Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

British political debate – RIP (1258 – 2011)

May 19

Posted by Jeff in Crime | 71 Comments

The slow strangulation of political debate in Britain continued apace yesterday with the depressingly tiresome ‘debate’ over Ken Clarke’s comments in a radio interview. Victoria Derbyshire’s hectoring of the Justice Minister and the furore that then engulfed a spluttering, garbled explanation of a nonetheless valid idea may just have sounded the death knell of decent triangulated policy discussion between politicians, the media and the public.

This isn’t even about the issues any more, the game (for there is no other word for it) that politicians must play now involves the following rules – ‘you shall be pressed, prodded and probed 24/7, good ideas will be largely ignored, and if you step outside the parameters of what we consider to be appropriate, even for one moment and as a result of an innocently garbled explanation, we will seek to destroy you’. Twitter is the main culprit of course, that rolling, trolling vessel of visceral huffiness was in full swing yesterday, and depressingly so.

There is a group out there who want, perfectly understandably, for rape, all rape regardless of circumstance or supposed mitigation, to carry a heavy sentence. Ken Clarke is arguing that, to free up prison space and court time, some lesser crimes can carry a shorter sentence if a guilty plea is offered, and some rape cases may fall within that range. It’s a great opening for a great debate and, amidst the outrage, I have read some interesting, thought-provoking pieces on either side of the argument. 

I can’t say this is an area that I have much prior knowledge of but I have to say that I lean towards Ken Clarke’s approach to the problem. It’s all very well holding out for the strictest of punishments for those who commit rape but with lamentable conviction rates of 4%-6%, that doesn’t seem to be working so well. A clearly distressed rape victim was also on the same Radio Five Live show that Ken took part in and her point was that her attacker was released too early and allowed to commit a similar crime. A harrowing account and it is difficult to argue against but a shorter sentence being better than no sentence is a valid, if not necessarily always convincing, argument the other way.

As for the comments that Clarke made and the rebuttal that all rapes are as serious as each other, that is surely not the case when any crime has a sliding scale of seriousness that can be applied and requires a judge and jury to make sense of, not to mention a sliding scale of punishments that can be given out. Highly emotive the subject matter may be but the country, and the media in particular, needs to find a way for our political leaders to discuss issues without facing directionless outrage and knee-jerk calls to resign. Again I lament the garbage, the noise that Twitter fuels itself with day in and day out. Some say politics doesn’t ‘get’ the Internet; I simply say the Internet is often too immature for politics. 

That’s not to say that politicians are entirely blameless. Ed Miliband is probably thinking that he had a good day yesterday because he managed to request that a Cabinet Minister resign at PMQs. Frankly the Labour leader should be ashamed of the cynical opportunism that he has displayed and the race to the bottom that he is partaking in. 

During the Labour leadership contest, Ed stated that “when Ken Clarke says we need to look at short sentences in prison because of high re-offending rates, I’m not going to say he’s soft on crime”. Where was that open-mindedness and willingness to be constructive yesterday when the news cameras were rolling and cheap soundbites were on the table? I’m a voter up for grabs but I was failed to be inspired by Iain Gray in opposition and I remain uninspired by Ed Miliband’s alternative to the coalition so far. Labour needs to learn that attacking the Government of the day is only one side of the coin, they need to promote what their alternative argument is or else voters like myself will assume there isn’t one.

So how does this come about? Well, the best that I can come up with is that some people just enjoy being outraged. If someone claims to be angry while still believing that Clarke considers all rape to be a serious crime then I don’t know how that can be reconciled. Either that or some people have a pre-conceived notion of who and what a Conservative is and they will take any opportunity to cement that view. People may say ‘but we didn’t put words in Clarke’s mouth’ but what did he say? That date rape and sex with someone underage are different to forced, violent attacks against the person’s will? Well, they are different, hence their having different definitions and different words required to describe them. Should that difference be reflected and recognised the courts? Is a date rape attacker less likely to commit the crime again after a few years in prison compared to a more physically violent attacker? Obviously I don’t know but that’s part of the necessary debate that should be taking place but many, Ed Miliband included, are ducking it because they’d rather just paint Clarke as a bogeyman.

For me, this is a different situation to a similar furore surrounding former Conservative MSP Bill Aitken earlier this year, the difference being that that situation seemed to involve a suggestion of what women were doing in a certain area anyway giving the impression that they were partly at fault for what happened to them whereas today’s debate is strictly surrounding what sentences should be handed out for which crimes. Bill certainly had to resign, Ken absolutely does not.

If anyone outside the coalition believes that the extension of plea bargains is a bad idea then argue it, if they believe we should pay for more prisons argue for it, if they believe rape (under any circumstances) is so serious a crime that it should carry significant jail sentences they should argue for it but if you sit back with no contributing ideas of your own and only choose to get involved when someone is perceived as having slipped up, then shame on you I’m afraid.

The bottom line is, at around 5%, conviction rates for rape cases are abysmal and I for one don’t believe that 95% of people who bring charges (predominantly women) are just making stuff up. The Conservatives first contribution to the area was to suggest men accused of rape should be anonymous which is a spectacular missed opportunity at fixing the main, substantial problem. That surely has to remain the focus of this issue if the scourge of rape and sexual assault, so long a taboo subject, is to be improved upon. 

Ken Clarke, albeit indirectly, is showing real grit and leadership by getting closer to the nub of the issue and is taking his argument to the public via the airwaves. Even if his plans are misguided, he deserves a coherent argument the other way at least, not his head in a vice and calls for resignation.

Scottish Labour – a View before the Review

May 18

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood, Parties | 26 Comments

Another guest, this time from Jamie Glackin, Labour activist and SEC Member.

The election result on 5 May was the most significant in living memory. Much has been said about why but after taking some time to reflect on it I would like to contribute to the catharsis. Firstly, as an active member of the Labour Party, I have to conclude that my party leadership can’t carry all the blame. It was a collective and institutional one that we all share in. We did indeed offer a vision for Scotland, but it turned out to be a pretty dismal one.

Unfortunately, our election campaign fell into the trap of thinking that it knew what the voters wanted: Stuff the Tories, Thatcher hate figure, Independence Bogeyman. As the results show, Scotland had its own ideas: A confident Scotland taking its own place in the world, A fair Scotland that is always on the side of hard work and enterprise, and a caring Scotland that always puts its own people at the front of the line, not the back of it. My argument is that all of this can be achieved without the need for full decapitation. But major surgery is required if we want to save the patient.

The reality is that the Labour Party in Scotland is a slave to two masters. On the one hand, Scotland seems quite happy to supply Labour MPs to Westminster, knowing that that they can best elucidate the views of Scotland, albeit in a compromised manner. This is an example of the pragmatism of the Scottish people. We are realistic enough to know what’s on offer and to make an informed choice on that basis. So that bit’s alright then for Scottish Labour? Probably not as it happens, but more on that later.

On the other hand, we have never quite got to grips with devolution, and what that means. And in my view, this is where it all goes wrong. Scottish Labour should be there to facilitate the aspirations of a Nation. And the forum to deliver these aspirations is the Scottish Parliament. Not the other way round. As Labour, we consistently attempted to impose our policies on a public that has long since widened its scope on who it thinks can best represent those aspirations. The recent election campaign served as a reminder of why a race to the bottom in Scottish Politics can only ever result in one winner- the one with the record, freshness and vision. And rather than supply a competing vision, we offered Scotland more of the same. So when SNP members go on television and claim we fought a ‘Negative’ campaign, I believe that they are right. Labour hasn’t fought a positive one since 1997.

Some would have it therefore that Scottish Labour is institutionally incompetent. I think that’s harsh and in throwing missiles at John Smith House actually ignores the real issues facing the Party.

We were founded as a party of the people, and somewhere along the line, an institutional malaise set in. Human nature is a bit like that. We changed, slowly but surely, as champions of the underdog and the working classes to being managerial autocrats. Sure, we knew all the vocabulary required to protect our authority, but failed to connect with the values that saw Labour born at all. People have angrily told me that despite casting their votes Labour’s way for generations, that we still have slums, we still have generational worklessness and we still have a broken underclass, mired in alcohol, violence and substance abuse. Yet prosperity has visited other parts of Scottish society to the extent that a chasm now exists between a relatively small demographic. The issues that we face are so deep rooted that cosmetic changes to our institutions, including the Labour Party, can’t even begin to deal with them.

The challenge facing the Labour Party therefore is how to be the party of the Scottish People again. In my view, we can only hope to attempt to do this when we realise that the fundamental questions we have to address concerns the ambitions of a country. Institutionally regarding Scotland as a region of the Labour Party simply doesn’t cut it.

We can’t even start to think about policy failures until we embrace this point. Whilst there will always be convergence on the policies of the left, last week’s election should leave the Party in no doubt that identity is just as important to the people as policy, if not more so. Indeed, there were many areas of the SNP Manifesto that deserved very close scrutiny. Instead however, they had a free run at a campaign because they knew exactly what they were for and where they were going, to the extent that the policies of the other parties simply didn’t matter. We resorted to tried and tested methods. Vast amounts of doors knocked, thousands if not millions of leaflets distributed, votes counted and in the bag. The SNP had other ideas: a media policy suspiciously short on shortbread tin politics, no lamenting pipers. Only a clear message that regardless of what’s happening at Westminster, only the SNP were capable of delivering a Parliament capable of elucidating Scotland’s identity and ambition.

So let’s face facts. Surely the accusation that we are a party ruled by London is correct? Every member of the NEC resides within the M25 (with the exception of the excellent Callum Munro, the Young Labour Rep.) Colleagues from the North of England have raised concerns about this with me since the election of the NEC last year. I’m not saying for a minute that the current executive are without talent or commitment to the party, but I fear that there is a danger that London-centric ‘Progressiveness’ becomes the dominating mantra of a party that the rest of the UK just doesn’t get. Whilst I don’t know the mind of Ed Miliband, I can’t help thinking that he believes that Scottish Labour lost a Scottish election simply because we lacked a ‘Progressive Centre.’ Whatever that means.

Surely then there can be only one direction of travel for the Scottish Labour Party? As a party we finally need to grapple with the question of what we are for. We are either the voice of our communities or we are not. We are either the voice of industry, of business, of victims of crime and the police, of the hopeless, of the public sector, of taxpayers, of women, of all classes, or we are not. Scotland is a Nation made up of all of these and much more and its from each intertwined strand that a coherent vision for Scotland comes. And in listening to all of our people and in understanding what a country wants, we define what we are for. So there is no need for the perpetual internal argument about shifting to the left or right. The people tell us where they expect us to be and we live up to that expectation. (This lesson applies in England and Wales too!)

I personally believe that when Alex Salmond talks of the ‘Inevitability’ of Independence, that there might be some truth in that, but not to the extent that some of his party would like. The Scottish People are capable of differentiating the hubris of politicians from the issue at large. And two weeks ago they told all the parties in Scotland the direction that they want to go. I believe that closely resembles the Devolution Max option, where Scotland has total fiscal autonomy and responsibility for its own affairs, save those reserved, by agreement of the Scottish people to the UK Government. Opponents will argue that this proposal is Independence Lite, or a guarantee of the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Well, I’m sorry but if it weren’t broke why would be trying to fix it? The Union itself has never been a solid state entity anyway. What it is and how it is viewed has always changed, evolved and adapted. My argument therefore is that the Labour Party has to recognise that the people have spoken and now is the time to start being the party of the people again, regardless of where that might lead us.

For the Scottish Labour Party? I can see little option but exactly that. The Scottish Labour Party, and not the Labour Party in Scotland. Governed in Scotland, by a Scottish Executive robustly representing their constituencies, trade unions and socialist societies, reflecting what people are actually telling them. With a leader who is an MSP and a deputy who is a Westminster MP. With constituency parties representing Holyrood Boundaries, not Westminster ones, holding meetings open to everyone, not just party insiders forming supporters clubs.  In short, a Scottish Party with its own unique identity, pressing for the renewal of itself and its country, always recognising the distinctiveness of Scotland. A party that realises that since 1999, we now have a Parliament that is no longer an infant, but ready to take its first steps into adulthood, and all the responsibility that goes with it.

The nitty gritty stuff, I leave up to you. But make no mistake, unless we seize this opportunity to become the party of the People of Scotland with the vision and the ambition that entails, then we are heading very quickly to irrelevance. Given the SNP dominance at Holyrood, the potential is there for policy to creep slowly but surely to the right. Scottish Labour have to play a role in the new Parliament and in the future to challenge this.

And of the referendum? Well we have to face facts and say that we simply don’t know how the Scottish People will vote. It might be for full Independence. And if that’s what Scotland wants, then Scotland will surely get it. And if that happens (which it might,) let’s make sure that there’s a Scottish Labour Party on the other side.

Jamie Glackin

SEC Member

West of Scotland, Mid Scotland & Fife

Long road back for Scottish Lib Dems

May 17

Posted by The Burd in Holyrood, Parties | 22 Comments

Time for someone on this here blogspace to offer condolence and encouragement to the Scottish Lib Dems.  Enough of kicking a party when it’s down and at least, it has taken the first tiny steps on the long road back.

There are clearly benefits to be gained from moving quickly from one leader to another.  No power vacuum, no unseemly public scuffles, no washing of dirty linen in public.  But there are also downsides.  An anointment, which the last two leadership “elections” have been, means there is no breathing space in which ordinary party members will get the chance to have their say and shape their future.  The chosen one gets to consult and listen, or simply impose his or her will and view on the party.  Reality demands it be the former – there are few candidates to choose from after all.

Willie Rennie has today been declared the new Lib Dem leader.  He was, if truth be told, the only credible – or at least most credible – candidate in the tiny group of Lib Dem MSPs.  His experience as party CEO and also as Chief of Staff for the Parliamentary Group, and his time as an MP, give him a hinterland that should serve him well.  By all accounts, he is affable, media savvy, intelligent and should do well.  I can’t help thinking, though, that the Liberal Democrats have a bit of a conveyor belt on this style of politician, not just here in Scotland but across the UK.  It’s the 40 something male thing, of higher than average income background, creating an identikit of leaders in recent years.  No wonder Vince Cable comes across as a breath of fresh air.

But what kind of liberalism does Willie Rennie believe in?  Is he Orange Book or more socially democratic?  Does he belong to the seemingly more Scottish tradition of liberalism as portrayed by the likes of Charles Kennedy and Menzies Campbell or the more strident economically-focused one epitomised by Huhne, Laws and co?

It matters because it will determine how long the road back is for the Liberal Democrats here in Scotland.  They have some time to take a long hard look at themselves and work it out:  the next Parliamentary elections are some years away after all.  But there is the small matter of council elections next year:  these could represent the start of a revival or perhaps achieving stability by holding their own rather than making gains, or result in further electoral punishment.  If the Lib Dems lose their well established toehold in local government across the country one really does have to fear for their future.

There is space for a vibrant political force representing either half of the Liberal Democrat tradition, but it would be a brave man who would lead his party towards the Orange book style of policy and politics in Scotland.  This would appear to be what the Scottish people rejected so emphatically on 5 May.  There is a need for a right of centre, less interventionist economically-focused political party, yet, there is also a need for a party that makes thoughtful social policy its core purpose too.  Both the SNP and Labour have swept up tenets of both, crowding the centre in recent years.  So a nimble Liberal Democrat party could straddle them if it can get the policies, the strategy and the tactics right.

Willie Rennie needs to make his mark and somehow achieve coverage -  no mean feat when reduced to a parliamentary group of five.  One way of doing this would be to pick up on bits of the SNP manifesto that chime with sections of the Liberal Democrat one.  Take forward members’ bills where appropriate;  shame them on reducing the priority of other measures when needed.  But make it constructive opposition.  Underlying the seismic Scottish election result was a sentiment of dislike for the yah-boo politics that everyone – including the SNP – indulged in in the last four years.  The people have spoken, they want this SNP government to have a fair run at it, and it is incumbent on all parties to follow the will of the Scottish people, while still managing to hold the government to account.

It’s a tough job, without the much larger task of reinventing and rejuvenating a severely wounded party.  The burd wishes Willie Rennie well and will watch with interest to see if he is up to it.

Tags: , ,

A tale of two by-elections?

May 17

Posted by Malc in Westminster | 36 Comments

I was very sad to hear of the death of Labour’s MP for Inverclyde David Cairns at just 44.  I didn’t agree with a lot of his politics, but I had several conversations with him on Twitter in which the character of which Tom Harris’ moving obituary speaks came shining though.  I always have a lot of respect for representatives who resign their ministerial position when they disagree with the leadership, and David Cairns was one who did just that.  A fine MP, and a sad loss for Labour, Scotland and politics in general.

His untimely death inevitably means a by-election in Inverclyde.  I don’t want to start speculating on the coming campaign – there will be plenty time for that in the coming weeks – but I wanted to postulate a scenario which has the potential to occur.

The news from New York that the head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Khan has been charged with sexual assault suggests there will be a vacancy for the top job there.  At the moment, the number two at the IMF (who is on his way out in August) is taking over the role – but even if the charges against Strauss-Khan are dropped, there’s no real chance he’ll return to the top job.  Which means there’s likely to be a vacancy there.  As it happens, we have a former Prime Minister who fancies himself as a bit of an economics expert, a guy who claims to have “saved the world… erm, saved the banks”.  Wouldn’t he fancy the gig?

Of course, even if he fancied it, there’s no guarantee he’d get it.  But it is widely known that J. Gordon Brown has been looking to stand down as an MP for several months.  Indeed, there were even rumours before the Scottish Parliamentary election that he’d stand down and Labour would call the by-election for the same day (and, in hindsight, its perhaps lucky for them that they did not).  So, perhaps, even if he did not get the IMF job, the former PM’s time as MP for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath is limited.

Thus, perhaps, at some point in the coming months, we could be looking at not just one by-election (in Inverclyde) but a second (in Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath).

If that is the case, what odds on both by-elections being held on the same day?

Think about it like this.  Of all the parties in Scotland at the moment, only the Liberal Democrats would like a Westminster by-election less than Labour at the moment.  Labour won the Greenock & Inverclyde seat at the Scottish Parliament election by just 500 or so votes.  They lost Kirkcaldy to the SNP by around 200.  In that respect, neither can be considered a “safe” seat – and the party won’t have the finance to take on the SNP in 2 separate large-scale by-election campaigns.  Plus the negative coverage which would come from a by-election loss (in the first one) would plunge the party further into difficulty in Scotland, and make it even more difficult for them to win a second by-election – handing further initiative to the SNP.  Add the fact there’s a “root and branch” review of what Scottish Labour means and how it is organised, and the resignation of Iain Gray as LOLITSP after the review is over means there are plenty questions about Labour at the moment.

The SNP, on the other hand, are buoyant at the moment.  They’ve just won a majority in a PR electoral system, winning seats in Labour heartlands that no one ever considered would be lost.  They’ve returned to government in Scotland with a stronger mandate as a majority government.  And they’ve got activists, celebrity endorsements and weel-kent MSP faces to help with publicity in by-election campaigns.  In short – despite the fact that both Inverclyde and Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath have large Labour majorities, the odds would be stacked in the SNP’s favour in the event of a by-election in each case.  And even if they didn’t win either, the likelihood is that they would run Labour close in both – further providing good news for the SNP and bad for Labour.

The way around making this two stories instead of one (and, indeed, of reducing the SNP’s chances of winning either – by splitting their activists) is to hold both on the same day.  Its a tactic we’ve seen before – and one which would likely allow Labour to maintain some control over the story and, crucially, help them to hold one or both seats.

Obviously, I’m getting way ahead of myself here – there will definitely be one by-election – but it wouldn’t surprise me if Gordon Brown decided the time was right to move on.  What do we think?  A likely scenario… or my reading too much into everything and trying to find links where none exist?

Review: Portillo on Salmond

May 16

Posted by Guest Blog in Media | 14 Comments

Wee guest post today from Kirsty Boyle, who worked as a Scottish Parliamentary Researcher for a couple of MSPs during the last Holyrood session.  It reviews the BBC documentary aired on Sunday 15 May which saw Michael Portillo follow Alex Salmond around the country on the campaign trail.

Airing just over a week after the SNP won a landslide Scottish election and a few days before Alex Salmond is sworn in as First Minister for a second term; Michael Portillo’s documentary on the man himself comes at a timely interlude in the SNP’s history.   With the next five year term of the Scottish Parliament undoubtedly being dominated by talk, debate and judgement on an independence referendum the SNP know it is Salmond who will see the ensuing legislation proceed through Parliament.  The Scottish electorate have voted for the man, but how is he seen through the eyes of an ex-Tory MP?

Portillo makes no secret of the fact from the outset that he viewed making this documentary as recording Salmond’s political obituary.  That he started the process sure Salmond would not see a second term in office in Holyrood.  How wrong he was and how he appeared to change in his opinion of Alex Salmond during the course of the documentary.

Charting Salmond’s rise, fall, suspension, rise, fall and rise again in the SNP, Portillo examined the personality behind the persona.  At different points Jim Sillars, Margo MacDonald and Michael Russell all allude to the adage; “That’s just the way Alex is.”  Something there is no doubting for the people of Glasgow Southside when we see him meeting them.  Just the way he is.  Which it appears is enthusiastic and infectious, even prompting Portillo to admit he felt like campaigning when witnessing Salmond in action.

We can tell, however, that Portillo wants to go further.  He wants to probe Salmond about his family by remarking how Salmond is known for keeping his private live separate from his political life.  Salmond answers in his trademark fashion of turning it round to talking about Scottish tradition, how Scots are very often private people yet are naturally friendly people.  Incidentally he also says such public displays of personality cannot be forced and must be genuine.

After following Salmond’s career from his student days to his suspension from the SNP and his ultimate rise to lead the party again, Portillo spends much of the latter part of the documentary on the 2007 Scottish Parliament election result and what it meant for the SNP and Salmond in particular.  He speaks to an uncomfortable and scathing Alistair Darling, who insists the banking crises came from Edinburgh and that the SNP’s energy policy is unworkable.  Annabel Goldie MSP makes an appearance describing the way in which Salmond conducts himself in the chamber as; “good at shouting.”

However, it is Portillo’s own analysis of Salmond’s character that surprises during this documentary.  By the end of the hour we are left feeling Portillo has a clear admiration for Salmond and the way in which he has led his party to become credible and acceptable in an ultimately fragile world of politics.  By the time it gets to election night Portillo is almost, almost, willing the SNP to win and although incredulous at the level of victory clearly admires the way in which it was done and the extent to which Salmond is backed by party members and now, it seems, by Scotland.

Salmond is portrayed as a man sure of himself, his country and his ability to govern as well as a gambler and a “marmite” personality – you either love him or loathe him.  Despite claiming student politicians are pretty weird Portillo redeems himself slightly when he and Salmond have an open and frank discussion on past foibles in Salmond’s home town of Linlithgow.  The conclusion of the documentary sees Portillo return to the scene of his childhood holidays in Kirkcaldy, somewhat reminiscent of an episode of Who Do You Think You Are?  But it is here, in his Mother’s home town and the seat of the SNP’s triumphant majority win that Portillo sums up his own position on the SNP winning an independence referendum; “One thing is certain.  You don’t often make money betting against Alex Salmond.”