Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Every new Labour leader deserves a chance

Dec 20

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Parties | 27 Comments

Every new leader deserves a chance to flourish, so the epithet goes. It was a decency that was afforded Iain Gray, Wendy Alexander, Gordon Brown and, currently (though weaning), Ed Miliband. So it is only fair to wipe Johann Lamont’s slate clean and wait with optimism and hope that she shall lead a rejuvenated and energised Labour party that will strengthen Scotland through effective opposition to the SNP Government.

That said, one can’t help but think that as the SNP enters a long-craved campaign period leading up to the independence referendum, that if the Nats themselves could pick who the leader of Scottish Labour (sic) would be, they would pick someone precisely like Johann Lamont.

Wedded to the decaying force that are union leaders, inflexible on the question of independence for Scotland, often guilty of being an off-putting ‘point and shout’ politician, responsible for MPs who have no desire to be bossed around by a mere MSP, a leader who one can imagine would hold the line in the face of defeat when a change in tactics is clearly desperately required and, not that this should necessarily be held against anyone, doesn’t come across as the cheeriest soul in a nation famous for being pretty dour already. Some would say.

Add to all of this the clear probability that Johann Lamont’s leadership is already undermined by Ken Macintosh being the Labour members’ choice, receiving as he did 52% of the popular vote amongst members, and we have problems upon problems. Ken is to Johann what David Miliband is to brother Ed; a perennial reminder that the wrong person got the job due to a bizarre, byzantine electoral college system

But she deserves a chance.

Labour needs to do many things to reclaim former glories and many have postulated over what some of those should be.

Contrary to Alan Cochrane’s urging, I do not believe that constantly pressing the SNP over the date of the independence referendum will get Labour anywhere. The SNP won the election fair and square and, unless Labour can point to a deep and damaging reason why not knowing this date is causing Scotland harm, the public won’t mind (or really care) when the referendum is, safe in the knowledge that it’ll happen in a few years’ time. All that will happen is that Labour will look like it’s moaning (again) and the SNP will look reasonable (again). All the while, the constitution continues to dominate Scottish politics which in turn suggests that MSPs don’t have anything important to talk about on health, education, crime etc etc.

So what Labour needs to do is drop the constitution altogether as a talking point. If they claim the SNP is ‘obsessed’ with the topic, then highlight that supposed fact by being the polar opposite. If Labour believes in devolved Scotland within the UK being the ideal model of governance then magnify that. A blizzard of Holyrood-level proposals that are thought through and genuinely believed in, irrespective of other parties’ positions on the matters, should be pushed forward in the next six months or so by the Shadow Minister responsible for them. The young talents of Kezia Dugdale and Jenny Marra should be unlocked and unleashed alongside commentary from the pleasingly familiar Hugh Henrys, Sarah Boyacks and Malcolm Chisholms.

Alex Salmond does not need to be nobbled, he will go of his own accord before too long. It shouldn’t be about leader vs leader, as Labour’s hustings so often had it, it’s about team vs team.

So, if devolved Scotland is Labour’s chosen ball game and the SNP’s focus is on independence, which party is going to look like it is caring for Scots more in the years running up to an independence referendum, a referendum that polls continue to suggest the SNP will lose? And if that is the case, who is best placed to win the election in 2016 if the referendum delivers a No vote?

Not that the SNP makes it easy for Labour, and other opposition parties, by having so few chinks in its armour and running an economy that is powering along nicely, third in the UK only to London and the South East.

Johann could nullify SNP successes by getting on board with minimum pricing and NHS spending while playing to her strengths by utilising union power and know-how to find the fairest model for a national minimum wage, apprenticeships, taxation levels, regulation and pensions that pushes her ahead of an SNP that wants to be free-marketeers and social democrats all at the same time. It is an awesome task to consider but Johann could pull Labour more left, more Socialist, than the Nationalist big tent is willing to stretch and therein lies success within Holyrood and, by extension, at the referendum, whenever it may be.

I personally don’t believe that Johann will be able to do it as I don’t believe the above is a strategy that will be embarked upon, the ever-shrinking middle ground will remain the battlefield, and I also sensed a glint in Johann’s eyes on the day of her victory that even she believes she’s not quite up to this.

But she deserves a chance.

Beyond our Ken?

Dec 14

Posted by James in Elections, Holyrood, Parties | 27 Comments

The ballots for the protracted Labour leadership race closed this lunchtime, and the LOLITSP will be succeeded on Saturday by a Leader of Scottish Labour, in title at least.

The extent to which the new bod will get to lead does remain doubtful, though. Many of the more unreconstructed Scottish Labour MPs resented Holyrood’s very existence and still resent their own MSPs.

Even if they elect one of their own, as Jeff pointed out, will they be ruled? And will Ed Miliband really let the Scottish wing run policies that differ from his? And if the answer to both of those is yes, is there not a risk that Scottish Labour MPs would have to go into different lobbies?

As usual, with devolution, if you do things exactly the same afterwards, it’s hard to discern the point.

The additional problem revealed by the contest is that it has failed to excite even as much as that for the Scottish Tory leadership, not least because Murdo offered a relatively Big Idea. Labour remain the largest opposition party at Holyrood by a mile, yet they have managed to work themselves into a position where few people are interested in what they say.

Can a new leader turn this around? It seems unlikely, at least until Labour are prepared to fix their policy and message problems, until they’re ready to say “whatever the constitutional arrangements, these are our principles and our vision for Scottish society”, and until they realise that banging on about “separatism” or “secession” isn’t winning any hearts. But however much deeper the problem is than leadership, it remains the case that not all candidates are created equal.

Unlike Jeff, Tom Harris would get my third preference (or third preferences, were I one of those Labour members who gets endless votes for being a member of the Fabians or the Socialist Crossword Puzzle Compilers or whatever). Tom is genuinely open to debate, even if his style has too much of the internet troll about it. Last year he and I bickered about Labour’s asylum policies on Twitter, and he agreed to swap guest posts with me, which impressed me even if the content didn’t. I’m looking forward one day to a long-planned pint with him, if he forgives me for this post. But he’s a flawed candidate, and the one most likely to secure an SNP victory in 2016. He’s absurdly right-wing even by Blairite standards, prepared to lambast young mothers in the most extraordinary tones, and he’s a loose cannon. Anyone who compares the debate over Scotland’s constitutional debate to the American Civil War will give good gaffe during an election.

Johann Lamont comes next (spoilers!). She’s a dour pair of hands, another point-and-shout anti-nationalist, another exponent of the botched and timid form of social democracy undemocratically loved by the unions’ leaderships – the same union leaderships who back the ultimate dinosaur for the deputy leadership, Ian Davidson. As Kate points out, she’s also part of the authoritarian wing of Scottish Labour, the people who thought “You’ll get stabbed” was a good core message to take to a fight with the Great Puddin’, a suitable response to his empty populism and misleading talk-left-act-right politics. It’s hard to see Tom Harris becoming an MSP, something quite important for a contender for First Minister, but Lamont’s own seat is shoogly to say the least, and even if she holds it next time round she’s almost as non-credible candidate for the top job as Harris.

So yes, I’d be backing Ken Macintosh (pictured above with an unsuitable prop for #FMQ). I first tipped him in 2008, and he’s still the best candidate. On policy he’s tacked pretty hard in both directions – right, with a (now deleted from the Scotsman) plan to cut taxes, and left, with suggestions of bringing Scotrail back into public ownership – which is admittedly a bit alarming. He’s warm and personable, though, and if you squint really hard you can see him on the steps of Bute House. Or it doesn’t seem totally insane to game scenarios where that happens. He’d need to start honing better messages on independence (personally I think neutrality on it is the only plausible position for Labour eventually – focus on bread and butter issues no matter what the settlement, as above), and he’d need to step out of the angry finger-wagging mode that even he has deployed. It’s not him, and it’s not going to work. He’s also, in his own seat, a genuine winner, much as being up against the Tories is anyone else’s ideal first-past-the-post situation.

That’s a recommendation, mind, in lieu of an actual Labour left candidate, someone who could step into the yawning space to the left of this fiscally centre-right administration. It’s also a recommendation not because I want a Labour First Minister, although as a Green I would rather have a credible Labour and a credible SNP to choose from on the first vote. I really wanted John Park to stand, but he’s unfairly copping the flack for the 2011 campaign, despite the ground game (his role) being robust. It’s unfair not least because of Lamont’s key role. Parky’s normal, he’s funny, he’s organised, he picks good issues, he connects with the unions without being owned by them.

As the Iain Gray situation and the Ed Miliband situation both show, though, something has been happening to people when they take on leadership roles in Labour. They lose their fluency, they become both shoutier and more timid, and they lead like they’re following the advice of some particularly inept focus group jockey or some ex-NUS children of the Labour cocoon. All but the most blinkered Nats would accept that Iain Gray has at least partly rediscovered his voice since losing the election, and I bet some on their benches are wishing they could keep him on now, now he’s free of those shackles. Whoever wins will need to be different, though, they’ll need to be authentic, or at least fake it, as the old joke goes. And even then, if Salmond can secure his devo-max wish, who would bet on Labour to win in 2016? If I were a Labour partisan I’d pick Ken, even though I think the task is beyond him.

Quick declaration of interest: I’ll be about £150 up at the bookies if Ken wins. Although I’d have been about £500 up if Parky had gone for it. Next time mate?

Scotland, Europe, the SNP & the Lib Dems

Dec 12

Posted by Jeff in Europe | 51 Comments

The Liberal Democrats, despite holding what I have no doubt is genuine anger, have had a good weekend. 

David Cameron has naively harrumphed the UK out of Europe and Ed Miliband is stuck just outside Brussels waiting for a bandwagon to jump on. All the while Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have argued vociferously and pleasingly unapologetically in favour of the EU, not to mention Paddy Ashdown writing passionately in the Observer (and Will Hutton too, if he counts as a Lib Dem these days?). 

They have, whisper it, looked voteworthy for the first time since the tuition fee volte-face (or should that be vote-farce?), a party that is ready to step away from being the coalition’s punching bag and, bloodied but blooded, argue for what it believes in again rather than apologise for the miserable little compromises that it has made in the past.

And what of Salmond and the SNP? Well, the non-appearance of anyone from the party’s camp on The Politics Show at the weekend spoke volumes really. When the SNP has nothing to say on a subject it tends to mean that it is on the back foot. The party policy is to join the Euro at some point in the future and assume that the UK’s position inside the EU will guarantee Scottish entry. Both policies are not quite in tatters but they are more than fraying at the seams as they drown in a sea of confusion. Even the mighty David Torrance, writing in The Scotsman today, could only ask more questions than he could answer. 

It won’t be enough for the SNP to tease the Scottish public with different European and currency options this side of the referendum though. The Saltire will have to be nailed to the European flag or not and, I’d suggest, that it still absolutely should be. ‘Scotland in Europe’ only carries a little less weight than it did a decade ago.

It’s easy to postulate that Scotland is more pro-EU than the po-faced Middle Englanders who still defend a Britain that died long ago, while making crass jokes about the French and Germans. It’s harder to find polling evidence that backs that up. 

Either way, if rUK is pulling one way then there is a clear benefit to the SNP if it can pull another and take a majority of Scots with it. There’s not even necessarily anything wrong with taking principle out of it. Anything that leaves Scottish Labour in the now familiar territory of trying to oppose the UK Tories and the SNP who are at opposite ends of a spectrum should reap dividends in the battle of who speaks for Scotland.

Not that there’s anything wrong with the principle of being pro-EU. Far from it.

The Scottish Government may have no time for the EU fisheries policy, it may have no time for the Common Agricultural Policy, it may not be interested in eye-watering EU membership fees and it may well ultimately shun joining the Euro and even the EU (that hasn’t had its accounts signed off in donkeys years), but I would wager that it would always want to have a seat at the table with a little saltire on it, be open-minded enough to make the best of the bad deals out there through being in the room, be keen to champion Scotland as open for business and I’d wager that it would want to be as close as possible to the countries that it’ll seek to sell its £2bn/year of renewable energy to. 

The bottom line is, shared problems require shared solutions and, though far from perfect, a European union remains the ideal model for finding optimal solutions to those problems while a shared currency remains the optimal means by which to ensure equality and fairness for workers across the continent. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Furthermore, and this is where we come back to the Lib Dems, the SNP has no space on its left flank to allow Willie Rennie and his Scottish Liberal Democrats to be seen as Scotland’s pro-European party. 

However, if the former continues to shun media invites and the latter continues making passionate arguments in favour of the EU, what is one to do?

Brighton & Hove: Labour to choose Tories over Greens?

Dec 11

Posted by James in Local government | 7 Comments

Ten days ago, Brighton and Hove, Britain’s first Green-run Council, proposed a radical but pragmatic local budget. The headline that made the Today programme was the Greens’ rejection of the deeply regressive Tory Council Tax freeze, instead going for a modest 3.5% increase to protect services. It’s modest, and it’s also the highest permissible that doesn’t trigger an automatic local referendum.

The Tory model for the freeze is actually more respectful of local democracy than the equivalent SNP trick – the bung offered by UK Ministers would cover increases of up to 2.5%, meaning the Greens’ approach would bring in a 1% increase to local budgets. To take numbers from Aberdeenshire, John Swinney offered to cut funding by 2.6% provided Council Tax was frozen, or by 6.4% if not. It’s the classic Mafia offer you can’t refuse.

The interesting part of the Brighton and Hove Greens’ approach, though, isn’t primarily the headline figure – it’s the comprehensive alternative to the austerity model being promoted by national government and accepted by other local authorities. As per the first link, they’ve ramped up parking charges to raise additional revenue but they still remain lower than neighbouring local authorities. They’re protecting libraries and children’s centres from the Tory/Lib Dem assault, saving money by sharing IT systems with other public sector bodies, and honouring a string of election commitments like a living wage for council staff. The party’s also set out two-year plans to reduce uncertainty. There’s even a tool to allow you to set your own budget – see if you can do better.

Much credit for this should go not only to Bill Randall, the experienced former Labour Councillor now leading the local authority, but to Jason Kitcat, the local party’s fiercely bright cabinet member for finance (left, above).

The Greens have run a minority administration since May, with 23 councillors to the Tories’ 18 and Labour’s 13. The Lib Dems unsurprisingly lost their last seat. This makeup is simple trigonometry compared to the complex five-party-plus-Margo maths that the SNP had to manage during the last session of Holyrood.

Essentially, the Greens and the Tories will never agree. Their electorates barely overlap, let alone their ideologies. This puts Labour in a crucial but difficult position, issue-by-issue, a position more like that you’d have previously expected the Lib Dems to find themselves in. They could side with the Greens, the very party who have shown up Labour’s weak managerial centrism and whose passionate politics has outshone them locally, which will just ensure a smoothly run Green administration that’s very hard to get out. Alternatively they could side with the Tories and attempt to humiliate the Greens, in the hope that all people have to remember is a failed Green administration, not the actions of Labour councillors which led to a failure of that sort.

From the rumblings coming out of the Council this week, it seems that Labour intend to side with the Tories and vote down the Green budget in its entirety. It’s one way to help guarantee a majority Green administration next time, that’s for sure. In the 2010 General Election campaign, Labour pretended that Brighton Pavilion was a two-horse race between them and the Tories, and that voting Green risked a Tory MP, a line of argument comprehensively disproved by Caroline’s election. Now they’re planning to help Greens write leaflets which point out that Labour will, if pressed, do the Tories’ dirty work for them, and that literally only the Greens offer any alternative. Both possible simple Labour positions look likely to doom them, but at least by supporting a progressive local alternative they’d have retained enough goodwill to get back in the game if the Greens started making mistakes.

Councillor Kitcat also proposed an open all-party process for discussing the budget line-by-line. If Labour were smart they’d use that process to set out some progressive stalls, not just siding with the local representatives of Osbornomics. But if Labour were smart..

A Matter of Agency

Dec 9

Posted by Kirsty in Economy, Governance | 4 Comments

According to reports in The Independent this week, SNP strategists are considering the option of Scotland joining the circle of Scandinavian countries as part of the Prospectus for Independence. But many workers in the Scottish Government will be deeply unimpressed with one Swedish model apparently being imposed upon them.

In 2010/11, Scottish Government spent over £6.8 million on temporary agency staff. With the ongoing recruitment freeze, the work of civil servants departing from permanent posts is increasingly covered by agency workers, with the majority of administrative and support staff roles in the Scottish Government supplied by the recruitment agency Pertemps.

Since 1 October, under the new Agency Workers’ Directive, after twelve weeks’ work temps should gain the rights to the same basic employment and working conditions as if they had been recruited directly by the company where they are based – mostly the right to the same pay, holidays and working hours.

You would think matching civil service pay, holidays and terms and conditions for agency staff would be an achievement the SNP government would be proud to implement, given their commitment to improving workers’ conditions through policies like the living wage. However, the Scottish Government, no doubt beholden to some decision made in Whitehall, appears happy to let private companies legally bypass protections for vulnerable agency staff working in our corridors of power.

Pertemps is one of many private firms understood to be using the Swedish derogation model as a loophole to get out of the Agency Worker Regulations. Also known as “pay between assignments”, the model is derived from an opt-out clause Sweden negotiated when the Agency Workers’ Directive was agreed at EU level.

Basically, if an agency worker is made into a permanent employee of the recruitment agency, they do not gain the same basic rights of employees of the organisation where they are placed after 12 weeks’ work. Therefore the hundreds of agency staff the Scottish Government is paying over £6m on each year are probably working to implement and deliver government policy without the right to equivalent pay, holidays and working hours as the civil servants doing the same job, all because they are permanent employees of a recruitment agency, and just happen to be placed in a Scottish Government office.

It can be argued that the Swedish derogation is better than nothing. As an employee of the recruitment agency, the temp gains protection against unfair dismissal after one year and the right to basic redundancy pay after two years. They also have to be paid for at least four weeks between postings, and receive at least 50% of their last pay packet or the minimum wage, whichever is greater. However, if the temp’s contract says they can be placed on varying working hours anywhere across the country, with very little advance warning, they could be placed on a low-hour contract somewhere miles away instead of receiving pay between postings, and threatened with dismissal for gross misconduct if they don’t turn up.

Pertemps proudly displays its various good employer credentials on its website – including Investors in People and the Sunday Times Top 100 Companies to Work For. If they are implementing the Swedish derogation, and making all the temps they place in Scottish Government and other organisations permanent Pertemps employees, it will be interesting to see how long they can hold on to such accolades. And it will be even more interesting to see if the Scottish Government is happy to have a second-class workforce within its employ.