Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

What should Labour do?

Sep 14

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood, Parties | 72 Comments

Another no-punches-pulled guest post today, this time from Neil Findlay MSP, who was elected to represent the Lothians for Labour in May. This piece first appeared on The Citizen, the current issue of which is worth it for the cover image alone.

Neil Findlay MSPIt is clear from the post-election analysis that Labour lost across all social classes, regions, genders and minority groups and religions. In short, we were “gubbed”. On policy and presentation we were simply out-thought and out-manoeuvred. Put another way, Labour was “out Laboured” on policy and “out New Laboured” on campaigning. The SNP, on the other hand, constructed a narrative as the protectors of Scotland from the Tory Westminster government, all the while presenting itself as all things to all people and the party of “Scottish Social Democracy” (how does this square with the demand for corporation tax cuts?).

But, the election result brought to a head questions of policy, message, ethos and strategy which had been in need of asking for some time. Considering these questions is fundamental to rebuilding the Labour Party. How we do this is vital. Fads and nicknames should be binned and basic tenets of Labour must be brought back: no more ‘New, Old or Blue Labour’, the ‘Real’ Labour Party must be re-discovered, renewed and revived.

The party has to stop abandoning our traditional supporters in pursuit of the so-called “aspirational middle ground”. We could begin by apologising to both our loyal voters and those who deserted us for getting it so badly wrong. I was always taught that when you do wrong you should own up to your errors, be humble and seek forgiveness before rebuilding your friendship, which will in the end become stronger and more long lasting – we should follow this lesson.

Yet, only 15-16 years ago things were so different. Then Labour appealed to a very broad section of society. In the mid to late 90’s people believed Labour offered a credible alternative to the tired and nasty Tory Party. So how did we go from having broad and cross-society appeal to our current position? The legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan (and other foreign adventures), benefit cuts, the 10p tax fiasco, tuition fees, subservience to the markets and the courting of the super-rich (yes including Murdoch), light touch regulation of the banks and the subsequent banking crisis and the expenses scandals all contributed to the electorate falling out with Labour in the UK. In Scotland, this was compounded by bland, uninspiring and sometimes just silly policies and the perceived control of Scottish Labour by London.

Currently, our public services are under all-out ideological attack from the Tories at Westminster. Labour has to be at the forefront, leading a campaign for an alternative and positive agenda – we have to be seen as the defender of public services; the defender of a decent and civilised society and we need to say what we would do differently. We can do this with our partners in civic society, yes with the third sector who are feeling the brunt of the cuts but most importantly with the Trade Union movement – the greatest ally our party has. In carrying forth this vigorous defence of our public services the party can begin its renewal and the revival of ‘Real Labour’.

As can some solid ideas and principles from the Peoples Charter and Better Way Campaign which will undoubtedly resonate with a Scottish electorate who are currently feeling marginalised, under threat and unjustly treated. These could include:

  • Supporting economic stimulus to attack unemployment – the UK party’s position of “our cuts would be less harsh than the Tories cuts” is not good enough.
  • Investment in the economy to create jobs and stimulate growth can and does work – look at history and we can see how investment not cuts rebuilt the economy, created the NHS and the welfare state after 1945.
  • Oppose privatisation, like the SNP/Lib Dems are proposing in Edinburgh, and say how we would run local government better.
  • Develop – genuinely – co-operative models of public service delivery.
  • Create publicly run renewable energy projects. Rather than cede control to big business (as the SNP is currently doing) we should facilitate community schemes where there is a direct financial benefit distributed to local people.
  • If the council tax is to be frozen, let’s have a freeze for those in the smallest, lowest priced properties but create a new charging structure to increase payments for those at the top of the income scale. Or whisper it – we could look at a (genuine) local income tax based on the principle of progressive taxation – ability to pay – I have never understood why it is good nationally but not locally?

Labour should have no fear of promoting fair progressive taxation and a national clampdown on tax evasion – a Scottish, UK and global scandal. If the SNP want new powers for the Parliament then maybe they would have more credibility if they were banging the door of Downing Street asking for powers to deal with tax evasion.

We should oppose the SNP demands for powers over corporation tax – there is no evidence cutting corporation tax would create growth – Germany has 33% corporation tax, Greece has 20% and Ireland 10%. Question: do we want to be like Germany or Ireland? Answers on the back of a postcard to Mr J Swinney.
Labour has to champion and be prepared to implement major reforms of financial institutions including a Robin Hood tax on speculative transactions. This is morally and financially the right thing to do.

Labour has to promote positive polices like the living wage across the public sector and ensure that contractors are included and we should be evangelical about getting the private sector sign up too.

Labour must reform employment legislation to strengthen workers’ rights and remove fear from employees. And we need to rebuild our relationship with our greatest allies in the Trade Unions, making real efforts to re-engage Trade Unionists in our movement and getting the RMT, the FBU and others back into the party (and Ed, let’s stop listening to the metropolitan spinners and show some maturity and get yourself along to events like the fantastic Durham Miners gala day; you did more harm not turning up than you ever will by being there).

And Labour should have an investigation into high wages in the public and private sectors including the bonus culture of the city – it is our lack of challenge on issues like this this that tarnished our reputation as the party of fairness.

And we should support workers who are resisting redundancies, pension cuts and privatisation as we know it is our people (or our former supporters) who will suffer most.

Considering and then introducing these types of policies would demonstrate the substance, resolve and principles of a newly renewed Labour Party. As would our determination to fight the downgrading and downsizing of our public services, and opposition to the private vultures who see our public services as ripe for harvest. We could show imagination and vision by making the case for new models of public ownership, for the public and by the public, which create conduits of public and community participation and involvement and which sees our people and communities benefit directly. It is these types of ideas and this type of vision which will help the people of Scotland re-connect again with the Labour Party.

Why aren’t the political parties listening?

Sep 13

Posted by The Burd in Holyrood | 56 Comments

Most folk want the Scottish Parliament to have more powers, confirmed in recent polls.  IPSOS Mori’s Scottish Opinion Monitor found that over two thirds want Holyrood to have full fiscal powers, while the Angus Reid poll found that 47% would support devo-max, that is more powers but staying within the UK.

The people are saying loud and clear what they want.  So why aren’t the political parties listening?

Let’s put it another way.  Which political party is offering people devo-max, that is, the Scottish Parliament having control over a wide range of powers but still remaining in the UK?  Eh, that will be none.

Currently, the parties are polarised by extremes.  The SNP advocates full independence, though there are suggestions that it might step back from this and seek an independence lite option.  Such briefings and murmurings have yet – if ever – to be translated into official party policy.

The Scottish Greens also support independence but they don’t make a virtue out of it these days.  And while the Scottish Socialists and Solidarity both advocate it, they are so far below the sightline of Scottish voters, their views are invisible.

All other parties have allowed themselves to be defined by their opposition to independence and/or their adherence to unionism.  Towards the end of the last Parliament, there were signs of shift, in that the Scotland bill committee actually advocated more powers than Calman recommended.  Yet, amendments transferring these powers to Holyrood were slapped down at Westminster.  Is it little wonder that the Scottish people sighed wearily before rejecting them wholesale at the election in May?

One of the most entertaining and enlightening bloggers around right now is Ian Smart.  Smart by name, smart by nature.  In a recent blog, he declared himself a devolutionist and in his highly original, deprecating manner, he gets to the heart of the matter:

But defining devolution is for the devolutionists. Having seen off the Unionists on one flank there is no reason we should cede ground to the nationalists on the other. I am more than a little irritated by the demands of the SNP that we need to develop a different devolved settlement to enable them to put it as a fall back option in their legendary referendum.

And he is absolutely right.  But let’s look at it in a slightly different way.

In recent years, voters have become less thirled to constitutional absolutes and more concerned with what works and what is needed.  The SNP has recognised this and cleaned up in the voting stakes.  By marching in step with people, at a pace of their choosing, by demonstrating flexibility in the route taken, it is currently happy to accept that the journey to independence is a gradual one.  Even the noises off about downgrading the independence offering demonstrates its willingness to allow the Scottish people to lead the way.

The grand plan could still falter.  What if the Scottish people get so far and say no further?  The gradualist approach requires Scotland to reach a tipping point, where taking the final steps to independence become so ridiculously easy, the nation does it without really thinking, wondering all the time what the fuss was about.  What if that does not happen?  What if they look over the precipice and shrink back?

Moreover, at some point, the SNP are going to have to take the lead in this dance, if it wants people to vote for its goal, or even to choose devo-max.  This means setting out the options, what they mean, in all their confounding detail, and taking people with them.

And a further potential problem is what happens if – when – one of the supposedly Unionist parties wakes up and smells the coffee, and abandons unionism in favour of devolutionism.   Again, there are promising signs, what with Murdo Fraser’s declaration of ripping it up and starting again in order to create a new right of centre party that advocates full fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament.  And somewhat ironically, the son of Westminster, Tom Harris, appears closest to getting it among the early contenders for the Scottish Labour leadership.  And there are certainly devolutionists out there, like Ian Smart, who long for this to form a key part of his party’s narrative.

But essentially, the opposition parties are still talking about fighting the referendum campaign in terms of defending the union or making the case for the union.  The response of the ancients in the House of Lords to the Scotland bill demonstrates just how attached they all are to the politics of the past.

They ignore the reality that the Scottish people have moved on and no longer want the status quo.  They want more, considerably more in terms of control and powers over their lives and politics, if recent polls are to be believed.

And the longer they stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to what Scots are saying, the more the SNP can step gaily towards the referendum, and secure independence or at the very least, devo-max, and potentially another term in office.

 

We all live in a nuclear submarine

Sep 11

Posted by James in Defence, Holyrood, Westminster | 31 Comments

Astute before launchThe SNP are an anti-nuclear party, we’re always told. For instance, they’re notionally against civilian nuclear, although Jim Mather was happy in the last session to back an extension of their life in the last session. And opposition to Trident is billed as almost their second touchstone of policy, after the Holy Grail itself. In fact, some have told me that independence is primarily essential because there’s no other way to get Trident out of Scotland’s waters.

So what about nuclear-powered submarines? The Navy’s Clyde base is now expected to be home to 11 of the new reactor-tastic Astute class of sub, up from 5. As Rob Edwards reports today, the safety risks from these subs are growing as the cuts bite. Surely the SNP would be against this move?

In fact, their submission (word doc) to the UK Government’s defence review states “The decision to base the UK Astute class submarines at HMNB Clyde is a welcome one and is likely to see a significant increase in the number of personnel based there. The Scottish Government remains committed to supporting this through consideration of devolved consequences and a partnership approach to planning for example in terms of health and education.”

Seriously? This is about jobs? Each boat has less than a hundred crew, and supposedly costs around £1.3bn, but if you don’t think there are many more hidden costs there I expect you also believe the final cost of an additional Forth road bridge will be just £1.6bn. That’s a job creation scheme? We could have insulated every single home in Scotland for less money than one of these white elephants.

What’s worse, although they’re currently only holding conventional weapons, Lee Willett at the Royal United Services Institute thinks Astute might be the British military’s fallback Trident launch platform of choice. As he puts it, “Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Astute is big enough to carry strategic weapons if required, with the only changes to the hull coming in the form of the modular payloads. Perhaps Astute was designed with this eventuality in mind?“ Either way, SNP Ministers are laying out the welcome mat and apparently not asking any questions.

Obviously you’d expect a Green comment, as the only other anti-nuclear party at Holyrood, and here’s what Patrick had to say:

“The majority of anti-nuclear and anti-war Scots will be shocked to discover that the SNP are making the case on the quiet for more nuclear submarines to come to the Clyde, despite years of posturing in the opposite direction. SNP Ministers are yet again pretending you can have your cake while also eating it, just as they have done on RAF bases. There’s no credible way to combine a nuclear unionism – for the supposed jobs – with an anti-war nationalism designed to keep the activists happy. The truth is that nuclear submarines are exactly as inefficient at creating jobs as they are for defending Scotland, and it’s time the SNP started speaking with one voice on this issue.”

But more alarming for SNP Ministers will be the way the charge against their position has been led by one of their own – Stephen Maxwell, a former vice-chair of the SNP, who Rob quotes as saying: “On its current direction of evolution, SNP’s defence policy threatens to match the level of incoherence already evident in UK policy”, and that his own party’s policy “is clearly inconsistent with its declared policy of making Scotland nuclear-free” and “seriously compromising” the case for independence. That’s despite the official quote in Rob’s story again making that case – that independence is partly about a nuclear-free Scotland.

I bet there’ll be others at Holyrood thinking the same thing, even if most backbenchers are still afraid to speak out against the leadership. The joke is unavoidable – Alex Salmond’s got where he is today with some astute decision-making, but this looks anything but.

Big on growth, short on ambition

Sep 10

Posted by The Burd in Holyrood | 7 Comments

Well, how did I do?  I tried to predict the bills that might feature in the Renewing Scotland:  Programme for Government earlier in the week.  It would appear I allowed my imagination to run riot.  Here was me harking back to a positive, hope-inducing, confidence-building manifesto and picking out the ripest plums.  There I was factoring in that with the shackles of minority government off, the Scottish Government might knock itself out with some big beasts of bills.  Silly me.

This might well be a government programme for economic growth and there are some excellent initiatives coming down the line, but its legislative activity isn’t exactly going to set the heather alight.  But it does tell us a lot about our SNP Government:  here is an administration committed to making things happen without reaching for a prescription in the form of three Stages, some amendments and a debate.  A few big gigs aside, this is a legislative programme which largely tinkers.  And its common theme can be summarised as gradual and incremental shift.

I got five out of sixteen right: minimum alcohol pricing, the rights of children, the budget (but that’s hardly an achievement), police and fire reform, freedom of information amendment.  Mea culpa then and remiss of me to forget that the self-directed support bill didn’t make it through the last Parliament.

This does have a lot of meat on its bones and expect the unions and COSLA to get worked up about the shift in power and control away from agencies and professionals and into the hands of those who use care services.  It is long overdue and as long as it does not focus overly on direct payments as the main method of giving people a say and a budget for their care, but factors in all the other more imaginative, less bureaucratic ways of empowering those who care and those who require care and support, then it will be a fine piece of legislation, that marks a real shift away from the traditional public service model.

And how could I have forgotten about the anti-sectarianism bill, or to give it its Sunday title, Offensive Behaviour at Football bill.  Which in itself is a bit of a misnomer, for it will sweep up other equality strands and behaviour outwith football and even in parallel universes (the internet to you and me) in its wake.  Given that dark forces are rising, as one, to oppose its necessity, this isn’t a sure bet to make it on to the statute books.  Am I the only person bemused by this bill’s ability to unite the Old Firm in perfect harmony?

Another interesting bill is Criminal Cases (Punishment & Review).  It looks technical – and probably is – but it will mark a bit of a power shift away from the courts towards the Criminal Cases Review Commission in terms of appeals.  However, if I was Lord Carloway, who has beavered away at his review since early summer, I’d be a wee bit miffed, for this bill steals a march on some of the issues he was tasked with addressing.

The changes to criminal legal aid are overdue, as are the ones to create a single council to review civil law.  Previously, the practice has been to set up commissions who report at length and are often ignored.  A little rhyme, reason and regularity in monitoring and modernising our civil legal system is to be applauded.   And it’s always seemed a little inequitable that not very well off folk have to contribute to their justice in civil matters, yet all criminal representation has been supported by the public purse.  Though there is a big difference between someone wanting to prevent the use of a right of way and someone defending their innocence against serious charges that might result in the loss of their liberty.  Expect some impassioned debate on this one, not least from the vociferous criminal lawyer brigade.

More justice stuff, with land registration and long leases.  I won’t pretend to understand what the former is about but the latter seems another equitable measure, albeit a small scale attempt to shift – see? – land and property ownership out of the few and into the hands of the many.   And of course there’s the freedom of information amendment –  now this bill will see a bit of a bunfight, I think, with many from outside the Parliament pushing for more far-reaching reforms.

Agricultural holdings will attempt to create more farmers and prevent exorbitant rent rises by landlords.  The Aquaculture and Fisheries bill will no doubt give the Green lobby something to get their teeth into and expect the forces of the establishment and probably our third estate to gnash and wail over the Council tax bill, as it will seek deny absentee landlords and overstretched developers, as well as the rich, their right to clutter up our streets with decaying and desolate properties.  Again, there is a shift here of power and control but this bill could have been – still might end up being – a whole lot more radical.

The bill for the National Library of Scotland involves tweaking and while the Water bill might be pumped up as a big geyser, it is likely to prove a little dry for commentators to get worked up about.

Where will the bunfights occur?  Anywhere a lobby can get organised, but expect some ding dong over police and fire reform, with the unions as prime agitators, and minimum pricing, with the big drinks companies and supermarkets ganging up against MSPs.  If nothing else, it will all generate a lot of headlines and chip papers.

Finally – be still my beating heart – there is the bill to enshrine in law rights for children.  At last, some generational justice.  And while it has been touted as largely uncontroversial, I’m not so sure.  There are plenty out there who would seek to deny children the same rights as others, particularly when this bill is the precursor to a huge shake-up of children’s services.

So, not a lot on the face of it to get excited about, though plenty to work the Justice committee into a lather, this legislative programme might be somewhat lacking in ambition and big flagships, but it demonstrates quintessentially what this Government is all about.  A gradual shifting of the tectonic plates of where power lies in Scotland, and where the SNP wants to lead the country to.

Worst Motion of the Week – Holyrood Hero of the Week

Sep 9

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 14 Comments

I have some good news and I have some bad news.

The good news is that Elaine Smith MSP had a lovely night out at the theatre the other night. The bad news is that she felt the need to share that good news with us via the parliamentary motion process.

This is, hands down, the worst motion of the past week:

Motion S4M-00513 – Elaine Smith ( Coatbridge and Chryston ) ( Scottish Labour ): Dancing Shoes
That the Parliament congratulates the creators of the show, Dancing Shoes, based on the life of former Manchester United footballer, George Best; notes that the musical completed a sell-out month-long run at Belfast’s Grand Opera House in 2010 and is returning for a wider tour; recognises the songwriting talents of Coatbridge’s JJ (Jinky) Gilmour and Belfast’s Pat Gribben, as well as the contribution of playwrights Marie Jones and Martin Lynch; notes that the play is due to be performed at the Pavilion Theatre in Glasgow from 13 to 17 September 2011; recognises that, despite his worldwide success with the Silencers and a successful solo career, Jinky Gilmour still performs at local gigs, including the 2011 Coatbridge St Patrick’s Day festival; considers Dancing Shoes to be a contemporary and exciting musical, and wishes everyone involved all the best for the production.

Where do we go from here? MSPs telling us there was a great show on the TV? That Jedward should win Big Brother? Pointing out somewhere that does a cracking fish supper? There is surely no greater indication that politicians may be running out of things to talk about than bringing pretty mundane pub chat into Holyrood.

It’s not all bad news this week though. We have an exemplary example of what a motion should look like and kicks off our Holyrood Hero of the week series (which will hitherto be typically non-motion based):

S4M-00775 Margaret Mitchell () (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party):
That the Parliament notes with concern the development of waste services in North Lanarkshire; understands that North Lanarkshire is already home to Europe’s largest capacity landfill site as well as four other smaller landfill sites and will be the site of the Drumshangie incinerator which it believes will burn 300,000 tonnes of waste per year; further understands that the approved Drumshangie project is four times the size of the proposed Carnbroe plant and that, if the latter was approved, the two incinerators would have the capacity to burn 450,000 tonnes of waste per year; considers that there are inconsistencies in the criteria for the refusal of the Carnbroe plant and the approval of the Drumshangie incinerator; further considers that a review of the policy regarding waste disposal and incinerators would be welcome with a view to encouraging reuse and recycling as a priority over the construction of incinerators, and welcomes the efforts of local community and organisations such as the North Airdrie Joint Community Group and Greengairs Community Council in supporting recycling and reuse programmes.

Some important concerns are raised here with facts to back them up. This is the type of issue that I’d want MSPs to be looking at in the Chamber, not what happens to be on at the Pavilion Theatre this month…