Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

What will the “PM Cameron effect” be for the Tories in Scotland?

Sep 13

Posted by Malc in Holyrood, Parties | 1 Comment

The “Cameron Effect” seemed to work for the Tories on a UK-wide level, delivering gains in England and Wales, and David Cameron into Downing Street, albeit in coalition and not, as he had intended, with a Conservative majority.  However the Tories struggled once again in Scotland, holding onto the only seat they had won in 2005 and winning nothing else.  In short, the Cameron effect stretched only as far as Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and no further.

But, David Cameron is now Prime Minister.  So what impact will his Prime Ministerial role have upon Conservative fortunes in Scotland?  Will the slump that saw the party wiped out in 1997 and 2001 continue?  Or will a youthful Tory PM – with a new-born child in Downing Street – be the catalyst for Scotland to fall back in love (or at least, fall back into liking/ tolerate) with the Tories?

I think in some senses it is too early to tell – and that might be as much to do with time as it is to do with the cuts agenda.  David Cameron – and to an extent, George Osbourne – were smart enough to let the devolved administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff make their cuts now or defer them until next year, with both deferring (which was equally smart – it means that incoming administrations in May 2011 will have to deal with the fall-out).  So, in that respect, the full force of cuts won’t really be felt until next year – certainly in Scotland and Wales.

That, in turn, allows the Scottish Conservatives to campaign in May with a positive – their (relatively popular) man in government at Westminster without the focus on cuts, cuts and cuts.  On the other hand, Scots have tended to be more suspicious of the style over substance approach (even though we delivered Tony Blair a huge majority of Scottish MPs) and Cameron’s Eton background may not appeal to everyone.  Equally, while I – and I think, most commentators – have been fairly impressed with the way the Tories have gone about their business at Holyrood (engaging in budget debates, being constructive in opposition to a minority administration) there is a sense that they seem tired and in need of fresh impetus.  Perhaps the fact that they are in government at UK level will breathe new life into them at Holyrood, but I’m not convinced.

A Scottish Conservative yesterday...

I know Jeff has written in the past about the need for leadership change within the Scottish Tories.  While I really like Annabel Goldie and think she has taken the Scottish Conservatives further than I thought she could, I’m beginning to agree with him.  Nothing against Ms Goldie, but I think the party need a fresh look – and a change.  Several of the old guard – Bill Aitken, Ted Brocklebank – have already announced their retirement, though in contrast, Nanette Milne (68, Aberdeenshire West), Mary Scanlon (62, Inverness & Nairn) and Jamie McGrigor (60, Argyll & Bute) will all be standing in May and at least two of them are likely to return on regional lists.

So new blood is required.  I think the days are gone when the term “young Conservative” was seen as a oxymoron.  And perhaps that has been the impact of the Cameron effect.  However, the term “Scottish Conservative” looks like it is becoming like the lesser-spotted dodo.  If PM Cameron is to have an impact on the Tories in Scotland, some combination of the two – the youth and the Scottish – will have to emerge.  Otherwise, despite their good work in this third term of devolution (and that positive view of the Scottish Tories is debateable) I can see the party losing votes and seats come May.

Tags: , , ,

Scottish Green Party 2011 candidates announced

Sep 9

Posted by James in Holyrood | 14 Comments

With my party hat on, and some party poppers too, I’ve been publicising the first group of Green Holyrood candidates. Here they are, and I’m afraid I will enthuse about them all. I do mean it, though:

Lothians. Robin’s replacement at the top of the Lothians list is a big deal for Greens. It’s the first Parliamentary seat any Green ever won in the UK, and Councillor Alison Johnstone will take on the scarf of responsibility. I’ve known Alison since she first started working for Robin right back at the beginning of devolution, and she’s smart, determined, kind and, above all, normal (unusual across politics, that last one).

We’ve won two here before, so I should also mention her Councillor colleague Steve Burgess second on the list. He’s your classic Green candidate. Scientific background, plays the fiddle, served on Rainbow Warrior II.

Mid Scotland and Fife. Mark Ruskell will be top here again, having served as the region’s Green MSP from 2003-2007. Another comrade from the epic 1999 Green campaign, he proved a natural Parliamentarian from the off, with an eye both for the detail and the big picture. Trivia fact: he was the year below me at school, although we didn’t properly meet until that first Holyrood campaign.

Highlands and Islands. Eleanor Scott has also been reselected top, another of our Magnificent Seven MSPs from last session. Eleanor made the health brief her own in the last session, having specialised in paediatrics, and I’ve never met anyone who didn’t warm to her immediately. She is also the party’s national co-convenor alongside Patrick, ruling the party with an iron rod. It feels wrong being in Parliament without her.

North-east. Councillor Martin Ford is a new entrant at number one here, and deserves a little more introduction. Martin made his name internationally as the man who stood up to Donald Trump over Menie. Mr Trump’s alleged billions met Martin’s definite principles and lost before skullduggery and machinations by his former Lib Dem colleagues came into play. I’ve worked with Martin since he joined the Greens last year, and he will be an excellent candidate and an excellent MSP too. Made out of pure integrity, he also knows how the media works, and is one of the shrewdest political campaigners I’ve ever met.

Central. Kirsten Robb is top for us here again, which wasn’t a massive surprise given her hard work and strong media presence. She’s another proper community activist, a fairtrade campaigner, and also has great media sense. Her local, the EK News, had a page lead of her with her new baby not that long ago. Not bad before she’d even been reselected. Determined, passionate on the issues, and would be a real asset to Holyrood.

Glasgow. A young man you may have heard of got himself reselected: Patrick Harvie. Please bear in mind he pays me to represent him, but if I could afford it, I’d do it for nothing. There can’t be many people who encourage the boss to kip on their sofa when he’s through, but I do like those nights set the world to rights.

Over the eight years he’s been at Holyrood Patrick’s become widely accepted as one of the Chamber’s true stars, as well as a natural in the Newsnight hotseat. We normally agree, and when we don’t it’s normally because he’s right. If it wasn’t against party policy, I’d clone him a couple of times. All three would have pretty busy diaries.

We’re still selecting, by the way, and West and South will follow.

Tags: , ,

Advice for the Labour at heart

Sep 8

Posted by Malc in Holyrood, Parties | 6 Comments

If they trusted him, WWTD would be the new motto of the Labour party:  What Would Tony Do?

Yeah, maybe not.  But as more information seeps into the public domain about the premiership of Tony Blair (I’ve just finished Mandelson’s memoir – which paints a particularly bad picture of Gordon Brown) Labour are once again at a turning point.  They are out of office – a situation not unknown to them – and, once again, they are considering a lurch to the left.  The problem for them here is twofold:  historically (1983) this was a disaster and the country is not where they think they need to go.  So a lurch to the left would probably have a similar disastrous outcome to that of 1983.

Ignoring the UK level issue at the moment and turning attention to Scotland, the situation is less critical in terms of policy programme but more so in terms of personality.  At least with the leadership contest for the UK party, Labour have an opportunity to fill the power vacuum left at the top of the tree.  In Scotland, that vacuum remains and, undoubtedly, needs to be dealt with.

Prior to their defeat in May, Labour effectively had three leaders in Scotland.  The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, as leader of Labour party, was constitutionally at least, leader of (what is known by name only) as Scottish Labour.  In order not to elevate the SNP First Minister to his level, the Prime Minister appointed Jim Murphy as Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with him for the UK Government – effectively becoming de facto leader of Scottish Labour in the process.  And finally, of least importance to the internal workings of the Labour Party but probably most prominent when it came to devolved politics, we have Iain Gray, leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament, to give his full title.  That was prior to the election.

Now we have a situation where Labour don’t have a leader at UK level (which removes them from the equation).  They also don’t have a Secretary of State for Scotland – being out of power, they have a Shadow Sec State, which is simply not as powerful.  I can’t see the First Minister calling Jim Murphy all that often now.  Iain Gray is still in position of course, but here’s the issue:  his remit only stretches as far as his MSPs.  Of course they can work out policy for the Scottish Parliament in devolved areas (although I think – but I’m not sure – that if it differs substantially from UK Labour policy, it has to be ratified by their NEC) but that’s it.  He has no control over Labour’s substantial group of Scottish MPs.

I think it is fair to say that Iain Gray has not exactly set the heather alight as leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament.  That’s not a criticism as such, merely an observation.  Time and again at FMQs he has barely grazed the First Minister (though on one or two occasions he has landed a punch, albeit one which tends to have been fairly easily parried).  And outside of Holyrood he has tended to be overshadowed by his Westminster colleagues.  And even in the four months that Labour have been out of power, he has not really come forward and owned the Labour agenda in Scotland.

I called this post “advice” for a reason… but I know those who are Labour-minded will not like it.  Iain Gray and Scottish Labour have to assert their independence (although they probably shouldn’t use the word independence).  Eleven years after devolution began it is time that the party north of the border – and its leader – took responsibility for their own actions and stopped deferring to the UK party.  I think if they do so – if they really are allowed to separate, or at least become a more “federally” organised party, like the Lib Dems – then they will be much better equipped to present themselves as a party which is in direct competition to the SNP in fighting for particularly Scottish interests.  I realise that Scottish MPs are unlikely to accept a ‘mere’ MSP as their leader, but this is a fight that Scottish Labour MSPs have to take on – and win.  Otherwise I really can’t see how the public will view them as anything other than proxies for UK Labour.

That, I think is the biggest challenge for Labour before next May’s Scottish Parliament election – make the Scottish party more Scottish internally, and reap the rewards of it electorally.  It won’t be easy, but that which is necessary for success never is.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Is an unholy alliance the divine intervention that SNP and Tories need?

Sep 7

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Parties | 23 Comments

In the previous post Malc suggested the “utter madness” of a grand coalition between bitter foes, the SNP and Labour, but pointed out reasons why it may be beneficial for both sides. To my mind, it is simply impossible. There is no love lost between the two parties and the visceral hatred that does exist is an insurmountable barrier, a barrier all the more strange as the two parties are not really so dissimilar. Perhaps opposites attract after all.

With that in mind, I’m going to go one better than Malc’s ‘crazy concept’ of an SNP/Labour coalition and that is to suggest an SNP/Conservative coalition. Yes, that’s right, thinking the unthinkable but you can call me names and throw things at the end but please hear me out.

For a start, the cuts are on their way, there’s no avoiding that so, if you can’t beat them, join them. The SNP could even use the Tories as a shield in the same way that the Tories are using the Lib Dems as a shield down south. Imagine putting Annabel Goldie up to bat to defend health cuts against a baying media scrum.

And hey, let’s be honest, the two parties get on very well indeed, arguably the best relationship among the four main parties. At the top, Annabel Goldie and Alex Salmond do not enjoy a working relationship, which could be a problem, but I envisage Annabel calling it a day at the next election, if the electorate do not decide to call it a day for her. Whichever of the young Tory turks were to take over, I would imagine there would be enough personal chemistry between the two parties for a stable Government to be formed, something along the following lines:

Alex Salmond – First Minister
Murdo Fraser/Derek Brownlee – Deputy First Minister & Education Secretary
John Swinney – Finance Secretary
Nicola Sturgeon – Health Secretary
Kenny MacAskill – Justice Secretary
Derek Brownlee/Murdo Fraser – Business Secretary
and so on and so forth…

Furthermore, the numbers make this prospect all the more possible if the Lib Dems haemorrhage seats, as current polling and knowledgable talking heads suggests they will do.

Let’s say the election result was:

Labour – 47 seats
SNP – 45 seats
Conservatives – 20 seats
Lib Dems – 10 seats
Greens – 6
BNP – 1

Labour, being the biggest party, unofficially receives the first chance to form a coalition. The Grand Coalition fails to take off (sorry Malc), a coalition with the Conservatives isn’t even entertained and the Lib Dems and Greens don’t offer enough seats. The Conservatives see their ‘Scottish Tory moment’ and let it be known that the SNP can have their referendum if a deal can be reached.

This is where timing would come into it.

An election has just been held so there isn’t another one for four long years, an election that will be taking place at the same time as (perhaps even on the same date as) the Westminster election in May 2015. The SNP will probably suffer in that election for the same reasons as why they suffered this May due to the TV leader debates and being squeezed out of the national spotlight. So, why not go for the ‘all-in’ strategy of an unholy alliance and take the only independence referendum that is open to them?

Sure, many Scots would go absolutely mental, I mean heads would explode kind of thing (not least of which would be Iain Gray himself) but the SNP/Tory administration would have four years to win them round, a philosophy that Nick Clegg has clearly adopted down South.

Ok, there’s the minor issue of the SNP having a clause in its statute book saying that it will not form coalitions with the Conservatives. I admit that would be a problem. However, if that could be erased in a Blair-esque ‘Clause IV moment’ or even an informal deal could be reached on a confidence-and-supply basis, some sort of deal is doable.

The Conservatives need some way back into Scotland’s hearts and the SNP needs some way past the Unionist blockade in order to achieve independence.

Perhaps this unholy alliance could act as divine intervention for both parties.

Coalition: sense or sensitivity?

Sep 7

Posted by Malc in Elections, Holyrood | 16 Comments

Looking forward to May 2011 and the Scottish Parliamentary election, I think the smart money is probably on a minority Labour administration (assuming current poll figures and mentalities within the ‘Scottish’ Labour party – and also a backlash to the lack of a referendum, though I seem to be in the minority in thinking this). Nevertheless, here’s a concept I’m floating, in the main because it seems so crazy: a Labour-SNP administration.

It’s crazy right? I mean, at the grassroots level they hate each other. Their campaigns are aimed at drawing votes from the other, most often in negative slogans and attacks on policies; their representatives have engaged in such Punch-and-Judy politics (see, Foulkes, G. who could not even bring himself to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on her marriage) that you can’t even imagine them sitting next to each other in the canteen never mind around a government table; and, well, they won’t even engage with each other (see budget negotiations 2008, 2009, 2010). They also have the added distraction that at the moment their combined parliamentary representation would total 93 of the 129 seats in Holyrood – 28 more than required for a minimum-winning coalition. A coalition of these two parties on this scale would be utter madness.

But… it’s not like we’ve not seen this before. Remember the 2005 German Federal election? No?  I forget you’re not all geeks like me. Well, it resulted in the first Chancellorship of Angela Merkel. The two largest parties – Merkel’s (Christian Democratic) CDU/ CSU (226) and former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s (Social Democratic) SDP (222) – won 448 of the 614 seats in the Bundestag.  Neither an SDP-Green-PDS (left) nor CDU/CSU-FDP (liberal) coalition was workable, so after some negotiation, the two largest parties formed a coalition which lasted until the 2009 election.

Rhodri Morgan and Ieuan Wyn JonesAlso, in Wales – which I guess is a more similar case – Labour and Plaid Cymru decided on coalition in 2007, despite reservations among their respective memberships and similar tension to that between the SNP and Labour at the grassroots level. Combined, they have a total of 41 of the 60 seats in the National Assembly and have worked together to establish the All-Wales Convention as part of the coalition agreement, as well as leading the charge for a referendum on expanding the powers of the Assembly.

So from the two examples above we can see that a) dominant parties in particular systems can work together and b) Labour can work with nationalists. And a Labour-SNP (or SNP-Labour) coalition would have its advantages. For a start, they could combine to offer a much stronger, united, Scottish voice against the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition at Westminster. Whatever else they are, Labour are pro-devolution (of sorts), and would like the Scottish Parliament to have more powers while the SNP… well, a gradual increase in powers is better than nothing for them. Also, for Labour, this may be their only chance to have meaningful power in the UK for the foreseeable future (opposition beckons at Westminster for a long-ish time while the Welsh Assembly hardly has the levers of power Labour are used to). And both parties are “social democrats” (in loose terms James – don’t batter me for that definition!) so their policy formulations are not too dissimilar.

I know. I know. It’s crazy talk.  This is politics we’re talking about.  The negatives of such a deal would always outweigh the positives. And I guess one thing I should have mentioned about the German case is that the SDP got slaughtered at the next election. So there’s always a big loser. But in so many ways this makes sense. It’s just a shame that ‘sense’ does not always dictate how politics works.

NB – This post was written before James’ post (and, indeed, before the Sunday polls came out) but after Hamish Macdonnell’s Cal Merc piece (which I never read until James’ post cited it).  It was also written before yesterday’s debate on the dropping of the referendum bill, which doesn’t quite render the idea irrelevant, but means it is moving in that direction. It probably also directly answers/ comments on Andrew BOD’s comment on James’ post.

Tags: , ,