Archive for category Parties

Tom Harris: Labour’s transition man?

We have a contender.  Maybe even two, if Ken Macintosh’s denial of denying he ever said he won’t be standing turns out, in a roundabout way, to be an intention to stand.  But definitely – he has financial backers apparently! – Tom Harris MP.

If Labour changes its rules to allow an MP to stand for the post of LOLITSP (trademarked @twodoctors).  Or rather Not in the Scottish Parliament.  This electing a new leader malarkey may take a while yet.

But what of the Harris man?  Did he set up Labour Hame as a vehicle for his ambitions?  If he wanted that, he’d have kept up his own blogging venture.  Where’s the stand-out opportunity for a wannabe leader in a collective that allows people to air their views, sensible and otherwise?  Labour Hame – to this reader – seems to be an honest attempt to create an internet space for Labour peeps – and beyond – to have their say and posit ideas and views on the future direction of the party in Scotland.  It’s not necessarily living up to its aims yet but there is some thoughtful stuff being posted.

Is he treating Scotland as sloppy seconds?  Yes, he might have felt a bit sore at being overlooked for Ed’s shadow Cabinet and the switch of his attentions to Scotland may be an attempt to satisfy his ambitions but what politician didn’t have ambition?  In any event, for all the SNP folk making an issue of this, they have a short memory.  Didn’t the SNP insist that all its MPs stand for Holyrood in 1999?  Didn’t Alex Salmond resume the leadership of the party and still stand for Westminster?  Didn’t he actually lead the party while an MP and not an MSP?  As I recall, it all worked out fine.  If it was good enough for the SNP, why not Labour?

As someone who likes to see the best in folk – most of the time – but is still capable of tempering such idealism with the pragmatism gained from years of living and working in and around politics, here’s my take.  Labour has to go into a period of thinking the unthinkable, of doing the previously undo-able if it is ever to turn its electoral fortunes around.  And it needs a transitional leader to do so:  could Tom Harris be that man?

Already, he seems to be gathering potential support from a wide range of sources within the movement.  This would be one of his strengths, the fact that he belongs to no obvious clique or faction.  Very much his own man and perhaps a bit of a loner in fraternal terms, this lack of alignment with this wing or that, might actually allow him to build the necessary coalition of votes across parliamentary groups, members and trade unions.

Tom Harris has never been an orthodox Scottish Labour MP.  A Blairite when everyone else in Scotland was airbrushing the Prime Minister out of existence, he hasn’t exactly been on-message with the Scottish narrative of the last twelve years.  He thinks aloud, which is refreshing actually.  And means he would not shy away from putting stuff out there, realising what others still fail to come to terms with, that Labour has nothing left to lose.

Aidan outlines the purge Labour requires to perform more eloquently than I could.  From his statements and blog pieces since May, Tom Harris appears to have the appetite for reform, and the challenges that brings, while others who are much more establishment Scottish Labour might not be.

He is a natural communicator, at ease on television, radio and in the world of new media.  Which counts for a lot.  Labour does not need a big-hitting parliamentary politician at this stage, to lead the party in an electoral contest.  There ain’t one coming anytime soon.  Next year’s council elections are a write-off;  if they manage to end up with a similar number of councillors as 2007, it will be remarkable.

Scottish Labour needs to reform internally and renew externally over the next few years.  And while there are potential electoral rewards down the line for the party, the leader who drives such change is only really awarded political plaudits with the application of hindsight.  Just ask John Swinney or Neil Kinnock.

A transitional leader has different qualities from one who wins elections.  He/she needs to be capable of making change happen, to be resilient, determined, with a plan and attention to detail, capable of reaching out to a range of disparate voices, particularly to reassure the fretful, of holding the jackets and allowing robust discourse but also applying discipline when and where it is needed.  Keeping the core on side while jettisoning unnecessary membership baggage (if required) and creating space for new supporters.  Establishing a rationale and a definitive purpose that all can unite around – actual policy comes far later.  Modernisation is a big task.

Already Harris has started setting out his stall – more, much more, will be required of him, and other putative leaders.  He has at least started well – first out of the blocks and acknowledging that no change is not an option.  Now all we need is for Ken Macintosh to show his hand and we might even get a debate and a contest.

 

 

Tags: , ,

Tom Harris for leader of Scottish Labour?

Today’s big Scottish political news is undoubtedly the surprise story that Tom Harris has thrown his hat into the ring to be the next Scottish leader of the Labour party, in whatever guise that position will be once Labour has finished its review.

It is a bit of a bolt out of the blue. I mean, where the actual flippityjibbity did that come from?

It is difficult not to immediately suspect that Tom’s new blog Labour Hame was part of the same strategy, to build an online power base of sorts and show that he is helping to shape the debate that will take Scottish Labour beyond their current woes.

It would be churlish not to wish Tom good luck but it would also be dishonest to suggest that I thought he had any chance of winning. There is his somewhat right of centre views on certain topics and, going by his online presence, he certainly seems to go out of his way to avoid talking about issues north of the border. Furthermore, his at times visceral dislike of the SNP will surely count against him. Who can forget Mr Harris’ description of SNP Conference as a “hate fest“?

I suspect, though, the Glasgow South MP is just looking to shake things up and hurry the process along a bit as, as the man said himself: “Iain Gray announced he was standing down in September, which is next week, and I don’t even know if that’s going ahead.” And, to be fair, the announcement does have a ring of ‘I’ll do it if noone else will’ about it. Not overly inspiring though.

In going over the top and forcing Labour to get back on its feet, impatience may well be a virtue. I’d nonetheless suggest not taking the bookies up on Tom winning the contest at whatever odds they end up offering.

Ruth Davidson will be the next Scottish Tory leader

At the risk of giving the Scottish Conservatives far more ether-coverage than they are used to, or they deserve, another blogpost from me on their leadership contest.

So far there isn’t actually a contest, what with Jackson Carlaw MSP, the only one to show his hand. But you read it here first. Ruth Davidson will win.

Reliable sources, as they say, advise that she will stand and that she is garnering support from some of the party’s big guns. Apparently, the constituency party with the most members, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire (John Lamont MSP’s seat), will vote for her. So too will David Mundell MP’s seat, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. Ditto John Scott MSP’s Ayr.

And these three constituencies count for big swathes of the party’s membership. It also indicates that not only does Ms Davidson carry the outgoing leader, Annabel Goldie’s, patronage but support from some of the party’s biggest hitters. In a party of 15 MSPs and 1 MP, she has effectively sewn up a quarter of that high level support. No doubt there are others in the wings too. Struan Stevenson MEP touted her leadership qualities when Malc and I caught up with him in Strasbourg in June (as you do) so there’s another of the party’s elected representatives in her court. And Struan’s a popular figure whose opinion will also count.

Anyone with a geography O/standard grade will have worked out that so far Ms Davidson’s support is from the South of Scotland. Murdo Fraser MSP is also likely to stand and no doubt he will pick up most of his support from his North East – ahem – heartlands. Like Jackson Carlaw, though, he’s tainted. While he has bestrode (bestridden?) this part of Scotland like a colossus, traditionally Tory territory has fallen to the Nats. Like snaw off a dyke, as the FM might, and probably did, say.

During his tenure as Depute Tory leader, his patch has been put through the wringer and turned totally yellow. They don’t count SNP votes anymore in these constituencies, they weigh them. Moreover, there appears to be a bit of a move on in the party to keep Murdo out. And anyone who has ever stood for political election, either internally or externally, knows you care little about why people vote for you, you just want them to vote for you. Ms Davidson therefore will accept such anti-Murdo votes with a gracious smile.

Moreover, Ruth Davidson represents the future face of Scottish Conservatism. Too young to be tainted by Thatcher, she might finally make the break with the past and allow the Tories to turn their fortunes around. Or at least that’s the thinking. Whether or not she will manage it remains to be seen – bigger political Tory beasts than her have tried and failed.

If she becomes leader – and she will, or I’ll eat someone’s hat – the Scottish Conservatives will have the youngest party leader, be the only party in Scotland not only to have a woman at the helm but to do it twice and moreover, elect a lesbian to the position. There are so many ironies in this I don’t know where to start. Progressive Torydom. Even in the Shires. Who knew?

For these and many more reasons, hers will be a remarkable election. She’s only been an MSP for a few months. Her rise may have been stratospheric, but she has undoubted qualities. Articulate and media savvy, she will inject something different into our political discourse. Cybernats will no doubt scoff at her prospects against the First Minister every week but I wouldn’t write her off. Going toe to toe with him is bound to end in disaster, but as Annabel has shown many times in recent years, there are other ways to get attention, get your point across and importantly, get under Alex Salmond’s skin.

Ruth Davidson is probably more centred politically than many on the right would like. That will make for an interesting conversation. While the rest of Europe lurches rightwards, including our ain dear UK Parliament, Scotland will have proven definitively that it is on a quite different political course. Her election will undoubtedly make it easier for the Scottish Tories to establish clear blue water from their UK counterparts – and hopefully detoxify their brand from the government’s activities that are not finding favour with Scots voters – but we await clues to see how this might pan out in policy terms.

But the most urgent task at hand is the implementation of the Sanderson review. The party needs overhaul at every level and in every sphere, to bring it out of the 1970s and into the 21st Century. Only when it has achieved this, can it seriously begin to think about political renewal. No doubt Ruth Davidson supports the review’s recommendations but does she have the mettle to push them through?

Such activity requires an attention to detail and a knowledge of what to do and when – qualities that John Swinney demonstrated in abundance during his ill-fated SNP leadership, during which he managed to push through a centralised membership scheme and also one member, one vote in all internal elections. This was no accident: his longterm membership and service in key party roles, particularly as National Secretary, served as a useful apprenticeship to achieving such fundamental structural changes. Does Ruth Davidson have the same organisational skills to bring to the fore?

The Scottish Conservatives have no doubt spent their summer chattering amongst themselves and one hopes garnering an inkling on what the three likely candidates think about stuff. And while these are the only votes that count for now, Ruth Davidson might like to share some of her thoughts on stuff with the rest of us. It would be bizarre indeed to greet a new Tory leader without knowing her views on well, anything.

And while the prospect of such a vibrant, youthful unknown leading one of Scotland’s main parties provides a frisson of excitement, I wonder if Ruth Davidson might just be peaking too soon? The Tories are in transition and such leadership stipends rarely last long enough to reap gains from any reforms enacted or attempted. Ask the afore-mentioned John Swinney. And Wendy Alexander.

Which makes John Lamont’s decision to sit out this round of musical chairs, and instead, throw his hat (and constituency votes) behind the most likely contender to defeat his shot at the next leadership election seem very shrewd indeed.

Tags: , , , ,

Evicting people = compassionate Conservatism?

One of the reasons that Scots largely don’t vote for the Tories is that there is always a fear that the old Conservative instinct of taking a big stick to the great unwashed can prove too tempting when the blues hold too much power. That old instinct has reared its ugly head this week with Tory councils across London stating that they intend to evict people who were involved in the rioting in recent days.

The move is so depressingly regressive and counter-productive that it almost defies belief. Even scumbags deserve a roof over their heads.

We have a legal system that serves to hand down appropriate sentences for crimes that have been committed, be it fines, community service or, at worst jail (though some right wingers would like to go even further than that). We don’t, or at least shouldn’t, seek to exercise revenge on wrong-doers just because we can and/or it makes us feel better. After all, what, precisely, are individuals and families supposed to do if they have nowhere to live?

My initial belief was that this was a threat handed out during the heat of the riots in order to disincentivise disorder and was not something that would ever see the light of day. It was a West Wing-style chess move, and nothing more. Indeed, it may well have proved to be an effective move for that purpose given the speed with which calmness descended on London since Thursday (the 16,000 tooled up, highly visible police officers may well have helped too). However, sadly, the threats have been followed through and eviction notices have been served, despite a pleasing level of arrests and sentences being handed down on the looters and fire-starters.

We can’t keep excluding people from the system and hope everything will magically get better. Closing down literacy and numeracy charities, increasing the number of homeless, increasing fuel poverty and slashing opportunities for various professions out there with seemingly no masterplan, no end game in sight other than just cross your fingers, it’s, well, it’s getting frustrating.

Cardboard City was created in 1983 in London, 4 years after the Conservatives came to power. With a new blue broom in Government, are we stepping ever closer towards a repeat dwelling being created a few years from now? Evicting people unnecessarily and for nothing more than spite surely won’t help.

So, I have a suggestion for the Conservative Party (though I suspect other parties are more likely to take me up on it), a move that can ensure that the top of the tree and those sleeping against the tree in dirty blankets can hammer out any differences that they have and find a combined solution to the country’s ills:

Homeless people and the unemployed are entitled to free membership of the Conservative Party.

It’s a policy that involves ‘we’re all in this together’ ‘compassionate Conservatism’ and ‘the Big Society’ rolled into one. I’m not holding my breath though. The Tories, as we’re seeing this week, just love that big stick option far too much.

Beware the worms lurking in cans!

Can WormsIt seems that in the absence of anything meaningful to offer the populace, and despite being given a kicking of the first order at the polls, Scottish Labour has decided that it’s groundhog day.

Carping, sniping, empty posturing. That’s what the people rejected, so we’ll give them more of the same.

How else do you explain the shitstorm its elected representatives have been trying to generate in the last few weeks? First, with tongue firmly not in its cheek, it demanded to know just how close the SNP and Alex Salmond had got to Rupert Murdoch and his News International empire in Scotland. In an extremely linear approach which would keep no person out of jail, Paul Martin determined that because the Scottish Sun had supported the SNP in the last election, ergo this was damning evidence of the SNP being in Murdoch’s pockets.

So the Scottish Government duly publishes a full list not only of First Ministerial contacts with the media since 2007 but those of key Cabinet members AND copies of correspondence between Eck and Rupe. The latter ain’t pretty and caused many toes to curl in discomfort. Yes, the First Minister might have been really, really trying to portray himself as the global media mogul’s equal and really, really trying to persuade Murdoch to become a Caledonian champion. But frankly if there had been anything to hide, the goverment would have hidden it.

But like much of its interventions in the last year, Labour might well have scored an own goal. Disclosure of Labour leaders’ contacts with the media has been asked for and… we’re still waiting. Oh why are we waiting? What’s so hard about pulling together a list of all the meetings, lunches, receptions, letters etc exchanged between the Scottish Labour leadership – Iain Gray, Wendy Alexander in opposition and Jack McConnell and Henry McLeish during their time as First Minister – and Scottish media representatives? The longer they take, the worse it looks, even if there is nothing untoward at all. But they started it.

But the real can of worms opened up by Scottish Labour recently involves the insinuation that the SNP Government offered Brian Souter honours for political donations. They haven’t actually come out and said it, but the inference is of cash for honours on our ain doorstep. Siller for hallions no less.

A whole webpage has been set up over at Scottish Labour’s website – the Souter files, powered exclusively with righteous indignation, over-wrought hyperbole, and rank hypocrisy and inaccuracy. Cathy Jamieson MP suggests that “The First Minister and his party must look seriously at the relationship they have developed with wealthy individuals handing them large sums of cash. The public will rightly be asking what’s next on Mr Souter’s shopping list and waiting for the First Minister to deliver.”

Individuals plural. Who exactly? Apart from Souter’s admittedly eye-watering donation in 2011, other donations to the SNP were five figure sums, the vast majority of its donations far, far lower. The SNP does not have that many supporters with deep pockets: Souter’s donation was matched by hundreds more, much smaller ones by members and supporters. The only person who out-donated Brian Souter was the late Edwin Morgan through a bequest in his will. What’s that? Nothing nasty to say about the Makar appointed by a Labour First Minister? Oh.

Apparently, Souter’s donation(s) are why the SNP has not re-regulated bus provision in Scotland. I acknowledge – it’s a policy that makes sense and it should be done. But then again, I don’t recall Labour-LibDem Scottish Executives, in power for double the time the SNP has been, rushing to re-regulate. Indeed, in four years of opposition, I don’t recall Labour making this a big issue and pushing for it to happen. How curious.

So let’s overturn the can and see what comes wriggling out. What’s this? A number of individuals – all of them wealthy, some of them longstanding Labour supporters or who have donated to the Labour party and bestowed honours while Labour was the lead partner in the Scottish Executive and Ministers were involved in nominating people for honours.

Moir Lockhead is one such, Willie Haughey is another, as is Duncan Bannatyne and Tom Hunter. All of them distinguished businessmen in their own right, who have also made huge charitable contributions during their lifetime. These are the reasons their honours were bestowed but following Scottish Labour’s current logic, all were given awards at the time they were active supporters and/or donors to the Labour party. Though historic, the worms in its can are far more juicy than the ones in the SNP’s.

Frankly, the Scottish public doesn’t give a damn. It holds all politicians and political parties in equally low esteem. Labour might think it is landing blows on the SNP but all such activity achieves is to confirm what people think of all parties, its ain included. In May the people spoke loud and clear – the SNP was the party they liked better or at least, disliked least. Given the current electoral mood, Labour will continue to come off second best if it persists in pursuing this kind of puerile politics. Making the road back to electoral credibility a whole lot harder.

Tags: , , , , ,