Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

Who does David Cameron want to win the Holyrood election?

Feb 22

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Westminster | 25 Comments

There is only one form of answer that David Cameron would realistically give to the question: ‘Who do you want to win the 2011 Holyrood election?’ and it would go something like this:

‘We are working very hard to make sure that Annabel Goldie has a strong bloc of Conservative MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, arguing in favour of the United Kingdom, arguing in favour of keeping household bills down, arguing for more police numbers and making sure some of the ballyhoo that we’ve seen over the past four years is not repeated’.

Well, ok, he’s not going to use a silly word like that. What does ‘bloc’ mean anyway?

For the viewers watching at home, they would unreasonably but understandably be hoping for a single answer – either ‘SNP’ or ‘Labour’.

Tavish, Annabel and Patrick are going to be asked this question of who they want to be the biggest party time and time again up to May 5th and they are well within their rights not to say either way.

They may well have formed a view and there is surely no doubt that the Prime Minister certainly has. So who does Dave want? Labour or SNP? Let’s look at the options shall we….

DavidCameron4SNP

Without wishing to invite the tired accusations of Tartan Tory, it is quite patently the case that Alex Salmond and David Cameron get on with each other rather well. The relationship between the two posts has certainly surely improved since Gordon Brown vacated Number 10, a period that included a whole year elapsing before the two leaders were in contact.

The calls made directly by Salmond to Cameron since the General Election include payment of the Fossil Fuel Levy, borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament, a fuel duty regulator, capital acceleration for budget spending and Barnett consequentials from spending on the 2012 Olympics. There seems to be an implicit understanding of ‘some you win and some you lose’ around these demands, seemingly accepted with a hearty degree of respect on both sides, despite the attention-grabbing rhetoric delivered for the media headlines.

So there is a healthy, combative working relationship in place between current FM and PM but what of the thorny issue of independence? David Cameron claims to have the union jack stamped onto his insides like a stick of rock which surely rubs awkwardly against a First Minister whose main objective is to break up the United Kingdom?

Well, so far it doesn’t seem to be a problem. David Cameron is somewhat ‘above the fray’ in terms of constitutional affairs, leaving such issues to the Liberal Democrat body armour that he fashioned around his party. Alex Salmond’s main aim is to ensure the voting Scottish public is, at some point (and preferably on the day of any referendum), in favour of Scottish independence to the tune of 50.01% of turnout. That Scotland-focussed aim doesn’t really affect Cameron and his Scottish Conservative MPs. Sorry, MP. Consequently, there is no head-on collision between the two leaders. Two polar opposite views are not crossing paths and, so, not causing problems.

I would wager that the highly unlikely prospect of Cornish independence causes more headaches for David Cameron than Scottish independence does as there are more seats in the South West of the UK that the Conservatives can realistically win in 2015 than there are in the whole of Scotland.

I honestly believe there would be no hidden grimace nor silent grinding of teeth if the Prime Minister had to phone up Alex Salmond and congratulate him on a second term on May 7th.

DavidCameron4Labour

When Scottish Labour shared power at Holyrood with the Lib Dems from 1999 to 2007 there was very little discord with the, admittedly Labour, UK Government.

The Conservatives may, quite reasonably, be concerned at the prospect of being attacked by their main opposition rivals from two angles and balk at the prospect of Ed Miliband and Iain Gray being able to coordinate policy and party message with the not inconsiderable Westminster and Holyrood resources that they would have available to them.

That said, Ed Miliband has endured a timid (if not quite torrid) start to this tenure as Labour leader. Ed hit the ground sauntering and, on current evidence, there is a very high likelihood that Iain Gray would hit the ground dawdling given the lack of policy he has ready to implement and the apparent power struggle at the top of his party. David Cameron would arguably welcome having leaders that are perceived as anonymous by the Great British public across the Chamber in Westminster and at the helm in Holyrood.

In terms of policy, and independence to one side, there is probably little to choose between Labour and the SNP with regard to direct impact on the UK coalition. Both parties will complain that spending is being cut too sharply and that changes to health and education south of the border have a significant impact on Scotland as a nation that does not have the public appetite to turn GPs into accountants, quasi-privatise the NHS and charge students the earth just to go to university.

Indeed, the main concern for David Cameron in terms of the Scottish Parliament election result is what the irascible Liberal Democrats will do next. A formal coalition with the SNP or Labour in Scotland while there is a formal coalition with the Conservatives in London is surely a nightmare scenario for the Prime Minister. A tantalising thought for those of us who believe the Lib Dems sold out but surely an unworkable situation in the medium to long term nonetheless.

How the Liberal Democrats can continue to operate as a single entity while implementing contradictory policies either side of the border is beyond me. And how the coalition can continue if the Liberal Democrats were to finally sink under the weight of its own impossibly duplicitous political dexterity is anyone’s guess.
For those reasons, of which Clegg and Cameron are surely acutely aware, it is surely not possible for a Holyrood coalition to work from 2011 in any conceivable way. The Conservatives will continue to be rebuffed, the Greens will continue to be too small in number and the Lib Dems as coalition partners will quite simply be too problematic a consideration for their London leaders’ tastes.

May 2011 will see a single winner, a minority Government under one single party’s control and David Cameron must have a preference in mind. Broadly speaking, one has to think that the Prime Minister has not had too many sleepless nights over the fact that a Nationalist is currently the First Minister of Scotland and perhaps, just perhaps, David is thinking that it is a case of ‘better the Nationalist you know rather than the Unionist you don’t’.

Polls apart

Feb 19

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Holyrood | 16 Comments

First Minister Alex Salmond has made it clear that he is open to the idea of the 2015 election being pushed back by a year to avoid a clash with Westminster. One could argue that he has the small matter of a 2011 election to get out of the way before contemplating four years hence but it is a fine opportunity, well
taken, to look First Ministerial as this election period rolls on.

There is of course a second solution to the problem of a UK election being held on the same day as a Scottish election – holding the UK one earlier.

Five year terms were in neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Democrat manifesto and the UK is a country that is used to four year terms. Why should changes to our democracy only ever emanate from tawdry convenience rather than the strength of an argument, backed by a public mandate? AV is not the only ‘miserable little compromise’ that the coalition is suddenly in favour of and the only discernible mandate is the shuffling silence from a disengaged public.

The Liberal Democrats wanted fixed terms to rid Prime Minister’s of the power to call a General Election whenever he/she liked but David Cameron preferred five years in the top job rather than four so that we had more time to grudgingly accept the cuts before the next election so here we are, five year fixed terms and everyone has to adjust accordingly.

The simple problem is that five years is too long for the public not to
have a say, particularly as we are movin towards a system where Governments are judged on their past term rather than deliver on promises made during the campaign. 2005-10 term saw changes in leader for all of the main parties, a financial crisis and a rapid demotion of the defining issue of 2005 – the Iraq War.

There was a tangible need for an election in Brown’s dithering fifth and final year and it’s not easy to imagine the same being the case in 2014, 2019 and beyond but the problem of course is that the people don’t care either way. You don’t win votes by talking about how long Parliaments should be and you clearly won’t face protests for selfishly tinkering with the constitutional status quo, so why not act in naked self-interest if you can get away with it?

It would be crude to prolong Malc’s comparison and suggest that the UK’s diminishing democracy coupled with Egypt & co’s capturing of it includes our move from four year terms to five year terms but there is a public carelessness at play here that is, if not dangerous, at least irresponsible.

Clegg and Cameron got their way, Holyrood and Wales are having to adjust accordingly and noone else seems to really care. I guess for those of us who still hanker for four year terms and can’t bring themselves to vote No to AV we’ll just have to hope that the coalition comes unstuck in another way – a Lib Dem wipeout in May perhaps.

Ae fond vote and then we sever

Feb 14

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 4 Comments

Valentine’s Day is the most curious of scams. Couples that don’t know how to spread their love evenly and spontaneously throughout the year instead fall into the ‘Cards Galore’ trap and shower their one and only with the same cards, teddy bears and chocolates that people up and down the country are also purchasing. Rows upon rows of tables-for-two in restaurant after restaurant, synchronised staring into those special someones’ eyes. Are they one in a million or just another sucker trying to quantify their feelings with £££ signs?

Anyway, relationships exist not just within the narrow, shallow parameters of Valentine’s Day that I snort my derision at (and will pay a heavy price for later! (not really)). A relationship exists between public and Government. Honeymoon periods move on to ‘it’s complicated’ until suddenly you’re living completely separate lives just waiting for the next smiling buffoon promising the earth to come along.

We don’t help ourselves either. How many couples have a long comfortable time together, break up, go their separate ways for a while and then the pangs hit, realisation sets in and before you know it you are back together for good. It seems to be part of human nature. We quibble, we nitpick, we pontificate as the three or four year itch strikes, despite the person in front of us being quite simply, and unromantically realistically, as good as it gets.

We wonder if this really is the one despite them ticking all the boxes and allow ourselves to look elsewhere, the demons teetering us closer to the tantalising prospect of someone new, or maybe someone old, the calmer, sensible angels roughly pushed to one side. We panic, go back to our old love, what we know, what we’ve always known, that relationship that became so tired and lacking in passion but we know it, it’s easy and that counts for something, somehow.

And sometimes in love and politics you have to be burned twice before you know where you stand and who you should be standing with. In following its heart rather than its head with Labour, will Scotland be putting its fingers into the fire when deep down we should really know better?

I can’t imagine Alex Salmond wants roses or cards or teddy bears or chocolate. Ok, he might want the chocolate but he will want us to think what these past four years have meant. Would you trade them in if you could?

Remember saving the A&E departments? Remembering scrapping tolls? Remember the first Council Tax freeze? That was a good day. Oh, remember James MacFadden’s wonder goal against France?

Acht, well, whatever you decide to do, we’ll always have Paris.

Can the Greens double up in Lothians?

Feb 10

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Holyrood | 47 Comments

The closest that the Greens have to a heartland in Scotland is arguably Edinburgh. Home to Farmer’s Markets,

Share this:

The new armchair supporter

Feb 8

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood | 37 Comments

A guest post today from superstar anonymous blogger Red Fox. No, you will find out no more.. but it ain’t Colin Fox, that much I guarantee.

Hamster WarsA few years ago, I attended a football match that put me off the live game forever. The thuggish atmosphere, pathetic name calling and aggression of everyone around me were more than I could be bothered with.

For a while now I’ve felt the same about FMQs – the weekly showdown where, in theory, MSPs are given the opportunity openly to call the First Minister to account on matters of policy and legislation. In reality it’s nothing of the kind. I’m not going to claim that there was ever a golden age of FMQs – but recently it has degenerated into an ugly mash-up of every dodgy leaflet the LibDems ever produced, every ‘blame London’ line the SNP has ever taken and every bitter resentment ever uttered by a Labour Party that still hasn’t learned the lessons of the last Scottish Parliament or Westminster elections. The Greens rarely even get a question and most of the 30 minutes is eaten up by the four main party leaders having a squabble.

Things feel like they’ve gotten worse in the past five years, based partly on Alex Salmond’s return to the front bench at Holyrood. He didn’t arrive alone, but brought with him a Westminster culture of jeering and finger jabbing that some of us all hoped we’d be freed from when we imagined our Scottish Parliament with its founding principles of openness, accountability, power sharing and equal opportunities. Instead we’ve created a weak replica of the Commons, without any of the good bits. I can only wonder if an independent Scotland would similarly adopt all the worst aspects of the union and forget to do anything worthwhile.

It can’t all be placed at Alex Salmond’s door though. The Labour Party’s horror at it’s rejection from its “rightful place” at the heart of Scottish politics has fostered an embittered, accusatory attitude among many of their MSPs, rather than a calling-to-account questioning one. We’re seeing the kind of tribalism between the SNP and the Labour Party that’s traditionally been reserved for their dealings with the Tories.

It’s often said that you can’t – or shouldn’t – have a Parliament where members don’t have the right to question the leader of the government. However, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of point in having the right to ask a question if you don’t have the right to get an answer to that question. Or, if instead of asking a question, you choose instead to sling accusations and soundbites.

In 2003 FMQs was moved from its 3.10pm slot to its current timing at noon. One of the reasons cited was that it would allow school parties to watch FMQs. I’d rather that school children were actually able to see a real debate taking place about substantive points on policy. Not the lowest form of politics, which recently saw the First Minister describe Labour leader Iain Gray of being “schizophrenic.” That’s not the kind of scene I’d want my kid subjected to during their school day. How long is it going to be before we witness the same kind of behaviour at Holyrood as we do at Westminster; women routinely harassed and, just last week, a Tory MP who has cerebral palsy complaining that Labour MPs had mocked his condition during his speech with exaggerated facial gestures.

For now I’ll watch the weekly bunfight the same way that I watch any football that I see – on a screen, at a distance from any live action. But at least sometimes football can be impressive. I can’t remember the last time I saw anything to be impressed by at FMQs.