A disgrace to the nation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.