Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

The M Word

Oct 10

Posted by Jeff in Society | 34 Comments

One thing that I have never really ever understood is why, when vegetarians make food, they often make food in the shape of hamburgers or sausages. Surely when there is free rein to arrange your lentils and chick peas in any order you wish, then something far removed from the meat eaters is preferable, at least in name if it not necessarily in shape.

Each to their own of course but I have something of a similar outlook when it comes to the potential contradiction in terms that is ‘gay marriage’. Is it necessary for civil partnerships to converge entirely towards straight marriages? If there is a difference, should that difference be recognised in the nomenclature?

The furore around John Mason’s recent motion was a different issue, that was the seemingly non-existent threat of priests being ‘forced’ to run services for couples of the same sex. A potential next issue is the wording of any law and whether the phrase ‘gay marriage’ should be on any Bill or Law that comes into force. That is perhaps a question for linguists and I daresay someone like Stephen Fry is the best placed to define what the meaning of ‘marriage’ actually is, historic and currently. I personally have certainly always taken it as meaning the coming together of a man and a woman in matrimony, holy or otherwise. I note from headlines that Alex Salmond takes a different view and I do wonder how David Cameron and the majority of the Tory benches see it, quite possibly central to how inflammatory the debate may be.

Do words change over time? Should they? I guess they do for some and don’t for others, with me personally being in the former category but not all thinking any less of those in the latter. Of course, marriage may always have included the meaning of two people promising their lives to each other, it’s just been suppressed, often brutally, for centuries.

Nonetheless, views are what they are, as frustrating as they can be for some. If a man was to suddenly insist that people called him a woman (without any transgender operations having taken place), then that would be patently absurd, surely? However, if a significant number of people have a fixed view that marriage, the meaning of the word marriage, is a man and a woman agreeing to be together for the rest of their lives, then the same absurdity can be understood from their perspective, if you’re generous enough to see it.

Of course, an argument for widening the definition of marriage, if that is even needed in the first place, is that it is clear what the meaning is. Two guys saying they got married doesn’t need any further explanation, two guys saying they have just had a civil ceremony usually does. (Does a civil partnership come with the same rights as a heterosexual marriage? It should do but I don’t know. A gay marriage, of course, would, or, again, at least should.)

I do worry that it will be in Scotland that this argument will surface first. If Alex Salmond can imagine marriage to mean the coming together of any two people for the rest of their lives and the church is inflexible in its view that marriage can only involve a man and a woman, by definition, then I don’t really know what happens next and it is clear from recent press that the church intends to make a big stink about this.

So, to avoid any verbal bricks that may be coming my way, I insist that I have no problem with looking at marriage in a different light as time goes on (veggie burgers too for that matter) but a debate around the meaning of a certain word is probably just around the corner and that’s worth thinking about.

RIP Red Ed

Oct 8

Posted by The Burd in Ideology, Parties | 18 Comments

Labour’s Shadow Cabinet reshuffle is interesting – no, really – because it finally lays to rest the myth of Red Ed.

Previously, the shadow Cabinet was decided by a vote in the party, a bizarre type of beauty contest but it also showed where the party’s heart lay in terms of who it wanted to represent it in Opposition.  Changes to party rules did away with this contest, widely viewed as having hamstrung the party leader.  Well, no more, for this reshuffle ensured he got the chance to start drafting his people in to the Shadow Cabinet, the people he feels most comfortable with working.

A quick run through the winners and losers:  John Denham and John Healey stood down of their own accord, and who are we to doubt the veracity of that claim, especially as the correspondence backs it up.  Gone are Ann McKechin, Angela Eagle is moved sideways, Shaun Woodward also steps down and Meg Hillier vanishes.  A bit of musical chairs – Ivan Lewis and Harriet Harman swap roles at media, culture and sport and international development respectively;  Andy Burnham moves from education to health and the supposed big hitters of Balls, Alexander, Cooper et al stay where they are.

Incomers include returnees Stephen Twigg to education, Caroline Flint to energy and climate change [update:  thanks to commenter who pointed out this is in fact a sideways move but arguably still a promotion, as a more high profile role than previous one at communities and local government?] and Tom Watson to a party role as depute Chair and campaign co-ordinator.  Newbies are Chuka Umunna, Rachel Reeves, Liz Kendall, Margaret Curran and Mike Dugher. And big black marks for the Guardian for ignoring Margaret Curran’s elevation and conversely to the Scottish press for overly focusing on this appointment almost to the exclusion of others.

None too subtly, Ed has put to bed all the supposed monikers of Red, Purple, Blue and returned to what he – and the rest – know best:  New Labour.  Some commentators suggest he has brought in Brown’s bruisers to add a bit of muscle to his front bench, but Tom Watson is actually the only one who can be categorised thus, and his is a backroom role.  Mike Dugher may have been close to Brown but his role previously was in the shadows, not out in the open.

No, Ed has re-introduced a flash of Blairism but is also creating a Cabinet in his own image.  The new folks – Margaret Curran aside, who actually has real government experience and an interesting hinterland to contribute – might ostensibly represent Labour heartland territory but like Ed, they are party appartchiks or are unrepresentative of Labour’s traditions.  Nothing wrong with that, when it is talent that counts, but it finally puts to rest the idea, stubbornly held by some, that Ed Miliband’s election as leader would represent a return to old Labour values and approach.

Rachel Reeves has a banking/business background, Liz Kendall came up through think-tanks to be a ministerial advisor, while Michael Dugher has also served in a number of advisory roles and Chuka Umunna represents all that is hopeful and shiny but is definitely on the right side of the party.  Some of them, then, have very similar backgrounds and trajectories to Ed and other current Shadow Cabinet members.

And it is interesting because despite signals to the contrary – the conference speech, the ditching of public symbols of New Labour – some instincts are hard to ditch.  Ed Miliband is a creature of New Labour whose career was nurtured and weaned at the knee of Blair and Brown.  His party – as evidenced by its vote in the last Shadow Cabinet elections and the response to his recent conference speech – yearn for a turn to the left, to rediscover old roots and values, albeit with a modern twist.

Yet Miliband seeks succour and progress elsewhere. Constructs like the “good society” and the “squeezed middle”, as well as key planks of the plan for growth announced by Balls sit comfortably within the New Labour tent;  their links to old Labour values of fairness, equality and social justice are also evident but actually are more contrived.

Ultimately, it is the neo-liberal policy tendency and culture which is triumphing here, that accepts the basic tenets of a market-driven and oriented society; where home ownership is good, renting bad;  where work is the only route out of poverty;  where the private sector has as big a role to play in service design and delivery as the public;  where performance-driven targets related to crude outputs still reign;  and where wealth is okay, so long as it was earned productively.

Taking all that into account, his choice of shadow Cabinet members becomes less surprising.  He is surrounding himself with like-minded people, people he feels can create the platform he wants to project and offer the electorate, and it ain’t one that is going back to the future.

The idea that Ed Miliband would usher in a new era for the Labour party and construct a social and economic policy platform that cut ties with New Labour’s recent past was clearly fanciful.  New Labour might be being wiped from the public memory banks but its instincts and influence remain.  It’s old Labour that is being buried, along with Red Ed.  RIP.

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Hero of the Week, Motion of the Week

Oct 7

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 15 Comments

There’s three things that you can do make sure you’ve got a great motion: identify a problem, identify a solution, present some evidence for it.

Alison Johnstone’s Bag Tax motion does those things admirably and topically. It identifies why plastic bags are a problem and how big that problem is – we use 590m a year in Scotland, they use up resources to produce, are used for a short time and are a danger when discarded. It identifies a solution – a plastic bag charge which has recently come into force in Wales, showing that this is a feasible thing that Holyrood can do. It also presents evidence for that solution – a huge reduction in usage in Ireland since a charge was introduced. So a (recycled from Christmas) Better Nation gold star!

Motion S4M-00992 – Alison Johnstone ( Lothian ) ( Scottish Green Party ) : Time is Right for a Bag Charge in Scotland

That the Parliament welcomes the decision by the Welsh Assembly Government to introduce a levy on single-use bags; considers that the 5p charge in Wales, to be introduced from 1 October 2011, will encourage a reduction in excessive use of plastic bags; congratulates Wales for being the first UK nation to introduce such a charge; notes that, in Ireland, where a charge for bags was introduced nine years ago, the government has reported that the number of bags used annually has fallen from 328 per person to 26; welcomes the news that some large retailers in Wales will be donating the money from the levy to charities; notes that, in 2009, the number of plastic bags handed to customers by supermarkets in Scotland almost halved in the three years following stores signing up to a voluntary government-organised scheme but that, since then, there has been a reported rise in the prevalence of use and that, in 2010, 590 million bags were used in Scotland; regrets that this is equivalent to 9.4 bags per person per month and considers that more must be done to reduce what it sees as disappointing figures; understands that bags are often used for only around 20 minutes, can take up to 1,000 years to degrade, can litter the landscape and threaten marine and bird life; further understands that their production and use can deplete natural resources and pollute the environment; agrees with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment that “plastic bags are a scourge on our environment and a blight on our streets, our countryside and our seas”; welcomes the announcement by the Scottish Government that, in autumn 2011, it will begin a public consultation on options to reduce plastic bag use, and calls on the Scottish Government to take inspiration from the Welsh decision in order to make real progress towards a zero-waste society.

Supported by: David Torrance, Roderick Campbell, Christine Grahame, Kenneth Gibson, Fiona McLeod, John Finnie

Of course, if you want to make sure you’ve got a rubbish motion why not say how much you enjoyed the ballet, dahlink?

Motion S4M-01005 – Clare Adamson ( Central Scotland ) ( Scottish National Party ) : Scottish Ballet’s Autumn Performance Opening Success

That the Parliament congratulates Scottish Ballet, Theatre Royal, Glasgow on what is considered the triumphant opening of its autumn performance on 29 September 2011, featuring a double bill of Jorma Elo’s Kings 2 Ends, combining complex choreography set to the music of Mozart and Steve Reich, coupled with Ashley Page’s Pennies from Heaven, inspired by uplifting cinema and music from the 1930s; considers that this was a very accomplished piece of work, which also featured in Edinburgh’s International Festival; notes that the tour will also be heading to the United States, with performances in California and Minnesota, and would like to wish Scottish Ballet continued success for what it considers its excellent performance throughout the autumn season.

Supported by: Jamie Hepburn, Christina McKelvie, Bill Kidd, Patricia Ferguson, Jim Eadie, Colin Beattie, David Torrance, Roderick Campbell, Maureen Watt, Joe FitzPatrick, Gil Paterson, Kenneth Gibson, Derek Mackay, Hugh Henry, Chic Brodie, Paul Wheelhouse, Jean Urquhart, Jamie McGrigor, Mike MacKenzie, Humza Yousaf, Drew Smith, Annabelle Ewing, Mark McDonald

Priorities, priorities…

Oct 6

Posted by Malc in Parties, Westminster | 44 Comments

Cameron: Running a pro-Union campaign? Or just running?

So, the big three UK parties have had their conferences, ending in each case with the big set-piece event: the speech from the all-conquering leader.  Leadership speeches at conferences are big events, setting out the priorities of the respective parties for the coming year.  Bookies take bets on what will feature (then stop taking them as soon as parts of the speech are leaked).  If an issue makes it into the speech, chances are that is what you’ll be hearing about from that leader continuously until the following year’s conference.  If an issue doesn’t make it, then its importance has been relegated, the leader not considering it a priority.

This year, obviously, the economy continues to play a large role in leadership speeches – indeed it was the focus of them.  How to encourage growth, how to improve the fortunes of the economy, how to secure its recovery.  All very important indeed – you can’t argue that the economy deserves its position as an issue of top importance to political parties.

What’s interesting – from a Scottish perspective – is that between the three leadership speeches, Scotland was mentioned only THREE times.  Nick Clegg mentioned us only once, saying we need: “An economy for everyone: In Scotland, Wales, in every part of the United Kingdom.”  Laudable sentiments I guess.  David Cameron only mentioned Scotland in the context of our armed forces, and not specifically just ours: “In Afghanistan today, there are men and women fighting for Britain as bravely as any in our history. They come from across our country: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.”  Ed Miliband also mentioned Scotland just the once, but not the country.  Nope, he was taking a pop at Fred Goodwin in running RBS.  Three leadership speeches, and Scotland mentioned twice – and then, only to emphasise that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister recognised that they were parts of the UK.

And what of this Union that each of these leaders have pledged to defend?  Nothing.  Sure, each of them mentioned the word union, but it was in relation to Trades Union, and if David Cameron’s pledge is to defend that kind of union, then I think I’ve walked into some kind of parallel universe.

Its funny – the day before his big speech, David Cameron announced on “Scottish night”(?) at the Conservative Party Conference that he had “one core belief” about Scotland – that the Conservatives “were a party of the Union”.  Yet the following day, those sentiments did not appear anywhere in his set piece speech.  In an interview with a Scottish political journalist, Ed Miliband said we have a “shared history” and a “shared common bond” with the UK and that “devolution had made the Union stronger”.  But then he couldn’t remember the name of one of Scottish Labour’s leadership candidates (emphasising just how important that “common bond” between Scotland and the rest of the UK is, since he hadn’t bothered being briefed on it) and also didn’t mention either Scotland or the Union in his speech.

Look, I know party leaders will claim everything is important to them, and their speeches are limited in time, and thus they can’t fit everything they might want to into them.  But for parties who recognise the threat to the Union posed by the SNP, and who are gearing up to defend that same Union, it seems to me just a little strange that neither merits mention in a 45 minute keynote address to party delegates.  You can be sure that this slight will not have gone unnoticed by the SNP – and Alex Salmond will likely draw attention to this fact in his own conference speech in a couple of weeks.

The point is – are the UK leaders really serious about their defence of the Union?  Because the evidence from their conference speeches suggests that defending the Union doesn’t rate highly upon their agenda.  If they are going to win a referendum on the issue, that’s going to have to change.

This post isn’t supposed to be negative.  What I’m trying to say is that the debate needs to be happening at the top levels.  The parties need to engage with the issue of independence – and argue the merits of their case.  Ignoring the issue won’t make it go away.  And as much as I’d be happy with the outcome should the pro-Union campaign continue to falter, I’d much rather the argument was won after a positive debate.

Why the UK Government should call an early referendum

Oct 5

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 140 Comments

The key to winning any battle is often in the timing.

William Wallace won the battle of Stirling Bridge by moving early on the English forces and making sure his army held the advantageous North Bank of the River Forth. Then they waited.

Knowing that the number of front line Scottish forces equalled the number of front line English forces across the fixed width of a bridge, Wallace waited for as many of the English forces to cross the bridge as he knew his smaller forces could overwhelm and then pounced with devastating effect.

That was then and this is now but let’s not pretend that the two sides of the independence debate are not similarly preparing for battle. Salmond’s forces are to the North and Cameron’s considerably larger forces are to the South, albeit with less deadly consequences than 1297 about to ensue.

With timing being such a key question in any such contest, it is not clear to me why the Prime Minister, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband are not collectively taking advantage of the SNP’s apparent indecision over detailed questions of its independence proposals and trampling through their opponents upon the steed of a 2012 referendum, long before we reach the SNP’s preferred timing and terrain of 2015.

We only need to look to May 2011 for an example of why moving early may well be to the unionist camp’s benefit.

The AV referendum was held within a year of the General Election result, a surprise result that created a Tory-Lib Dem coalition and a previously undiscussed policy of a referendum on the Alternative Vote. The lack of understanding around what this voting system involved led to all manner of misinformation being peddled by the No camp.

So why would this tactic be any different in an independence referendum? What would independence mean for Scotland’s currency? For Scotland’s Defence? For our welfare state? For our banks? Insert your own answers here, and that’s exactly what may happen. It would be the No camp and a sympathetic media, just as it was for AV, that would make the running on those unanswered questions if the pro-independence parties are not allowed time to get their act together and prepare a better narrative.

It’s sneaky, it’s tawdry, it’s downright duplicitous. But, it’s politics and a win is a win. You bank it and move on. Just look at the sobbing mess that is was the Liberal Democrat policy of voting reform. That could be the independence movement this time next year.

There are more worthy arguments in favour of holding a referendum early over and above pressing home the weight of numbers, resources and column inches:

– Constitutional matters are deferred. The SNP won an election with a manifesto that promised a referendum. Consequently, it’s reasonable to argue that it is now incumbent on the Westminster Government to deliver that referendum, in consultation with the Scottish Government. There is no question that anyone other than the Scottish public should have a vote in this election and Michael Moore’s ill-advised earlier intervention has also ended the speculation that two referendums may be required. The path is clear – all that is left is for Westminster to roll out the carpet and let Scotland walk down it in the manner that she chooses. What are we waiting for?

– If you’re not playing offence then you are playing defence and doing nothing for four years while the SNP makes all the running on wording, timing and softening up the electorate barely even counts as defence. A Government that is doing nothing on any specific issue quickly falls into the trap of inertia and, as much as the Conservatives only returned one MP north of the border, it is still the leading partner in the UK Government and is duty bound to act in what it considers to be the entirety of the UK’s best interests. That extends to holding a referendum when the alternative is putting Scotland on ice for a whole parliamentary term.

– The SNP has had enough time to explain what their version of independence means and, if a snap date was called even today, it (and the Greens and the Socialists) would still have time to explain their respective visions between then and voting day. It would be a hollow objection if anyone in the SNP claimed they were being bounced into having to campaign for an aspiration that they as a party have striven for for 77 long, largely fruitless years.

– There is little doubt that the delay in holding a referendum is damaging Scotland and a responsible UK Government should see this and act accordingly, irrespective of their view that the devolved Government is truculent and troublesome. One example is as follows – there is a strong argument for having the UK’s Green Investment Bank in Edinburgh. It would be close to much of the renewable projects and expertise that exists in the country and the Finance Sector in Scotland’s Capital has suffered disproportionate loss of jobs and prestige through the economic crisis so suitably qualified, motivated staff are in place to hit the ground running. However, why would the UK Government risk starting the bank in Scotland when there is a risk that in several years’ time Scotland will be leaving the UK? This issue of Scotland being short-changed of investment up to the referendum date can be grossed out across all market areas to a greater or lesser extent.

– Independence is dominating and, as a result, dogging Scottish politics. Just think of all the parliamentary time, the media space and the resources that would be freed up if the decision was taken once and for all? Similar sized nations have a significant advantage over us when they can discuss actual policies surrounding real governmental areas like education, health and justice while the same hollow independence arguments get hurled between Nats and Unionists over freedom/separation in the debating chamber, and in the media. Look up Scottish Politics news from ten years ago and it will look depressingly similar to the debate that is going on today. Political progress is being trammelled for no good reason other than partisan positioning. Let’s finally get past it and crack on with what matters.

– The timing is ideal. The Scotland Bill is making its way through Westminster and in order to ensure that this package of proposed solutions is lasting, an amendment should be tacked on to pave the way for a referendum that, from a Tory/Lib Dem perspective, strips away the option of independence once and for all and ensures appropriate focus is given to the UK Government’s Bill.

The main reason, of course, for the coalition agreement agreeing to a referendum sooner rather than later is a political one. They have a better chance of winning it if it is held sooner, not to mention a better chance of winning more MEPs and MPs at the expense of a neutered SNP in elections in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

To understand this fully requires a clear understanding of the SNP strategy which seems to be:
(1) run a competent, popular devolved Government that mitigates and insulates the worst of the Tory policies up to the General Election of 2015,
(2) hope, perversely, that the Tories win an outright majority in 2015 despite not returning a single MP north of the border and
(3) run a referendum campaign in late 2015 with the public’s two options being:

(a) suffering from a UK Conservative Government every other parliamentary term or
(b) enjoying a new Scotland under guaranteed left-leaning parties forming Governments

It is a smart, savvy, perfectly winnable strategy but it requires the door being held open to it for four long years and those who prefer the UK to remain in place are foolish to stand idly by.

I am excited for the independence campaign, agnostic about the result and impatient for it to begin.

Scotland has local elections on May 3rd 2012. That seems as good a date as any to nip this independence question in the bud once and for all.

And how ironic if, in winning the waiting game, it was David Cameron who sent the SNP homewards, to think again.