Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

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: , , ,

The Politics of Do as I say, not as I do

Sep 11

Posted by Jeff in International | 3 Comments

I am currently in Copenhagen, the city of bikes by the looks of things. Breakfast partly involves struggling through the Swedish Newspapers to see what’s the latest in Valet 2010, the elections to be held next weekend.

One story that exists is the intriguing situation where the leader of the Swedish Greens is dating the leader of the Finnish Greens. The regular flights between Helsinki and Stockholm may not have provoked fierce debate but the question of how the leaders can propose road taxes on the rural drivers while they hop across the Baltic Sea on cheap flights has been raised. It certainly was last night in my company.

For me, to focus on individual actions is to lose sight of the big picture and to dangerously disregard pertinent policies in favour of puff. Much like which school a Labour leader picks for his or her children, a person’s love life and logistics of sustaining it shouldn’t really be part of the wider discussion.

And yet, I’ve not even made it to Sweden on this trip and that’s one of the few talking points I’ve learned about.

Mind you, the Green leader at least isn’t doing as bad as the leader of Vänsterpartiet (the Left Party). He made the deeply unpopular statement, talked about for days, saying that he doesn’t understand why breastfeeding in public is an issue as his wife used a pump and that worked just fine.

Oops. In a country where jämlik (equality) and women’s rights is everything, needless to say that went down like a lead balloon.

The vote is next weekend and the current ruling Alliance looks to be pulling ahead of the Red/Green coalition. It seems the Greens are in the doghouse as even if the Alliance falls short of 50%, the current Prime Minister Reinfeld has said that he would rather . stay as a minority administration than link up with the Greens.

Still, nice to see a new administration that hasn’t done much wrong in the past four years get a deserved second term but one only hopes that that lead is due to something more important than who happens to be going out with whom.

Anyway, I’m going to take one of these free city bikes and go see some sights.

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: , ,

Where has it gone wrong for Scottish football?

Sep 9

Posted by Jeff in Europe, Parties | 6 Comments

I knew the situation was bad when Liechtenstein scored their unexpected (but not entirely unsurprising) goal against Scotland at Hampden on Tuesday night. Not because we were losing to minnows from a country with a population less than Stirling’s, but because the banterous text I’d sent to several English colleagues (that I wouldn’t be in the next day if the scoreline remained the same) was met with an eerie silence.

The next day confirmed my suspicions as one of that number gingerly approached my desk, chewing his bottom lip and looking away at the last second out of a painful awkwardness… “Jeff, why are Scotland so bad at football?” he ventured. My answer couldn’t have been more tragic and self-defeating… “I don’t know Mark” *sigh* “I don’t know”.

Wales have just parted with their coach John Toshack due to a poor set of results, a job-losing run that managed to include a 3-0 hammering of Scotland. A few weeks ago Scotland lost by the same scoreline to Sweden, a country that considers football only as an afterthought after ice hockey and has a vastly inferior domestic league. A disappointing draw with Lithuania followed with our best chance being a tame header and, well, we don’t need to say much more about Tuesday beyond a 97th minute winner against Liechtenstein.

And yet, this is more or less the same team that outplayed World Cup finalists Holland, the same team that beat France (home and away) and the same team that beat recent World Cup quarter finalists Ukraine and Czech Republic. Consider this too – Scotland beat Liechtenstein 2-1, Lichtenstein lost 4-0 to Germany and Germany also put 4 past England (ergo, England and Liechtenstein are on a par), Capello’s boys beat Swtizerland this week 3-1 and Switzerland beat Spain 1-0 during the World Cup. We are, if you really want to see it, world champions.

No, I’m not convinced either (particularly, as Malc has pointed out, Germany’s tonking of both Liechtenstein and England nullifies any claim we may have had, not to mention Argentina’s 4-1 over Spain win this week). Anyway, I am digressing here with my ‘conkers’ philosophy applied to football.

There are, of course, other sports out there and we shouldn’t get too hung up about whether eleven of our countrymen can kick a pig’s bladder around a grassy knoll better than another country’s eleven men but there’s no denying that Scotland’s people have suffered through their starvation from football tournaments. 1998 was so long ago and the next World Cup is at Brazil. Brazil! We need to get better in order to be there. I’ve already freely admitted to the key stakeholder involved that I’d happily plan the family planning around my frolicking in a kilt at Copacabana 2014.

So, let’s focus, what factors can be ruled out?

Managers Granted, Berti Vogts was a blip but we have had a long(ish) line of great managers that have achieved excellence with clubs but have failed to take Scotland to equally great heights. Whatever the run of results are that lie ahead, fault can hardly be blamed at Craig Levein’s door given that Walter Smith, Alex McLeish and George Burley never made the step forward in their tenures.

Population
Scotland may be a small country and not quite have the same populations as other countries out there but if Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, Portugal, Croatia and other countries can qualify regularly, so too should Scotland. We must have more kids per capita playing football than the above countries since we don’t have hockey, winter sports, hurling and other sports clouding our youngsters minds. I would say that we can look to New Zealand for hope as that tiny nation even had a banker come on as a substitute as they drew with Italy but, well, last time played them we scraped a 1-1 draw. (It was painful, I was there…)

So where are we going wrong? Well, too much talent must be slipping through our fingers. Why isn’t Aiden McGeady playing for Scotland? Or Hamilton wunder-kid James McCarthy? Both have opted for Ireland in spite of their Glaswegian roots and both have been hailed as special talents, the former only this week by his boss Giovanni Trappatoni.

We can’t build World Cup quality teams with players who only know how to ‘throw it up the line’ in the hope that they’ll make it all the way to the end and win the ultimate prize…. a corner. McGeady and McCarthy took their Glasgow accents over to Republic of Ireland because the Scottish setup does not allow kids to play for their country and their school. Of course teenagers are going to want to play with their mates week in and week out so it’s no wonder that they use their ancestry to get the best of both worlds.

It’s such a silly rule making kids choose international football over school football. We shouldn’t be scaring away our next generation of talent on the off chance that Twechar High School breaks a few legs. Well, there’s more than an off chance of that, but you take my point.

The Old Firm must surely take its fair share of the blame, buying up talent at the other Scottish clubs and leaving it to rot in the reserves. You have to wonder about people who train all their lives to play football and then take a ‘dream move’ to Celtic or Rangers and get paid tens of thousands a week just to warm the bench.

There’s more to it of course. A better diet and less junk food would help (free school meals anyone?), more time spent outside just playing on the street and a more rigorous P.E. set up at schools are surely all areas where we’re lagging behind our sporting rivals. More importantly, we need to set the imagination free on the football field; more time on the ball, more time on tricks and flicks and more time bringing on the next McRonaldo that will take us to a Tartan Army-tastic World Cup.

I look forward to that day, that day when English colleagues can look me in the eye again as they joyfully, respectfully, healthily give Scotland a right slagging in the name of banter.

Scottish Green Party 2011 candidates announced

Sep 9

Posted by James in Holyrood | 14 Comments

With my party hat on, and some party poppers too, I’ve been publicising the first group of Green Holyrood candidates. Here they are, and I’m afraid I will enthuse about them all. I do mean it, though:

Lothians. Robin’s replacement at the top of the Lothians list is a big deal for Greens. It’s the first Parliamentary seat any Green ever won in the UK, and Councillor Alison Johnstone will take on the scarf of responsibility. I’ve known Alison since she first started working for Robin right back at the beginning of devolution, and she’s smart, determined, kind and, above all, normal (unusual across politics, that last one).

We’ve won two here before, so I should also mention her Councillor colleague Steve Burgess second on the list. He’s your classic Green candidate. Scientific background, plays the fiddle, served on Rainbow Warrior II.

Mid Scotland and Fife. Mark Ruskell will be top here again, having served as the region’s Green MSP from 2003-2007. Another comrade from the epic 1999 Green campaign, he proved a natural Parliamentarian from the off, with an eye both for the detail and the big picture. Trivia fact: he was the year below me at school, although we didn’t properly meet until that first Holyrood campaign.

Highlands and Islands. Eleanor Scott has also been reselected top, another of our Magnificent Seven MSPs from last session. Eleanor made the health brief her own in the last session, having specialised in paediatrics, and I’ve never met anyone who didn’t warm to her immediately. She is also the party’s national co-convenor alongside Patrick, ruling the party with an iron rod. It feels wrong being in Parliament without her.

North-east. Councillor Martin Ford is a new entrant at number one here, and deserves a little more introduction. Martin made his name internationally as the man who stood up to Donald Trump over Menie. Mr Trump’s alleged billions met Martin’s definite principles and lost before skullduggery and machinations by his former Lib Dem colleagues came into play. I’ve worked with Martin since he joined the Greens last year, and he will be an excellent candidate and an excellent MSP too. Made out of pure integrity, he also knows how the media works, and is one of the shrewdest political campaigners I’ve ever met.

Central. Kirsten Robb is top for us here again, which wasn’t a massive surprise given her hard work and strong media presence. She’s another proper community activist, a fairtrade campaigner, and also has great media sense. Her local, the EK News, had a page lead of her with her new baby not that long ago. Not bad before she’d even been reselected. Determined, passionate on the issues, and would be a real asset to Holyrood.

Glasgow. A young man you may have heard of got himself reselected: Patrick Harvie. Please bear in mind he pays me to represent him, but if I could afford it, I’d do it for nothing. There can’t be many people who encourage the boss to kip on their sofa when he’s through, but I do like those nights set the world to rights.

Over the eight years he’s been at Holyrood Patrick’s become widely accepted as one of the Chamber’s true stars, as well as a natural in the Newsnight hotseat. We normally agree, and when we don’t it’s normally because he’s right. If it wasn’t against party policy, I’d clone him a couple of times. All three would have pretty busy diaries.

We’re still selecting, by the way, and West and South will follow.

Tags: , ,