Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Parties

Free School support may cost Lib Dem leadership dear

Sep 20

Posted by Jeff in Parties, Westminster | 5 Comments

At their Conference today the Lib Dems have unsurprisingly but not unwelcomingly defeated its leadership over the issue of free schools. Lib Dem MPs have already voted in favour of the academies and now Lib Dem members have shown their disapproval. And there was me thinking that it was a one-member-one-vote system that decided party policy?

Anyway, the question of free schools is one that deserves scrutiny and it is something that I had initially thought was a great idea, even before I learned that SNP Education Secretary Mike Russell had floated a similar idea recently.

However, after consideration of the issue (and after a boozy discussion on the matter with a retired teacher a couple of weekends ago), I now know that had I been in that hall with those Lib Dem members, I would have voted with the majority against the proposals that Michael Gove is looking to implement with zeal.

The main reasons that I have come to this conclusion is quite simply based on the twin teamwork concepts that you’re ‘only as fast as your slowest team member’ and that ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’.

Taking the former of these philosophies first, there is no doubt that the better educated a child is on the lowest rung then the more likely it will be that that child can climb out of poverty and ensure social mobility is realised. However, free schools will inevitably favour those who are further up the social ladder than those stuck at the bottom. For all the rhetoric that problem areas can be targeted and the middle classes will ensure the income stream net is wide, I simply don’t believe it and instead believe that free schools will become ivory towers for the relatively well-off that leaves the kids that are already behind even more stranded with their standing start in life.

The second point on free schools is that a rising tide lifts all boats. That is, if a nationwide education system is available to all and improved across the board then all of society benefits. That has generally always been, and should remain, the plan A for the UK’s (and Scotland’s) education system. A logical extension to this argument is that private schools should be abolished, something the Labour party has considered from time to time (despite some of its leading lights sending their own children to private schools)

For me, this is less of a priority and not even necessarily an appropriate step. Private schools are built and maintained with private money and that marks them out as a separate argument to ‘free schools’ which take money from the public pot. Indeed, private schools save the public money (albeit with tax breaks) and the free schools cost the public money so the two really shouldn’t be conflated. Not that I’m actually suggesting that that is what happening.

Scotland once boasted the best education system in the world and that was through the old-skool, tried and tested approach of universal access and treating all pupils equally.

We shouldn’t lose sight of that either side of the border and, the political implications for the coalition to one side, I can only celebrate the Liberal Democrat delegates’ resolve in sticking to their principles and ensuring Free Schools are rejected by their party, even if it does ultimately prove to be a symbolic gesture.

Still, good to know that Lib Dem members believe that fair is worth fighting for.

What would Labour leader Ed Miliband mean for Scotland?

Sep 17

Posted by Jeff in Parties | 4 Comments

The Labour leadership contest is finally coming to an end with speculation growing that Ed Miliband may pull off a surprising win.

I’d personally be content with this result as, although David Miliband would be an effective opposition leader and encourage me to vote Labour, Ed Miliband has a vision and set of policies that, as leader, would encourage me to join the party. An encouragement that I am confident I would resist, I hasten to add. A pale Green Labour party would always be secondary to the vibrant Greens on environmental affairs.

Anyway, despite the strong regard that proper lefties have for Ed, the Labour party is primarily in the business of winning elections, not beefing up its membership, (though of course the two enjoy a considerable, causal overlap). The pragmatic choice of the elder brother vs the idealistic choice of the younger brother has already been discussed at length (mostly in The Guardian) so there is little point in rehashing those arguments here.

However, an interesting aspect of this brewing drama is that most Scottish MPs voted for David Miliband while it is Ed Miliband who is allegedly on course to win the nomination (according to recent polling and admittedly only by a tiny 1%). What would this mean for those north of the border? We are talking about a potential future Prime Minister, as early as 2015. Would party leader Ed command Scottish MPs’ full support? Are we set for another power struggle within Labour, destabilising the leader and dangerously undermining the arguments against the coalition’s cuts? I hope not, but I cannot see Ed Balls and David Miliband serving peacefully under young Ed for four and a half long years of Opposition.

Furthermore, what is Ed’s views on independence, has anyone checked? Is this one reason why the Scottish Labour MPs largely refused to back him?

It is perhaps too early to guess what impact the regular sight of Ed Miliband with his hand on Iain Gray’s shoulder could do for the Holyrood elections. My own view is that both men do not instil confidence and rather exude a certain nervousness, something that would sit awkwardly against the cocksure Alex Salmond and/or the steely resolve of Nicola Sturgeon. Of course, a more humbler approach to politics may be what the country is looking for after the four years of the bombast and ballast from the current First Minister.

Without wanting to go off on tangents, another aspect of the coming election campaign, with either of the Milibands as leader, is that it will be unmistakably male. Annabel Goldie and Nicola Sturgeon will be rare female voices in a contest that will heavily involve Salmond, Gray, Scott, Moore, Miliband, Murphy, Mundell, Swinney, Robertson, Carmichael and, well, I could go on and on and on. What happened to that springboard of equality in the late 1990s? Have political parties taken their eye off the gender split ball?

So, the big question is – would Ed Miliband as PM-in-waiting make Scotland a Better Nation?

That is a big question, and probably too early to say, but the early signs are encouraging as his anti-War and anti-nuclear-power stances should dovetail nicely with large swathes of the Scottish public’s views. He is amiable and inspiring and seemingly capable of working consensually and constructively. The biggest question mark for me is whether Labour can hold themselves together with such a surprise winner at the helm, despite the shared focus of beating the Tories.

Is the SNP a ‘post-nationalist’ party?

Sep 16

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Parties | 68 Comments

The question above is inspired by the following quote from Iain Macwhirter’s Sunday Herald column last week:

But then I’ve never really understood the point of having a referendum on independence anyway because no-one really knows what independence means any more. Flags and armies? Hardly. Border posts and a separate currency? Definitely not. The minimalist definition of independence would be the Scottish Parliament plus tax powers – and that’s likely to happen anyway. Scotland already is a nation. It is a question of acquiring the lost accoutrements of a state, and that process is already under way.

Conspiracy theorists suspect that this is what Salmond has been up to all along: muddying the pure waters of nationhood by adulterating it with devolution while distracting the SNP membership with an over-the-rainbow referendum that is never going to happen. The fact that we didn’t hear any accusations of this last week suggests that the SNP may already be on the way to becoming a post-nationalist party, accepting that independence is a process not an event. (I’d better say here that nothing Salmond has ever said publicly or privately suggests that this is his view. He insists that independence remains his only ambition and that he really wants a referendum, even though the polls indicate he would lose it).

Now, I don’t agree with his title – “They shelved independence and got away with it. Nice work, Alex”, nor do I agree that there were “precious few mourners” regarding the decision.  The SNP members that I’ve spoken too – and some of them are elected members – cannot fathom the strategy.  Yet I do take his point – whatever the SNP are saying in private, they are not saying it in public if it contradicts the Maximum Eck’s diktat.  But that’s an aside.  What this post is really about is Iain Macwhirter’s conception of independence “as a process not an event” and the SNP as a “post-nationalist party”.  Both deserve further study.

When I started the proposal for my PhD thesis, my original research question asked what it meant to be a nationalist in the twenty-first century.  So I have given some thought to this previously.  But the question Macwhirter asks – what does independence actually mean – is an important one for the SNP.  But like the previous question I asked for the Greens, it is probably one they would prefer not to answer.  Muddying the terminology of independence, thinking about the movement towards some form of fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament – that may well constitute independence in all but name.  And indeed, in the modern world, that may well be what is meant by independence – though there would be plenty dissent within the SNP’s membership if that became an accepted version of what the party saw as its ultimate goal.

Nevertheless, I come back to his conceptualisation of the SNP as a ‘post-nationalist party’.  Whenever I hear something described using the prefix ‘post’ I do have concerns – namely that whatever it is they are supposed to have become is nothing like what they were previously (see ‘post-feminist, post-structuralist’).  The fact is, the terminology is used badly – generally speaking what has happened is a party or person has been a feminist (for example) in the past but has found some things with that ideology that they disagree with and doesn’t quite fit in the bracket, and so they are described as ‘post-feminist’.  And so, the ‘post-‘ prefix should be understood with caution.

And yet, for some reason, I think the post-nationalist terminology works for the SNP – especially is you accept the Macwhirter conceptualisation of independence.  Obviously, the traditional view of independence is one of borders, sovereignty and control of currency.  Now those three things would not be fully under the control of the Scottish Parliament under this new conceptualisation, especially when you consider the interdependency of the EU and the fact that Scottish currency would either continue to be Pound Sterling or the Euro, neither of which would be controlled by Edinburgh.  And yet other, larger, European nations (Germany, Belgium, Malta) work within this contstricted view of independence, this post-post-Westphalian understanding of sovereignty.  So while the SNP still stand for independence, what independence itself stands for has changed.  And that is key to understanding the SNP in government.

Last week I think we talked enough about the SNP’s dropping of the referendum bill, but this conception of the SNP and independence is something to think about further.  I’d be interested (I guess, from an academic perspective as much as anything) in people’s thoughts on this.

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: , , ,

Power or Influence?

Sep 10

Posted by Malc in Parties | 22 Comments

This post was inspired by the comment I made on James’ Scottish Green Party post yesterday, but its really something I’ve been thinking about for a long time.  And the question is this: what role do the Scottish Greens want to play in Holyrood?

2003 Parliament

The party has, arguably (and you will probably debate this point) secured more in the way of concessions to an environmental agenda from the current Scottish Government than the previous one, despite only having 2 MSPs in this session to 7 previously.  Now I’d argue that is mostly because the parliamentary arithmetic has placed the Greens in a position whereby their 2 MSPs have a disproportionate amount of influence for their size – they have, in essence, become kingmakers.  While this hasn’t always worked to their advantage (when the other, larger parties agree – see Trump development, AWPR, Forth Bridge) they have forced the agenda at times (home insulation stuff, climate change targets – though the latter are not ambitious enough for many Greens).  Thus it seems  that, through fortunate circumstances of electoral mathematics, the Greens wield some influence in Holyrood, evidence that the wider environmental movement does influence the politics of Scotland.

2007 Parliament

Yet, with May 2011 and the coming Holyrood election on the horizon I’m led to consider that the party may face a trade-off.  If we look towards recent poll numbers (and, indeed, the historical precedents of 2003 and 2007) we’ll recognise that any increase in Green votes and, ultimately, seats, leads to a corresponding decrease in SNP votes and seats.  They are, historically speaking, inversely proportional.  When the Greens go up, they take SNP votes (witness 2003).  When the SNP poll well, the Greens suffer.  Thus I’d wager that the Greens may pick up a couple of seats in May – and the SNP will maybe lose a couple at their expense.  My question really though is, regardless of who wins the election, will the Greens be better off?

My answer, somewhat paradoxically for a political party increasing their representation, is probably not.  Depending how the election works out (and I’d be very surprised if the parliamentary arithmetic works out quite as tight next time around) the four potential Green MSPs would find themselves in a situation whereby they couldn’t influence budgets and bills in quite the way they currently do with two.  And that is interesting.

It begs a further question – are the Greens a party or a movement? In many ways this can be asked of any party which is part of a wider ideological movement.  Indeed, I’d argue that you don’t necessarily have to answer in the definitive to be influential (though I would argue that the SNP have, with their ditching of the referendum bill, defined their existence and priorities much more as a party than a movement dedicated to independence – but I digress).  But at its heart is a fundamental paradox of green politics.  Do the party need parliamentary representation to move a more environmental agenda or can influence be brought to bear on the political process without wielding power?

In some ways this taps into a post I wrote about the Lib Dems taking office in May, but in particular the analysis of Wolfgang Muller and Kaare Strom regarding the motivations of political parties – the so called “Policy-Office-Votes” triangle.  For political buffs, it is worth a read, and I won’t go into too much detail here.  The point I will make though, is that, as a movement and, crucially, as a party, the Greens focus is clearly on policy – and that can be achieved without necessarily gaining votes or office success, though they will be proximate goals on that path.

Final conundrum.

From what I’ve said in this post, it may be implied that I don’t think there’s any point voting for the Greens.  This would be entirely misconstrued.  I’ll leave it to the party members in our ranks to explain why, on policy terms, you should vote Green.  All I’ve done is show from a structural perspective that the parliamentary arithmetic has provided influence without power.  However, if we look again at the Policy-Office-Votes triangle, the one thing that is clear is that far from being exclusive, the concepts compliment each other.  Votes provided the basis for office success which provide the platform to deliver policies.  If policies are the ultimate goal of the party – and I think they are – then that journey begins with votes.

I think that’s a long way round to tell you that voting Green actually does help the environment!

Tags: , ,