Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Deflating Labour’s 99 Red Balloons

Jan 25

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 60 Comments

Scottish Labour has, somewhat ironically, 2007 Twitter followers going into today’s cavalcade of tweets aimed at the SNP and its supposed 100 broken promises. It will be interesting to see how many followers there will be come 5pm.

Indeed, if I had the time or organisational savviness, I would suggest a counter-campaign that would actively encourage Tweeters to unfollow @ScottishLabour in protest at their hitherto relentlessly negative campaigning. Halving the number by the end of today would be a challenge but an achievement in itself.

Aside from everything else planned for today, there have been 135 tweets in total from this account so far and they have been riddled with errors and spelling mistakes. With 100 messages to type in 8 hours, it’s graduation day for whoever the young scribe is behind the keyboard.

The big question is whether Labour will succeed with a negative campaign if this tone is to continue. Call me an idealist if you will but ‘vote Labour cos the Scottish Futures Trust is taking a wee bit longer than hoped’ isn’t all that inspiring and certainly not convincing enough to prove that Iain Gray and his team are the right choice for 2011-15. The big idea remains outstanding.

I just hope many party strategists, and indeed individual candidates, can reconsider what the Parliament is there for. There seems to be a lack of focus surrounding what the objective of devolution currently is and we just end up with playground antics instead. Over the past several weeks we’ve seen Wendy Alexander and David McLetchie harrass and harangue visiting academics seemingly for partisan gain, Iain Gray clumsily insult Montenegro just to get one over on the Nats and the SNP administration grind to a halt in readiness for the coming election just to boost its chances of reelection. Where is the consensual politics and the new dawn that we were promised?

Mind you, you get what you vote for in this world and if we want negativity then we already have a frontrunner. There will be 99 red balloons punted up in the air today, (and I say 99 rather than 100 as the ‘dumping of student debt’ goes down as a bona fide broken promise for me). These balloons will either take Labour to new heights or get snagged on the lower branches.

If you’re hoping for the latter, and happen to be on Twitter, perhaps not following @ScottishLabour online to reflect how little you follow them offline is worth considering…

Referring to the People

Jan 24

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Democracy, Westminster | 32 Comments

In China we are currently in the Year of the Dragon (EDIT – actually, it is the Year of the Tiger) until February at least, when it becomes the Year of the Rabbit which is (no longer) appropriate, since I’m going to talk about Wales, whose symbol is Y Ddraig Goch (It was a good idea when it worked – honest).  But in Wales, this year will not be the year of the dragon, tiger or the rabbit: it will be, in pure geekery terms, the Year of the Referendum(s).

Alongside the excitement that is the AV Referendum(!), the Welsh public will also get the opportunity to vote in a referendum to extend the powers of the National Assembly for Wales.  Or rather, they will get a chance to vote to confirm the extension of powers of the NAfW, since those powers were already granted to the Assembly, but only through a system whereby they had to ask for each power individually, and the granting of all primary legislative powers in one go had to be verified by referendum as stipulated in the Government of Wales Act 2006… you know what, it is fairly complex – if you are incredibly interested, in the process, have a read of the Electoral Commission stuff on it.  Or ask someone from Wales, who may or may not be able to help you.

Anyway, so in Wales they have two referendums in a little over two months, while the rest of us have one in May.  Which brings me to my point – in a representative democracy, when we give over our right to make decisions by electing someone to make them for us, why have referendums in the first place?

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one asking this.  The House of Lords convened a Select Committee on the Constitution to investigate “the role of referendums in the UK’s constitutional experience” and produced a report (12th Report of Session 2009-10 entitled “Referendums in the UK”, pdf here).  In it, they listed the 9 large-scale referendums constituting the “modern history of referendums in the UK”:

1973 – NI Sovereignty
1975 – EEC Membership
1979 – Scottish devolution
1979 – Welsh devolution
1997 – Scottish devolution
1997 – Welsh devolution
1998 – Devolution for London
1998 – Good Friday Agreement
2004 – North-East Devolution

As you can see from the list above, prior to Labour winning power in 1997, there had been only 4 referendums, while the subject of each referendum (with the exception of the Good-Friday Agreement, though you can make a case for it as well) is related to the constitutional future of the UK or a component part thereof.

The House of Lords Select Committee weighed the evidence for and against referendums:

For:

  • Enhances the democratic process
  • Difficult to reverse if public support
  • Can “settle” an issue
  • Can be a “protective device” (safeguard against controversy)
  • Promotes voter education
  • Enhances citizen engagement
  • Popular with voters
  • Complements representative democracy

Against:

  • It is a “tactical device”
  • Dominated by elite groups
  • Have a damaging effect on minority groups
  • It is a “conservative device” (block on progress)
  • Do not “settle” an issue
  • Over-simplify issues
  • Tend not to be about issue in question
  • Costly
  • Undermine representative democracy

Given the balance of evidence the Committee took from experts in the field, academics, constitutional lawyers from across the world and experienced referendum actors, they concluded that there are “significant drawbacks to the use of referendums” and particularly regrettable was “the ad hoc manner in which referendums have been used, often as a tactical device, by the government of the day.”

However, they relented slightly by stating that “if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues”.  They provided several examples, two of which are relevant to this post: a referendum to change the electoral system for the House of Commons and “for any of the nations of the UK to secede from the Union”.

So, we’re having one of those (the changing the electoral system one, in case you’ve missed it) but we’ve been denied the latter by a) unionist parties not letting the Scottish Government have a referendum or b) the SNP being too scared to bring forward their bill (depending what side of the fence you are sitting on).  In Wales, they’ll have a referendum (which was part of the amendment to devolution that was the Government of Wales Act 2006) in order to amend devolution further (and I’ll probably write more about that nearer the time) so that fits with the using referendums in relation to “fundamental constitutional issues” idea.

I guess my point is this.  A committee of one of the Houses of Parliament at Westminster has indicated its preference for holding a referendum in cases where a constituent nation is considering secession.  Thus, while not legally watertight or providing the Scottish Parliament with the competence to legislate in this area, I think it indicates that, should a Scottish Government pass a bill at Holyrood calling for a referendum on secession from the union, the UK Parliament may have given itself a problem in denying such a plebiscite.  Though the report itself was only advisory, and conducted under the previous government, so perhaps not.  For constitutional geeks like me (and, if you have gotten this far in the post, probably you too) the report is worth a read.

Tesco Tax = Budget Value

Jan 23

Posted by Jeff in Economy | 29 Comments

When John Swinney announced his draft budget last year he didn’t have many rabbits to pull out of the hat, but he did manage to pull a chicken from the shopping trolley. The announcement that an extra charge would be levied on companies with a rateable value greater than £750k seemed to come as something of a surprise to the public and to the retail industry. It wasn’t long before it was dubbed the ‘Tesco Tax’ and formed one of the main dividing lines between the Government and opposition parties.

For me, trying to balance Scotland’s economy and maximise jobs in these tough times means that those with the deepest pockets need to pay a bit more. This could mean higher income tax rates for top earners, a super-tax for energy companies that make super-profits and targetting companies like House of Fraser, Asda and Tesco, the latter of which makes £6k profit a minute. Of course, the Scottish Government only has powers to implement one of the above so it is little surprise that the Finance Secretary has taken this option.

However, like so many last ditch challenges, the legality of the situation has been called into question.

The challenge seems to be that a Government cannot employ favouritism in the system. That is, the SNP cannot penalise the larger companies without equally penalising the smaller companies. I can’t say I fully understand this problem in light of arrangements that already exist in the system.

The scrapping of rates for small business in Scotland is a prime example of ‘favouritism’ and, working the other way, so too are Westminster’s plans to make rich students in England and Wales pay much higher fees than other students. Replace Hooray Henry for Tesco and you’ve got the same situation. I don’t see how the Tesco Tax can flout EU rules if the two-tier tuition fees don’t.

But how can one comment on the suggestion that a Government policy breaks an EU law and how can clarity be assured before a vote takes place on the matter? You probably can’t but opposition parties still have the ideal fodder to hide behind if they want to vote against (remember minimum pricing and Local Income Tax were both vaguely mooted as breaking EU rules before being voted down)

At the end of the day though, this aim to raise £30m from the 0.1% richest companies surely won’t be seen as a losing approach for the Scottish Government and opposition parties will find themselves in a difficult position of backing large, profitable companies while still claiming to be on the side of those who are struggling.

An EU legal ruling may help to save their bacon and, well, every little helps but progress needs to be made this week if a decent budget is to be passed by Parliament.

Derek Brownlee vs ‘self-proclaimed Socialists’

Jan 21

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 39 Comments

I gratefully received this enjoyable press release yesterday:

Speaking in this morning’s Green Party debate on Public Services in Scotland, Derek Brownlee MSP, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Finance & Sustainable Growth, said:
“There is a simple option for Patrick Harvie, the Greens and the usual collection of self proclaimed socialists who lecture us on a daily basis on the need to tax and spend more.
“They can follow the example of Hazel Blears, write a cheque for whatever amount of extra tax they feel they should pay and send it off to HM Revenue and Customs.
“The cheque will be cashed. Their guilt will be assuaged. Another part of Labour’s debt will be repaid.
“There is nothing stopping any socialist in this country putting their money where their mouth is and paying more tax – the new progressive coalition government will not prevent any socialist in this country from putting their deeply held principles into practice.”

Let’s step back a minute here. The City is already rolling in cash again, if it ever really stopped to be. You can certainly see it at every turn where I work just off Threadneedle St in London. Traders, bankers and investors suppressing grins, checking booming property and share portfolios and hoping above hope that the political spotlight won’t fall on them any time soon or the game may be up. Like a gully that had experienced recent drought, the luscious water is pouring back in as unsustainably cheap share prices and volatile markets start to reap massive dividends for a select few once more.

And against this backdrop, Derek Brownlee would seemingly have us allowing the rich to pay less tax and welfare cuts and job losses to bite hard amongst the poor.

It has always struck me as unfair that when any party proposes raising taxes, the instant rebuke is that families are already struggling to meet the cost of bills, rent and food, as if any tax cut would automatically zero in on those who can least afford to pay, which is so rarely the case.

There is little doubt that a rebalancing of our economy is overdue. There was a strong will for this to happen at the height of the financial storm and now, despite Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems all having been in power at a UK level over this period, and (admittedly hamstrung) SNP in power at a Scottish level, the status quo has continued.

Of course Holyrood has limited powers but this Land Value Tax idea that the Scottish Greens are proposing can, and should, be part of the solution. Not that this press release chooses to deal with that, or any, detailed policy proposal head on. That’s not the only enjoyable disappointment though.

The linkage of Patrick Harvie with Hazel Blears is bizarre. It is at best clumsy and at worst, well, I probably shouldn’t say. Hazel paid a cheque for a tax liability that was quite clearly due from her and occurred in the heat of the expenses scandals. Neither of these factors apply to the leader of the Greens.

Furthermore, Derek Brownlee is proposing ‘self-proclaimed Socialists’ pay tax as some sort of charitable donation. As it happens, there is no process or mechanism for an individual to pay HMRC more tax than he or she is due to pay. The Treasury is not Barnardos or Oxfam. I daresay most of these Socialists are thinking hard about where to spend their money, where cash can be targeted in local economies in order to best aid struggling businesses and those most in need. There is a short-cut to bring about the necessary fairness, fairness that every party seemed to be falling over each other to promise less than a year ago but are yet to deliver.

At opposite ends of the spectrum, and perhaps even creating the real, meaningful dividing line, are a Conservative Party that believes that community spirit via The Big Society can paper over the cracks and fissures that spending cuts will inevitably cause and a Green party that believes in decreasing the inequality gap and increasing social mobility through something more reliable and substantial as the tax system.

I’m not going to do something as imbecilic as trying to pay extra money to the Treasury directly but I make no secret of the fact that I would happily pay more tax and would vote to do so accordingly.

‘Tax and spend’ is the strangest of insults from a politician. It is what Government’s are in business to do after all.

Holyrood Candidates Twitterati

Jan 19

Posted by Malc in Holyrood | 19 Comments

Anyone would think there was an election coming up eh?

I’m sure this will be an evolving list, but I’m struck by some of the names added to the Twitterati in the past few days and weeks (mostly SNP Government folks, come to think of it) who are associated with Holyrood and parties, so I thought I’d list them for your following pleasure. Or something.

Constituency/ regional list that they are standing in is in brackets (which, if they are already an MSP, may be different from the area they currently represent).  Additions (and corrections!) welcome.

SNP:
First Minister Alex Salmond (Aberdeenshire East)
Deputy FM & Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Southside)
Finance Secretary John Swinney (Perthshire North)
Education Secretary Mike Russell (Argyll & Bute)
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill (Edinburgh Eastern)
Minister for Culture Fiona Hyslop (Linlithgow)
Minister for Parliamentary Business Bruce Crawford (Stirling)
Minister for the Environment Roseanna Cunningham (Perthshire South & Kinross-shire)
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow Provan)
Rob Gibson (Caithness, Sutherland & Ross)
Bob Doris (Maryhill & Springburn)
Shirley-Anne Somerville (Edinburgh Northern & Leith)
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire & Buchan Coast)
Shona Robison/ Joe Fitzpatrick (Dundee City East/ West, joint account)
Derek McKay (Renfrewshire North & West)
Aileen Campbell (Clydesdale)
Fiona McLeod (Strathkelvin & Bearsden)
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston)
George Adam (Paisley)
Joan McAlpine (Scotland South list)
Humza Yousaf (Glasgow list)
John Finnie (Highlands & Islands list)
Stephen Noon (Manifesto Writing)

Labour:
Ewan Aitken (Edinburgh Eastern)
Greg Williams (Aberdeen South & North Kincardine)
Stephen Curran (Glasgow Southside)
Paul Godzik (Edinburgh Southern)
Richard McCready (Dundee City West)
Matt McLaughlin (Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley)
Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire)
Claire Baker (Mid-Scotland and Fife list)
John Park (Mid-Scotland and Fife list)
Drew Smith (Glasgow list)
Kezia Dugdale (Lothians list)

Conservatives:
David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Iain McGill (Edinburgh Central)
Jamie Halcro-Johnston (Edinburgh Northern & Leith)
Mark Brown (Uddingston & Bellshill)
Mark Nolan (East Dunbartonshire)
Peter Duncan (Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale)

Liberal Democrats:
Tavish Scott (Shetland)
Iain Smith (North East Fife)
Katy Gordon (Glasgow North)
Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Central)
Paul McGarry (Glasgow Anniesland)
Jim Hume (South of Scotland list)
Jenny Stanning (LD media)

Greens:
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow list)
Alison Johnstone (Lothians list)
Mark Ruskell (Mid-Scotland and Fife list)
James Mackenzie (Greens media)

(UPDATED 1 February)