Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

We’ll have no trouble here (We will. Lots of trouble)

Mar 1

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 13 Comments

Except, unless you’ve been living under a local rock recently, the local government elections in May are already causing a lot of trouble.

Glasgow (Labour majority) and Edinburgh (SNP + Lib Dem coalition) councils budgets nearly failed, Stirling (SNP minority) councils actually did. There’s a variety of rammies in progress as a result of the funding settlement, the power dynamics between the parties and there’s doubtless more brewing.

Having said that, council elections are possibly the last vestige of truly representative democracy. Except perhaps in particularly contentious places like Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen councils don’t do “high politics” and even with those there’s specific local issues in play: Edinburgh has the trams fiasco; Aberdeen Union Terrace Gardens and Donald Trump’s boondoggle; Glasgow has roughly 1 in 10 Scots living in it.

Most people outside of Glasgow and North Lanarkshire probably can’t accurately describe the political make up of their councils executive. I’d put 50p and a pound of grapes on more people being able to name one of their Councillors, though. What they do do are pot holes, buses, parks and dog poo. Not to mention councillors being the first port of call for folk having trouble with truculent social services, benefits and planning departments. Prosaic stuff compared to the constitution or energy policy but definitely the sharp end of politics.

It’s that prosaic stuff that’s likely to determine elections in many wards, and probably enough to swing control one way or another in many councils. Yes, there’s a national effect where some people vote on whether they like Alex Salmond, Johann Lamont or Ruth Davidson but because these local elections are decoupled from national elections for the first time in a long time that’s likely to be more muted. That muting means there’s a bigger personal vote for those candidates that are running again and have helped people in the past, a bigger anti-vote for those that haven’t done well by their constituents and a chance for new faces to make a meaningful impression.

Because of that, it’s going to be an ugly, bitter, vicious election. Things are going to be said and done which aren’t edifying, illuminating or even true. It’s unlikely to be Daley’s Chicago vicious, but only because nobody has the capability for that sort of politics. If they did, they would use it.

Some people will argue that the stakes are far higher: that the SNP have to retain their existing councils and make substantial gains; conversely that Labour has to either hold control in Glasgow or take Edinburgh. I’m not convinced about that. Without falling into cliche, Scots have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to decouple different elections.

Prosaic as it is, it seems to me that the local elections are going to come down to two things: organisation and effort. If you’re prepared to work hard and you’ve got some sense you’ll be ok. If you’re not well, good luck with that.

The pros and cons of #operationhilarity

Feb 29

Posted by James in Elections, International | 18 Comments

Yesterday Michigan voted and Mitt Romney duly squeaked the state of his birth ahead of Rick Santorum, someone assumed previously to be a joke – partly because of Dan Savage’s magnificent redefinition of his name, and partly because he’s the quintessential wingnut.

He’s come out against education, he remains a total homophobe, and he’s gone beyond opposition to abortion and into opposition to contraception, which he described as “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Rick, if God didn’t want us to use johnnies, he wouldn’t have let us work out how.

He also lost his own Senate seat in 2006 by 18 points. Normally getting humped in your home state isn’t the perfect setup for a run at the Presidency. Oh, and his sartorial sense reminds me of Ned Flanders, although even Ned would never lose the sleeves.

The vote in Michigan was closer than would have been imagined a few months ago, though, partly because of the momentum with which he’s been coming from behind, and partly because of #operationhilarity.

The Republicans themselves pressed to open up their nomination process in Michigan to independents and Democrats and make it an open primary. The Democrat blogs and network mavens, having no use for a Democratic vote in Michigan, pushed for a vote for Santorum instead.

The Daily Kos launched the idea two weeks ago as #operationhilarity. The logic is that someone so grotesquely odd and out of touch with the middle of American politics can’t possibly win a general election, so make him the Republican candidate and ta-da! Obama cruises to a second term. Also, watching Rick crash and burn would be truly first class entertainment. As Markos put it, “it’s freaking hilarious. I mean, Rick Santorum? Really? The Republicans have offered up this big, slow, juicy softball. Let’s have fun whacking the heck out of it.”

Rick even played along, having his campaign robo-call blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” to encourage them to vote for him. The combined result? Democrat participation up to 10%, and they split for Santorum more than three to one.

Mitt won anyway, but was this a good idea by Democrats?

On one level it illustrates the absurdity of the American electoral system. However, no amount of doing so seems to lead to change. In fact, the recent changes to campaign finance laws confirm the trend, as put by Michael Spence to the New York Times, that we’ve seen “an evolution from one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote.”

Another perspective, set out in a first class article by Jonathan Chait, says this is the Republican right’s last chance to hold the line on social issues against the coming tide of young people, gays, Hispanics etc. Obama dispatching Santorum would be a clear victory in the 1990s-and-onward reheated version of the 1960s culture wars, true.

But so too would Obama-Romney. Mitt’s made himself into a staunch wingnut that he now has to deny his best achievement in every debate. The outcome would surely be the same, ideologically and practically.

The downside of Rick Santorum being his party’s nominee might be more subtle. He’d bring the far-right theocrats out to vote in larger numbers in November, and the coat-tails effect on House and Senate races would mean disproportionately more of that particular crowd would get elected. No-one goes out to vote Republican in November because they’re passionate about Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney probably isn’t even passionate about himself. But a post-Santorum Congress could be filled with some pretty unpleasant material indeed.

pic is Rick made of gay porn

Devo Plus enters the fray

Feb 28

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 73 Comments

Who would have thought that a referendum on independence would be this tricky?

We have Calman going through Westminster, Devo Max still floated by nobody but somehow not disappearing and now Devo Plus, the same but different, being pushed to the fore today by former Lib Dem MSP Jeremy Purves.

Ardent supporters will no doubt largely scoff at this proposal while ardent unionists will largely support it if it means full independence will fail. I just hope that somewhere between the two that a real consideration of what is being proposed takes place as the original document from Reform Scotland that Devo Plus is based upon is an excellent piece of work and is that rare thing – a unionist solution that is sensible, lasting and sustainable.

Devo Plus, if I am not mistaken, will give Scotland control of all of its income tax and corporation tax and fund its own spending accordingly, including control of borrowing powers. So there would be no problems with raising one tax rate but not raising another, no complaints about a one size fits all UK policy on Corporation tax and there would be no limit to spending tomorrow’s money today if the Government of the day decided this was necessary, perish the thought.

It’s such a shame therefore that this option follows the Cameron-esque strategy of being a potential solution ‘if Scotland votes no in a referendum’, a carrot for Scots to aim for while we are beaten with the stick into the No vote. Aside from not having as full a debate as we could do come 2014, this is a mistake tactically for anyone in favour of the United Kingdom remaining in place.

The more options there are before Scots in the referendum then the less likely it is that independence will be the final decision. All things being equal, there is a 50% chance that Scots will vote Yes to independence but if you were to include the clearly defined Devo Plus on the ballot slip, that chance reduces to 33.3*%. Today is a better day for David Cameron than it will be for Alex Salmond.

Devo Plus won’t kill nationalism stone dead. It won’t provide a seat at the EU or the UN or give Scotland a fairer share of MEPs for example and it won’t remove nuclear weapons from north of the border, and there will always be a sizeable element of Scots campaigning for those things and more besides.

But for this once-in-a-generation referendum and for those Nationalists who will be satisfied with nothing short of full independence, this Devo Plus has the potential to be a game changer.

*recurring

House of Lords reform – Is ‘jury duty’ the answer?

Feb 27

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Westminster | 13 Comments

I’m sure this is an idea that’s had an airing before and indeed when I mentioned it to my co-editors here, Comrade Aidan mentioned something apparently similar from Mark Thomas (who I think is a ninny, which drew all manner of opprobrium from BN Comrades plural).

Anyway, I was in the pub, as you do on a Saturday lunchtime and, again, as you do, I was chatting about what one could realistically do about the House of Lords to make it a better place.

My first suggestion was to call it the House of Ladies every other year. Isn’t it about time the gender assumption was turned on its head? Apparently I wasn’t thinking big enough.

Despite the widely perceived nonsensicality around the House of Lords, one must remember that to do nothing might actually be the best course of action. On the one hand you have unelected peers debating policies with the public having no means of recourse to challenge their discussions but on the other hand you have a lot of largely intelligent people providing reasonably objective reviews of legislation for relatively little expense. It is arguably difficult to improve upon that. I mean, does anyone believe that Baroness Williams getting stuck into this NHS Bill is a bad thing?

However, there is a flip side, of course. For one, the idea that Lord Sugar should be a peer for life because Gordon Brown wanted him to be a Business Tsar for four months is bonkers, as is the idea that bishops and landed gentry get a seat in the Lords by dint of their job or birthright, not to mention the unseemly act of PM after PM filling the chamber with as many of their party members as they can get away with.

The House of Lords currently has just shy of 800 members and I, at best, could name a handful of them, which is probably more than the vast majority of people in this country could manage. That is not a healthy state of affairs for any democracy so how can it change for the better? Let’s firstly rule some options out.

A House of Lords that is a pale imitation of the House of Commons would not realistically be fit for purpose. Is there a point in having an elected second chamber that would nod through legislation if it consisted of those from the same party as those in Government, and knock legislation back if it didn’t? I suspect most people out there don’t just want more of the same knockabout Punch and Judy politics.

The other extreme is to have a House of Lords full of independents, full of the heads of science and economics and literature and philosophy, all worthily discussing legislation before them and passing their honest, considered views before taking a vote. It’d be like BBC4 does UK Politics, a tantalising prospect but a bloody nightmare when you start to wonder about the specifics of who, what, when and why these people would be selected.

Something doesn’t necessarily need to be done but improvement is surely within our reach.

There is a worrying, and widening, democratic deficit in the UK right now. Elections went from being typically every four years to fixed every five years without people batting an eyelid, if they even knew it had happened in the first place. Are we happy about this? Who the hell knows.

There is a pressing need for the public to be more immersed in the politics that exists in this country, avoiding the artificial line between politics and normal life that makes the former tantamount to showbusiness for ugly not-as-beautiful-as-celebrities people. I just want people to be interested and if they aren’t interested then perhaps it is best to force them to be, even just a little.

My preferred type of House of Lords reform therefore is quickly becoming a form of jury duty where 800 or so people are selected at random from the UK public and serve for six months or a year, followed by another tranche of 800 people and another tranche and so on. There would be permanent staff at the House of Lords that would simplify legislation and provide the legal support but the revising of the output of the House of Commons would be strictly for the 800 to decide. It’d be like a more honourable Big Brother where the public takes on direct responsibility for part of the UK’s future by being the very ones that have to take the decisions of what should and shouldn’t pass in our name. I’d certainly prefer the public being involved in legislation on an ongoing basis rather than being asked (and, let’s face it, lied to) by politicians twice a decade.

My hope would be that a natural filter for bampottery and inappropriateness would apply whereby anyone unsuitable for the job would elect not to take part if they were selected, but those who did serve in the House of Lords would be paid the same salary, wage or welfare as they would ordinarily. It’s Big Society and the work experience scheme rolled into one. How couldn’t David Cameron sign up to it?

You may well disagree but I see very few faults with this proposal and I believe it would be a marked improvement on the status quo, and not only because the old leftie deep inside me would thoroughly enjoy seeing Lords inhabitants being turfed off their red leather seats and into the cold.

Could Joe Public do a better job in the House of Lords than Lord Blah Blah? It’s debatable but perhaps more to the point, who would dare suggest otherwise?

The additional Forth Bridge is the SNP’s biggest mistake

Feb 25

Posted by James in Holyrood, Transport | 29 Comments

For some years now I’ve been making the case that the proposed additional Forth Road Bridge would be unaffordable, unsustainable, unnecessary and unpopular. The existing bridge has been undergoing a dehumidification programme, and today the signs are they’ll find that’s working.

As the Scotsman puts it, this would “call into question the need for a new bridge costing as much as £1.6 billion“. Bear in mind that even if the final dehumidification results show serious deterioration, the bridge could still be recabled for a maximum of £122m (I believe that’s at 2008 prices but I could be wrong). Simple prudence.

Every party at Holyrood apart from the Greens lined up to give Fifers what they think Fifers want: yet another shiny new bridge. No-one at Holyrood apart from the Greens was prepared to say let’s wait and see, let’s not sign contracts for a bridge which has been variously estimated by Ministers to cost £1.6bn to £4.2bn until we know if it’s really necessary.

Despite the clear warnings from transport experts, the four-party consensus refused to listen, and now contracts have been signed to squander vast sums just as the public finances are being squeezed by Tory and SNP cuts (as per the Sun’s endorsement of the SNP because they were “tackling the economic crisis head-on by cutting public spending faster than anywhere else in the UK“).

Even now, just as it looks as though we’re about to see confirmation that even recabling won’t be necessary for the existing bridge, the other parties are still not ready to see sense. Some are still gung-ho: certainly the Nats and one would imagine the Tories too. The Lib Dems are wringing their hands – see Gordon Mackenzie quoted in today’s Scotsman – but won’t say no. Malcolm Chisholm admitted on Twitter that “We almost certainly made the wrong decision on new Forth Bridge but it is too late now unfortunately“, adding “Woudl we could  spend the billion plus new Forth Bridge money on new socially rented homes” (sic). Amongst non-Green MSPs and former MSPs, only Lord Foulkes also comes out with any credit, having told the Public Audit Committee last year it would prove a waste of money, although abstaining on the final vote was hardly a courageous stand.

Again, quoting the Scotsman’s editorial, “The cost of the misplaced rush to give priority for the bridge has been substantial.” Yes, true. The cost of cancellation would now be large, but nowhere near as large as the cost of proceeding to build this monument to political short-termism and idiocy. On a guess that cancellation would cost £200m – it should cost nothing but the work done if the contracts had been sensibly written, but that seems implausible – we’d still save upwards of £1.4bn: a massive slice of Scottish capital budgets.

If no sense is seen, it’s simply going to be extra road capacity which, as we know, generates extra traffic. And the years and years of disruption it’ll cause to traffic has already begun as I found out when driving over the existing bridge last week, for the first time in a very long time. Ironically, the congestion costs around repair were always accounted for very generously while the congestion cost of a new bridge was apparently never calculated. Ministers are about to find out that not calculating it isn’t equal to not experiencing it.

In December 2008 my view was that this utterly preposterous vanity project was the most likely way for the SNP to be ejected from office. Now, of course, losing a referendum is top of that list. But this bridge still isn’t far behind, and it’s closing, too. They may even interact with each other. In two years’ time we’ll be mired in a construction phase that’s unlikely to be going smoothly, just as Ministers are asking people to trust their judgement in a referendum. If even one other opposition party found a spine they’d be calling for a public inquiry into what Ministers knew when, and what advice they were given. Tragically, on this issue, Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems are exactly as inept as the SNP. And so Scotland may well be stuck with the most expensive white elephant since the Darien Project.