Big Society concept which he has promoted throughout the campaign (albeit without much in the way of definition) then he needs to harness exactly that sort of socially responsible mindset – yet his party still doesn’t get it, still doesn’t see that they are the ones who need to change in Scotland. It is not just a case of waiting patiently until no one remembers Maggie anymore; it is a direct requirement to adapt to the desires and motivations of the people of Scotland.

The fact is that just now small ‘c’ conservative voters are tending to cast their vote for either the Lib Dems or SNP in Scotland, depending upon their geographic location. The Lib Dems of East Dunbartonshire, for example, would not look out of place in the Conservative Party in the South of England, whilst the SNP in the NE of Scotland bears very little resemblance to their party colleagues in Glasgow. Small ‘c’ conservative voters are there but many of them have abandoned the Conservative Party to cast their vote in other directions.

A common suggestion has been that the Conservative Party in Scotland needs to rebrand, to redesign itself and start afresh. This would have been possible – the Conservative resurgence in Wales has been fuelled by their active participation in devolution, reinvention of a strong and proud Welsh identity, and community led campaigning. The Scottish Conservatives had this opportunity – they opposed devolution and electoral reform but those very measures gave them the chance to rebuild from the nightmare of the 97 wipe out. However, they have failed to do this. They have reached a number which seems to be their maximum and minimum, a stagnation which allows for a pretence of success whilst hiding the fact that they are in many ways achieving the bare minimum. Their leader in Scotland, Annabel Goldie, is a popular character, however this popularity is partly rooted in the knowledge that her influence is kept minimal, unable to directly control the country. The chance of using the Scottish Parliament as the jump start that the party needed has been missed and is probably now gone forever.

The reality is that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party is not fit for purpose as the vehicle of the centre-right in Scotland. The betrayal of the Thatcher years, the radical departure of the Conservative direction since the 80s, and the effective disdain demonstrated by the party in recent elections towards Scotland have served to sever the connection between the Scottish electorate and the Conservative Party to the point where, although they will continue to attract the support of a certain proportion of the Scottish population, they cannot realistically expect to make any electoral breakthroughs.

Scotland needs a new effective centre-right political movement, unhindered by the toxic legacy of the Conservative Party and freed from the Orange card politics of official Unionist definition. Constitutional politics in Scotland are frequently exaggerated – plenty of people voted for the SNP in 2007 who don’t support independence, and a significant proportion of Labour’s membership and support favour an independent Scotland regardless of the party’s official standing. Therefore regardless of whether the new centre-right party took an official policy of either unionism or nationalism it should avoid defining itself as such – there is little electoral benefit to doing so and, in the context of the centre-right in Scotland, a very strong chance of alienating potential supporters.

A new centre-right party in Scotland could make a valuable contribution to the political scene of the country by questioning the huge size of the public sector and its impact on economic success. It could ironically cut across party lines easier than the current Conservatives can, working with the centrist wings of Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP. If such a party could demonstrate its vibrancy in the slightly sterile environs of Scottish politics, then it could draw in the centre-right support which has drifted from the Tories to the Lib Dems and SNP, potentially finding in that a very effective core vote which could propel it into government at Holyrood.

Currently the other parties refuse to work closely with the Tories at a Scottish level (despite close relationships between all of them at local levels) even when there are natural alliances to be made. A new party could allow partners to avoid this historical baggage, appealing to common sense rather than negative name recognition.

A good example for a new movement would be the Reform Scotland think tank. A centre-right grouping, officially unaligned to any political party, it has quickly propelled itself into the forefront of the Scottish political scene through efficient self-promotion, impressive research publications, and a legitimate expression of the centre-right stream of thought in the Scottish conscious. They have benefited because they are not the Conservative Party and because they are Scottish – this has allowed them to carve a niche for themselves, unchallenged by any rivals.

A centre-right party which derived its motivation from this think tank could be a very vibrant force in Scottish politics, attracting voters unable to bring themselves to vote for the Conservatives and indeed challenging the Conservative Party, which has been shown to offer Scotland very little in recent years.

A new party would need to tie into the stream of Scottish social conscience and responsibility which is a hallmark of our country. In the same way that all US politics tends to be to the right of British politics, a successful Scottish centre-right party would probably be closer to the centre than the UK Conservatives, in some ways more akin to European Christian Democrats. It would certainly believe that there is such a thing as a society – Scotland is underpinned by this very notion – whilst at the same time encouraging and rewarding individual attainment and success.

I believe that such a party could be a success in Scotland. It wouldn’t be overnight – it is remarkably hard for new political movements to make breakthroughs, even in proportional systems – but as it would fill a gap and tie into a strong strand of Scottish culture, both current and historical, it would be of interest and relevance to a potentially large strand of Scottish society. The centre-right is alive and well in Scotland – it is just not voting for the Conservatives.

Election 2010

2010-05-13T01:49:00.000-07:00

Well, I certainly chose an exciting period in British politics to stop blogging didn't I! I must admit I had hit a bit of a disconnected phase in my life, the demands of a new job etc meaning that blogging and the like got put on the back burner. However, with political debate seeming to be at an all time high in the country just now, I figured it was about time I started to put my money where my (electronic) mouth is.

I have several topics that I would like to blog on and will try and cover them over the next wee while. However, it would seem logical to start with a brief analysis of the General Election and where the parties now stand. Of course analysis has been done to death and I know that I will not add anything new to the debate; I do think, however, that this election will have ramifications for the political environment for years to come and it is therefore important to take stock of where we are.

Conservative Party

It has been interesting that to date the only party with talk of backbiting and infighting has been the Tories, the party which has just taken office after 13 years in the political wilderness. At the end of the day the election was a success for them - they came first by a clear margin in the popular vote; took a big increase of seats; and, crucially, now have David Cameron in office as Prime Minister ready to implement the Conservative manifesto over the coming years.

Of course this success should not be downplayed following the Conservative struggle since 1997. However, it does contain within it some worrying aspects for the party. Firstly, this was an election that was in the bag, that was meant to be a landslide of 97 proportions. With supposedly the worst PM ever in office and the country in financial difficulties, the eloquent young Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition had been confirmed in office months before the election took place, the media falling over each other to debate the scale of Labour's annihilation. And then the election happened, and it turned out that whilst the public were indeed ready for Labour's time in power to finish, they were not exactly bowled over with what the Tories were offering. A win is a win and being in power is what matters, but in the end the Tories had to be helped across the finish line by their new BFFs in the Lib Dems rather than romping over it as they had expected.

The Tories' showing in Scotland was also disastrous. At a time when the country was supposedly ready for ChangeTM (damn you President Obama for making that word so pervasive in our political lexicon!) Scotland indicated that it is still not convinced by the Tory project. Some of this is the lasting legacy of Thatcherism, however it also reflected the fact that the Conservative Party did not seem to care terribly much about Scotland. In contrast to Wales, where the Conservative Party has embraced its Welsh identity and is reaping the electoral benefits, the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party remains unfit for purpose, irrelevant across the country. Indeed, given the circumstances perhaps David Mundell retaining his seat should be treated as a success!

The final aspect of this brief overview is of course that we now have a Con-LD coalition government. As I will discuss in a minute I think this poses more problems for the LD than for the Tories. Whilst they would have obviously preferred to govern alone, the fact is that LD in the Cabinet will not drastically alter the Conservative administration's plans and could act as useful fall guys for the difficult decisions that will be made. Cameron has been able to show his statesmanlike qualities in the arranging of the coalition - if at times the LD have seemed a bit desperate, the Conservatives have in contrast seemed assured. There will be rumblings beneath the surface and I think that the coalition will be used as ammo for elements of the Conservative Party to attack Cameron - sections were already discussing the idea of replacing him on at least a couple of previous occasions - but in the meantime Prime Minister Cameron has what he wants.

Labour Party

Labour's election ended up being the mirror image of the Conservatives. It was a failure - after 13 years the Labour Party no longer forms the Government and therefore the election campaign did not succeed. There are numerous reasons for this, and I will return to them in more depth in a later blog, but essentially the public got fed up of the party in power. The energy of the first couple of terms in office had fizzled away and it had become a collection of the same old faces. New ideas seemed in short supply and Gordon Brown as PM had reached a stage where it was virtually impossible for him to do anything right.

Yet, the election didn't turn into the rout that had been widely predicted. Labour managed to hold a number of very vulnerable seats (and lose a few that shouldn't have been so vulnerable!) and in Scotland saw a dramatic improvement in its fortunes with majorities increasing across much of the country. Labour's loss was partly down to Gordon Brown's standing, but its achievement of a remarkably small defeat was also testament to his popularity in parts of the country. The media would have you believe that everyone hates Gordon, subjecting him to a level of vitriol which I don't think any PM has suffered before - and there are indeed strands of the South of England who agreed with this venom, despising him for his beliefs, Scottishness or lack of media polish. However, it turned out that actually many people in the North of England and Scotland have respect for him and objected to the smear campaign.

Labour also benefited from the fact that this wasn't 1997. In 97 two elements were at play - the country desperately wanted rid of the Tories, but it also wanted Tony Blair and Labour in power. In 2010, the country was indeed tired of Labour - 13 years is a long time in power by British standards - but were not convinced by David Cameron or by his protestations that the Conservatives had changed. Underlying this was the resurgence in Labour's fortunes in local government elections in England - true the party had reached the nadir in recent years, but they did demonstrate that an improvement and fightback was possible and indeed underway.

Labour goes into Opposition now at a time when very difficult decisions will have to be made regardless of who is in power, and knowing that in parts of the country at least the Lib Dems have dealt themselves a very major blow. It is crucial that the leadership campaign is an open, positive and exciting one, but this has turned out to not be the dark time that many in the party had feared.

Liberal Democrats

The election's biggest winners or biggest losers? Only time will tell. Choosing to enter a coalition Government with the Conservatives, ushering David Cameron into power, has given the Lib Dems a role in British political life far beyond their wildest dreams. It would have been inconceivable until very recently for Nick Clegg to be Deputy PM and his colleagues in Cabinet, or that that they briefly would have been first in the polls. But the success of the Leaders' Debates (well the first couple anyway) propelled the Lib Dems into a position far beyond their target.

Except of course that it didn't, the media reports of major Lib Dem breakthroughs turning out to be wide of the mark. I, like many others, was sceptical of the exit poll when it showed the LD doing pretty poorly, but in the end it turned out to be pretty spot on. It is not to take away from a few Lib Dem successes and also their success in holding seats against the Conservatives, but in the end a loss of a couple of seats, given the context of the election, marks a disappointing result.

In addition they managed to do the impossible and prove the Labour Party right! Labour campaigns about "Vote Clegg, get Cameron" had been attacked for being negative and unfair, failing to represent the progressive heritage of the Liberal Democrat party. In the end it turned out that the campaigns were spot on. Clegg and his colleagues represent the new direction of the Lib Dems, a move away for the centre-left policy of Ashdown, Kennedy and Campbell towards centre-right Orange Book liberalism. This is obviously a decision that the party itself is happy with; I'm not so sure the public necessarily agree though. Nick Clegg used the Debates as an opportunity to attack the 'Old Parties', to set out the clear water between the Lib Dems progressive policies on immigration, Trident and the EU. Now, we are in the sad position of seeing Simon Hughes trying to justify his description of the Conservatives as progressive and radical. There is a radicalism in the Conservative Party it's true, but is the radicalism which Margaret Thatcher used to reshape Britain. Now the Lib Dems are part of a Government which is anti-immigration (they will now support the cap they opposed); pro-Trident renewal; anti-Europe and implementing £6billion of immediate cuts (which Nick Clegg had branded as "economic masochism so early in recovery" and that they would "risk pulling out the carpet from under the feet of the British economy").

Will there be a public backlash against the decision? I think so, but it is not clear how long that would last for. Needless to say Labour, the SNP and the Greens will blast the Lib Dems over this, reinforcing in the public conscious that the LD are now a party of the centre-right. There is no doubt that the Tories will happily let the Lib Dems carry the fall out for any popular decisions if they can - any sensible party would. And in particular the Lib Dems, through Secretary of State for Scotland Danny Alexander, carry the unenviable job of justifying Conservative decisions to a Scottish electorate which firmly rejected those policies.

The biggest loss however is that of introducing a proportional voting system. This was possible, albeit difficult, with Labour but will never happen with a Conservative administration - they see it as electoral suicide to do so. AV is not proportional and will not help the Lib Dems make the breakthrough they need - it might even, if there is a lasting backlash, see them punished in a few seats by other parties rallying against them. It therefore seems that the Lib Dems have sacrificed their long term success and real political reform for the short term attraction of seats in Cabinet. I don't envy them the decision they had to make - I don't think there was an easy answer and the decision they took was the most straightforward - but I think they may regret it. On election day the electorate demonstrated that there was a progressive majority of voters, yet ended up with a non-progressive administration. Perhaps the centre-right is indeed now dominant in the UK - if not, the Lib Dems may suffer for their choice of partners.

The SNP

The SNP had a terrible election yet may well have been saved by the Lib Dem decision. Salmond in his bombast had set the party up for a fall - 20 seats always looked wildly optimistic given the nature of Westminster elections and in the end the lack of any increase, coupled with the expected failure to hold Glasgow East, was a major set-back, albeit the vote increased nationally. In Glasgow the SNP had expected to lose East and it had become apparent that they would not manage to take Central, however the thrashing that they received in both was serious. Salmond is now on a losing streak - he confidently called Glenrothes, Glasgow NE and 20 seats and has been dramatically wrong in all of them.

Of course there is a tendency at Westminster elections for Scots to view the SNP as an irrelevance and this is doubly the case when the Tories are the favourites to win, with voters returning to the Labour Party as their best defence. However, the SNP campaign was pretty unconvincing, their more Nats, less Cuts slogan failing to connect with the public. The Holyrood elections next year are a completely different prospect, however there must be unease in the SNP camp that they will be able to retain power.

The Lib Dem decision to join with the Tories, however, helps to remove one of the biggest threats the SNP faced - namely supporting a Conservative minority Government. Now the Lib Dems can carry the blame for Conservative policy, and Labour and the SNP can fight over who defends Scotland the best. It doesn't have much of a direct impact on seats for Holyrood - the Lib Dems are a relatively peripheral party in the Parliament - however I think it will become the defining drive of the respective election campaigns.

Others

Greens - huge breakthrough in Brighton Pavilion, personally I think it was a great day for British democracy - this wasn't a by-election, but the real deal. They are already doing the sensible thing of trying to tempt over disillusioned Lib Dems and this could be a successful policy. Key issue for them is to move beyond just being the few key figures who are elected - Caroline Lucas in England, Patrick Harvie in Scotland - in order to broaden their appeal.

BNP - absolute disaster of an election for them, both nationally and locally. And it couldn't have happened to a more deserving party. Hopefully this can be a turning point, with their empty rhetoric of hatred and violence being consigned to the rubbish bin where it belongs.

UKIP - who? So much for breakthroughs - don't think that was the publicity that Farage had been exactly looking for!

So overall it was a fascinating election leading to a very interesting and exciting period in British politics. I will aim to get back to regular blogging - I don't claim to have any coherent thought to add, but at this time of debate and discussion it is vital that as many citizens as possible take part in what's going on.

A disgrace to the nation

2010-02-08T04:41:00.000-08:00

I wanted to blog on the future of Britain's defence policy or some other hard hitting policy topic, but I have to stick up some thoughts on my outrage and disgust at the three MPs facing trial for defrauding the nation and seeking to claim Parliamentary immunity.

They are an absolute disgrace to everything that the democratic system stands for and a disgrace to the political party of which I am a member. I know I am idealistic, but to me elected representation is the greatest honour that can be bestowed upon you by your fellow citizens. By electing you they entrust you with a sacred responsibility to work on their behalf, to be a servant of the public. In addition the Labour Party has long prided itself on its concern for society, its belief that we achieve more together than apart. All of this has been thrown back in our faces by some men who have demonstrated that they do not believe any of these things.

They should be taken to trial and, if they are found guilty by a jury of their peers, they should be punished with the full weight of the law. By the very nature of their role as Members of Parliament they must be held to higher standards - as representatives they carry the hopes, needs and aspirations of all of their constituents upon their shoulders. This is a huge responsibility, but if they are not up to it then they should have admitted that fact. Their actions imply a belief that they are above the public, set apart from the petty rules and laws which us mere mortals must abide by. This is disgusting and is compounded by their attempts to escape justice.

Our democracy has been critically injured by the expenses scandal and the gulf which exists between our elected representatives and the people they are meant to serve. It is imperative that those who did not just milk the system for all they could, but actually broke the law in order to profit themselves, are seen to face justice for those actions.

Renaming Unionism

2010-02-03T03:10:00.000-08:00

I watched Mo last night having taped it at the weekend. Julie Walters was excellent as the "People's Politician" and I found the story a very powerful and moving, which certainly didn't stint in its covering of Mo's life, illness and death. At a time when our politicians are held in particularly low esteem, it was good to be reminded of the potential and possibilities which politics offers.

This was most highlighted in the coverage of the negotiations which led to the Good Friday Peace Agreement in Northern Ireland during Mo's stint as Secretary of State. Peace in the Province, at such a tentative state just now, came about from two main causes - the overwhelming desire of the people living in Northern Ireland, and the political process. Politics is fundamental to life in all its functions, and it is useful to be reminded of this when we are feeling scunnered with the state of our democracy.

Another point which the film made me think about was the connotations of the word Unionism. I am a Catholic with Irish blood in me like many others in the West of Scotland. When I hear the word Unionism, I think of Trimble and Paisley, figures quite frankly inimicable to my beliefs and background, figures who I would never wish to be associated with. Yet at the same time I, by dint of my belief that Scotland is best placed in continuing as a member of the United Kingdom, am a Unionist.

It is a horrible predicament to find myself in! I think though that it highlights one of the challenges for the political debate in Scotland concerning the country's future. Thankfully in Scotland our positions on being independent or in the UK are not based predominantly on religion, in contrast to Northern Ireland. Rather they are political positions, broadly crossing the divides of class, religion and culture. Yet the connotations of the word Unionist are strong in Scotland where so many of us have a connection to one side or the other across the water, leaving us in an uncomfortable position of trying to square a psychological and cultural circle.

The current consensus on the North, that it should remain part of the UK until the majority of its population wish otherwise, seems a sensible position to me. Logically it is also the same position to hold via Scotland. I may not agree that independence is the best future for Scotland, but I do believe that it should be the right of the people to decide.

Of course to further confuse matters and to seemingly contradict myself, I don't believe that a referendum on independence is appropriate at this time. Although 10 years seems like a long time, it is actually in the context of a country and a parliament a very short period. Devolution is still bedding in and the appallingly low political literacy of the populace mean that making an informed decision on the future is difficult, particularly when Holyrood is not yet being used to its full potential. Within this context I also believe that the Calman Commission was premature - of course devolution should be an evolving process, but it should also have continuity and time. Rushing these matters doesn't help the process at all.

However, whenever the referendum happens (and there will be one at some point, even if only to finish the issue off for a while) it is important that those supporting Scotland's continuation in the UK find new language to express their ideas in. Whilst Unionism as a term obviously makes logical sense, its potential connotations impact upon it usefulness and further heighten the feeling that it is not Scottish to be pro-UK. The pro-independence camp has done a fairly successful job of distancing their use of the word nationalist from the many negative connotations that it carries from other political contexts. Likewise the pro-UK camp must work harder to find new and positive ways to express their vision.

This is a difficult proposition as the pro-Union side incorporates a far broader range of views from strict traditionalists to radical federalists. It will require debate and the recognition that there are some very different outcomes possible for Scotland's future. It must move away from the purely negative approach of declaring that an independent Scotland would be a disaster - it wouldn't be. An independent Scotland would get along alright - I just don't believe it would do as well. The public are fully aware that Scotland won't go down the drain and that the SNP will not destroy the country. What they are looking for is a positive vision for the future which shows how Scotland can be the best it possibly can. The SNP and other nationalists are providing one vision - it is up to the other side to now counter that with its bright future.

Reforming our Elections

2010-02-02T01:30:00.000-08:00

It has been confirmed that the PM is going to announce plans for a referendum on the Westminster voting system. Following a period of discussion within the Government and the Labour Party (lukewarm environments at best for electoral reform at best, more often rather hostile!) he is going to propose that the Alternative Vote (AV) system should be introduced for future elections.

It is definitely to be commended that there is any discussion of change within the system, however the proposed measures do not offer a genuine attempt to reform the problems which exist. In the 1997 General Election Manifesto, Labour stated "We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system".

The key element of this commitment is "proportional". The promise had partly been made in advance of possible coalition talks with the Liberal Democrats, which following the landslide were not needed. Labour did go ahead with the independent commission, leading to the Jenkins Commission Report. Tellingly for the current proposals, the Jenkins Commission specifically rejected AV as it did not provide for proportionality. Indeed, had AV been used in the 97 election then Labour's already swollen majority would have been increased even further, primarily at the expense of the Tories (see Chapter 5 of the Report).

And this is where the great difficulty of effective and legitimate electoral reform arises, as political calculations outweigh arguments for fairness and proportionality. The Conservatives oppose electoral reform because they fear it generally impacts negatively upon them, even though it often could help them. Indeed looking at the Scottish context where a proportional system is used for Holyrood elections, the Tories are the third biggest party, in stark contrast to their Westminster standing in Scotland. The Lib Dems obviously support purer electoral reform as they have the most to gain from it, however they need to work on making their arguments look less motivated by their own interests and more about improving democracy.

The challenge of course within the Labour Party is that it has the most to lose. Generally changes in the system would impact upon Labour's support - for example following the introduction of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system to Local Government elections in Scotland, Labour lost overall control of a large number of Councils (although it did remain the only political party to retain overall control of any councils). Furthermore, real changes to the voting system, such as introducing STV or similar systems which lead to an increased likelihood of coalition governments, require changes in political psychology on the behalf of the parties themselves, as they contemplate the realities of working with erstwhile political rivals.

Coalitions are not the sole preserve of proportional systems. With latest polling indicating that the Tories' lead could be down to 7 points, the reality of a hung parliament and the Lib Dems deciding the next Government is very real. I know that I am not a particularly partisan person, but I don't want to see the Tories win the election. However, the idea that they could win by 7%, a clear victory by any standards, and yet not actually 'win' because of the imperfections in the voting system embarrasses me and definitely does not increase the legitimacy of the system. Likewise coalitions do not have to be 'bad' things. From a progressive political standpoint, a proportional system could create a fertile environment for long term progressive coalitions between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, with possible roles for smaller centre-left parties. Admittedly under Clegg the Lib Dems are now closer (at least in presentation) to the Tories, but the reality of a progressive coalition is one that could provide for very real and sustainable changes in Britain.

It will be interesting to see where the debate goes from here. Since the issue has arisen it has been noticeable that there has been a growth in expressions of support from Labour elected representatives, including Cabinet Ministers such as Ben Bradshaw. However, there is a great deal of opposition from large sections of the Labour Party and more-or-less the entirety of the Conservative Party, and this could impact upon any changes. At least the existence of a debate is to be welcomed - there is no doubting that our political system is suffering from an existential crisis and must adapt to regain the trust and support of the electorate. Proper reform of the electoral system is not the sole answer to this crisis, but it would serve as one element of a revitalised and re legitimised democracy.

The Human Cost of Politics

2009-12-08T01:44:00.000-08:00

I would highly recommend this Washington Post article which interviews Neel Kashkari, the man who was appointed as the 'Bailout Czar' by US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson during the depths of the economic crisis. He was responsible for handling $700 billion of federal funds, effectively leading the fight to save the US economy from complete financial meltdown.

What the story demonstrates is the sacrifice and human cost that is demanded of many public servants, and which is sadly lost in the maelstrom of disgust which many people feel for politicians and civil servants just now. One of his colleagues had a heart attack and Kashkari himself saw his weight balloon amidst the stress of the situation. Politicians who in private were understanding of what he was trying to do used public hearings to savage him, caring not a jot for the human involved in the situation while they tried to score points. His team worked through the night and he got to the stage where his wife felt they were dead to each other, so little and rare was their meaningful contact.

What is inspiring is that he did it, he succeeded. However the cost of his efforts, now starting to be lauded but the cause of brutal attack during his time working for the Government (a position which he had taken a massive pay cut to fulfil) were massive.

Has got me thinking about some of the implications of political life which act as barriers to people putting themselves forward, will blog more on it at a later date.

The language of politics

2009-11-30T02:16:00.000-08:00

Report on the BBC website highlighting that MPs have criticised the overuse of jargon in governmental documents, particularly for forms. Indeed, they point out that this over complication may lead to people missing out on benefits that they are entitled to, which is an appalling situation.

I think that this discussion about jargon needs to go further and examine the language which is used in political debate. In my work life I have focused on democratic engagement in recent years and have been struck by the fact that there is a very common perception amongst the public that political activity requires a very specific technical language in order to participate.

It is a reflection of the idea that politics has become 'professionalised', one of the key factors I think which puts people off participating. It is seen as a job and one for which you require strange and arcane language, knowledge which requires university education to be deciphered. One of the strengths of the British political system has been that technically at least it is possible for anyone to become an elected representative, a situation which is definitely not the case in other democracies. For example, someone like John Prescott would never have become Vice President in the US, but was able to rise to the office of Deputy Prime Minister in the UK. However, we are losing the chance to engage wider elements of society as the field becomes more closed, accessible if you are a party worker and/or politics graduate but difficult otherwise.

There is a growing trend for politicians to follow a set path - politics degree, work for a party or politician, elected. The more 'out-there' ones maybe go spend some time at a think tank to break from the mould. However, where are the charity activists, the grassroots campaigners, the, well, normal folk? True politics is not exactly the most appealing arena at the best times, and of course I am overgeneralising, however in order to have a vibrant and representative democracy we require all elements to be involved in it. Representation is not the only means for participation, however it does demonstrate a very visible involvement for different communities.

Working in Shettleston in Glasgow, a predominantly white working class area, I was told that politics wasn't for folk there, it was for rich, old men who attended top universities. Working subsequently with ethnic minority communities, the comment is the same other than for the addition of the word 'white' as an additional barrier.

Billy Connolly joked that anyone who wanted to be a politician should by default be barred from standing for election, but there is an element of truth to his quip. There is nothing wrong with having elected representatives who have followed the path I outlined above; the problem lies when that becomes the norm for representative's history.

One of the ways to try and change this system is to try and improve the language that is used, to restore political discourse to the realities of life rather than the removed and rarefied secret code which is often used. I'm not calling for a dumbing down of discourse, but rather that politicians stop and think about how they present their discussions, about whether they are relevant to the people they represent. Because not only would accessible discussions encourage a greater range of people to put themselves forward for election, it would provide a better environment for the wider populace to participate and challenge the political system, renewing and reinvigorating our democracy.

Putting the Evolution into Devolution

2009-11-26T01:44:00.000-08:00

The Queen's Speech outlined proposals by the UK Government to introduce a number of measures for devolving further powers to the Scottish Parliament and Government, largely in line with the recommendations of the Calman Commission. Whilst a commitment to strengthening devolution is to be welcomed, there are several problems with the measures which will hamper their effectiveness.

Firstly, these particular measures are reliant upon the Labour Party being returned to Government at Westminster which, whilst not impossible, is certainly an uphill task. The Conservatives have indicated that they would bring a Scotland Bill forward if they were in power, but obviously this could possess a different complexion. The questions raised by the SNP and Lib Dems about the need for a delay do therefore have a resonance - if Labour is commited to the changes why not implement them now?

Secondly, the changes themselves are tied into the Calman Commission's findings which, as I have blogged before, were not necessarily the most earth-shattering in human history. The devolution of further taxation control, principally in regards to Scotland's role in tax raising, is not likely to see much in the way of change - I would imagine that we will see either the Scottish portion remaining identical to the rest of the UK or, if the SNP are feeling mischevous, the Scottish section lowered in the hope that funding will still be available through the Barnett calculations. This would raise resentment across the rest of the UK against Scotland without necessarily actually having a beneficial impact on the country.

Other measures such as the control of drink-driving limits and airgun legislation are welcome but again are hardly major steps. It is not that the devolution settlement necessarily needs massive re-evaluation - personally I am of the opinion that we are still very early in the Parliament's life to be making these decisions - but if we are taking the opportunity after a decade then we should be using it to the full, to avoid the need to repeat the process every few years.

If anything the biggest changes Scotland needs are probably in regards to Westminster's role in the country. The Scottish Government and Parliament have responsibility for the issues which impact upon day-to-day life far more than Westminster does. In particular Scottish MPs are now seen as being less relevant to people in Scotland, impacting more on decisions south of the border than north.

The UK Government needs to examine the Scottish MPs' role to ensure that they can demonstrate their role in shaping and influencing Governmental decisions which do impact upon Scotland, such as UK foreign policy, national taxation and immigration. They need to be seen as complimentary equals to MSPs - the day of them trying to be considered a step above is certainly long gone.

So probably a case of watch this space overall. With decisions left until after the next election, everything will be up in the air as we wait to see who will form the Government. But as the Scottish Government prepare to release their White Paper on Independence we can guarantee that the debate still has a course to run.

The challenge of the public sector

2009-11-24T02:26:00.000-08:00

Very interesting report published by Sir John Arbuthnott investigating how money could be best spent across the Clyde Valley area. Currently the eight councils spend about £6.5 billion each year and are facing, like every other council in Scotland, severe pressures upon their budgetary commitments. He has suggested that there are many areas where it would be possible to combine services which are currently duplicated, saving money and providing best value for public expenditure.

Needless to say there has been quite a response already to his suggestions. Although he has not suggested that the eight councils should be combined politically, the dread spectre of 'Strathclyde' has been raised above the parapets, frightening all with talk of the mega-body to end all mega-bodies. There is also the inevitable worries about the impact combination would have upon jobs - afterall if jobs are currently being duplicated then any changes is likely to see redundencies.

The threat of job loss, particularly in the current economic climate, is a worrying one and everything must be done to make the process as smooth as possible. However, the reality is that we do currently have a bloated public sector in Scotland which sees public money wasted, reducing public confidence in local authorities and the work that they do.

The left of course have traditionally been the defenders of the public sector, and this is a crucial role that they must continue to fill as the possibility of a Conservative Government, largely inimical to the sector, looms on the horizon. However, defence of the public sector cannot just be a blind kneejerk reaction of refusal to countenance any change. All sectors must adapt and evolve, and the fact that there is so much money pumped into departments replicating work fails the electorate.

Combining services would allow costs for equipment and maintenence, particularly in areas which require large outlays in materials such as road repair. Furthermore joint work would help to standardise facilities across the area, which is especially relevant considering the fluid and constant interaction for work and leisure between Glasgow and its surrounding environs.

If the councils remained politically independent they would retain the ability to make the key decisions about the delivery of services in their area as they currently do - what would change would be a demonstration to the public that they are seeking to maximise the impact of every pound spent. In addition they would see benefits to their budgets due to the savings achieved, allowing them to save key local services from cuts, an outcome which is inevitable if things continue as they are.

There is much still to be explored about the proposals and it will be interesting to see the responses that come from the councils concerned. There will be some opposition to the measures, particularly in light of potential job cuts, so it is important that Trade Unions are involved in the process to allow discussion and debate. However, change is needed to keep local authorities working, and in bringing together the work that they do they will be able to save money and best serve the public.

Well done Willie Bain MP

2009-11-12T17:56:00.000-08:00

Well Willie Bain has been elected as MP, which is a fantastic result, especially the size of his victory. Reassured as well that the BNP were pushed back to 4th, albeit it only just. Still, a worrying situation and the parties must not be complacent.

Planning to be back to blogging now, so will put up my thoughts about the results when I'm less tired.

Glasgow NE result

2009-11-12T16:45:00.000-08:00

Waiting for the final result but looking like it's been a successful night for Labour in my own constituency of Glasgow NE, with indications that the seat has been held convincingly.

However, the sad reality is that the main story of the night is likely to be the fact of the BNP coming third, if predictions are accurate. Whilst the turn-out is appallingly low and therefore the result shouldn't be extrapolated too far, it is the case that this result would be a historic change to the Scottish political scene.

Areas such as Glasgow NE possess many of the social and economic barriers and challenges which provide potentially fertile breeding grounds for the BNP. Up until now, however, the party has been held back by the historical reality that it had never had support in Scotland, being seen as an 'English' party. Retaining their deposit for the first time in their history in Scotland would have been a breakthrough in itself; taking third above the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats marks their arrival as a realistic and legitimate member of the Scottish environment.

One of the most depressing aspects of it all is that the argument is still trundled out that Scotland doesn't have a problem with racism, that somehow it is an English problem. This is completely false and doesn't just ignore the problem, it accentuates it.

It is crucial now that the mainstream parties take on the BNP and crush them utterly before they can create a irremovable presence. The oxygen of Question Time has fuelled their growth, but all of the mainstream parties also have to bear the responsibility for failing to stop the BNP in the past decade and in failing the electorate by not responding to their needs and fears. With this result, should the horror turn out to be true, the BNP have a massive opportunity to try and create the same possibilities for themselves that they have in certain areas of England. The parties have to engage with the public, to stop taking them for granted and to actually debate immigration, acknowledging peoples' concerns but also outlining the benefits it brings to the country. Moreover, we need to challenge the myths which surround the issue and which allow the BNP to play easy games.

I am proud that William Bain has been elected as MP for Glasgow NE (I will look stupid if that turns out wrong now!) and I know that he will be an excellent public servant for the constituency. But I am also embarrassed that we in this area will now be an entry in the history books for some of the worst reasons. We need to make sure that this becomes a one-off protest, rather than the start of a new politics in Scotland.

Labour's place in a devolved Scotland

2009-08-13T02:19:00.000-07:00

As the (admittedly self-proclaimed) architects of devolution, one of the crucial repercussions of the decade since the Scottish Parliament was reconvened has been the difficulties which the Labour Party has faced in trying to find its place within the new political tapestry.

Ironically, part of the problem has arisen from the situation that out of the main Scottish political parties Labour is the only one which doesn't actually have a devolved political structure. Iain Gray is the leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament - beyond that his jurisdiction is limited, with technically no role as leader of ordinary party activists like myself. Instead, the party remains run from London, albeit with a strong core of Scottish MPs at its heart.

This has left Labour wide open to its designation as "London Labour" by the SNP, arguably the single most effective attack that the Nats have put together in the past decade. Regardless of Labour's role in devolution, regardless of the strong Scottish history to Labour, regardless of Labour's work in the Scottish Parliament, Labour is billed as being a party of outsiders, of non-Scots whose priorities lie elsewhere.

The SNP have stuck to this line of reasoning so successfully that it has become a recurrent motif in political discourse in Scotland. Sadly however the SNP cannot claim all the credit for this situation - Labour must shoulder a large part of the blame through its own actions which have added very strong credence to the attack.

There has been a very visible hostility to the Scottish Parliament from many Labour MPs in Scotland, with outright warfare often seeming to bubble beneath the surface. Successive Scottish Labour leaders have been undermined and restricted by interference from down south, leaving Salmond and his party free to crow about the Englishness of the party - and let's not pretend that this isn't the allusion which the SNP are seeking to entrench in public opinion. The 2007 Holyrood campaign ended up with three different camps interfering in the running of the campaign, each appearing to mutually loathe the others. The internal politics of the party spilled over into the vital work of trying to return a Labour administration to the Scottish Parliament, and helped to contribute to the subsequent defeat. And ever since the party has appeared adrift in the Scottish political environment, shorn of its role as the presumed political leaders of the country and not sure how to function in opposition to a canny minority government. Coupled with an evermore unpopular and aimless government in Westminster and it is no wonder that Labour's opponents in Scotland have been walking around with broad smiles on their faces.

Labour needs to stop and determine what Scottish Labour means. I am not advocating divorce from the UK wide Labour Party, however I think it is becoming ever clearer that to be successful in the devolved environment Scottish Labour must be able to demonstrate and create a clear and engaging Scottish identity. Polling since the SNP came to power repeatedly demonstrates that Scots do not seem to want independence; however they very clearly do want a Scottish Government which will fight on their behalf and use the powers (of which they wish to see more) entrusted to them to put forward a distinct Scottish agenda.

The reality is that this agenda would best fit with the Scottish Labour Party, however the party is failing to respond to the public's demands. Scotland is a diverse country and the somewhat simplistic view that it is a solely left wing nation ignores the realities of the different communities and environments existing across the nation. However, the context of Scotland does ensure that there is scope for a progressive agenda which is not achievable at Westminster under the current voting system.

The SNP have tried to bill themselves as the leaders of this progressive agenda, however the reality is that this does not sit easily with their actual political agenda. Fundamentally the current SNP administration (and admittedly it could be very different if one of the other Nationalist factions in the party came to power) is a broadly centre-right party supportive of business and less motivated by the realities of combating inequalities than by the PR positives of talking about it. They are making some attempts to address some of Scotland's shocking problems, however as with much of their rhetoric the reality is rather sparse. And needless to say, the other Holyrood parties are not filling the gap - the Tories are Tories no matter what Osbourne tells the world; the Greens are currently too small to be much more than Jiminy Cricket type figures; and the Lib Dems are, well, quite frankly pointless in the current environment, scared to work with the SNP despite the obvious shared areas of interest and uncomfortable to work with the other parties.

This would appear to leave open a perfect space for Scottish Labour to take the political agenda by the scruff of its neck and rebuild its damaged fortunes, however it is thus far failing to do so. This is because there is a lack of direction and a lack of inspiration motivating the party in Scotland - rather a fatalistic approach appears to have sunk in at points with an approach of waiting and hoping that the SNP/Salmond screw up at some point. This is not good enough.

A properly devolved Scottish Labour Party would not need to entail constant fighting or bickering with Labour on the UK level - such a situation would be counter-productive and would alienate both members and the wider public. However, Labour introduced devolution because there was a recognition that Scotland is a different context and environment to the UK as a whole and therefore requires specific responses to its particular needs and priorities. By failing to follow this awareness through into the actual functioning of the party structure, Labour ignores its own findings and creates a burden for itself which is largely self-inflicted.

It is vitally important that Labour fights to ensure that Scottishness does not become a copyrighted property of the SNP - this would be damaging to both the party and the country as a whole. The Lib Dems and Tories are less worried about that situation - the Lib Dems being more firmly European/internationalist in billing whilst the Tories remain happy to fixate on their status as Unionists, albeit with a more Scottish tinge in recent years. However Labour has the potential to demonstrate that Scottishness is a broad spectrum of realities, rather than just the slightly Brigadoon-esque approach wrapped in sporting pride (although admittedly that is rather tarnished after last night's woeful performance) which the SNP have successfully peddled over recent years.

This potential is failing to be met because fundamentally the Labour Party as a whole is lost just now, stuck in a period of navel gazing and infighting which appears to be the natural status of all political parties, particularly those in power for a significant period of time. The party does not know what it wants to be, and therefore is lost and to a certain extent uninterested in working out how a devolved party should work.

The problem with this is that, to the general public, it appears like arrogance and complacency, an ignorance to the reality that Labour cannot rely upon any heartlands or safe seats. The SNP's growth is not inexorable and they will struggle as their own internal contradictions strive to become dominant, particularly in a situation where the government and/or the independence agenda runs into trouble; however the reality is that they are working very successfully to eat into the traditional heartland constituencies and supporters of the Labour Party, whilst at the same time possessing a much broader national support than the Labour Party does. The very contradictions which have caused in the past, and will do so again, so much trouble for the SNP are also the strength that allows it to be supported in rural communities and urban communities, in areas of affluence and destitution. There is always somewhere else for the SNP to regroup - Labour lacks this strength in regards to the distribution of its support, even if there is a strength in terms of the actual depth of the support itself.

Labour needs to motivate and captivate the Scottish public, draw them into a vision of Scotland's future which can challenge and defeat the tartan and lace vision which the SNP promulgate so successfully. The polling indicates that Scots want to be part of the Union, but are looking for strong voices to stand up for the fact that we do have different priorities in Scotland. The SNP provide one side of this desire, but there is a gap just now which should be filled by the Scottish Labour Party. The party needs to devolve the structures, to firmly establish the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party as leader of all members, elected or otherwise, in Scotland. They need to give this role the freedom to react to the Scottish agenda alongside working closely with the wider UK party. It needs to develop the inspiration that Scotland is looking - for the first two terms of the Parliament the Lab/Lib coalition 'managed' Scotland quite well, but the public are looking for so much more. They want successful management coupled with a belief, a conviction, that Scotland can and will be better. The SNP argue this very point, coming to the conclusion that this can only be achieved through independence - Labour has a responsibility to set out the alternative but equally compelling vision of improvement, achieved through the strength of union but within a Scottish context.

Within the Scottish Labour Party it is sometimes easy to become fixated upon the hatred, indeed utter vitriolic loathing which elements of the SNP have for the party. This hatred is hard to read, particularly as so much of it is spawned within the free-for-all of the internet where common decency is a long lost myth; however to fixate upon it misses the fact that the people of Scotland do not hate the Labour Party, rather they are bored and apathetic towards it. In many ways this is worse.

Scotland has been billed as a Labour country for decades, even when this ignored the realities of what was happening on the ground. There is no doubt that the election of May 2007 was traumatic for the party and it is still struggling to find its feet - after all, two years is no time at all in the grand scheme of things. However, the struggle appears to many people to be stagnating into inertia and this is where the danger lies for Labour. A vision, a motivation, heck a sign of coming out fighting - these can start to counter an SNP government which at the end of the day only has one more MSP than Labour. After all, we are technically only a resignation away from a change in administration. However, inertia and stagnation can turn an electoral defeat into long-term isolation from power and a disconnection from the Scottish public. There is constant talk of the fightback, however we are yet to see evidence of it arriving - in the meantime the SNP attack London Labour as a way to avoid discussion of their own paltry efforts in government.

So an end to London Labour and a new start to the Scottish Labour Party, a centre-left party rooted in the experiences and dreams of Scotland and endlessly driven to improve the lives of our fellow citizens. A party of ideas, a party of limitless dreams which are not mired in politics of identity but which liberate the citizens of this country to be all that they can be. Scottishness is not a simplistic concept, not matter how hard the SNP try to boil it down to a single common denominator, and the Scottish Labour Party should be at the heart of this debate. To sit on the sidelines is to concede the debate and to lose the country - the Scottish Labour Party has a responsibility to the people of Scotland which requires it to fight and to win.

Blogging Hiatus

2009-07-24T01:05:00.000-07:00

Apologies for my absence but I am afraid it will have to continue for a while - I am very busy finishing a report I am writing on barriers to participation for EM people in Scotland, and then taking a week off, so will be a couple of weeks before I return I think.

I am of course choosing a busy time to hide, what with Obama's polling showing that maybe he isn't the Messiah afterall, but just a very naughty boy; the hysterical coverage of swine flu sadly demonstrating once again that the cause of appropriate and effective public health in the UK has been wounded, perhaps fatally, by the inane media who care more for apocalyptic headlines selling papers than any sense of public responsibility - but hey, that's showbiz; the impending nightmare of the Norwich result - the question is who will it be a nightmare for? Interestingly Cameron has more to lose with the result. Oh, and the no-show of the Glasgow North East (i.e. my own constituency) by-election, with the added fun of Richard Baker's ludicrous comments thrown in.

So yeah, nothing going on, perfect time for a break! =)

See y'all soon.

Palin on the Pressure

2009-07-14T02:03:00.000-07:00

The US Presidential election of 2008 was a massive blow to the Republican Party, leaving the Democratic Party in control of all three strands of government for the first time since the 90s. In addition they saw losses across the country in local government as well, leaving the party shattered and rudderless.

For the main figures, it has been a period of quiet recovery. John McCain has returned to being a respected Senator, Mitt Romney is working the country trying to establish himself as the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2012, and Mike Huckabee has a TV show as the poster boy of the religious right. These figures are doing pretty well for themselves in the post-election period, but none of them is filling the void in leadership that the GOP is suffering from.

This void is where Sarah Palin should have fulfilled her destiny. Her selection as the VP candidate alongside John McCain was, and I still stand by my analysis, a stroke of genius in a dying campaign. McCain, despite the respect and affection that many people felt for him, was never going to win the swing voters - indeed he was never going to win the election, and neither was any other Republican. Numerous factors had guaranteed a Democrat win such as Bush fatigue etc, but the simple fact was that Obama's suave and slick presentation, unprecedented media management and sheer historical significance had created a juggernaut which swept all before - Hillary never had a chance once the mythical momentum had been achieved, and neither did the GOP. Heck, Jesus would have been beaten by the greater light of Obama's media induced messianic status. In light of this, the left field introduction of Palin prevented an absolute massacre on polling day, by shoring up a conservative vote suspicious of McCain's credentials. Lieberman or another VP candidate more in line with McCain's personal stance would have potentially lost him some core Republican states - Palin kept them red and saved a tiny modicum of pride for the party.

Post-election she had the chance to become the defacto leader of the Republican Party and its frontrunner for 2012. Yeah, people had rather massive reservations (to be polite about it!) about the idea of her sitting in the White House running the Free World, however four years would have presented the potential to shore up her Republican base and to reinvent herself on the national stage as a legitimate candidate.

However, if a week is a long time in politics, then the months since the election have been more than enough time for her to destroy her career.

Her star has well and truly fallen, most painfully demonstrated in the rambling speech she gave to announce her resignation as Governor of Alaska. This decision was a huge shock to political commentators, her party and indeed at points during her speech it seemed as if it was a shock to her too. Her comments that she was leaving because she was term-limited instantly destroyed her Presidential aspirations by guaranteeing that she could only ever stand for one term - by her own admission anything more would be a betrayal of the electorate. Her positive ratings in Alaska had plummeted from the stratospheric height of the mid-80s to their current status in the mid-50s, sitting alongside a virtually non-existent legislative programme. Ironically before her selection as VP candidate she had created her success on the basis of her willingness to work with political opponents and to stand up to her own party. Now, she escapes from her role in Alaska by leading pro-life talks in other parts of the US, leaving her in the position whereby neither party will work with her now in her home state.

The decision to escape from Alaska makes a certain sense on the basis that, to be brutally honest, the state does not matter in the slightest when it comes to national US politics. Indeed, it is so detached from the rest of the nation that it counts as a negative for politicians with aspirations of national office. However, her manner of doing so has undercut her position. Not only has she fatally damaged her own chances of the Presidency, but she has also destroyed her opportunity to at least become the Republican kingmaker and leader. Her handling of her resignation has infuriated and embarrassed her own party, building on top of the damage she did by comments she made about McCain and his campaign. She has built up a popularity amongst elements of the right, however others such as Huckabee remain more convincing at holding that position.

It didn't need to be this way. Following the election she had the potential to guarantee a very decent run for the nomination in 2012. She should have been blitzing the media with a positive message, making fun of the ridicule she was subjected to and ensuring that she remained the best known Republican in the country. She should have been scrutinising every single utterance from Obama's lips and building up a network of advisors who could have helped to build a consistent message and line of attack. And she should have been building up her network across the country amongst Republican activists, not just of the religious right but of the wider conservative movement, creating a groundswell of activism to counter-act the Obama factor which is already slightly dulled by the realities of government.

Instead, she has alternatively shunned and attacked the media, reinforcing the negative perception of her. She has been absent from serious policy debate, leaving others in her increasingly fragmented party to fight the GOP corner with no demonstrations of leadership qualities. And she has attacked her own party, stoking discord at a time when they required unity and foolishly picking targets like McCain to attack.

She is not completely finished, after all America is the land of second chances. However the period since the election has been wasted and has left her barely clinging on to political significance. While Romney has slickly played the conservative field, working hard to overcome the concerns about his personal religious faith, she has slowly destroyed her chances, leaving her with nothing but bridges to nowhere.

Labour's Role in Rural Politics

2009-07-01T04:48:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking about the role, or currently lack of, for the Labour Party in the rural areas of the UK.

The fact is that as a party, we seem to be virtually non-existent in many rural constituencies. Of course, there are historical reasons behind this situation. We are a party who came in to existence fighting for the causes and needs of the urban working class, and our fortunes have remained closely tied to that cause. However, there are equal concerns about solidarity and poverty amongst rural constituencies as in urban, and yet we as a party are not seen as fighting these causes. Instead the Tories, Lib Dems and SNP are seen as being concerned with rural issues, pushing us out of the way.

Of course, specific policies have increased this feeling of neglect in the rural seats. The ban on fox hunting was seen as an attack by urban dwellers on rural inhabitants, underpinned by a snobbery on behalf of those in the cities. Now, I don't want to dwell on the issue of fox hunting itself, but the perception of the policy was very important, and very negative to the party. Added to feelings that we do not do enough for the Farming and Fishing industries, we are dismissed as irrelevant, and indeed hostile, to rural communities.

However, there are a variety of crucial issues challenging these communities which we should be championing as issues of social justice. I would like to explore some of these, and propose some policies which may help to demonstrate that we are a party for all, not just those in the industrialised centres.

Housing
The lack of affordable housing is a key issue affecting rural communities, particularly in areas where holiday homes have become prevalent and have forced prices unnaturally high. Some approaches are being tried out, but I would suggest:

Implementing maximum numbers for holiday home purchases
Ringfencing money for councils in rural areas to use for building affordable social housing
Subsidies for young people purchasing homes in rural communities
Suspension of right to buy

Loss of Young People
This is one of the most damaging challenges facing rural communities. For example, Dumfries and Galloway region is facing 28% drop in school leavers, and a 38% drop in working-age residents by 2013. This poses massive economic and social implications for the regions. I know, growing up in the Highlands of Scotland, that having left I would not return. I know that there are some attempts being made to encourage young people to either stay in the areas, or at least to return, but more must be done to ensure that opportunities exist that will encourage young people to decide to make their homes in the rural areas. This issue of course ties closely into the issue of housing outlined above, and the job creation issues that I will turn to next.

Financial and technical support for rural colleges and centres of learning
Widen access and support for distance learning in a variety of courses
Council Tax subsidies for young people choosing to stay and work/study in the area
School exchanges/link ups between schools in rural and urban locations
Increase support and resources for sports and leisure facilities
Create a youth forum for each rural area with support from Local Authorities and direct say in the provision of youth, leisure and other related issues

Employment and Enterprise
Job creation is key to vibrant rural communities, and to sustaining the policies implemented for the purposes of retaining young people and encouraging inward migration to our rural regions. We need to ensure support for the traditional industries such as farming and fishing in a sustainable fashion, whilst also rewarding businesses who create work in the rural regions.

Subsidies/tax breaks for companies investing in job creation in rural communities
Strong enterprise agencies with focus on rural communities, like the existing Highlands and Islands Enterprise
Start-up funds for local people to create businesses that meet needs and gaps in their communities
Support traditional industries, and work with them rather than against them in regards to modernisation and required changes to their structures.
Support and develop co-operatives as a sustainable means for meeting needs of communities - this also encourages ownership and localised solutions

Immigration
Immigration is currently a hot topic, but it has an additional relevance and importance to rural communities. There is a real need for immigration to rural areas to counterbalance population loss, however, due to the smaller communities live in rural areas changes and challenges presented by immigrant populations are more noticeable. Support is needed to ensure that the benefits of immigration are demonstrated to the existing communities, but with resources to help these immigrant communities become part of the regions, contributing to their future.

Education
Money made available for easily accessible English classes and cultural classes
Money to make classes in immigrant languages (such as Polish) available for existing communities
Support for Community/Parish Councils to allow them to play role in helping immigrants to successfully integrate

Culture and Tourism
We need to start actively promoting the vital role that rural tourism plays in the local and national economy. Programmes such as the Year of Highland Culture emphasised the desirability of the Highlands as both tourist and business locations, and were successful in demonstrating that rural regions are positive contributors to the country. Furthermore, rural communities posses distinct and important cultures and histories, all of which contribute to our national identity. The UK is about more than just the cities, and more pride in our rural heritage would be economically and socially beneficial.

Follow-up concept of Highland Culture year to encourage further focus on rural communities
Change of language in national and political debates - the UK is about more than just London/the big cities!
Ensure that rural concerns are listened to in national debates - do not just dismiss them out of hand as being 'less sophisticated' than urban concerns and ideas
Encourage investment in tourism - main forms of economic investment in many rural communities

Infrastructure
Finally, the infrastructure available in rural communities is vital. Localism is a popular political concept just now - but in rural communities there is really no alternative. There must be investment in transport links for both the local populace and business purposes, with growing environmental concerns not automatically ruling out support for issues such as rural airports, which can be crucial to development of those areas.

Commitment to local hospitals and health centres
Support for air ambulance facilities for outlying areas
Investment in road and rail links - i.e. expansion of A9 to Inverness into dual carriageway, as being proposed by the SNP
Investment in rural airports - explore options for ensuring flights remain at reasonable prices
Dialogue with transport firms who stop services to explore why - introduce support for companies who commit to sustaining links to rural communities

Well, I've rattled through a range of ideas and thoughts - I am keen to hear what others think. I believe that for Labour to be the progressive party that we aim to be, it is vital that we are not just a party for some, but rather for all. In regards to the areas that I have outlined above, I believe that we can introduce policies that sustain our progressive commitments, whilst encouraging vibrant rural communities. There is a danger that we view the rural constituencies in a similar way to how the Democrats view the 'Red States' (those voting Republican) in the South and Mid-West of the US - namely, un winnable and therefore not worth thinking about. If our aim is to create and sustain a country where every citizen is able to play as full a role as possible, then we must listen to rural concerns, and work to celebrate the contribution that these communities make.

BBC poll on independence/devolution

2009-06-30T04:12:00.000-07:00

Interesting findings published today from a BBC poll. Firstly, 58% of respondents (from a sample of 1,010) favoured holding a referendum next year on the constitutional question, which will be a finding warmly welcomed by the Scottish Government.

However, there was also a clear demonstration of support for the continuation of the Union in all forms of the question asked, although the levels did vary. The preferred wording of the Scottish Government (about negotiating a settlement with the UK Government) received the highest level of support for independence (42% support, 50% supporting the Union), however other versions of the question saw support for independence at 38% and 28% respectively, very low totals for nationalists to approach a referendum with.Where does this leave us?

Well, the first clear challenge is for the 'opposition' parties to either find a different way of justifying their opposition to a referendum; or to call the Government's bluff (as they would see it) by going for a referendum - this appears to be the approach that the public would like to see. Of course, the crucial aspect of a referendum will be in the wording of the questions asked - the SNP will be desperate to stick with their preferred wording whilst the opposition parties will, as Iain Gray says, want a straight yes/no question, which appears likely to lead to a rejection of independence. If the opposition parties look like they are opposing a referendum that the people want and which it looks like they will win then this could well make them look ridiculous - they will also be terrified of the consequences of a lost referendum, leaving them in quite a conundrum.

The second challenge is of course to the SNP. As John Curtice points out (and I heard him speaking about this at a conference recently) the SNP Government have done a good job of cementing their place in the public conscious as a competent party of government and they have also undoubtedly won the argument over whether more powers should be devolved to Scotland, with their opponents falling over themselves to join the race for further devolution. However, they appear to be failing to convince the public that independence is therefore the logical answer. Indeed, it could be argued that the SNP, despite their avowed aim of independence, are actually strengthening the devolution settlement, demonstrating that Scotland can have a Government of its own whilst still remaining within the Union. The SNP are also struck with a quandary - to have any chance (and even then it is an outside one) of winning the referendum they have to stick to their preferred wording; however to have any chance of getting a referendum in place they must be willing to compromise on the wording. All of these decisions are to be taken within a context of it looking likely that the referendum would be a loss for the independence cause, leaving them with the potentially tricky task of reinventing themselves in the absence of the independence question which they themselves have stated would have to occur for a generation.

This is where perhaps the logical answer to the situation presents itself, whereby the Government and opposition parties can find ways of agreeing on powers which should be further devolved to Scotland, enhancing the devolution settlement. The opposition cannot ignore the public's appetite for further devolution and indeed their own stated support for such measures; but likewise the SNP do not appear to be in a position yet whereby they can realistically expect to close the case for independence. Working together would allow both sides to claim victory (the SNP would see it as another step along the road, whilst the opposition parties would see it as proof that the settlement is the answer) although it would raise the potential for internal troubles, particularly for the SNP with some of their more intense pro-independence elements who have been relatively disciplined to date, but might react to more evidence of Salmond's gradualism.

It is likely that such agreement will not occur of course, certainly not before the next election - politically Salmond will want to avoid the troubles I suggested above and will also be aware of the political capital which he might be able to raise in an election campaign in 2011 whereby he derides the opposition parties for denying Scots their voice. Likewise there is an almost intractable refusal on the behalf of both the SNP and Labour to consider working together in a visible way, for fear of annoying their party faithful. In addition, the Scottish Lib Dems appear to have a surprising hatred of the concept of a referendum for anything, and therefore whilst appearing on paper the most likely to support the Government on introducing the Bill will fight it tooth and nail. The Conservatives could be an interesting element of the equation - they may decide to take the SNP on and agree to the referendum in order to defeat it, however this is probably still an outside chance.

I have to say, however, that the findings have challenged me to think about my own initial opposition to a referendum (of course, it's still the case that we shouldn't have a referendum just because the SNP demand one) and it will be interesting to see if other views are affected by the poll as well.

Also published on the Scots Voices blog

Salmond's Riposte

2009-06-17T04:48:00.000-07:00

So after the launch of the Calman Report on Monday, the FM has made his response by suggesting that the Calman suggestion could be included in the proposed independence referendum.

Hardly a shock, but a tactical masterstroke for Salmond nonetheless, which the opposition parties have only themselves to blame for. I don't believe that there is any real desire for constitutional wrangling in Scotland, however the public have a tendency to feel rather riled if they believe they are being denied their opportunity to have a say - look at public response to the lack of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, even though nobody actually understands the point of it. This response is further heightened by the current disgust with how politicians have been behaving - "not only do they sponge off the system, they don't let us have a say either!"

It's hard to see how the opposition deal with Calman other than by ignoring its recommendations. To push for the changes without a referendum would be very difficult (not impossible though); to hold a referendum on constitutional change without inclusion of the independence question unthinkable in the current political climate and suicide for the Union should it ever be attempted.

The FM will be delighted with the situation so far - many of the recommendations are his anyway and the others all march down the path that he would like Scotland to take. I still believe that he would rather not have the referendum next year - a loss would seriously damage the SNP's standing and identity and still seems the more likely outcome. He had been looking forward to passing the blame onto the opposition parties - the Calman outcome will also give him the opportunity to introduce some gradual change which will please members of his own party who might other be chafing at the bit slightly. He will go into the next election with the constitution front and centre and will then challenge his opponents to justify their refusal to grant the people a say (regardless of whether this is a actually a fair assessment).

In reality the opposition parties, particularly Labour, need to move beyond the constitutional issues and start outlining plans for government, primarily around the economy and job creation. However now that Calman has (as Wardog said in reply to my previous post) let the cat out of the bag, it will be impossible to ignore the issues. However, changes that are introduced will be claimed by the SNP Government as their success, leaving the Calman process with potentially very little to show for its efforts.

The real challenge now would be for the opposition parties to take Salmond up on his offer and introduce a referendum which included the Calman options alongside the question on independence. It would be a very high risk situation, however it may end up being the only way to shift the focus away from constitutional arguments and to remove the sting from the SNP - it would kill the question for at least a decade unless the SNP wanted to look ridiculous.

It's one I need to mull over for myself, will post again when cogent thoughts form (if indeed that ever happens).

Calman Launches

2009-06-15T05:49:00.000-07:00

Just back from Edinburgh where I attended the launch of the Calman Commission's Final Report - a very hefty document which outlines the Commission on Scottish Devolution's findings from a year of investigation and debate on the future of devolution.

I have to say that it was a slightly underwhelming event. As has been covered in the media, the main proposals are devolution of aspects of taxation (a section of income tax, along with four other areas such as Stamp Duty), devolution of certain legislative areas such as air gun control and drink driving levels, and a certain level of reform of the intra-governmental workings of Holyrood and Westminster.

The key aspect of the launch was the fact that there is every chance that this will not go anywhere. The Commission was launched as reaction to the Scottish Government's National Conversation rather than necessarily from a belief that the time for re-evaluating devolution was upon us. As such, it lacks an immediate impetus to its recommendations, particularly since the SNP's referendum is essentially dead in the water. The Commission's findings were, to me at least, also reduced in impact by the repeated assertion that they were a) unanimous and b) had considered all options. The idea that a panel composed of members of the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems, trade unions, the CBI Scotland and other disparate opinions implies that they must have therefore made pretty weak recommendations in order to create unity. In addition, the Commission did not consider all options as they excluded discussion of independence - this is not in itself a problem, but they should be upfront about the agenda behind their work.

The idea of devolving the income tax powers to Scotland (building upon the Scottish Variable Tax powers which already exist but haven't ever been used) is certainly an interesting one. There is a problem just now as the Scottish Government (regardless of political colour) exists to spend money without accountability for raising their own funds. However the fact that the Government would be able to vary the actual amount of income tax without being able to increase or decrease the gaps between the tax bands (or indeed alter the tax bands themselves) limits the ability of the Scottish Government to use income tax to fully pursue ideological measures (i.e. tax cutting to a flat tax or raising the top band to fund spending). If taxation is going to be devolved enough to allow variation between Scotland and the rest of the UK, then it should surely be devolved enough to allow a distinct Scottish Government to pursue its own stated political aims as fully as possible.

The devolution of certain further powers to Holyrood will be supported across the board, as the SNP have already been arguing for many of them - indeed the SNP will probably be quite satisfied with the outcome of the Commission. Needless to say oil tax revenue was excluded from devolution - I don't think anyone expected anything else!

I think that the Commission has explored some interesting issues, but I think that the nature of the process (it was quite stuffy and formal, which excluded lots of 'normal' people from the debate) has somewhat limited the impact of its recommendations. I am sure that it will provoke continued debate on Scotland's constitutional future but I think that, like the National Conversation it set out to compete with, it has failed to answer the questions.

European Elections 2009 - My analysis of a painful night

2009-06-08T01:37:00.000-07:00

It was a brutal, painful and embarrassing night last night, and trying to sleep off the bitter feeling didn't help (especially since a crying baby was meaning sleep was but a distantly remembered concept!). In an attempt at catharsis I will therefore throw my analysis of the election into the blogging mix, on a party-by-party/issue basis. At the risk of trivialising it, I will also give each party a grade for the election, to show my arbitrary assessment of how they have done - please feel free to agree or disagree with that.

Labour
What can be said about last night that doesn't just slip into hyperbole? The collapse of our vote to 15.3% is a disaster on an unprecedented scale, seeing us pick up our lowest national vote share in 100 years. Slipping behind UKIP into third place is also a situation that only a few years ago would have been unthinkable. We have criticised and derided UKIP as a party of the lunatic fringe (and with some justification) but in regards to European politics they can today legitimately claim to be the party of more British citizens than we are.

When looked at in more depth, the results are even more depressing as heartland areas fell. Labour failed to win in Wales, slipping behind the Tories, and was hammered by the SNP in Scotland, barely managing to keep the vote share in both countries above 20%. Luckily in Scotland we managed to return two MEPs (as far can be seen, as the Scottish results are not confirmed yet due to the Western Isles refusing to count on the Sabbath), which given the context and scale of the rout is a small positive. However, the results demonstrate that there are no safe areas for Labour now, and that in Scotland in particular we are clearly second place to the SNP who have cemented their position.

Now debate will be renewed about Gordon Brown's position, although I don't expect this to go anywhere - the reshuffle on Friday has bound the main political movers into his government, and there are no alternatives to replace him. There is also the news that the recession may be over (for now), leaving the bold and optimistic predictions for growth which the Government has based its policies on in with a shout of succeeding - indeed, the FT suggests that the Government's prediction may turn out to have been too pessimistic. This leaves open the possibility of an upturn in economic success for the Government, which Gordon Brown could use to reinvigorate our chances in the run up to an election next year. Only time will tell.

But for now, we are battered and bruised and embarrassed.

Mark - Fail

Conservatives
On the face of it this was a successful night for the Tories, as they remained the largest party for the European elections, slightly increasing their share of the vote. More importantly for them, they won the election in Wales for the first time since the 19th Century, beating Labour into second. Considering the initial speculation had been that Plaid would be the main beneficiaries of the Labour collapse, this is a spectacular result for them and exactly the kind of gains they need to see if they are going to be successful in winning the next General Election.

However, I don't think that it will be a night that the Conservatives will over-exaggerate, as in some ways they will have cause for disappointment, or at least reflection, on the results. Given that the Labour vote completely vanished, they will have been disappointed to have only seen their vote share rise by 1% and to have only gained one MEP (although this figure was affected by the reduction in the number of MEPs from the 2004 election). They failed to break the 30% mark, which reflects the facts that a) the public disenchanted with all of the major parties, and b) that they have not yet 'sealed the deal' with the electorate. It is hard to extrapolate from the European elections to a General Election (and of course the Local elections in England were a resounding success for the party) but the Tories need a 6.9% swing from Labour to win the next General Election - and that would only give them a hypothetical majority of 2. To put it in context, there has only been a swing of that size or greater at two elections since the Second World War (Labour in 1945 and in 1997), making it a historically difficult possibility. Definitely not impossible (and in the current climate still likely) but should ensure that the Conservatives take a win for granted at their peril.

Mark - B+

Liberal Democrats
The Lib Dems picked up one more MEP than last time, and obviously that is a cause for delight for them. They will also be relieved to have retained their MEP in Scotland, which for a while looked like an uphill task for them.

However, I think overall these elections are very disappointing for them. They lost 1.1% of the national share of the vote, failing to benefit at all (nationally at least) from the Labour collapse, and remained in a very distant 4th place. Coupled with Local elections which were slightly disappointing overall, the Lib Dems will not be able to go away from these elections with any great delight (although Clegg, bless him, is doing his best).

Obviously the implications for a General Election are very hard to assess - UKIP beat the Lib Dems at the 04 Euros but were subsequently beaten at the General Election the following year, so I wouldn't expect the Lib Dems to stop being the third party in Westminster any time soon. However, their bold predictions that they would somehow become the main Opposition does seem rather wide of the mark. It is also a reflection of the fact that they are, to a certain extent, starting to be seen as irrelevant for the European elections, which is a worrying sign for the pro-EU camp.

Mark - C-

UKIP
Another strange situation when it comes to assessment. Effectively UKIP didn't change - their vote share was up slightly (0.5%) and they gained one more MEP. Impressive but not earth shattering. Rather the key issue for them was that due to Labour's collapse they moved up to become the second placed party for the UK. In addition, they picked up their first MEP in Wales, demonstrating a possibility that they can expand beyond their Anglo-centric power base.

The key issue to take from their showing is the fact that Britain has to be considered, electorally at least, a Euro sceptic country. Just taking the three main Euro sceptic parties (the Conservatives, UKIP and the BNP), over half the electorate expressed their support for their policies - this doesn't include other Euro sceptic parties who also picked up votes. Indeed, excluding the Northern Irish results, the Euro sceptic parties picked up 40 of the 69 seats on offer.

The pro-European argument is not making any headway with the British electorate, which is not surprising considering how little effort is put into it. A presumption is made that people will take for granted that the EU is a force for good, with not explanation required. This is an arrogant and patronising approach, which is helping the Eurosceptic cause in attacking Britain's role in the EU.

It will be interesting to see where UKIP go from here, as they still effectively only remain a European Parliamentary force (albeit a substantial one). I don't think that their success last night translates into General Election success, and indeed I would expect a significant swathe of their support to turn to the Conservatives in a General Election, boosting their chances. However, for bragging rights alone last night has to be put down as a massive success for UKIP, and one which they will enjoy for a long time.

Mark - A

SNP
Last night was a resounding success for the SNP, and boy didn't Salmond love it! The fact of the matter is that they thrashed the Labour Party for the first time ever in Scotland (they won the 07 Scottish Parliamentary elections, but it was a far more close run event) but, more crucially, saw all three of their main opposition parties (who are also all Unionist parties) lose votes.

The SNP can rightly claim to be master of all they survey in Scotland just now. There may be a slight disappointment that they didn't break the 30% mark or that they didn't manage to grab a third seat (this was certainly one of the best chances they will ever have to do that) but these are minor points for a very successful evening. Two years into their Government they can be very pleased with where they stand and will be confident of increasing their support in the event of a Conservative victory at Westminster. For the Unionist parties it is a clear kick up the backside - if they don't want the SNP to run away with the political agenda in Scotland they need to sort their acts out now.

Mark - A

The BNP
Yesterday was a dark day for British politics with the BNP picking up not only their first MEP, but a second buddy for him to play with. This is a national embarrassment. The reality is that the BNP actually didn't pick up huge amounts of support, indeed indications are that they received fewer votes. However, the reduced turnout led to them being able to secure a great share of the vote, which is the crucial factor used under the D'Hondt system.

The main political parties all have to take responsibility for this situation, but it is Labour in particular who must apologise. The majority of the BNP's support comes from traditional Labour communities, and it is this disenfranchised underclass who are registering support for the BNP. However, voters shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility in this matter - a vote for the BNP is not a protest vote, it is a vote in favour of their divisive and ludicrous agenda. Labour and the other parties must now reassess their approach to the BNP in order to determine the best way in which to combat and defeat them.

For the crucial aspect of this breakthrough is not that they will necessarily do anything at the European Parliament other than embarrass the country by their odious presence. Rather it is the legitimacy that electoral success gives them as a 'proper' political party. Whilst the transition from European success to Westminster is not automatic (as UKIP can testify to) it does make it more possible, particularly in the communities where the BNP are now the main opposition. These are dangerous times for British politics.

Mark - A (this is given with great grudging, however their breakthrough cannot be denied).

Other parties
This was a night for the smaller parties, with their votes going up. However, success was actually limited. The Greens ironically suffered from the voting system (normally they are beneficiaries of PR systems) as they failed to pick up any more MEPs despite increasing their vote share. Plaid had a disappointing night in Wales - they had been tipped to overtake Labour and win the popular vote, but remained in third place. For the other parties they saw an increase in their vote share, but were nowhere near electoral breakthrough.

Mark - C

So a brutal night for the Labour Party and really all of the other results have to be taken within this context. But the key issue is really that the British electorate are not connected to the European Parliament or its work, and have expressed their apathy with the political system by staying away from the polling booth. It is that apathy that we must all combat if we wish to avoid the BNP and their ilk increasing their electoral successes.

Euro Elections

2009-06-07T16:01:00.000-07:00

I will blog in more detail about the results tomorrow, but I just had to stick up my initial thoughts. Devastating night for the Labour Party, shaping up to be the most embarrassing result in history. Scotland was a disaster, with the SNP clearly ahead. One small positive is that despite the collapse in the Labour vote it looks like we will hold on to our two MEPs - in the current climate that is a very big positive. Elsewhere in the UK, however, the Party will be facing another round of electoral annihilation.

The final point is of course the election of the first ever BNP MEP (only one at the time of writing but there could be at least one more). This is a massive embarrassment for the UK, a ringing indictment of all the major political parties (but particularly the Labour Party) and a real danger for British democracy. At this moment I feel sick to my stomach at the thought that the disgusting bunch of fascists that is the BNP can claim to be representing our country in the European Parliament.

More tomorrow.

Reshuffle

2009-06-05T01:40:00.000-07:00

So Alan Johnson is in as Home Secretary, Alasdair Darling will stay as Chancellor and David Milliband won't be resigning.

It appears at first glance that the Prime Minister may have just avoided the mortal blow aimed at him last night by James Purnell, with the Cabinet heavyweights appearing to back him against Purnell's attacks.

However, it would be ludicrous and quite frankly impossible to ignore the step that James Purnell has taken and the discussion must now be had as to where the Party is going. More on this later as developments occur.

The die is cast, Purnell has quit

2009-06-04T14:14:00.000-07:00

Devastating blow to the Prime Minister as Purnell has quit the Cabinet, picking up a lot of media plaudits in the process. If he is followed in the next few hours and days by more resignations, then the move will be complete and Gordon Brown's time will be finished.

The rumours are that Alasdair Darling is furious about his treatment and if he were to quit the blow would be completely fatal. With terrible electoral results likely to be in the offing, it is going to be a very brutal period ahead.

Where are the life jackets on this thing?

2009-06-04T02:27:00.000-07:00

So "Nuts about Hazel" who managed to come sixth in the Labour Deputy Leadership contest has left the Cabinet, in an indignant huff that GB didn't support her over her 'mistaken' claims. Well, sorry to break it to you Hazel, but your behaviour was unacceptable, along with so many of your colleagues, and it leaves many of us who are activists for the Party ashamed and let down by the behaviour of our representatives.

The fact is that the Government, long under pressure by the storms of political and public opinion (combined with a disappointing amount of self-inflicted damage), is now shipping water at a horrendous rate, with even the Guardian now laying into Gordon Brown's record. Polling shows the Tories surging ahead, even though I still have the suspicion that the electorate are more cheesed off with the Labour Party as opposed to being completely in love with Cameron. And now a letter is being circulated amongst Labour MPs, trying to draw together a murky little coalition to bring down the PM.

Of course this is entirely understandable given the abject standing of the Party just now and the likely annihilation that we face at the elections today. However, have the rebels thought through the implications of their coup? If GB is disposed and a new Leader/PM installed (Alan Johnson or, even more scarily, Harriet Harman???) there is no way that an immediate General Election could not be called. We do not have a Presidential system and this is why the complaints after Tony Blair stood down about GB not having a mandate were wide of the mark. However, a third PM in place since the last election would be ludicrous.

Who in their right mind would want to lead Labour into a General Election just now? An utter wipe out would occur, leaving the Party shattered for years to come and the new incumbent's leadership career finished before it started. It takes a lot of optimism to think that the political context and environment could have improved for Labour by next year, but it's hard to see how it could get much worse.

The problem with the leadership challenge is that there are no clear alternatives who could bring anything exciting to the table. A decade in Government has led to stagnation amongst our body of MPs - there are no new and interesting names forcing their way through to demand attention, rather a reshuffle of an ever declining pack. Familiarity breeds contempt, and that does go a long way to explaining public views towards the Government.

Fundamentally, however, the rot is due to the lack of ideas behind how the Government is working. The greatest achievements of Labour's term in power - minimum wage, new deal etc - came from the heady early days of power, when the UK was being reshaped into an exciting new social democratic paradise, the two powers of Blair and Brown driving us forward into a future of prosperity for all. But then the egos and the rivalries kicked in - the Party was poisoned as soon as we had Blairites and Brownites, leaving the rest of us Labourites sitting on the sidelines as our leadership proceeded to kill itself.

A new dawn is needed for the Labour Party - a moment of stopping to say what is it we exist for? What are our priorities? I still believe that as a Party we have the opportunities and desires to make huge changes to our country, to correct the imbalances which exist and to create opportunities for all to achieve their potential. But this cannot be done through infighting and posturing.

Our pride as the Labour Party has always been that we have been the party of the people - all the people. The Tories have always been rooted in their support for the rich and the Lib Dems represent...well, they represent whoever they think will vote for them that day, but have certainly taken a rightward jump under Nick Clegg. The saddest thing about our time in Government is that we are no longer seen as the party of the people - rather we have tarnished this mantle so much that the BNP are doing their best to try and steal it for their own sickening ends.

How do we regain this role for ourselves? I don't think a rush back to the left extremes is required - the people are not there. But a desire to out-Tory the Tories leaves us looking shallow and meaningless - the people are not there either. What we need is to overhaul the candidates we have in place for the Party, to ensure that it reverts back to having members from all elements of society - not just career politicians and lawyers, but teachers, workers, academics, service professionals and health professionals too. We need young people and old people, people with families and single people. We need ethnic minority candidates and ethnic majority candidates. We need to bring together a massive coalition of all of the skills and experiences of the citizens of our country to ensure that Parliament and the Party never loses sight of who it works for again.

We need to explore the Big Tent approach, to work with others where appropriate to achieve the best and most successful consensus for progress. We need to reform democracy - introduce proportional representation to eliminate the unhealthy and unjust huge majorities which have contributed to the disconnection of the Government from the electorate; strict term limits for Parliament with elections set in stone; introduce term limits for the Speaker so that constituencies are not hampered by their MP ceasing to have the time to serve them. I will return to these in their own separate post, but they can contribute to revitalising our democratic structures.

If the Government manages to hold on for another year before losing in the next General Election, then GB should take this opportunity to go for broke. Presume the election lost and therefore damn the repercussions - he should allow his Presbyterian sensibilities which have been so offended recently to push the agenda, putting reform of politics and the elimination of inequalities at the fore front of his work. The initial achievements of the Labour Government which TB introduced are now pretty safe - the Tories are unlikely to rescind the minimum wage for example even if they would like to. However, they will try and push back anything else that they can. The Prime Minister needs to go for broke and try and leave the country closer to the vision of what he would like it to be.

The Labour Party will not die from this mess, just as the Conservatives did not die from the rout of 97. However, it is vital that it does more than just survive. There must be open and frank discussion of the future direction of the Party, with all sections of the internal spectrum, right and left, free to air their views and contribute to a rebirth. Anything else, however, will be a devastating abdication of our responsibilities to the people we represent and who depend upon us to raise their issues.

The pain of politics

2009-06-01T01:44:00.000-07:00

It's a tough time to be a democrat in the UK, particularly one who is also a member of the Labour Party. Public disgust with the political process is at an all time high; the Labour Party appears to be on the verge of electoral extinction; the SNP are supremely confident of winning the by-election in my own seat; the BNP stand poised to pick up at least one MEP; and the lack of ideas for where to go forward is terrifying, lost in the stampede of politicians trying to defend the indefensible.

At a time like this I start to wonder whether someone like me has a place in politics. See, I'm unashamedly naive and optimistic when it comes to democracy. I believe that to serve as an elected representative is the greatest honour that you can receive from your fellow citizens. They are, through the means of the democratic process, choosing you to work on their behalf, make decisions in their interests and represent them in the local and/or national discussion. What an honour! Representatives stand on behalf of the public and therefore should never think themselves above those they serve.

Sadly, this seems a very misplaced view in the current climate, where we are being forced to witness the greed and arrogance which has polluted our political system. Our democracy is corrupt, the representatives having ceased to represent anyone other than themselves, lost in the 'job' that they have and in maximising their own gains. To me political representation is not a job, it is a vocation, a role which you are called to and which exists to allow us to better serve our communities. It is about serving not commanding; about being one of the people rather than a class above them.

My Papa was a councillor, and later Provost, in Dumbarton for years and during the majority of this time the role was unpaid. He worked during the day and then attended meetings in the evening, somehow managing to fit his family and other commitments in around this. This involved sacrifice, but he did it because he believed in the difference he was able to make, and because he believed in the honour of the role that he had been entrusted with.

The current mess disappoints me and in many ways puts me off involvement in the whole sordid process. However, a bigger part of me reacts with anger to the mess and makes me more determined to play a part. I believe my naive, simplistic and idealistic view of politics is a good one, and I'll be damned if I'll have it ruined for me by those who misuse the system. I believe that political engagement can and should be a massive force for positive change and that all of us, even me, have a role to play.

21st June

2009-05-19T06:35:00.000-07:00

Michael Martin will stand down on 21st June.

It is imperative that MPs do not think that his removal will be the end to the debacle which is destroying public confidence in the House of Commons. This must only be one measure amongst a host of others, so that voters can start to believe in the integrity of Parliament and its members.

Speaker to Step Down...

2009-05-19T03:09:00.001-07:00

The BBC are reporting that the Speaker is to announce that he will be stepping down later this afternoon. Details have not been confirmed yet as to when, more as it happens.

The Manure Parliament

2009-05-18T02:40:00.000-07:00

Has the tipping point been reached?

The crisis in confidence which is evident in regards to the public's view of Westminster is a direct threat to the stability of our democracy. It is a long standing tradition in the UK to have mistrust for our politicians and to consider them liars, but the expenses debacle has taken this to a new depth. Unlike problems of sleaze in Government ministers (cash for questions etc), the current situation has demonstrated a systematic abuse of expenses which effects every political party and tarnishes the entire political sphere.

It is evidence of a disconnection between our elected officials and the people they represent. At a time of economic hardship, it is impossible for the public to have confidence in the ability of any of the main parties to respond to challenges if their representatives are seen to be making small fortunes for themselves, at the tax payer's expense. MPs complain of not being paid enough and it is true that they are paid less than many other public servants. However, a starting salary of roughly £65k p.a. cannot be described as small by any standards, particularly when the average salary in the country is in the mid 20s and unemployment is rising.

Likewise, the absurdity of many of the expenses claims is an insult to the public. I, as with any one else working in the voluntary, public or private sectors, must submit detailed receipts for all expenses I claim, and can only claim those expenses necessary for the delivery of my role. The rules for MPs agrees with this position, but the reality has been completely different. Expenses have been treated as an entitlement and part of the pay for representatives, and a huge percentage of them have been inappropriate if not downright appalling. When the Government and Opposition are both continually going on about 'efficiency savings' and when the Government refused pay rises for the Police and other services, it is the height of hypocrisy for MPs to be claiming money to pay for moats and manure, and to be indeed profiting from their expenses claims.

I am fundamentally an optimist and without a doubt I am a democrat, however I have been left scunnered by this entire situation. In my work I spend my time convincing people why it is crucial that they vote - my job has certainly been made a lot more difficult with these revelations. We also now run the very real risk that it will be groups like the BNP that will benefit from the debacle - the reality that we could have one or more BNP MEPs after the European Elections this year if terrifying and would be a national embarrassment. Yet they are in a position to argue that they are not contaminated by this scandal, billing themselves as a realistic alternative or protest vote.

The main parties have to take immediate and drastic action, and it is disappointing that Cameron has managed to take the initiative on the issue so far. Candidates should pay back claims that are indefensible, and those who seem to have been deliberately manipulating the system should be investigated and disciplined by their parties, up to and including expulsion. All Constituency Labour Parties should also have the option re-open selection contests for MPs who have let down their constituents - the General Election could throw up some very interesting and surprising results across the country as incumbents are punished, and it is imperative that CLPs have the opportunity to remove MPs who have let them down and who represent a liability to holding the seat.

The system itself must be firmly policed, with allowable expenses made completely transparent and regularly published. Punishments for breaking the rules must be clearly laid out so that the electorate can be reassured that those milking the system will not be allowed to get away with it. And ultimately it will probably require a General Election where the public are given the opportunity to dispose of some of the offenders before any trust can start to be restored.

In regards to the Speaker's position, I think that Nick Clegg's decision to go after him was grandstanding and counter productive - the mess goes well beyond his position and is largely related to individual MPs. I think it is clear that the Speaker is drawing to the end of his time in office, however forcing him out now would not help or change the situation, other than by temporarily providing a blood sacrifice to the indignant public - his resignation would not be enough to sate their anger. However, he does need to start actively taking a lead on reform - defending the status quo is utterly indefensible now.

This mess will go on and on, with the end result being a deterioration of democracy in the UK. It is imperative that all of the parties work to resolve this situation, to remove all cause for concern and to demonstrate that the culture of Westminster has changed, otherwise we may find ourselves with some very unwanted and unsavoury characters claiming to represent our country.

My Son - Benjamin Peter Cooke

2009-05-09T04:05:00.001-07:00

Just wanted to let everyone know that my son, Benjamin Peter Cooke, was born on April 29th, weighing a very healthy 8lb 13. We are ecstatically happy about his arrival, and the sleepless nights are definitely worth it on his behalf!

Off work on paternity leave just now so enjoying getting to spend time with Ben and my wife Cat as we get our little family settled into some sort of routine.

Disease in a connected world

2009-04-27T06:05:00.000-07:00

The threat of the spread of swine flu is understandably grabbing news headlines just now. Building on previous threats (bird flu and SARS) which have arisen in recent years, the media can be guilty of sometimes inflating the threat to apocalyptic proportions. The fact that people have already died in Mexico from the strain, and the fact that it has already popped up in so many different countries across the world heightens this situation.

Regardless of whether this particular strain of influenza turns out to present a large scale threat to the world or not, the situation highlights the threat that disease poses to us in the interconnected world we live in. The outbreak of flu in 1918 led to a pandemic which killed more than double the number that had been killed in the First World War. This was before the explosion in globalisation which has led to interconnectedness on a scale previously inconceivable.

At the risk of sounding alarmist, imagine the deadly possibilities of an outbreak of flu (or another disease) of the severity of 1918. The swine flu currently being observed seems to have an incubation period 0f 24-48 hours - other diseases can be even longer. This is more than enough time, particularly in the case of a disease with aerosol transmission, for an infected person to have travelled by plane from the country of infection to any where else on the globe, potentially infecting others on the plane with them so that by the time they land, possibly in a major population hub such as New York or London, there are already a number of infections.

Disease has always possessed the means to spread globally - the Black Death was an example of using rodents as a vector - and travel methods are often key to this spread. However, the nature of the world today makes this even easier. Indeed this is why health departments around the world are open about the fact that infections are inevitable - it is not a matter of stopping the spread but rather minimising its impact and health implications.

The monitoring of infectious disease is a key area where more work is required in order to ensure that information is shared to reduce the impact. One of the key issues with the spread of SARS was that there was a delay in alerting the world to its existence, by which it had moved outwith China's borders. It is very difficult to bring together different nations, particularly those whose political contexts make them wary of or hostile to other nations, however it is crucial in this context in order to allow for co-ordinated responses led by the WHO.

Disease is an issue which does not respect national sovereignty, and therefore a globalised response is essential in order to meet the challenges of global infection. Once this particular outbreak is responded to (going on the hopeful basis that its impact can be restricted - certainly the fact that it can be treated by certain drugs gives hope) it is important that the WHO is given more support in developing methods of reporting across the world. As we link up ever more closely we open doors to infectious diseases to spread across the world - it is vital that we respond to this challenge before we are met with a pandemic which could indeed be of apocalyptic size.

For more reading on this matter I would strongly recommend Promed Mail and the Coming Plague by Laurie Garrett. Promed in particular is an absolutely vital resource bringing together front line practitioners from across the globe, and has been at the forefront of responding to emerging situations in the manner that I have suggested we need more of above.

A Place for Paedophiles?

2009-04-23T01:41:00.000-07:00

I watched Louis Theroux's documentary A Place for Paedophiles which was on BBC 2 the other day and would recommend everyone to check it out on BBC i-Player. Overall it was surprisingly not as involving as some of his other documentaries (possibly because he himself struggled with the subject matter and the men involved) but the subject itself is a very important one.

The place in question is the Coalinga State Hospital in the State of California. This is an institution built to house convicted sex offenders considered too dangerous to be released back into the community, particularly paedophiles, due to the high risk of them re-offending. There is a programme on offer which potentially offers the 'patients' a chance of release back into the community, however this is not a common occurrence, particularly since the majority of the patients (c.70%) refuse to participate in the programme - these men, barring successful legal appeals, are therefore contained in the Hospital for the remainder of their lives.

Louis identified a great deal of resentment amongst the patients who felt that their civil liberties and constitutional rights were being withheld from them. All of the patients had been convicted of sexual offences and had served prison sentences. Their move to the hospital came at the end of their sentences, when they would have expected that they would be released back into society, having 'served their time'. As their current holding (Louis referred to the hospital as a warehouse) is to prevent potential future crimes which they therefore have not yet committed, they feel that they are being doubly and unfairly punished - as one patient declared "If you are going to lock people up for crimes they haven't yet committed, you'll need to lock everyone up". And this seemed to be a view point shared by some of the therapeutic staff working with the patients.

At first glance it is certainly possible to identify the 'slippery slope' argument which is contained within their protestations. If the state starts to lock up people for crimes they have not yet committed, where will this end? Could it indeed be used to justify locking up anybody and everybody on the basis of some potential future crime?

This is an important point to bear in mind, however it also ignores the reality of the issue which is behind the holding of these men. Their hospitalisation is due to the deep-rooted psychological traits which underpinned the actions which led to their incarceration. The patients in Coalinga are men responsible for systematic and calculated abuse, the full extent of which in many cases has not yet come to light. These are not criminals who committed a crime of acquisition or opportunity, these are fundamentally psychologically deviant men with whom it is impossible (certainly prior to participation in the five phase programme Coalinga uses, and probably even after) to give even a vague assurance that they will not re-offend. For these men there is something 'wrong' with them which serving their time does not solve and which remains, essentially, a way of life which many of them do not consider to be wrong.

The issue draws back to what our prison service and penal code is for. There are three core reasons for imprisonment - rehabilitation, punishment and protection. Imprisoning a paedophile for his (or her) crimes demonstrates the punishment for the crime, society's way of saying we caught you so you must be punished for this. However, the punishment is invariably a short-term pointless term in prison which serves no purpose other than to act as a slap on the wrist. Certainly there is no chance for even a stab at rehabilitation. And this is fundamentally the crux of the matter for me - if there is no rehabilitation possible in the time available then more than just punishment is required. In this case the third purpose, protection, must come into force.

This protection is for society as a whole, as without a long term period of rehabilitation and therapeutic support systematic paedophiles present a very real and ongoing threat to the communities they live in. This sort of sexual dysfunction is therefore a continuing motivation and cause of danger - certainly with the pathetically inappropriate prison sentences, lack of rehabilitation in prison and scarcity of support outwith prison, it is naive in the extreme to believe that paedophiles will be able to self-regulate their behaviour completely on their own.

It is therefore wrong to see institutions such as Coalinga as punishments for crimes which are yet to be committed; rather they are institutions designed to protect both the patient and society from the urges and dysfunction which is beyond their control. This lack of control is not an excuse or justification for their actions - regardless of the dysfunctional psychological state they may possess, they are still responsible for making choices to offend. However, the lack of control is the basis for continuing to hold them away from society until a time when it can be demonstrated that their urges have been brought to a regulated level.

I don't agree with the logic behind laws such as Megan's Law or Sarah's Law where the presence of convicted paedophiles in the community must be made available (to the point, in the US, of addresses being available online). This leads to two dangers - vigilante behaviour and also, ironically, false sense of security which can create conditions for abuse. The majority of sex offenders are known to the person concerned, with many being parents or guardians - 'Stranger Danger' ignores this reality. In addition, many sex offenders are unknown to authorities due to not having been caught - they will therefore not appear on any registers or lists. However, the demand behind measures such as these do reflect a public perception that the current response to sex offenders is not working. The pointless and inappropriate prison terms coupled with the recognised lack of rehabilitation and support demonstrate to the public that this is an issue which is not be handled effectively by the state, with the danger being left for their communities and families - a situation which is always guaranteed to cause anger and reaction.

The existence of Coalinga is not a cheap one (it costs roughly $200,000 p.a. to house each patient) and it does raise controversy about civil liberties. However, it also serves to protect society from individuals who present a clear and lasting threat - in this case prevention may well be better than reaction. Certainly in the UK we need an in-depth review of all sentencing and support for sex offenders to ensure that imprisonment and monitoring following release meets all three of the reasons behind imprisonment. It is not enough to merely impose a short term sentence and then wash our hands of these offenders - our society and its vulnerable members deserve more from us. Maybe the UK has need of an institution like Coalinga in order to protect society from those whose dysfunction prevents a threat to it. We wouldn't release a sociopathic serial killer back into the community, whose psychological dysfunctions present a continuing risk to society - is it not time to realise that sexual offenders represent a similar threat?

Let Battle Commence...

2009-04-22T05:30:00.000-07:00

The lines have been drawn, the election is in full swing and Labour is coming out all guns blazing - if we're gonna lose, it's gonna be a glorious last stand.

OK, that's a bit of an overstatement of the Budget I admit, but the raising of the top rate of tax, whilst its economic impact may or may not be negligible, is a clear fire fight with the Tories. The next election will be between the Labour Party, looking to claw back some of the money that the rich have accrued during the times of plenty; and a Tory Party reverting to their traditional stance of protecting the interests of the rich above the rest of society.

It won't get to this level of clear distinction, however, for several reasons. Firstly, the public blame the Government of the day for economic travails which the country suffers, and that Government is a Labour one - therefore there is a desire to punish the administration. Secondly, the public perception of the Tories which was rooted in the right wing excesses of the Thatcher years is not as prominent as it once was meaning the public do not necessarily associate them with the rich to a greater degree than they do the Labour Party (plus, of course, it has to be remembered that many people in England were very pleased with Thatcher's approach to government). Finally, Cameron is too shrewd an operator to slip into the trap of expressly defending the interests of the rich above all others, regardless of what his real intentions may be. The move does present an interesting conundrum for him though - does he support it, potentially picking up public support but possibly alienating the City and other core Tory support? Or does he oppose it and run the risk of appearing elitist and out of touch? I think it'll be the latter, but he'll base his opposition on the belief that the move won't be effective rather than outright support for entrepreneurialism/defending the wealthy.

Overall there are some interesting aspects to the Budget, with the rise in child tax credits and the provision of work or training for under-25s beneficial moves. However they may be lost amidst the levels of public borrowing and the optimistic forecast which the Chancellor has based his figures on.

If his forecast turns out to be right, or at least closer to the mark, then this Budget may turn out to be a very successful one, however, if the consensus is closer to the mark then we could have a very difficult period ahead of us. What is needed is a fundamental review of how we approach government and what we want for the country - a greater focus on social housing, support for the unemployed, job creation and fairness in taxation and wealth distribution rather than fire fighting is needed if a fourth term is to be even remotely possible.

The tax rise may succeed in grabbing the headlines and may even revitalise some Labour activists, but the Budget must only be the start. It now requires a period of bold and innovative government to demonstrate that Labour can continue to be in power and to focus the minds of the electorate on the possibilities of the future rather than the challenges of the present and past. This is an uphill task for any administration - it is up the Prime Minister and his team to prove that they can do it.

Failing Grade for Scottish Education?

2009-04-20T01:09:00.000-07:00

"Scotland's Education System is the best in the world - all other nations look to us to see how it is done."

During my time at teacher training college this was probably the most repeated phrase I heard. We had it drummed into us that Scottish education was the best in the world, at the forefront of pedagogical theory, and certainly much better than the excuse for a system which operated south of the border.

Sadly, this is no longer the case. Yes, Scottish education has a long and proud history and did set the trend for its peers. However the ball has been well and truly dropped. Other nations have taken on board the successes of Scotland and introduced them in their own systems. However, unlike Scotland they have then proceeded to evolve and improve them, leaving the Scottish system looking stagnant in contrast. The laurels have been so thoroughly rested upon that they are now flat and crushed.

The Scottish think tank Reform Scotland have made another contribution to this research, analysing the difference that devolution has made to education in Scotland. It would have been fair to presume that 10 years of specifically Scottish control of the system (rather than interference from UK wide bodies who supposedly do not understand the system up here) and increased spending (spend per head for secondary school pupils has roughly doubled over the period) would result in increased success. Sadly, this presumption is wrong.

The Reform Scotland research uses the same measurement of academic achievement which is used for England and Wales, which measures the percentage of pupils achieving five good grades, including English and Maths, by the end of compulsory education in S4. This measurement is considered more robust than other measures as it includes all pupils and avoids the artificial inflating of grades by means of including 'easier' exams.

These measurements find that the percentage of good grades achieved in England is now greater than Scotland, and further that the Scottish percentage has shown an overall decline since an initial improvement following devolution's inception (which could potentially be ascribed to the decisions made by the UK Government in any case).

This is a disappointing and alarming statistic, which requires intervention from the Government to counter-act. The problem is that the presumption of Scottish academic success has, at least from I've seen, hindered the development of innovative educational advances. I have
argued before that fundamental changes are required in how we approach education in Scotland, let alone how we fund it, yet it often appears to be the same old story, with ministers praising all and sundry without actually suggesting new directions.

Reform Scotland certainly have suggestions, their report Parent Power advocating the introduction of school vouchers, amongst other measures, as a means for improving schooling in Scotland. The voucher argument is one that, perhaps due to the perception that Scotland is a left of centre nation, has not really been discussed on a meaningful level, however statistics such as those demonstrated by Reform Scotland will certainly open up a means for that debate. There is therefore a requirement for those who support the current system of public education to elucidate its strengths and demonstrate the way forward in regard to changes and improvements that are required.

Scotland's education system can be potentially the best in the world again, if the welcomed increase in funding is matched by a desire to make education more than just rote learning, solely targeted at the achievement of examination qualifications which, if are being brutally honest, count for nothing beyond entering Further Education or possibly a first job (important roles, but not outcomes equal to the importance, and therefore pressure, attached to the exams themselves). Parent power is a good concept in regards to seeking to involve parents in the life of the school, but the Scottish Government must also be ensuring that the curriculum delivered in the schools is tailored to the development of our young people as rounded individuals equipped with a broad range of skills and experiences for life.

This broad approach has long separated Scotland's education system from that of south of the border and is to be treasured. Likewise the commitment to ensure that all of Scotland's young people are able to access high quality public education regardless of social situation or geographical location is one that we should defend. However, our system as it stands is failing to match these ideals, leaving a postcode lottery whereby luck and parental attitudes have as big, if not indeed a bigger, role to play in the educational achievements of the young people than the curriculum and teaching they receive.

This report is to be welcomed for the challenge it provides to the comfortable status quo and the difficult questions it asks. Now it is time for different suggestions to be put forward, to ensure that Scotland's education system again becomes the envy of the world.

More information can be found at Reform Scotland and the BBC.

Provoking Political Participation

2009-04-16T02:36:00.000-07:00

Glasgow City Council is looking to ban political posters during elections, with the Executive due to vote on the measure this Friday. Unlike most things in Glasgow this seems to have cross-party support and therefore will come into force.

The argument behind the move is an environmental one - the ban comes under the Clean Glasgow campaign and is designed to cut down on waste and the cluttering up of public property with tattered signs. In addition it has been expressed that this will help re-engage the electorate with the democratic processes.

I support the measure, but I think that the intention, particularly the belief that it will increase participation, is misguided. My support for it is based on the fact that I don't believe the posters do very much to inform the electorate. Voters do not seem to notice who has put posters up - if anything the focus seems to be on who hasn't put anything up, forcing parties to waste time, effort and money on pointless signage merely so that voters don't complain about a lack of input from them.

However, the absence of posters is not going to stimulate political participation from its moribund levels. Working in the field, I find it depressing how common it is to hear people express the belief that politics does not matter. At all. In any way. Now, I hold that with most people you can find something political in five minutes which affects them, however the disconnect is firm and deep, and is incredibly damaging to our democracy.

This disconnection is only being further strengthened by the ridiculous mess that is MP's allowances. I am honestly hard pressed to think of a way, particularly during an economic downturn, that would be more successful in turning people off politics. The country is suffering, people are losing their jobs, businesses are closing - but it's ok, our politicians are still managing to claim money without receipts or indeed any justification. And we wonder why people are fed up!

The climate of disconnection is a very dangerous one and is helping to fuel the growth of extreme groups such as the BNP. To combat it we are going to need to do much more than simply ban political posters. We need a fundamental reimagining of our entire system of politics.

When I worked in Shettleston constituency (the most socially deprived constituency in the UK) a common response when I tried to get people interested in politics was "it is only for old, wealthy, university educated men". Working with the ethnic minority population in Scotland now, the response is identical except for the addition of the word 'white' to enhance the exclusion. This is a very sad reflection on the state of our democracy. Traditionally one of the greatest strengths of our system has been that it has been open to everyone. Whilst in the US it is virtually impossible to ascend to higher office without vast personal wealth (enhanced with corporate funding), in the UK it has been possible for people (well, if I'm being honest I should say men) from all walks of life to be elected - John Prescott would never have been a Congressman or Senator in the US, let alone second in charge. However, this is dying out. So many of our elected representatives are now professional politicians - coming from middle class backgrounds, studying politics at good universities, working for politicians before being elected.

There always will be this type of politician, and in themselves they are not necessarily a bad presence. However, when they start to become the dominant feature of our elected bodies then it is clear that we have lost our links between communities and their representatives. When voters look at the elected bodies, they seem distant, isolated and elitist structures, swathed in arcane practice and exclusive language - clearly these have no relevance to them. Choosing to become involved in politics is daunting for anyone, but when all interactions are focussed through language which requires a narrow and unrealistic education history to be understood, the vast majority of citizens will be excluded, leaving a political caste to run the country.

We need to increase political education - there is far too much information that is taken for granted. People from all walks of life struggle with terminology and concepts which are regularly used in the media and by politicians with no explanation. This presumption excludes people - if anything, the presumption should be of less knowledge and worked up from there.

We need to create methods for supporting people who wish to become involved in elected representation so that they can be trained and supported. This should be a no-brainer for the political parties. From my own political perspective, if the Labour Party could be encouraging and supporting a wider range of candidates to stand for election (young people, women, ethnic minorities, non university education people) then the bonds which used to exist with many communities in Scotland could be reforged.

We need to reform the expenses system so that every single penny is clearly and easily justified. Politicians do a difficult job but they are substantially paid for a role which, in my opinion anyway, is vocational in nature and should be about more than just money. A complete review of the system, the introduction of online accounts accessible to all of the public, and strict punishments for those misusing or abusing their positions must be implemented to try and restore public faith in politics.

I, for one, won't be upset to see the back of political posters on lamp posts - I was involved in putting them up at the last election and found it a waste of time when I could be knocking doors - but it is ultimately a superficial measure which will not halt the decline in the relevance of our democracy. That is a challenge which will require a new direction and a new politics. This is a task which may be beyond those already elected and embroiled in the system - perhaps this could be the role which the much maligned blogosphere can take as its own, and serve as its greatest contribution to society?

Rumours of my demise...

2009-04-15T01:10:00.001-07:00

...have been completely fuelled by my own blogging inactivity! What can I say, it's been a hectic period, what with the bambino on the way and silly things like work getting in the way - if only there was a way to be paid to stay at home.

On the baby front, we are now 14 days away from his arrival! *Gulp* Of course, babies don't seem to function to any timetable of human design, so he could arrive tonight, tomorrow, next week or indeed whenever he decides! It does make things a bit harder to schedule, but c'est la vie. Certainly I am very excited now and can't wait for him to arrive - I promise there will be photos on here (and indeed anywhere else that I can put them - I am definitely going to be one of those fathers who bores everyone by talking about their son!).

I will try and get back into the blogging swing of things now though, at least until fatherhood takes over. There has certainly been plenty going on which I could have been adding my tuppence worth to, so be prepared for renewed attempts at pouring electronic drivel onto my site.

In the meantime, I hope everyone had a lovely Easter.

Conservatives to leave the EPP

2009-03-12T03:38:00.001-07:00

Cameron is a step closer to his pledge to pull the Conservatives out of the European People's Party (EPP) group in the European Parliament.

In one sense this is an honest move from Cameron. Instead of continuing the charade that his party have any sort of support for the European project, he is being honest and admitting that they would rather be on the fringes, detached from the mainstream of European centre-right philosophy. The EPP is far more federalist in direction than the majority of the Conservative Party would ever be, and they will be more happy detached and isolated from their former group.

However, it is also a disaster in the making for British politics, particularly should the Conservatives win the next General Election. Presuming that they will refuse to link up with the likes of the French National Front of Jean-Marie Le Pen and their ilk, the Conservatives are going to be struggling to find enough partners to create a legitimate group. The new rules coming into play for the Parliament require a group to possess at least 25 members from 7 member states in order to be recognised and funded. The number of members should not be an issue, but finding parties from 6 other nations may well force the Tories into working with parties who, while not as extreme as the obvious far-right parties, still possess very questionable views.

One possibility is also that the Conservatives will not manage to find enough partners - they would then either have to beg the EPP to let them back in, or sit on the sidelines completely devoid of influence or input. As well as making a mockery of their party and indeed the country if they were to form the Government, it would also be a betrayal of their voters, who would effectively lose their Conservative representation.

I had thought that Cameron might quietly drop this position in his desire to gain the keys to Number 10 - such a move is hardly going to build up positive relations with other European leaders, and I doubt will be viewed with great respect by other nations such as the US. An isolated UK Government, at the very time when interaction between nations is most required, could have incredibly serious repercussions for the country. It is fascinating to imagine what Ken Clarke is thinking just now. Whilst he might be willing to surpress his own views on Europe in the interests of party stability, will he able to stomach such an abdication of responsibility on the behalf of the Conservative Party, a move which many of their own MEPs have opposed.

Of course, the move might result in some more seats for the Tories at the European elections - anti-European voters will be able to keep their vote with the Tories rather than transferring to UKIP or its ilk. However, the inevitable result will be a decline in the standing of the Conservative Party on the European stage and severe question marks about the appropriateness of David Cameron to lead UK in relations with our European neighbours.

Referendum no more...

2009-03-05T03:33:00.000-08:00

Well, it's deid then. Voting will take place later in the day at Holyrood, and it looks like Parliament will clearly demonstrate to the Scottish Government that the referendum on independence is dead in the water.

Still not entirely sure whether this is a smart move or not. Salmond will be delighted - he knows he has no chance of getting the referendum off the ground, but this vote allows him to continue the charade and avoid antagonising the lunatic fringe of his own party. In addition he can sell himself as a man of the people come election time, in contrast to the evil Unionist parties who refused to allow the people of Scotland a say (although ironically they had a say by voting in more Unionists in the first place!).

The benefit for the Unionist parties is that they can portray this (or at least try to) as a sensible economic decision - if the SNP choose to ignore it then they leave themselves open to allegations of sacrificing Scotland's economic prospects on the basis of their own ideological obsessions. This does carry the potential to be quite damaging to the SNP Government - at the end of the day the public can view this issue as a fringe topic in comparison to the daily challenges of living and working, and therefore may be annoyed at an SNP Government who ignore the will of Parliament.

I expect both sides to stick to their guns and try to turn the tide in their favour. I don't think it will be the killing blow that either side hope it might be, but it could shift the balance of power in Scottish politics in the run-up (yep, we're in that stage already) to the next Holyrood elections.

Booze - the cause and solution of all life's problems...

2009-03-02T02:10:00.000-08:00

The Scottish Government has brought forward its next stage of proposals for countering Scotland's alcohol problem, and unsurprisingly they have provoked an instant response from opposition parties and industry representatives.

Firstly, I think that it is important to recognise that the Government is right to be confronting this issue, and is to be congratulated on being brave enough to suggest unpopular measures - not something that the SNP Government commonly does. They could be merely suggesting tinkering with the edges of the issues, or indeed ignoring it all together, as they have done with other areas during their time in government, but instead are putting forward real proposals and inviting debate on them.

These proposals do present an innovative approach to alcohol in Scotland. A minimum price (particularly one based on alcohol content rather than just flat rate across the board) is potentially the key change from what I can see. Currently it is the case that is often extremely strong alcohol which is on sale at the lowest prices - forcing these products to rise in price in line with their content could make certain frequently abused products less accessible to those abusing, particularly younger people. Reducing the visibility of alcohol products in shops and supermarkets may impact upon sales, although I would imagine this might be a negligible difference - certainly the removal of 3for2 offers and the like would have more impact, reducing the temptation to 'overbuy' alcohol - I know that I have certainly purchased three bottles of wine due to a 3 for £10 offer or the like when I have only been in to get one. The absence of such offers (although I would imagine that this might be a potentially difficult area to legislate for) would therefore mean that people buying alcohol may reduce the amount. Charging larger venues a social responsibility fee to cover the costs of policing is also a positive step forward - if businesses are making money from selling alcohol, then they should also be contributing to the societal impact that can be directly linked to their activities.

However, much of the framework is unworkable and ill thought out. Firstly, and crucially, the framework aims to use legislation to combat an issue which is primarily one of education and cultural influences. Raising the cost of alcohol will not stop abuse - instead it will make those who are already abusing alcohol more likely to take negative actions in order to meet the expense of their addiction - this would cover a range of antisocial behaviours from neglect of children and vulnerable adults to theft. Scotland's alcohol problem will only be successfully changed if the attitude towards alcohol in the country changes - much as someone addicted to alcohol requires therapeutic support to break the cycle, so the country requires a deep look at our national psyche.

This is an educational issue and one which requires decades of intervention in order to overcome generations of cultural influences. Scotland is a country of alcohol - all of our social, cultural and sporting events revolve around alcoholic consumption to a deeper degree than many other countries. Alcoholic consumption is buried in our national soul, and it will require a concerted effort to root it out.

Secondly, the framework takes the easy way out by demonising our young people rather than by challenging the alcohol consumption which is prevalent throughout society. Indeed it has previously been demonstrated that it was the middle classes who were most likely to be overconsuming alcohol in day to day life.

This isn't to detract from the fact that work is needed with young people to change the problem - indeed, the cultural shift that I talked about above will only come about from future generations changing how they view alcohol. However to imply, as aspects of the framework do, that young people are the 'problem' group is to miss the point and to distract from the relevant areas that do need targeted.

Banning under-21s from purchasing carry outs is, in my non-professional view, nonsensical and unfair. If under-21s are such a problematic strand of society, then they should be banned from drinking altogether. However, allowing 18-20 year olds to drink in certain settings but implying that they are untrustworthy in others is a contradiction which will only serve to drive a wedge between young people and the governmental measures being introduced. The criminalisation of young people will do nothing to benefit the country, and will contribute to further increasing the strains on our justice system.

Finally, the proposals raise very significant issues for Scottish businesses during a period of recession and global economic instability. This should not be the primary issue in debating the framework - it is estimated that alcohol costs the NHS £1 million a day and presents a societal problem in Scotland which outweighs the business concerns of the alcohol industry. However, it is important that the industry is involved in the debate in order to create workable solutions. It is right that it is not the responsibility of off-licences and the like to dictate to consumers what they are purchasing (other than by complying with existing legislation) and to introduce unsustainable burdens upon the industry will merely create new societal problems. The industry must be part of the solution if it is going to not be part of the problem.

The bill that the proposals are being contained within is a massive one covering a huge variety of different strands and it is disappointing that the Scottish Government is seeking to introduce the measures in this way. What is required for this vital issue is a serious and in-depth debate over the impact that alcohol has in Scotland and the measures required to combat it, with a level of cross party agreement vital if we wish to see an approach introduced which can be viable and successful.

The SNP have raised some innovative points, but to try and push this framework through will be detrimental to everyone. They must separate the proposals from the bill they are currently attached to in order to allow proper scrutiny and debate and to accord the issue with the importance that it demands. Anything else will undo the start they have made, and confine combatting alcohol to the scrap heap of failed SNP proposals - Scotland deserves better than that.

Condolences to the Camerons

2009-02-27T03:05:00.000-08:00

I haven't been able to write on the blog for the last couple of days due to work commitments, but I wanted to take this chance, however belated, to add my condolences to David Cameron and his family.

It was terrible to hear about the sad death of their son, and I hope that the messages of support that they have received from across the country and across the political spectrum can be a tiny bit of support in such a horrible time. Politics is an important and combatitive environment, and correctly so, but it is reassuring to see how opponents can put aside their disputes in the face of such real human loss. The added poignancy of Gordon Brown, who himself has experienced the loss of a child, offering his thoughts and support to the Camerons is a clear reflection of the fact that whilst our political ideologies may differ, we are still humans united by the shared experiences of life.

Discrimination is alive and well.

2009-02-24T04:49:00.000-08:00

Makes you proud to be British doesn't it?

Parents are complaining because the BBC has hired Cerrie Burnell as a new presenter to front CBeebies shows. Her crime - she was born without one of her arms, and therefore is 'scary' to children.

This is disgusting, and I am glad that the BBC are choosing to ignore the poison pen letters that a few 'parents' (and I use the term loosely - this sort of attitude seriously implies a lack of parenting ability) have been motivated to write. Frankly it is disgusting that we should still be encountering such pathetic attitudes in 2009, but sadly there is always a remnant of rubbish which can be scraped from the bottom of the barrel.

As someone who is soon to become a parent for the first time, I am delighted that the BBC are continuing to produce high quality childrens' programmes, and are ensuring that they hire the best presenters for the job, regardless of any identifying features. This wasn't a stunt on the BBC's behalf (they stand by the fact she was hired on ability) but has reflected well on them, especially given their recent appalling run of news. I hope that the parents who felt motivated to spill their bile about Cerrie stop and consider the example they are giving their children rather than poisoning them with their own prejudices.

Tearing up...

2009-02-13T03:21:00.000-08:00

A day of high drama yesterday at Holyrood, with Iain Gray tearing up a copy of the SNP's manifesto. Not only did this demonstrate his outrage at the Government's blantant disregard for the voters in dropping manifesto commitments so quickly, it also showed that he is without a doubt the He-Man of Holyrood, the Prize Fighter of Parliament. Next week it'll be the phone book wot gets it.

I happened to be at Holyrood at the time on unconnected business and was watching the debate on the tv in the waiting area. I was struck by the fact that Iain Gray had got to Salmond. It wasn't obvious at first, but as you watched you could see that Salmond's bombast was a bit too bombastic, his hands a bit shaky and his impressive jowls a bit more, well jelly like. It wasn't a fatal blow - Scottish politics seems to be more a case of a death by a thousand cuts - but it rattled the Great One in a way that he likes to pretend never happens.

He shouted and he preened, he avoided the question and did his best to cover everything with that vague rhetorical approach that he calls humour, but ultimately he was a little bit shaken. Well done Iain Gray, let's hope for more of that in the coming weeks!

Scottish Government reshuffle

2009-02-10T06:23:00.000-08:00

So the first reshuffle of the SNP Government has taken place, with a few junior Ministers making way. The changes are:

Mike Russell replacing Linda Fabiani as Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture
Roseanna Cunningham taking Mike Russell's Environment brief
Alex Neil replacing Stewart Maxwell as Minister for Housing and Communities
Shona Robinson adding Sport to her Public Health brief
Keith Brown replacing Maureen Watt as Schools Minister

All in all nothing dramatic - certainly not Cabinet posts that have been effected. Bit surprised about Stewart Maxwell, most people I have spoken to were fairly happy with his perfomance, at least in regards to the Community aspect of the portfolio - wonder who he annoyed?

Opposition parties have sniped a wee bit but to be honest there is little to be said about the changes. It will be more dramatic once Salmond decides to move around his main players - however, with a relatively small pool to choose from and a generally successful government thus far, I wouldn't expect to see changes any time soon.

Edit: Andrew Burns raises some interesting points with his blog - could Salmond have chickened out of sacking any Cabinet Ministers? Fiona Hyslop certainly would have seemed the most likely option - would be interesting to find out whether there were indeed any refusals.

In addition, I forgot to mention that Mike Russell also has responsibility for 'consitutional' matters, meaning that he will be driving the process of the referendum and the submission to the Calman. As a keen associate of Salmond it will be interesting to see how he does in this role - certainly the referendum seems a distant possibility in the current political climate of Scotland.

Minister tours pubs and clubs - best excuse ever!

2009-02-09T04:36:00.000-08:00

Kenny MacAskill MSP, SNP Justice Secretary took the unprecedented step of touring pubs and clubs at the weekend. What a brilliant excuse to get out in Glasgow on a Saturday night!

I wonder which facilities he visited - the Brazen Heid maybe? Or the Garage to check out what the students were up to?

It is good to see a Minister actively exploring the areas within their remit, although I hope that his responsibility for some other 'justice' areas doesn't require the same level of investigation! It was dangerous enough on this excursion, as he was narrowly missed by a thrown bottle - goodness knows what would happen if he went touring the red light district!

Reality Bites

2009-02-09T02:43:00.001-08:00

The Honeymoon appears to be over for President Obama - I bet he would have wished for one closer in length to that of Alex Salmond. After a hectic and difficult introductory period to his Presidency, in particular with the disaster of three cabinet picks being forced out due to allegations of impropriety, the current fight over the stimulus package is proving a minefield. It may not be impacting upon his popularity as of yet, but it could turn out to be an issue which rebounds on his administration at a later date.

The problem is that the Republicans, for the first time in several years, are being quite canny. Yeah, the stimulus package is needed to counter the effects of their control and yeah it was a Republican President who helped to destroy a massive surplus and turn it into a deficit of staggering proportions, but they are not letting these mere facts stop them.

Rather they are taking the moral high ground and attacking the wasteful spending of the Democrats. Senator Shelby of Alabama declares that it will lead to disaster while Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) the Senate Minority Leader complained about how the public don't quite understand just how big a trillion dollars is (for interest sake, a million seconds is 11.5 days, a billion seconds is 32 years and a trillion seconds is 32,000 years. Pretty big then).

Of course the irony (not always considered a strong point of American humour) is that the main reason that trillions are being talked about is due to the policies of a Republican President. The party of small government, tax cuts and fiscal responsibility abandoned its principles and savaged the economy in an orgy of greed and misdirected financial interventions. A focus on the 'death tax' as the pinnacle of Republican financial policy ignored the destruction being wrought upon the economy on their watch and it is now the Democrats, and President Obama in particular, who have to try and restore the US economy.

The problem is that voters very quickly forget whose fault it was, and the stimulus package has the potential to become very unpopular. People have already seen billions pumped into the economy and are getting fed up of it - they are therefore getting fed up of further interventions which do not seem to be making a difference to their own standard of living or job opportunities.

The stimulus will pass (there are enough moderate Republicans, just, left to make it fillibuster proof) but the Republicans will happily and shamelessly run with this area of attack, aided by the fact that Democratic control of Congress has not exactly been life changing to date. President Obama has had a shaky start to his tenure, his team not supporting him and guiding him correctly, leaving him open to questions about his commitment to the integrity he pledged to introduce to government. The vetting process did not fail - the problem was that it identified the tax problems which existed but ignored them, presuming them unimportant to the American people. This was a terrible mistake which sent out completely the wrong message to people at a time of economic hardship.

However, his willingness to hold his hands up and admit he got it wrong was a welcome change of approach from a politician and one that our own elected reps could do to learn from. He needs to see some success now if he wants to keep the American people on side. The key criticism of his campaign was that it was all style with little concrete evidence of the policy which would drive his administration. He now needs to stabilise his team, strongly outline his political vision for sorting out the mess he has inherited. Otherwise he could find that the honeymoon becomes little more than a distant memory.

Bashir Ahmad

2009-02-07T04:51:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to say how sad I was to hear of the sudden death of Bashir Ahmad MSP. It is a terrible shock and my thoughts are with his family.

His role as the first EM MSP at Holyrood was an important one and he will be missed.

Petition to keep Jeremy Clarkson in Australia (Sorry Australia!)

2009-02-06T02:06:00.000-08:00

So the mighty Jeremy Clarkson, self proclaimed voice of the people, has felt fit to make pronouncements on British politics whilst Down Under.

Seriously, do you think if we start a petition we could get the Aussies to keep him?

The fact of the matter is that he is an arrogant opinionated boor who basks in his self-importance and pontificates on matters of which he has very little understanding. And that's just his car writing!

It's not really because he insulted Gordon Brown - we are a democracy and he is within his rights to do so. It's more the depressing fact that he is somehow viewed as being a representative of the UK, a pseudo-ambassador whose words carry some sort of importance, rather than a TV presenter and 'reporter' - one so clever that by publishing his bank details in his column in an attempt to make a point he cost himself money.

I'm biased I admit - I don't watch the programme and if I'm being honest I think Boris Johnson is a better writer about motor vehicles. However, it is a shame that he is somehow held up as a role model for the UK and a reflection of the zeitgeist of the nation.

I suppose it's probably more the case that I'm the one out of touch - after all the petition wanted him to be made PM!

Money, Money, Money

2009-02-04T08:15:00.000-08:00

So the Budget is going to pass. Not too much of a surprise, it should really have passed last week but for some posturing/incompetence on the part of the Government in not getting the Greens on board.

The surprise, I must admit, is that the SNP have gone to the length of bringing Labour into the agreement. With the Lib Dems rather hasty u-turn, the Budget deal was sorted very early on, leaving the SNP not needing to make any overtures to Labour. Admittedly, the situation has meant that the concessions have hardly been ground-breaking, but they are concessions none the less.

Considering the intense rivalry, if indeed not hatred, between the two main parties it would not have been a huge surprise to have seen the Nats deliberately snub any input from Labour. Labour have assessed that there is some public discomfort with the Budget not passing which explains some of their move to a supportive position, but the SNP's acceptance of it is an interesting one.

It could be a reflection of the consensus building nature of Scottish politics, particularly for a minority Government, however I feel that this may be too idealistic. I think rather there is some clever politicking going on behind the scenes for the SNP. As the Government they carry the responsibility should actions to improve the economy and life in Scotland be less than successful, however by tying the other parties into the Budget they can legitimately attempt to pass some of the blame should things not go well, whilst retaining the praise if they work.

The point of the Budget debate was that the SNP tried to push through a Budget without too much consideration of other parties (other than their bosom buddies the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party), seemingly forgetting that they are a minority administration. Salmond's bombast about resigning was hot air and a reflection of displeasure with Swinney's handling of the negotiation process, with breakthrough swift to follow. Consensus was the name of the game in the end, but it needn't have ended up that way.

So where does it leave the parties? The SNP left themselves open to looking less all powerful than they like to portray whilst Labour were attacked for putting petty politics above the national interest. Both of these portrayals were unfair, however that is the nature of the political game. The Tories, as bedfellows of the Nats, secured their desires early on and therefore were able to remain above the fray - all in all a successful operation for them I feel. The Greens had the chance to make themselves heard and to play an important role in the process - if they choose to be the sole dissenting voices in the vote then they will also argue that they alone had the courage to stick to their convictions.

The losers, and not for the first time, were the Lib Dems who handled this really badly. The only issue which all the parties seemed to agree on before the first vote was that the tax cut plan was badly thought out, if indeed not rather inane, leaving the party looking clueless as to how to respond to the economic challenges Scotland faces. This was then followed by a u-turn which bordered on unseemly, leaving them looking weak, especially as their main concession secured appears to be to get the Scottish Government to make a submission to the Calman Commission. Heck, I've made a submission and given oral evidence, so it ain't all that powerful! And getting the SNP to argue for greater fiscal devolution...well, there's a breakthrough. All in all, a continuation of a dreadful period for the Liberal Democrat party.

Normal service will now resume and the Scottish Government can get back to the important process of spending money. It's been an interesting week or so but fundamentally the SNP are getting the Budget they want (as has become the norm for Budgets in Scotland). Will be interesting to see whether their proposals can make a difference, and if not, to see who will carry the can.

The Greatest Show on Earth.

2009-02-02T02:28:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to the Pittsburgh Steelers who broke NFL history by winning the Superbowl last night for the sixth time (said through slightly gritted teeth - I'm a NY Giants fan and was hoping we could do back-to-backs). For the first time in quite a few years I didn't stay up to watch the extravaganza - the combination of working on a Monday morning and, more crucially, having a pregnant wife who needed to work on a Monday morning meant that I only watched the pre-match and first drive, with the rest taped.

I love American Football. I know lots of people in the UK don't, finding it too slow, or too incomprehensible, or too glitzy. I suppose really it's the fact that some folk find it just too darn American. However, that is partly what I love about it so much. And the Superbowl represents the pinnacle of this, a party which is open to the world but which fundamentally celebrates America and its way of life.

I know it's only a game, but the Superbowl does provide an insight into the heart of US life and its differences to other parts of the world. Stereotypes are caricatures, but are often rooted in certain truths or realities. The Superbowl shows that the stereotype of Americans as loving a show, highly emotional and patriotic can be seen to be a very real occasion. Quite simply, the Superbowl could not happen in the UK, where our national stereotype of repressing our emotions would hamper such celebration.

The Superbowl encompassed tributes to the crew of flight 1549 who heroically saved the lives of their passengers when it was forced to crash into the Hudson; the singing of the National Anthem by Jennifer Hudson in her first public appearance since the horrific murder of several members of her family; the award of the Walter Payton man of the year to the NFL player who had done the most charity work ove the year (won by Kurt Warner the Cardinals' starting QB); and a concert by Bruce Springsteen over the half time - it was an extravaganza of celebration rather than a mere sporting event.

The patriotism in the US is an incredible phenomenom, unmatched in the UK by a long distance. I think we Brits can find it a bit overpowering at times and can be struck by the use of US flags everywhere - sadly we have allowed the far right to steal the use of our flag to a large extent in the UK. Americans genuinely have a pride in their country which in many ways we could learn from. The Federal system means that Americans can be very proud of their State and their country - it is not too often that demands for secession are made nowadays in the US as citizens are able to cope with multi-faceted identities, rooted in the immigrant history which the majority of Americans possess. Whilst here in Scotland we are told by the Nationalist movement that it is incompatible to be both proudly Scottish and proudly British, Americans quite happily manage to be proud of their state and proud of their wider country. I realise that the Nationalist response to this would be that Scotland is no mere state and I am not seeking to diminish the debate; however, the issue of multi-faceted identities is an important one which is ignored in the arguments which rage in Scotland.

Anyways, I seem to be attempting to turn my love of the Superbowl into some sort of half-baked debate on self-definition - and this is without being sleep deprived due to staying up for it! Superbowl XLIII was a good un - here's hoping that the Giants are back in the Big Show next year!

It's Ma Baw!

2009-01-29T01:19:00.000-08:00

So Alex Salmond is going to resign if his Budget doesn't go through?

Cheerio then.

It's starting to become a yearly event now, with the First Minister bluffing Parliament as to how he will storm out of the building, taking his pals with him, if the others don't do what he tells them. After all it's his ball isn't it?

The point is that Salmond is an astute political player. He has done well in working minority government, using the system to avoid making the difficult choices he might otherwise face, with the handy excuse of non-coalition government. Indeed, it has been good for the Scottish political scene to see that minority government is possible. The Scottish Parliament was founded on the principle of more consensual politics - this is reflected in the voting system used and the lay out of the debating chamber itself. We have had coalition government and now minority government and both systems have been shown to work. The basis of this success is cross-party working, whether that be in the formal environs of a coalition agreement or the less formal issue-by-issue agreements made by the current administration.

However, consensual politics does not mean that opposition parties have to agree with or support everything that the Government proposes, even (or maybe especially) in the case of something as serious as the Budget.

The Tories, who of course supported the Budget again, accused Labour of political grandstanding, however Labour would have been failing in its duty if it did not raise the issues that it did. This is not a case of opposing for opposition's sake, but rather a legitimate political disagreement between the governing party and the biggest opposition party.

The fact is of course that the Budget would have passed had the discussions with the Greens not been so badly handled. The last minute nature of the offer to them was a failure on behalf of Swinney's team and I'm sure questions will be asked as to how this opportunity was missed. Labour and the Green Party had made it clear that they were open to finding concessions which would allow the Budget to be passed (the Lib Dems were still focussed on the tax cut that no one else wanted) so the opportunities were there. The chances of the SNP making big concessions to Labour were always unlikely (Salmond's Government in debt to Labour - ain't gonna happen!) but the Greens were the crucial votes which they should have sown up.

But Salmond's latest threat to resign is a reflection of his misunderstanding of the political system. No matter how much he wishes it were the case, Salmond is neither God nor undisputed ruler - his word is not law. The people of Scotland (whose democratic voice he professes to value so highly) voted his party in as the biggest; but also voted in more parties who disagreed with them than agreed. Salmond cannot demand changes just because he tells us so - the Scottish system is such that he must build consensus.

The Budget will pass - the Lib Dems are already looking to drop their ill-thought out tax plan which would open up their support - but Salmond has to start to realise that he cannot throw his toys out of the pram every time he doesn't get his own way. Yes, the Budget is crucial and there are serious ramifications should it fall. However, political posturing does not help the situation at all. Labour should not vote in favour of the Budget on the basis of Salmond resigning - if he is willing to force an election upon voters who are already facing election overkill in the coming years then on his head be it. Parliament cannot be held to ransom by one man's ego, but must fulfil its role in scrutinising the Government and holding it to account.

Expenses and Accountability.

2009-01-20T06:41:00.000-08:00

Expenses are always an interesting affair, particularly in regards to our elected officials. And it has now been smuggled through Westminster that MP's expenses should be exempt from scrutiny.

This is a complete and utter disgrace. MP's expenses should be completely documented and open to all members of the public so that we can see where public money is being spent. Listing under general headings and not requiring documentation for monies claimed is an insult to the electorate and severely damages public trust in democracy.

If I want to claim expenses at work I have to provide proof of what I am claiming, and this should be doubly true for MPs and other elected representatives. MSPs already have far more openness in their financial claims and this is the standard that Westminster should be aspiring to, rather than seeking to cover the details of what is claimed.

Part of the reason for the clandestine nature is that MPs are claiming for items and services for which it is hard to see any justification. Despite protestations to the contrary, MPs are already paid a very generous salary for their time and work. This is not to detract from the intensity and difficulty of the work that MPs do and it is right that they be covered for the legitimate expenses of their work. However, paying for furniture and home improvements is hard to justify for someone who is already earning over £60k.

I admit that I am idealistic, but political representation is not a job. It is a vocation, a call to serve the public and make a difference to the world. When my Papa served on the council for years, it was in a voluntary capacity. He and his colleagues, of different political stripes, served their communities in their spare time, working full time to support their families and then attending meetings in the evening.

I'm not recommending a return to this situation - I think the provision of a wage is important in order to open political representation to a wider range of people. However, a return to the ethos of that age would be welcome. Politicians serve at the public's pleasure not in their own right. They are public servants and this must be foremost in their minds and work. That is why I think of political representation as a vocation - it is not just a job, but rather a life that people feel called to, and which is bigger than just them.

MPs must, for the good of democracy, make all expenses open and transparent. The very provision of expenses must be reviewed urgently so that they expenses claimable are restricted to those required for the service of the electorate. If the Government is failing in this regard, then individual MPs must take the initiative and start to publish their own expenses in full.

More details about this campaign here. Send a letter to your MP, make clear your disgust and help restore accountability in democracy.

I do solemnly swear...

2009-01-19T02:22:00.000-08:00

So tomorrow is the big day. President-elect Barack Obama will start to recite the words of his oath, and the transition to President Obama, 44th President of the United States of America will be complete. He will enter office at a time of global upheaval, with the economic system that underpins the US's global dominance collapsing; with US military hegemony strained by the entanglement in costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; with huge challenges confronting the citizens he represents; and with a weight of expectations upon his shoulders unmatched by any other holder of the office in recent times, if indeed ever. Can he rise to these innumerable challenges?

Yeah, he probably can.

Ok, not quite as emphatic as his campaign slogan was, but that is because the campaign is over and reality starts now. It is the meeting of expectations which I think will be the hardest for him. The other issues are political issues, requiring policy decisions, some of which he'll get right and some of which he won't. However, the expectations he carriers are incredible. Not just from the colour of his skin and the hopes of an entire swathe of the US population who have long felt excluded from the corridors of power; but also from the young people motivated to use their votes and the older people inspired to believe that their country could be different. From the Republicans who crossed party lines to vote for the man they believed presented the best future for them and from devoutly religious people who ignored the proclamations of some of the church leaders which threatened them with hell if they voted for Obama and who focussed on improving life before death.

No President will be perfect, as no human being is perfect. However, Obama has served to inspire a huge number of people who had disconnected from the political process and this presents the US (and indeed beyond) with a chance to re-invigorate democracy. I think he can do this. By focussing on listening to the people, to keeping their interests at the forefront of his Presidency, he can restore faith in an institution which has lost much of its lustre over the past 8 years, and restore the world's faith in the US as a beacon of democracy and leadership.

He can be the change that he has professed to be, and the world will be watching to see if it happens. I hope that as he assumes the Presidency he believes and adheres to his own message, and that we can see the United States of America restore the respect and affection that the world has for it.

Lies, damned lies and obsfucation

2009-01-16T03:31:00.000-08:00

It is a sad, sad day for politics. Allegations are raging around Holyrood that the FM (and indeed other Ministers) may have obscured the truth in their statements. Should this be true then life as we know it is finished - how can we support democracy if our politicians lie?

Ok, the issue is a bit more serious than I am making out, but I don't think it is the end of Salmond that some folk seem to think it might be. Yeah, he was wrong in what he said - personally I think it makes him look stupid rather than dishonest. However, I don't know how much this is going to resonate with the public.

At the end of the day, the sad reality is that voters do not trust politicians. I am currently in the process of finishing a research report into the barriers that EM communities face in Scotland (hence the lack of blogging) and one of the regular comments I have received working with people is that they have no trust for politicians, or indeed politics in general. Respondents expressed an opinion that politicians are only out for themselves; tell you whatever you want to hear to make you vote for them then ignore you; are a closed network of 'old boys' who don't want new people involved.

All depressing stuff for anyone who is a democrat. And rooted in truth. Politicians do avoid answering questions they don't want to answer and they do appear at election time and then vanish for several years. It is the democratic contract between the electorate and their representatives which needs to change, with clearer explanations of the responsibilities that representatives have to their constituents.

In this context, the FM's obsfucation is an important issue, in that it negates the purpose of FM's questions. This process is intended to be an opportunity for Parliament to hold the Government to account, to demand answers and ensure that legislative procedures and priorities are being followed. This doesn't work well in the Scottish Parliament. Partly it is because we are stuck between systems. The Parliament is conceived as a co-operative body with opportunities for discourse and debate, yet the confrontational style of the bear-pit of Westminster still lurks in the corner over-shadowing the interactions. Salmond is in the position of being a better parliamentary showman than his rivals (partly due to his schooling in Westminster) and plays a pretty and effective game of bluff and patronising humour. However, whilst entertaining for him and his supporters, this does mean that the scrutiny of FM's questions, which is so vital to the democratic integrity of the Parliament, can be lost somewhat.

This was always going to happen as soon as a performer like Salmond was FM - his predecessors were less artistic in their abilities and therefore the smoke and mirrors were not as obvious (although they were still there). Now is an opportunity to revisit the procedures which the Presiding Officer operates under to ensure that they can support the correct functioning of the chamber.

Salmond will not resign, however he should admit that he was wrong. He should also use the opportunity to change the situation. Yes it benefits him just now, but he and his party will not be in power for ever. Labour made the mistake in power of not increasing support for the opposition and this has made life difficult since 2007 - if Salmond has sense, he will learn from this.

Come in Bearsden and Milngavie, your time is up!

2009-01-15T04:50:00.000-08:00

Wonderful suggestion in the Herald in regards to the
re-organisation of Local Government in Scotland - most notably that Bearsden, Milngavie and the other 'burbs of Glasgow should be brought into the fold of a metropolitan council.

About blooming time I say!

If anyone wants proof that the citizens of these wealthy enclaves make full use of the services provided by Glasgow City Council without contributing to its running, you just have to check out the queues of 4x4s racing back to their countryside retreats at the end of another working week doing whatever it is one does in order to live in Milngavie. They tramp the streets and fill the litter bins that my council tax pays for, and then live in luxury unhindered by the common folk of The City (It always seems to be said in a dramatic voice).

Of course, the good folk of the burbs do not wish to be reunited with their urban brothers and sisters - in fact many of the urban crowd doesn't particularly want them back! This particularly goes for Labour Councillors who wouldn't get much benefit from some of the few remaining Liberal Democrats in Scotland suddenly appearing in George Square. Indeed, the inclusion of the 'burbs would actually lead to the Tories being more than a single entity in Glasgow, a distressing situation if ever there was one.

However, the chance to force these isolationists to actually pay for the services they use would help the City coffers, whilst restoring an element of fairness to life in Greater Glasgow. Such is to be welcomed.

Of course, this is actually all a very serious situation which deserves in-depth consideration and debate. Unfortunately that will have to wait for another day when I am not snowed under with work! So in the meantime, the campaign starts here to restore our comrades in Milngavie, Bearsden, Giffnock et al into the welcome embrace of the City of Glasgow, where they will pay for what they use. And in a spirit of niceness and welcoming, we will even allow them to still vote Lib Dem!

Submission to the Calman Commission

2009-01-06T03:42:00.000-08:00

In a work capacity, I made a submission to the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution, and was subsequently invited, with my Director Colin Lee, to give oral evidence to the Commission. The transcript of the evidence is now online at CEMVO Submission. It's a pdf file, and our submission starts in the second half of the document following the Law Society.

Of course to clarify this blog is not connected to the Council of Ethnic Minority of Voluntary Organisations and none of the views expressed here are to be taken as representative of CEMVO's opinions, but are purely personal.

However, I think that our submission made some important points about the disconnection between many people, particularly those I work with in the Ethnic Minority communities in Scotland. The whole constitutional debate in Scotland is taking place, in my opinion, far too soon. The Parliament in still in its infancy, and the lack of understanding and participation amongst many people leaves them unable to assess the performance of the Parliament to date, let alone questions of fiscal autonomy and further devolution.

Unfortunately it is the situation we are presented with and so we must make the best of it we can. My work organisation is also involved in the National Conversation process - we do not have an organisational stance on what the best way forward is but rather strive to emphasise that everyone must be included in the discussions.

More about my work organisation can be found at CEMVO Scotland - my project is the Inclusive Democracy Project (IDP).

Education, Education, Education...

2009-01-05T02:31:00.000-08:00

Liz Smith MSP, the Conservatives Schools spokeswoman has proposed that more testing is required in primary school to ensure that children are developing appropriate skills in the 3rs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7810544.stm).

Now, I understand where she is coming from - it is a national embarrassment that so many young people are not gaining sufficient ability in such key life skills, and she is right to identify that testing the areas in S4 is far too late. However, I think that the desire to introduce even more testing is the wrong direction to take.

The problem we face now in our schools it that we teach the important topics in the wrong way, certainly in primary schools. If you ask primary aged children which lessons they most dislike, they invariably answer "Maths and English!" Yet, which two lessons are formally taught every day of the week? Yep, Maths and English.

I'm not arguing that literacy and numeracy shouldn't be at the heart of the curriculum - in fact, I would argue that they need to be more central. Instead of solely focussing on 'formalised' teaching of the two subjects, other more interactive and exciting topics should be utilised to develop these skills. For example, any of the artistic or sporting subjects provide opportunities for exploring a huge range of literacy and numeracy topics (spatial awareness in PE, communication in Drama etc) alongside other social and educational skills whilst science, history and other subjects can fill the children with an appreciation of the wonders that our world contains and a desire to learn and explore their own identities. And amazingly, this can be fun for the children too!

Testing has a place within the education system, as does rote learning and other dull methods. However, by forcing testing to ever earlier stages of the education system, we merely ignore the different ways in which children develop and hinder their natural curiosity and desire to explore the world around them. Play is one of the most powerful educational tools that there is, yet by enforcing testing (often for testings sake) we relegate play to something children do in their spare time or as a reward, instead of as a key means by which they can learn and grow.

The point is that much of the testing, including that suggested by Liz Smith, is introduced with the interests of adults and the state in mind rather than the interests of the children involved in the process. The testing is to allow us to see how our tax money is spent; or to decide which school is best for our children to attend; or to create beautiful league tables which serve no purpose other than to reinforce differences between schools and communities. They are not designed for improving the educational experience of our young people, indeed they can often impede it.

What is needed is a change in how we approach education. We need our classrooms to be places of wonder, where children and young people are able to question and challenge and explore. Teachers have an amazing vocation to accompany these young people on their journey - not to regulate everything and dictate the boundaries of what they can learn, but rather to support them in developing the skills that can then be used throughout life. Lifelong learning is one of the popular topics for governmental input and rightly so, but the key way to develop lifelong learning is not solely by providing educational opportunities for adults who have missed out but by also helping young people to develop the means by which they can continue to learn in their own time and own manner throughout their lives.

So, we do not need more testing, particularly in the early formative years when our children are learning to learn. We need to refind the joy of play and the wonder of learning - free up our teachers to teach and our children to be children.

As George Bernard Shaw so aptly said:

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing."

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-23T14:47:00.001-08:00

Well folks, after a promising start, my blog's outputs have dried up somewhat over the past few weeks - I promise this is not due to lack of interest or maniacal rantings on behalf, but a reflection of a very busy period at work. Will be back into the swing of things in the New Year.

On a personal note, Baby Cooke is doing very well - we are nearly at 22 weeks now, and I have found out that I am going to have a son! Very excited, nervous, terrified and delighted - amazing how many feelings one man can have! Mum and baby are doing well, which is fantastic news.

So to anyone reading this, I hope you have a wonderful Christmas - I hope it is a time of relaxation and enjoyable company for you and those you spend it with.

With best wishes

Jamie

In Defence of the Speaker

2008-12-09T01:05:00.000-08:00

Lot of furore in Westminster just now about the Speaker's actions during the whole Damian Green affair. It has certainly been a mess from start to finish, with the actions of the Met blundering (to put it mildly) and the lack of warrant for the search of Mr Green's offices at Parliament regrettable in hindsight.

However, the voices clamouring for Mr Martin's resignation as Speaker are political opportunists in the whole rather than dedicated to the defence of democracy. As Frank Dobson pointed out in the debate over the issue in Parliament, Parliamentary Privilege is a concept that MPs refer to a lot, but one without a clear and agreed definition.

I think that most people would agree that an MP handles extremely sensitive material on behalf of their constituents and that it is important that this is kept confidential. However, no member of society, including our elected representatives, should be above the law. This means that the idea that there can be somewhere that an MP can store information with no recourse for it to be investigated in the course of police action in itself presents a potential threat to democracy. A warrant should have been issued and it is important that the procedures are clarified to ensure that it cannot be used as a "tool for oppression" as the Opposition are rather crudely alleging - Sir Nicholas Winterton's comparison with Zimbabwe is quite frankly an childish insult to both the people of Zimbabwe and the Government of the UK.

The situation has been a godsend for the Conservative Party - it came at such an opportune moment that you would almost suspect that they had masterminded it! Cameron has been struggling in the polls, the Government are bouncing back - and then along comes a situation where the Government is powerless to intervene. It would have been a bigger threat to democracy had the Home Secretary stepped in and criticised an ongoing police investigation - the police must remain impartial and independent to carry out their vital role. Therefore the Government has had to sit back and put up with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune - such is the limits of governmental power sometimes.

So it has been a postive news breaker for Cameron, although I don't think it has quite hit a nerve with the public in the way that he might have hoped - the economy is still dominating the headlines with the Green affair more of an issue for the commentariat. However, we should not forget that there are very important issues underlying the investigation. No one would deny that leaks have an important role to play in the democratic accountability of the Government (of whichever political shade it may be) and Labour certainly benefited from them when in Opposition. However, the leaks at the Home Office have taken on a systematic nature, which potentially compromises the trust between the Government and the 'impartial' Civil Service and also has implications considering the nature of the information that the Home Office deals with.

I think that it is the first of these two points that is the most crucial, although the second may have informed the decision to involve the police. Regardless of the party in power, it is a fundamental tenet of our democratic system that the Civil Service remain impartial and at the service of whoever in in government. The choice of the police to use the term 'grooming' in regards to Mr Green's actions (which of course remain only allegations) implies a ongoing source of information and therefore an ongoing breach of trust in the Home Office. It does not appear to have been a civil servant passing on a single piece of information which they believed to be in the public interest; rather this appears to have been the ongoing passing of various information to a member of a rival political party who are not the democratically elected government - this is a serious breach.

However, the Conservatives have cleverly turned this round to focus on the Speaker's office rather than their own member's potential wrongdoing. The Conservatives have had it in for Mr Martin ever since he was elevated to the post, believing that this broke the convention of alternating the Speakership between parties. Of course, this convention only dates back to the 60s, and the Conservatives had previously in 1951 carried out a very similar process in putting a Conservative in the position. The Speakership is of course impartial, and importantly so, but we would be kidding ourselves to pretend that it is not surrounded by party politics. There have been systematic attacks on Mr Martin since his election to the role, and it is undeniable that some of these have been personal in nature - the use of the nickname 'Gorbals Mick' demonstrating an outdated snobbery on the behalf of its instigators, alongside an obvious lack of geographic and historical knowledge of Glasgow.

The whole Green affair has demonstrated a need to review and define Parliamentary Privilege and to clarify the responsibility of the Speaker in protecting the integrity of the House. However, it has been primarily a party political affair, cleverly utilised by the Conservative Party. It is disappointing that the Liberal Democrats have fallen into line behind the Conservatives, but I think that this is an indication of what we can expect under the leadership of Nick Clegg - a hung Parliament will likely see them likewise fall behind the Conservatives.

But the affair does not constitute the basis for the resignation of the Speaker. In hindsight there are issues related to it which need to be changed, but the arrest and searching of Mr Green's various offices were carried out with the foreknowledge of the Conservative Mayor of London and the Leader of the Conservative Party. Decisions on Mr Martin's future must be made by him, and this affair should be left to the police to handle in the manner which they consider most appropriate.

Interventionism

2008-12-08T03:11:00.000-08:00

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still raging, a common opinion expressed in the media and amongst the commentariat (particularly, but not exclusively that of a more liberal slant) has been that interventionism is dead. The view goes that the US (and by extension the UK) has sacrificed its moral authority on the world stage and therefore cannot intervene in the affairs of other nations - instead we have returned to the area of non-interventionism, particularly in regards to military intervention.

I believe that this is a short-sighted viewand one which the destruction of Zimbabwe is highlighting all too clearly. US foreign policy under President George W. Bush has been roundly criticised as being triumphalist, militaristic and aggressive, yet it is far more firmly located in the tradition of US FP than many would care to admit. The interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq are open to debate as to their appropriateness and competency, however they are not a huge break from the policies followed by President Bush's predecessors, such as President Bush snr's interventions in the Gulf and President Clinton's interventions in Somalia and Bosnia.

Indeed, President Clinton was criticised for not doing enough to intervene in the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda, where the world tacitly allowed the genocide of a ethnic grouping. Criticism was levelled that the US didn't deploy military forces - the world's accusation being that the US did not do its duty.

And this is the paradox at the centre of world politics - a requirement that the US, as the world's last remaining superpower, intervene in situations where disaster is unfolding coupled with a resentment that it can and does. In an ideal world, the crisis in Zimbabwe would be dealt with by the African Union and in particular by South Africa - if political leadership and common endeavour didn't drive their motives, then surely self-preservation would. However, South Africa has demonstrated an inability, and indeed unwillingness, to fulfil that role despite the implications that a failed, cholera-ridden Zimbabwe on its doorstep has for the nation.

Interventionism (and I am focussing on humanitarian crises here, other interventionism is a topic for another blog) is not just a legitimate policy tool, I believe that it is a fundamental responsibility of the 'Western' world. Zimbabwe's collapse is being played out on the TV screens in our homes - we have contributed to the disaster and we must contribute to the recovery.

The UK has a unique role to play in this crisis due to the historical link between ourselves and Zimbabwe. We must respond to the cholera epidemic with appropriate aid whilst at the same time continuing the pressure on Mugabe's illigitimate and dangerous regime. We are limited in our potential military response due to geography and the overstretching of our armed forces, however we must make clear that in the case of the requirement of intervention by foreign troops (ideally led by the African Union) we will provide as much logistical and hardware support as we can.

The sovereignty of the nationstate is important, however the collapse of the state and oppression of its people invalidates its rights. Rwanda was the demonstration of the necessity of humanitarian interventionism - since that time we have watched it continue to happen around the world. Humanitarian intervention is a responsibility and a necessity - as our forces in Sierra Leone demonstrated, it can make a crucial difference to the stability of a nation and the countering of genocidal actions.

The US and its allies have a unique place in the world and therefore have a unique responsibility. It is a responsibility we must live up to, and which we must demonstrate in Zimbabwe now.

Out of sight...

2008-11-27T05:06:00.000-08:00

...but hopefully not out of mind!

Very busy with work just now so blogging is on the backburner - I will return to the fray as soon as a I can.

Football Nightmare 2?

2008-11-24T01:52:00.000-08:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7743962.stm

So after the brutality that was the politicians vs journos game, the politicians are now to take on some of Scotland's religious figures.

Will it be an even more brutal game, or will we find out that the hard tackles were saved for those who earn their living from writing cheeky comments about those in public view? Having seen some of the politicians who are involved, I think that the major religions in Scotland might be looking for some new recruits once the battle, I mean game, is over.

And there is also the juicy possibility of the pols playing the polis - a game I would pay to watch. Interesting to see that some of our elected reps appear to be sliding into the world of professional football rather than professional politics...

Here we go again...

2008-11-19T02:11:00.000-08:00

Interesting article in the Guardian today hinting at the possibility of an early General Election being called alongside the European Parliamentary elections next year. The speculation is being fuelled by un-named backbench MPs and the fact that the Conservative lead in the polls has been slashed to 3 points. The Labour Party is trying to move on to a war footing and excitement as to a Fourth Term is starting to grow...

Surely we can't be seeing this again!

The mishandling of the election that never was at the beginning of Gordon Brown's term in office was one of the most catastrophic blunders in recent UK political history. Almost single-handedly the mess undermined GB's popularity with the British public; undid his secure handling of the issues which had cropped up in his first few weeks in power; and propelled a Tory Party which was preparing to implode into the frontrunner status of government in waiting.

You would presume that the party has learnt from the disaster of that time and wouldn't replay the failures all over again. After all, it has taken a year and a global economic crash unmatched in modern history for us to be looking like we might be able to avoid complete wipe-out at the next election - to undo this after all the hard work of the intervening period would be unforgivable. And to be fair, the Government is having nothing to do with these rumours, allowing them to drift past while they get on with the work of running the country.

The point is, of course, that the Government needs to keep doing what it has been doing recently and allow the election to arise naturally at a suitable point. The Conservatives had a fun year, essentially sitting back and watching Labour try to destroy itself. However, they are now starting to come under increasing scrutiny and this is going to inevitably provoke difficulties.

George Osbourne, the credit crunch, ditching Labour spending - already the issues are starting to mount up. The ditching of the spending plans does give the Tories the chance to outline their own plans for taxation and spending, however they managed to announce their decision at the same time as the CBI and Institute of Directors came out in support of the Government's proposals - neither are exactly hotbeds of socialism! Cameron is now looking rather isolated in his opposition - should the Government's plans prove successful then this decision has the potential to kill his chances off completely (Of course, if they are a disaster then it may guarantee him a win - such is the risk and reward of gambling!). At the same time, Osbourne has gone from being a lauded and crucial part of the shadow cabinet to a liability who many members of the Conservatives would like to shifted (in many cases they feel this is for his own good/political career rather than out of backbiting).

So, the election that for a dark period looked unwinnable for the Labour Party is now starting to look like a real competition. However, the party has to ensure that this opportunity, won through the hard work of activists and elected representatives, is not lost through the folly of renewed speculation over an election. Making the mistake a second time would be unforgivable.

CalumCarr on .... Whatever: Let's Fight For Mrs Carr

2008-11-11T06:20:00.000-08:00

CalumCarr on .... Whatever: Let's Fight For Mrs Carr

I just wanted to drop attention to Calum Carr's excellent blog and the ongoing struggle that he is engaged in, details at the link above.

It is a depressing situation when people who require help and support are abandoned. We have much to be proud of with the NHS, but there is also much that needs to be changed with it, particularly in regards to the service's approach to mental health.

I am lucky enough to be married to a Counsellor and to be able to see snippets of the wonderful work that she does in supporting people in times of need. However, as a Counsellor from the person-centred approach, the NHS is uninterested in what she and others can offer. Rather it has decided that there is one approach will be used (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or CBT) and all others are ignored. This ignores the reality that people are individuals and different people, even if they present with similar diagoses, may well respond best to different styles of support.

But unfortunately, the NHS is focussed on its limited services - if you don't fit into these then you are cast aside, as it is obviously the patient's fault that they cannot 'work' with the service rather than the failing of the NHS is not providing appropriate support. It is a disgrace and an embarrassment, and must be changed before more people are failed.

So check out Calum's site and draw attention to the fight for Mrs Carr - it is a sad fight and one that shouldn't need to be fought, but it is an important one that has implications for us all.

Blooming Missouri...

2008-11-11T04:25:00.000-08:00

Well that was a historic week last week wasn't it?!?

I am of course referring to my predictions as to the outcome of the US elections - I believe that out of 50 States (and the District of Columbia) I called 49 and DC correctly.

The only one that I think I got wrong was Missouri. You know, the state that is the most dependable bell-weather, that always calls it right, that never makes a mistake. Yeah, they got it wrong and therefore so did I.

On a more serious note, it was an important week. The election of Obama is truly historic. As you will know, I am not an Obamabot by any stretch of the imagination, but I thought that his acceptance speech was magnificient. The religious presentation of it can be a bit worrying at times, but there is no denying the effectiveness of his style and the fact that he cut a very Presidential figure on stage - I would expect him to very quickly seem at home in the White House.

I also thought John McCain's concession speech was very impressive. It was a reflection of the old McCain, the one who truly is a maverick and a hero. This McCain has sadly been lost during the campaign season as he has been subsumed into the elements of his party which he had previously fought against. There seemed to be almost a relief from him in conceding, and hopefully free from the fervour of this campaign he can return to his previous status. For the Republicans it is a time of disaster, but one which is deserved - they have displayed an arrogance in government which has been their undoing. A sensible period of reflection could see them return to importance, however the election losses have hit their sensible centrists more than the radical right, and it may be quite a period of isolation for them.

I will blog more on US stuff later, but must move on to the other big election...

Yep, Glenrothes!

Take that one Alex Salmond!

Sometimes I despair of democracy, but then something like Glenrothes cheers me up no end (along with the council by-election victories of the same day). It was a great result for the Labour Party, made even sweeter by the arrogance which Salmond had demonstrated in the run-up to the election. Political leaders have to be confident in the run-up, but his overbearing presumption that people would vote for him just because he told them to was very offputting. The margin of the victory was stunning and caught everybody by surprise - I think there was unionist tactical voting against the SNP, but this is something that they should have anticipated.

I don't want this to be a partisan rant - I don't think that Labour holding Glenrothes signifies the end of the SNP or an inevitable Labour victory. In fact, if the Labour Party makes the mistake of reading too much into the result then they could end up in a worse position than if they had been beaten. However, it is a significant result and a sign that the SNP Government is not the invulnerable and eternal entity that some of its members and supporters have allowed themselves to believe. Being in office means that you will start to annoy people and be held accountable - the SNP have encountered this for the first time in Glenrothes. The interesting point will be whether they can take this lesson on board, or whether they dismiss it.

But I'm still not going to forgive Missouri...

Presidential Election 2008 - Prediction Time!

2008-10-30T05:22:00.000-07:00

Well, I am going to be away next week so I thought I would put my neck on the line and predict how the states are going to go in the Presidential election.

My Prediction is Obama to win by 375-163. This is a high prediction and I will explain the States that may prove me wrong at the end.

My Predictions
Alabama - R
Alaska - R
Arizona - R
Arkansas - R
California - D
Colorado - D
Connecticut - D
Delaware - D
District of Columbia - D
Florida - D
Georgia - R
Hawaii - D
Idaho - R
Illinois - D
Indiana - D
Iowa - D
Kansas - R
Louisiana - R
Maine - D
Maryland - D
Massachusetts - D
Michigan - D
Minnesota - D
Mississippi - R
Missouri - D
Montana - R
Nebraska - R
Nevada - D
New Hampshire - D
New Jersey - D
New Mexico - D
New York - D
North Carolina - D
North Dakota - R
Ohio - D
Oklahoma - R
Oregon - D
Pennsylvania - D
Rhode Island - D
South Carolina - R
South Dakota - R
Tennessee - R
Texas - R
Utah - R
Vermont - D
Virginia - D
Washington - D
West Virginia - R
Wisconsin - D
Wyoming - D

Potential Mistakes

This is an optimistic prediction in that I have gone with most of the Toss-Up States (using CNN and Congressional Quarterly as guides) going for Obama - this could be a tricky one with Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina in particular.

Indiana has a long Republican history, but I think that Obama can win it due to his home state being next door and the support of prominant natives of the Hoosier State such as Evan Bayh.

Polling indicates a 2 point lead for McCain in Missouri, however the state is almost infallible in voting with the national winner, so I think this lead will be erased - it's within the margin of error anyway.

North Carolina is probably the biggest risk - it has a long-standing Republican tradition, although on a State level, Democrats hold the Governor's office and 7 of the 13 House Seats. I think that it will be swept up in the Obama fever sweeping the nation, along with seeing a big turn-out from its African American population, and will vote for the Democratic Party nominee - this would be a massive coup for Obama.

Interestingly, there are a couple of States (North Dakota and Montana) which are listed as toss-ups (and with polling indicating a lead for Obama in ND) but which I have placed in the Republican column. Although these States are definitely in play, and potential support for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr may eat into McCain's support in a Nader-esque type manner, I expect both to stick with their Republican leanings.

So, there are my thoughts, I am interested to see the predictions of others - take a risk and guess how the States will fall.

And then come back post-election and laugh at how wrong my predictions were... =)

Conviction Politics

2008-10-30T02:58:00.000-07:00

This is the kind of leadership that you want to see from a politician:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7694739.stm

Nice punch from the Czech PM - obviously big John Prescott has been hiring himself out as a consultant to leaders of other countries!

The Battle of the Bulges

2008-10-29T04:56:00.000-07:00

So the MSPs have given a good doing to the journalists of Scotland, both figuratively and literally.

I refer of course to the Battle of (Little) Hampden; the Rumble in the (Mount Florida) jungle; the Slaying of Wee Chick (honest, I support St Mirren and my visceral dislike of Celtic has nothing to do with my support for the Gers) Young. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7697085.stm)

Now, I've played football with John Park MSP before, and he is not one to take prisoners. Interestingly, in our game (at Scottish Labour conference, Young Labour vs the Elected Reps) it was me who carried out the 'mis-timed' tackle on Mr Park, so maybe it is actually my fault for teaching him new techiniques! (For the record, the reps won 6-1, with me getting our consolation goal. In our defence, we weren't beaten by a bunch of unfit politicians - most of their team should have been playing for Young Labour!)

The fundamental problem is that the match-up of John Park, rooted in the environs of Rosyth, against Chick Young who has been softened by years of the high life on license-payers money, has only one inevitable outcome. Chick Young was never going to come out on top, and is lucky that he is still alive to write complaints about it in the media!

On a final note, the article in the Herald reads like a who's who of the hard core element of the Scottish Labour Party - Park, Redmond, McAveety, Kelly. OK, to be fair Cllr Paul Kelly is a friend of mine and isn't really that hard, but it bodes well for his political career that he is in with such Labour luminaries. Well done Paul! Certainly, it is a clear sign that the Scottish Labour Party shouldn't be messed with - not if you want to retain full use of your limbs anyway...

Scottish Conservatives?

2008-10-27T03:41:00.000-07:00

Had a lunch with a good friend on Thursday who always provokes stimulating discussion. We rambled through a variety of topics, most of which I fully intend to plagiarise for this blog, but one topic that's had me thinking all weekend is the Scottish Conservatives.

Now, I'm not a member of that political party so it may seem a bit strange for me to be discussing the role that they can play in Scottish politics, but I am first and foremost a democrat and democracy works best with a range of viewpoints contributing to the political discussion. I think Scotland needs a strong centre-right perspective in order to best develop policies which can take the country forward - the wider the debate the better the conclusions.

If you listened to the media then you could be forgiven for thinking that Scotland is a completely left-wing country with no expression of right-wing politics anywhere. This impression has been sustained by the dominance of the Labour Party over the past half century, and the recent advent of the SNP who, at least on a surface level (and in specific parts of the country) bill themselves as a centre-left party. Indeed, out of 129 MSPs only 17 come from a recognisable centre-right perspective. Hardly prime ground for the success of a party going against the political consensus.

But this picture doesn't reflect the situation accurately. In much of Scotland - Dumfries & Galloway, the Borders, Edinburgh and the Lothians - there is a significant proportion of the population who hold conservative viewpoints. Within living memory (well, admittedly not my living memory, but it's not completely lost in the mists of history quite yet), the Conservatives were the dominant party in Scotland, with MPs across the country, including industrial urban hubs such as Glasgow.

The biggest problem the Conservatives face is that they are seen as being Thatcherites Who Attack The Scots. I apologise for the crude acronym that this makes, but it is a word that I have heard being applied to them on numerous occasions. Part of Cameron's resurgence has been that people in England have really started to forget Thatcher, and indeed in some cases here rehabilitation has commenced. Not so in Scotland. She possesses a part of the Scottish psyche, a loathing which will not be dropped for many many years - if indeed ever. One only has to look at the feelings that are still held about Edward I or 'Butcher' Cumberland to see that Scots are willing to hold grudges for centuries, even when people haven't actually read the history behind it. The Scottish Conservatives possess a popular leader and some competent MSPs, but they are still seen as Thatcher's weans. This is a major hurdle to try and overcome.

Talk has been made of trying to rename the party in order to escape its history, but this would be unsuccessful and a mistake. Unsuccessful because the public are not so daft that they would be tricked into thinking its a different party, and a mistake because they would be cutting off a long and proud history which may present the roots of a recovery in Scotland.

Because they have been making a recovery. With the continuing dwindling of the Scottish Lib Dems, who appear to be sliding into obscurity, and the struggle of the smaller parties to regain the ground they lost at the 2007 Parliamentary elections, the Conservatives are the main alternative to the SNP and Labour in Scotland. In fact, they are the only major party who are outlining significantly different policy visions for Scotland - their problem is that people don't necessarily like these policies. But still, difference is a selling point in politics, particularly when your main opponets are the governments in Holyrood and Westminster.

The other crucial area for the Conservatives is that they are the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party - this provides them with the opportunity to try and become the 'Defenders of the Union' in the ongoing constitutional wrangles. Labour can argue that it really presents the best defence of the union (I'm still not convinced that Cameron wouldn't sacrifice it if he felt it would assist him) but there is a strong tendency towards separation bubbling below the surface amongst elements of the party - it would only take a Conservative administration at Westminster to see more calls for independence from some Labour members. The Conservatives don't really have this issue and so can claim undivided loyalty to the Union as a selling point.

Underpinning all this has to be a return to a key part of Conservative, and indeed conservative, political policy - pragmatism. For in many ways Thatcherism was a revolution in Conservative history, an upheaval which was not necessarily welcomed by all of the party's members. Thatcherism was a major ideological approach to politics, rooted in a view of the world and a desire to reshape it according to that view. Conservatives for decades had prided themselves as pretty much being above the petty mess of ideology - they were rather rooted in a desire to see the world continue to function successfully. A return to a proper pragmatism could be popular with the public - I don't mean the 'pragmatism' of the Lib Dems, which can at best appear indecisive and at worst fencesitting in the extreme - but rather a principled pragmatism based on a consistent ethic of small government, devolution of power from the centre to the community and empowerment of individuals. This could appeal to a part of the Scottish identity and stand in contrast to much of the consensus which exists at present. Would it see a Conservative administration at Holyrood? Unlikely, however it would see the Conservatives playing an even stronger role in the devolved establishment and a clear representation of a consistent element of Scottish public thought.

The Scottish Parliament needs debate and disagreement - the people of Scotland deserve it. They may not be quite ready for it yet, but the Conservatives are a part of this process - the question is whether they can deliver and break away from the legacy of Thatcher.

Scotland's Shame

2008-10-21T07:06:00.000-07:00

I watched Girls Behind Bars last night, a programme which has been following some of the inmates in Cornton Vale, Scotland's female prison. Quite frankly the whole programme has been completely depressing if informative, with the almost inevitable reoffending; the ease of access to drugs within the prison; and the lack of any sort of hope for the inmates upon release clearly showing how damaged and failing our prison service is.

But last night's sickened me beyond even those failures.

One of the key stories in the episode was about a girl from Aberdeen who was in the prison due to the crime of trying to kill herself. In public. We, as a society had witnessed that she obviously had serious issues and decided that the best course of action was to lock her in a prison.

I think it was Mother Theresa of Calcutta who said that you can judge a society by how it treats its most vulnerable, and this is a stunning indictment of our failure.

This girl should not be in prison. A survivor of childhood sexual abuse, she is need of serious counselling support and therapeutic intervention - and yes, given the seriousness of her situation and self-harm (which was at levels that were terrifying) possibly to be taken into a controlled environment for her own safety while she received support. But to throw her into a prison, with only the half-hearted attempts of a psychiatrist to intervene is criminal - if she was to successfully kill herself in that situation then we as a state would be an accomplice to the act.

The prison guards who had to watch her 24 hours a day and who repeatedly had to remove ligatures from the girl commented on the fact that they knew they should be shocked by the self-harm they were observing, but that they had become immune to it since they see so much of it in their job. How can any support be given to individuals such as this if the very staff, who are not trained for that role anyway, have had their emotional responses deadened and blunted.

We complain about the levels of our prison population, and yet we seem to do little to deal with the epidemic of self-harm and mental illness that is rampant in our prison system. We complain that drugs is the root to the majority of the crime that inmates are in for, and yet drugs are commonplace, easily accessible for the inmates - in fact, some of them become hooked for the first time in prison, cementing their place in the criminal justice system.

And some inmates reoffend in order to get back into prison, where they are safe and surrounded with friends. We offer these inmates no hope and no support when they leave the prison at the end (or long before the end) of their sentences. Being tossed out of a prison where there is access to TV and creature comforts in the rooms; where there is support from friends; where is the comfort of routine; into some hellish bedsit not fit for habitation with no job or prospects - it is quite frankly a miracle if anyone manages to stay off drugs or avoid reoffending in such a situation.

The prison system needs to be reformed, drastically. We need a complete review of the current approach to sentencing, removing imprisonment from crimes where it is not a suitable response. We need to increase funding for counselling services in the prison system, for both inmates and staff in order to support them and try and deal with some of the issues which may contribute to antisocial behaviour. We need to crack down on the dealers of drugs, implementing strict punishments which reflect the parasitical nature of these criminals and their role in damaging society.

As a society we are failing those who need our support and creating problems for ourselves. We need to change this system so that people can escape it rather then be thrown away, lost forever with the daemons of their own past. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime - it's great rhetoric, but we need to see some action to back it up.

Surely he isn't that stupid...

2008-10-21T07:05:00.000-07:00

I refer of course to George Osbourne, Shadow Chancellor in Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. I don't agree with the guy, but surely he couldn't have been so stupid as to solicit donations from a Russian billionaire.

Could he...?

Devolution's Test...

2008-10-15T08:12:00.000-07:00

Getting a bit nippy between Holyrood and Westminster, isn't it!

I mean, we've had the fun fighting since the SNP came to power - it was inevitable under any situation where there were different parties in control, and has been heightened by Salmond's bombast and the need of a minority Government to use rhetoric to keep itself in power. Heck, let's be honest and impartial - it's also been used by a majority Government in Westminster to keep itself in power, often with greater desperation.

The public have pretty much enjoyed this. It's fun to see a Scottish Government 'sticking up for us' even if we don't actually know what it is they are doing. It's making a change from the 'business as usual' of the first two SPs, and keeps political commentators in employment.

Things have changed now though - it's all got a bit serious. Suddenly major Scottish banks are in trouble, the UK economy is hurtling (or at least trickling - never sounds as impressive though) towards recession and the world is on the edge of the abyss. And other apocalyptic signs of poor journalism which fill our media sources like some sort of Biblical plague inflicted on the modern world.

Now, we want our politicians to be, well, politicians. Y'know - boring, serious, dedicated and understanding of the concepts that we as the public do not want to bother with. We don't really have time for the playground politics which parties normally engage in.

Of course, this doesn't stop them from happening. We had a wonderful moment, the kind you tell your grandkids about (poor Baby Cooke hasn't even been born yet and I'm planning the next gen!) where the parties agreed. There was an awkward moment where they all sat round looking at each other with nothing to say, unable to be pleased about their consensus but also scared to break the silence.

Luckily the break came. Not entirely sure who is responsible - I'll leave everyone to make their own partisan accusations - but politics sparked back into life. "We completely support the decision but...", "This is not the time for party politics, however..." et cetera et cetera.

The apocalypse hasn't come, normality has been resumed.

But whilst I love this witty banter as much as the next man/woman/child/animal/inanimate object, it has to be kept under control in the current climate. The public are looking to their politicians to deliver, and are vaguely aware that we're probably in this mess in the first place because of them. Petty arguing between Holyrood and Westminster does neither the Union nor the cause for independence any credit - it instead leads to the situation of a curse on both their houses.

It is important, nay vital, that Holyrood and Westminster, and the different political parties, argue and debate and propose the best ways forward. But now is not the time for name calling and face pulling. Those delights can be saved for the future - for now, we're all in this together.

We're Pregnant! =)

2008-10-14T02:17:00.001-07:00

Yep, Baby Cooke can be announced to the world! Cat and I are ecstatically happy at the news, can't wait to welcome the bambino/a when it arrives - due for April 29th. Which isn't far away at all! *Gulp*

Had the scan yesterday at the Princess Royal Maternity Unit at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen to witness Baby Cooke doing somersaults and waving to the camera - a natural born entertainer if ever I've seen one! =)

The Rock of Stability

2008-10-14T01:40:00.000-07:00

I thought Gordon Brown was great in his press conference yesterday morning.

Two caveats before I proceed. Firstly, I am a fan of Gordon Brown, so admit to not being impartial. Secondly, this whole credit crunch/squeeze/armageddon malarky is rather beyond my basic grasp of economics (which essentially amounts to knowing that 100p=£1) - he therefore could have been talking complete cobblers but it sounded good to me.

Actually, my second caveat contains two crucial observations about the credit crisis (amazing how these things randomly occur!). Firstly, public understanding of the whole situation borders on the non-existent I believe. We, Joe Public, are aware that there is something going on that is 'not good' and that we are likely to be forced to bear the brunt of any mistakes that other people have made. We see the sackings of banking staff (and if we are honest don't cry ourselves to sleep over it) and the collapse of 'financial institutions' (what does that mean - are they banks or not?) which we are lucky if we've ever heard the name of, let alone have money in. So we worry about what the post-apocalyptic future will look like until we are then told that commodity prices will fall due to the crunch...that's a good thing isn't it? It's very confusing.

The second point is that the key issue of Gordon Brown's dramatic intervention wasn't really the actions he took or the money he invested, although they have a vital role to play in freeing up credit and lending. No, what was key was restoring confidence in the markets, making the financial experts feel that it was safe for them to keep doing whatever it is that they do.

The rescue of the global economy from this mess is psychological in nature. What is needed, and what the global bounce in stockmarkets is indicating worked (at least for just now), is a collective feel good factor, which helps everyone be confident enough about spending and lending. I found it hard to believe how much human psychological fraility comes into play in the global economic market - I had believed the free market rhetoric about the 'invisible hand' and the dog-eat-dog nature of economics, accepting that markets were run according to strict principles of profit and loss, supply and demand with no space for human considerations (hence the problems with exploitation etc).

But this is wrong. Economics is rooted in human confidence and fear, panic and herd mentality. I'm not quite sure whether this reassures me or terrifies me.

Certainly changes need to be made. GB reassured the financial sector that bonuses wouldn't be outlawed - this was probably the root of the immediate bounce in the FTSE. Fine, I don't have a problem with bonuses rewarding hard work and success. But bonuses for when you muck up? The head of Lehman Brothers got millions of $ for destroying his company - I would have done that for a fraction of the price! If I fail in my job, I get sacked and get nothing. Should be the same rules for the Execs I'm afraid - not much of a free market if there are not punishments for failure alongside the numerous rewards for success. The current situation with failure not being a problem mean that the incentives for risk taking are overwhelming - you wouldn't think twice about taking said risks - and I think we are seeing where that kinda behaviour gets us.

So we the taxpayers of the UK are major stakeholders in RBS, HBOS and Lloyds - lets make sure that we are now the ones who get 'value' for our money. This has been a brave and bold intervention by GB, one which if successful may be a root back from the abyss in which he and the Party have been living in. We just need to make sure that the rock of stability doesn't turn out to be a 'Northern' one...

Power to Protect

2008-10-10T02:08:00.000-07:00

Reform Scotland, an independent think tank, yesterday launched a new report called Power to Protect, which explores recommendations for reforming Scotland's justice system in order to make it function more efficiently and successfully. The report is available at http://www.reformscotland.com/index.php/publication/view_details/198/ and I highly recommend it for a read.

It makes some interesting proposals which are argued would improve the workings of the Scottish Justice system, most notably by scrapping sentences under 3 months and by making Procurator Fiscals directly electable by the public, both of which have provoked a response from the media and political commentators.

I personally think that there is much to the report which is to be welcomed and seriously considered. The criminal justice system in Scotland is creaking under the weight of imprisonments, with the prison estate incredibly overcrowded - currently there is an average daily prison population of 7,376 despite the fact that the design capacity of the prison estate is only 6,400 (Power to Protect, p.18). It is obvious that changes need to be made - we cannot fit any more prisoners into the system and new planned prisons in Addiewell and Bishopbriggs will only try and bring it towards parity rather than solving the problem. Kenny MacAskill, the SNP Justice Minister, has already had to concede that prisoners may have to be released early if anything caused a reduction in the prison capacity, a situtation which is a potential disaster in the making, and which strongly undermines public confidence in the justice system.

Part of the problem with the system is that we don't seem to know what purpose our prisons serve. Are they institutions of punishment, rehabilitation or protection for society? Currently it can be argued that their purpose is very muddled - mostly punishment with some unconvincing protection thrown in. Rehabilitation goes out the window when it comes to overcrowded prisons, and is further compounded by short term prison sentences which leave no time for working with prisoners - instead, the time is only useful as a means for encouraging said prisoners to become further entrenched in criminal lifestyles. The main support structures which help to avoid reoffending are family, housing and employment, with rehabilitation training thrown in for good measure. A short term sentence helps to ensure the loss or alienation of the main three supports, with no training made available in the prison - the sentence becomes wasted time and wasted skills.

Scrapping short term sentences under three months would therefore make sense for both cutting the number of unnecessary prisoners and hopefully helping to contribute to avoiding reoffending. I think that this needs to also be coupled with scrapping imprisonment, as much as possible, for fine defaulters and the like - ending up in jail costs the tax payer a huge amount of money for very little return, and as stated above, makes it more likely that the offender will be drawn into other criminal behaviour. If instead the offenders had to undertake punishments which were of value to society (not watered down community service which has no meaning but rather quantifiable work which directly benefits the community who were affected by the criminal behaviour) then they would have an opportunity to sustain their support structures whilst properly repaying their 'debt' to society.

The issue of the election of Procurator Fiscals is a more contentious one, which Richard Baker from the Labour Party has condemned. He is understandably concerned about the politicisation of the service, but I think that if the system was protected from partisanship then the introduction of elections could raise the public accountability of the service. Elections would hopefully force the candidates to explain their ideas for the area in a manner which the public could understand - this isn't a dumbing down but rather an opening up of the process to the wider community. It is certainly a policy which requires consideration and an examination of the implications for the criminal justice system - the US can presumably provide case studies of the system in action.

The final aspect of the report which I want to comment on is in relation to early release. Currently prisoners on shorter term sentences (less than four years) are automatically released after serving half of their term. This is a ridiculous situation - it is not related to good behaviour or participation in educational schemes (as is the case for longer sentence prisoners) and therefore provides absolutely no motivation to prisoners to behave or engage with rehabilitation. If a crime deserves a sentence of four years, then prisoners should serve four years - anything else critically underpins any public confidence in the system and makes a mockery of society's judgement on criminal or undesirable behaviour. At the very least, early release should be directly related to behaviour in the prison and should only be accessible for certain low or no risk crimes - the time off should also still be connected into a period of legitimate community service to ensure that the person is still contributing to society for their crime. So for example, if a prisoner serving a five year sentence for a no risk crime has behaved well in prison and engaged fully with the rehabilitation services, then it may be appropriate for them to be released from prison slightly earlier. However this time would include service to the community rather than just immediate freedom, perhaps utilising new skills developed in prison which benefit society and allow the prisoner to further develop his or her abilities and experience.

Furthermore, we need to ensure that sentences are appropriate to the crime committed and the inherent risks of reoffending. I believe that crimes which are rooted in psychological conditions which are at present 'untreatable' in the sense of eliminating the offender's risk to society (i.e. sexual crimes against children, predatory sexual crimes against adults etc) must lead to the offender being removed from society in order to protect it. Short term sentences which then rely upon the ability of an overworked police force to monitor the offenders place communities in danger and are a disgrace. I am not necessarily suggesting that such crimes should involve imprisonment without release (I can hear the strangled gasps of disgust from liberals everywhere) although the idea is not without its attraction. However, there must be measures put in place which allow the correct screening of offenders and assessment of the level of threat they pose, with a recognition that if there is a legitimate threat then we must respond to it appropriately.

So, as I've said there is a lot in the report which requires attention and serious consideration (I should clarify that the last part of my post about locking up sexual offenders is my own thoughts) and I recommend a read of it. I know that some will dismiss the report as being of the right - the organisation does explore the Broken Windows theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) in other publications, which is a criminology concept which I support, but which is rooted in the right realism school of thought. However, I think that it is important that we take the opportunity to bring together as many different approaches and thoughts on the criminal justice system as possible so that we can meet this critical problem in the best way possible. Reassessment of how the system works is a crucial job and one that we need to undertake now, before we hit a crisis which forces responses upon us.

Engaging Scotland's Ethnic Minority Communities

2008-10-07T06:29:00.000-07:00

This is an article which I wrote for the next edition of the West Dunbartonshire CVS magazine, thought I would post it in case of interest.

----------------------------------

At the last Census carried out in the UK (2001), Ethnic Minority (EM) people made up 2.2% of the Scottish population, a figure which has almost certainly risen in the period since. Yet this population is not adequately represented in the political structures which make decisions on its behalf. At the current time there are 11 elected representatives from traditional EM communities in Scotland – one MP (out of 56), one MSP (out of 129) and 9 councillors (out of 1222). In addition there is not an EM Member of the European Parliament for Scotland (out of seven) and never had been. All of the elected representatives are men, all of them come from either the Pakistani or Indian communities, and eight of them are from Glasgow, meaning that only four of Scotland’s 32 Local Authorities have EM representatives – cities such as Edinburgh, Inverness, Aberdeen and Dundee do not have anyone.

In a research report which CEMVO Scotland is currently undertaking (to be published in early 2009), we have identified the disconnection which exists between many EM people and the democratic process. A majority of respondents to our research do not regularly vote; a tiny proportion are members of political parties or actively engage with their elected representatives; and very few have positive views of either politicians or the democratic structures of which they are members.

Lack of representation plays a key part in this disconnect. If EM members of the public view political structures as “not being open to people like them” then they will be less likely to engage with those structures or to choose to put themselves for election. By not having representatives of EM communities living in their constituencies, democratic bodies miss on out important contributions which those communities can bring to their workings and struggle to truly represent all of their constituents.

So what can be done to try and overcome this democratic deficit? More work must be carried out to increase awareness of how the democratic structures function. At CEMVO as part of the Inclusive Democracy Project we have been undertaking information sessions across the country. To date (we are in year two of a three year project funded by the Electoral Commission) we have interacted with over 1000 EM people across Scotland, working to increase their knowledge of democracy and politics and to empower them to interact in greater depth with the systems. Alongside this knowledge, it is vital that EM people are given the opportunity to meet with their elected representatives, to learn more about what their role is in making decisions on their behalf. A common complaint from the public (and one that is common to all communities, not just minority ones) is that they only hear from politicians when there is an election looming – the rest of the time they are content to hide from public view. Elected representatives must strive to increase their connections with EM communities in the areas that they are elected to serve, so that they can properly represent their interests in the relevant bodies.

Political parties have to increase their outreach work to both encourage EM people to become members, and, crucially, to encourage them to play an active role in the inner workings of the parties that they join. To attend a political party meeting for the first time can be a daunting experience for anyone – to do so in the knowledge that you are likely to be the only EM person present is doubly so. Parties must seek to demonstrate that they want EM people to be members, and to support them when they do join so that they can be as active in the party as they wish. Generally politicians are elected as members of political parties (although this is not the only way) and increasing the number of EM people who are members of political parties is one way to increase the number of elected representatives.

EM people and communities also need to be aware that elected representatives are very important. As a representative democracy, our elections in Scotland and the UK are used to choose people who make decisions affecting every aspect of our lives. If EM communities want to ensure that their priorities and voices are heard and contribute to the ongoing debates, then they must be active participants in the system. This does not just involve joining a political party or standing for election, but also includes activities such as contacting elected representatives; taking part in protests; contributing to consultations; and of course, utilising their votes when elections take place.

Participation is important for all the community, minority or otherwise, to ensure that our democratic bodies truly represent the people. By working for greater diversity, we can create vibrant structures which are open to all and which will help to contribute to stronger and more inclusive communities across our country.

The Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations (CEMVO) Scotland is a national intermediary organisation committed to serving the needs of Ethnic Minority communities in Scotland through a programme of social regeneration designed to enable the EM voluntary sector to become self sufficient and sustainable in the long term.

Funded by the Electoral Commission, the Inclusive Democracy Project (IDP) aims to increase knowledge of democracy amongst Scotland’s EM communities through a series of learning and outreach events. With this knowledge, EM people in Scotland will have more confidence in interacting with the democratic system and participating in it, allowing them to play a role in shaping the country’s future.

Confession of an Obama agnostic

2008-10-06T05:03:00.001-07:00

November is looming and McCain's White House bid is failing - surely we are witnessing the end of the Bush/Republican years and the dawning of a bright new world where the Messiah leads us all into peace and prosperity?

Right, better start with a terrible confession - I'm not that fussed about Obama.

There, I've said it. Obamabots across the globe (and beyond - I believe he is the first truly intergalactic super-politician) will have collectively gasped (at exactly the same time in a slightly cultish manner) at my apostasy before returning to chanting the 99 forms of change in a hypnotic manner. It's not that I've sold out to the Dark Side and become a Republican, although I do have a lot of time for John McCain and Sarah Palin is kinda attractive in a school marm/librarian type way (although that's reason enough to vote against her - politics is meant to be reserved for us ugly folk who can't do anything else!). Nope, I wouldn't be voting for them even given the chance. And to be fair, I thought Obama's speech at the Convention was good, outlining some useful policy and fleshing out his 'change' thing a bit more.

It's just that I don't get the whole Obama=Jesus, Buddha and Tony the Tiger rolled into one. I am a Clintonista, so admit to some bias in this. But still, I struggle to see how he is quite so popular. Admittedly coming after Bush would make anyone popular but much of the other adulation seems a bit misguided. Having watched the first Presidential debate, I thought he was passable at best. McCain was terrible too, probably worse, but I thought Obama, for such a gifted speaker, was stilted and hesitant.

Will he win? Yes, barring a major terrorist incident/foreign policy crisis. Do I want him to win? Yeah, but more by default than through a deep rooted conviction that he is the best man for the job. Of course, when in post he would surround himself with talented experts who would make up for his own lack of experience. And certainly his elevation will help to repair some of the damage down to America's image over the past eight years in a manner which McCain couldn't.

But I am not convinced that it will be the Messianic arrival which so many people are expecting. He has limited experience, has done little of note in the Senate and essentially has a primetime career rooted in his speech at the Democratic Convention four years ago (don't get me wrong, it was a nice speech, but...). I've been told he's attractive but don't see it myself - but to be fair, we'd all be more worried if I did! His message is rooted in a desire for change - a very effective tool for beating Hillary in the primaries and which has helped to set the tone for the general election. However, it is still rather unclear quite what this 'change' means, other than a change from one political party to another. He is proud of his bipartisan work, which is greatly to be welcomed, especially if it can actually be sustained in office (remember when GW was all for bipartisan working?). But in reality the bipartisanship is pretty limited, with McCain having at least as good a claim to it as Obama does, if not better. So all in all, not necessarily the most impressive C.V. for becoming the most powerful man on the planet.

With an increase likely in Democratic control of both the Senate and the House, the party will have an incredibly strong chance to set the agenda and implement their policy. But in itself this will give the GOP the chance to fight back, pointing out every liberal utterance from the White House and/or Congress to remotivate a disillusioned core. This election marks a pause for breath in the ongoing fight for the US - the Republicans expect to lose so any gains will be massive shocks. Presuming the shocks are absent, President Obama will enter the White House with a chance to change his country, and by default the world. But his opponents will be waiting, and someone elevated to such a high pedestal has a greater distance to fall.

Demonising our Young People

2008-10-04T03:20:00.000-07:00

Now, I know it's a bit strange in the early days of a new blog by a Labour member to praise a member of another political party, but hey, I'm a bit strange. So, praise where praise is due, I was impressed with Murdo Fraser, the Conservative Deputy Leader during the debate the other day in Holyrood about the SNP's alcohol proposals.

Annabel Goldie remains every non-Tory's favourite Tory (seriously everyone seems to love her, even if they don't agree with her politics - and nothing compares to her sparring with Nicola Sturgeon on QT!) but Murdo Fraser is demonstrating that he is a very able politician. He highlighted the illogical issues with the SNP's proposals, with his point about the soldier returning from active duty being unable to buy champagne to celebrate with his wife being particulalry telling.

To be fair, I don't want to overegg his abilities - the SNP proposal is so lacking in coherence that my cat was able to clearly point to the difficulties with it. We already have so many discrepancies in our system between what young people can do at 16 and 18 - adding in an additional layer of confusion (with the potential for very controversial court cases) merely makes the system even more unworkable. Off licences can obviously present a contributory factor to the alcohol problem in Scotland, but I would be surprised if, amongst young people, they are a bigger contribution than cheap booze in pubs and clubs. Furthermore, to identify young people as being the sole target implies that they are the problem, that older people do not. Of course, the highest alcohol rates seem to be amongst middle class households who can afford to purchase regular alcohol, but to pick on young people is unfair and counterproductive.

However, the SNP Government is right to highlight that it is not enough for opposition parties to merely criticise their proposals (although that is a key part of their role) but that they also need to put forward sensible alternatives. This is a key chance for the other parties, particularly my own Labour Party, to demonstrate that they have coherent and workable policies.

I believe that we need to target our young people as a key part of the strategy, but not by demonising them. Rather we need to increase education about alcohol and, crucially, education which removes the mysterious allure of alcohol for young people. It is not appropriate to just point out potential difficulties and medical issues - these not only don't put people off everytime but also appear hypocritical to young people. I like alcohol, I drink wine, beer and various other things and enjoy doing so, as do many other healthy people. Alcohol in itself is not 'bad' - it is the problems of dependency that are to be countered. Much of it is a bit of a cliche, the attitude towards alcohol on the Continent has much to recommend it. There alcohol is seen as something to be enjoyed, with children given watered down glasses of wine at early ages. This demystifies alcohol, so that is less of a sign of rebellion to be consumed in massive quantities, and more just another pleasure to be enjoyed.

But we also need to work with society in general to break alcohol's hold on many of our communities. Whilst, as I said above, alcohol can be something to be enjoyed, it is also a drug with destructive capabilities. We need to work to clarify this is the public's mind, so that they are aware of the potential hazards of alcoholic addiction. We need to work to publicise the stories of people who have had alcohol addiction, and also to publicise the resources of various charities and organisations which exist to support those who may have difficulties.

Realise that time is flying by now, so will have to head. Will try and return to this issue later - but feel free to share your thoughts with me. Alcohol is a massive problem for Scotland and this is an issue which all the parties have to discuss and overcome.

Oh Mandy...

2008-10-03T12:19:00.000-07:00

So the Prince of Darkness has returned, the New Labour project is renewed and I hear Tony Blair is to be announced tomorrow as the new Deputy Prime Minister...

Well, let's not get too carried away. Mandy's return may be an amazing decision, one which puts us back on the road to recovery. It may be a disaster, the final straw which confirms our removal from Government. But more likely, it will be forgotten about in a week or so, a la Comrade Digby.

The point is, Mandy's return is a fantastic way for GB to claim the news headlines. We (well at least anyone who was sad enough to follow such things) had been subjected to the usual hacks who happily informed us exactly what was going to happen in this reshuffle - Gordon could not do anything to shock them. Except of course he could, and did.

Mandelson, along with Margaret Beckett's return, brings some much needed experience to the Cabinet. GB's speech to Conference was well received, and the comment about not needing a novice at this point did seem to hit some chords with the public. Election winner? No, but enough to at least reverse some of the difficulties which the Government was experiencing, demonstrating that it was possible for Labour to pull back some polling points and for the Conservatives to actively win the election rather than just waiting for us to give it to them. I applauded GB's Cabinet which he put together - the promotion of people such as Jacqui Smith to such a crucial brief was a masterstroke - however, it did leave itself open to accusations of being rather lightweight. The reshuffle today (and let's not forget that there will probably be a bigger one next year) strengthened the Cabinet's collective experience and there is no doubt that Mandy briungs some major strengths to his brief, particularly given his time in the EU. Furthermore, it demonstrates a welcome (and hopefully permanent) end to their rift and a demonstration to the public that we can work together as a party.

Of course, his appointment also brings potential pit falls. Having to resign twice from Government is hardly the pinnacle of political achievement and doesn't help alleviate allegations of sleaze on our behalf. The return of such a prominent figure from the TB years can be seen as an example of a lack of ideas in GB's Government and/or a last desperate attempt to hold on to power by using previous success. And of course it really gets the left of the Party boiling with anger!

Personally, I believe that he will be a successful Business Secretary but his arrival will not win or lose the next election. What I hope it indicates is that GB is taking the fight to the Tories, working to overcome his own rifts with some key players in the Party and putting together a strong and coherent plan for Government which will demonstrate to the people of the UK that he is the man to continue leading our country. We will have to wait and see how that pans out...

In cyberspace, no one cares if you scream...

2008-10-03T05:20:00.000-07:00

Blogging, the last refuge of the person with too much time and not enough proper hobbies.

I've tried this malarky before, but my blogs were so sporadic that their brilliance slipped through the cracks. Well, that's what I tell myself - the reality is of course that in a super saturated environment, yet another well-meaning blog is lost in the multitude.

So why start again?

Well, I am passionate about politics, and I believe that it is important to work actively on that passion. Cyberspace provides a good opportunity to meet and debate with a number of people, some who share your views, many who disagree and an even bigger number who are just plain bonkers. I want to try and share some of my thoughts with those who might be interested, leaving myself open to challenges and disagreement in order to improve my own political knowledge and coherence.

Who am I, I hear you all asking. (Anyone?) Well, my name is Jamie Cooke and I live in God's own city of Glasgow. I work in the field of democratic education (seriously, it's more fun than it sounds! Well, for me anyway - I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of the participants!) encouraging greater knowledge and participation amongst Ethnic Minority communities in Scotland. Oh, and I'm a Labour Party activist.

Yep, the one person who is actually reading this has just given up, haven't you? Please don't go, I'm not all bad. My Labour Party activism is rooted in my desire to make the world a better place and improve chances for all - surely we can agree on the aims if not on the means? As well as being active in Labour, I am a member of the Fabian Society, the Henry Jackson Society and the Electoral Reform Society - quite an eclectic mix, I'm sure you would agree. I feel I have a broad approach to politics, believing that it is important to explore the ideas of political opponents - just because they are in a different party doesn't mean they don't have any decent ideas that I can stea...I mean implement.

My intention for this blog is to try and use it as an opportunity to talk about politics, democracy, citizenship and much much more. Of course, the devil is in the detail and it may well turn out that nobody reads/I get bored and it goes the way of so many other blogs. However, I am keen to try and stick it this time. I've chosen the title because I will try and talk a lot about Scottish politics - I believe in the Union, but I also believe that there is a lot of important work going on in Scotland which doesn't always make it into the consciousness of the Westminster Village elite. I'm sure plenty of other topics will come along (for example the US Presidency etc) but hopefully we'll manage to explore some Scottish topics.

Anyways, I should really stop typing now. If anyone does read this, feel free to say hi, introduce yourself, bookmark me or anything that may demonstrate that I am not alone in this big bad world.

Till next we meet

Jamie