Looking into a Labour leadership contest is a bit like looking into a moving aeroplane. You can see all the different parts pulling and pushing this way and that but you are still none the wiser as to how it all works.
That said, I’m going to have a go at looking ahead on behalf of Labour. We may have Iain Gray grappling manfully with Salmond week in, week out (metaphorically, of course) but it is only right to look to the future and to what the next ‘Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament’ (LOLITSP) may bring. Or, if Tom Harris wins, the title would become ‘Leader of the leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament’ (LOTLOLITSP).
I’m getting confused already.
The two frontrunners of the Labour leadership contest are Johann Lamont and Ken Macintosh and, given Johann has considerable support amongst the unions, one could argue that she is ahead by a nose, needing only a win from one of the elected representatives or the Labour members bloc to pull through.
One problem for Labour with Johann winning this contest is that she only commands the support of 7 MPs and doesn’t seem to incorporate relations with Westminster into her strategy, presumably for fear that it will dilute her presence at Holyrood. Not that the picture is much different with Ken Macintosh at the helm, save for several more MPs backing him.
Even under the most extreme short-term result for Scotland’s future (independence), the nation will still have its issues debated and decided cross-border with, at least, defence, BoE and monarchy-related decisions partially taken at the Westminster of rUK and ‘independent’ Scottish decisions taken at Holyrood.
Labour’s route to recovery in the polls and at elections is surely through recapturing the sentiment that they are the party of the poor, the progressive party of the downtrodden and discarded worker. To convince people of this sea change in perceptions, Labour must offer up a combined solution using policies from both Westminster and Holyrood, pensions & social security for the former and employment, education & enterprise for the latter, forging them together into one message.
This in turn necessitates MPs and MSPs working not only closely together but practically in perfect harmony. Any suggestions of a split will be examined and exaggerated by a press that wouldn’t hesitate in chopping Labour back down again.
Let’s be honest though, tensions between Labour MPs and MSPs must be at their most strained since devolution began. The MPs clearly blame the MSPs for the failure of the last election, promising ominously that ‘the same mistakes won’t be made again’ while the MSPs are fortifying their power base by insisting that Scotland is primarily their domain. It’s fair to say, for example, that Labour MSPs have not given Tom Harris a fair crack at the Scottish leadership of late. Not that Tom is just lying down and accepting it of course.
How this tension can lead to positive results is beyond me. After all, when you think that the wolves at the door include members of your own party then you are in trouble.
I could go on to talk about the much-discussed problem that no one knows what Labour is for any more but that is to look beyond Labour’s more pressing problem. Even the building blocks needed to begin to stand again as a viable political party and a significant force against an SNP that is far from infallible do not yet exist. There is no energy around conferences, there is no air of urgency behind Iain Gray at FMQs and there are no policies that are rivalling the SNP’s direction, on either side of the border.
Further to this, and I don’t know if this is through a paralysis from Labour MPs at Westminster or a meek obedience to the direction taken by the coalition, but there is nothing coming out of Westminster that is being communicated through a Scottish prism. We are not independent (not yet anyway) so why are there no details of what Scottish MPs are working on? No news of what is happening at Westminster to improve the lot of Scotland? Surely this is the most important flank of a unionist group who wants to prove its relevance to a nation with an important choice on its hands, not to mention a political party that considers Scotland to be its heartland?
A big dose of teamwork needs to be injected into all of Scottish Labour, between MPs, MSPs and MEPs equally and, coupled with this, the whole Labour movement needs to be cracked open and reconsidered inside and out. That is a big ask of a party that is so scared of its own shadow that it doesn’t even know whether to support or shun a strike from workers and trade unions that support and fund it.
This faction-creating leadership contest appears to be doing the precise opposite of building a cohesive team that will go places and so it seems Scotland must wait even longer for the return of a rejuvenated, relevant and ready Scottish Labour.
More’s the pity.
Our Motion of the Week series has hitherto been directed at Holyrood but with Edinburgh Council putting forward a brave and seemingly truly historic motion yesterday, there could be only one winner.
I was only able to find the original motion put forward (by Maggie Chapman of the Scottish Greens) so if the motion was amended I shall update the below accordingly (see bottom of post for the motion).
It is sad though, and not a little bit depressing, that the concept of industry and business being a vehicle for social equality and tackling poverty is now held up as being an extreme view, a radical position.
Alex Massie, not altogether unsurprisingly, has labelled Edinburgh Council ‘the dumbest council in Britain’ with a bafflingly circular argument that goes thus:
“Given that financial services are a significant, even vital, part of Edinburgh’s economy and the campers are expressly and especially hostile to financial services this could be considered an odd move by the council. Nevertheless and naturally, all parties with the merciful exception of the Conservatives agreed to recognise and endorse the Occupy movement. This alone provides some reason to support the Tories at the next election.”
So because financial services are the Occupy movement’s ‘baddies’, and Edinburgh Council is backing the aims of Occupy, it somehow follows quid pro quo that Edinburgh Council considers financial services as a whole to be their ‘baddies’ by extension. I fear Alex has been reading too many comic books again.
Of course councils want to boost business in their local areas, financial services or otherwise, but there’s an overdue question that needs answered as to whether billion-pound profit companies are a credit to society or a drain when it’s not at all clear how the wealth that is created, both commercially and individually, percolates down to those that need it most.
After all, the direction of travel is worrying. The Financial Stability Board recently released a list of 29 “systemically important banks” that have been deemed so crucial to the global economy that they are effectively too big to fail. These include RBS, Lloyds, HSBC and Barclays, firewalling them from ever going to the wall (though coming at the price of increased capital ratios).
Can Capitalism work on behalf of the neediest in society when the richest and most powerful institutions not only consider themselves to be above the fray but are considered by others to be above the fray? I would say definitely not when there isn’t the political will to stand up to business and Capitalism and mould it into what it needs to be, particularly when there is so much public complacency and almost guilty acquiescence.
So a hearty congratulations to Edinburgh for inviting the unavoidable opprobrium by challenging Capitalism as it currently stands today.
THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL
24th November 2011
GREEN GROUP MOTION
Support for Occupy Edinburgh motion
Council:
Notes that the encampment of citizens in St. Andrew Square, ‘Occupy Edinburgh’, represents one part of a growing, global movement for real democracy, authentic global equality and justice, and a sustainable economic and ecological future;
Notes that this occupation, together with the more than 1000 others worldwide, is not simply a protest, but an effort to bring to life the inclusive, equitable and sustainable systems desired;
Notes that this movement, and its participants in Edinburgh, have significant support in the wider population;
Believes that given the mistakes made by financial traders, the profits of these companies and their shareholders should be tapped before cuts are made to public sector spending. It is unacceptable that bailouts are being paid for at the expense of public services, and this must never be allowed to happen again;
Believes that an economy functional only on top of endlessly growing consumption is causing significant environmental damage and must ultimately deplete our planet’s resources and cause irreversible environmental damage. This must end now;
Believes that these demands are not only fair, but are in fact the only reasonable response in the face of the crisis faced by our current economic system, our communities and our planet;
Believes that, by setting a example, Edinburgh can help our national governments, and the wider world, to finally accept the real and fundamental changes that are so desperately needed to salvage a sustainable future;
Thus supports the values of Occupy Edinburgh;
Supports the participants of the St. Andrew Square occupation in demanding that these values be recognised and acted upon by all governmental bodies in the UK, and worldwide;
Commits to return our democracy to the people, and to work together immediately to create a new, sustainable and equitable Scotland.
Proposed: Maggie Chapman
Here’s an interesting statistic for you – there are more Scottish Tories in the House of Commons than there are SNP MPs.
David Mundell is often held up as the only Scottish Tory at Westminster but David is infact the most southern-born of those in the House of Commons hailing from north of Gretna.
The full list is as follows:
Liam Fox (MP for North Somerset) – born in East Kilbride
Iain Duncan Smith (MP for Chingford & Woodford Green) – born in Edinburgh
James Gray (MP for North Wiltshire) – born in Dunblane
David Mundell (MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) – born in Dumfries
Lorraine Fullbrook (MP for South Ribble) – born in Glasgow
Iain Stewart (MP for Milton Keynes South) – born in Hamilton
Michael Fallon (MP for Sevenoaks) – born in Perth
Eleanor Laing (MP for Epping Forest) – born in Paisley
update:
Michael Gove (MP for somewhere) – born in Edinburgh
Some may be wondering as to why Rory Stewart is not on that list, holder of an unmistakable Scottish accent and the Conservative MP for Penrith and The Border, but sadly his Wikipedia page has his place of birth down as Hong Kong. I guess that technicality helps to cancel out the leader of the SNP Angus Robertson who some may be surprised to know was born in leafy Wimbledon.
That’s a final score of 9 – 5 in favour of the Scots-born Tory MPs over the Scots-born SNP MPs.
Not that, I’m sure you’ll agree, any of this really matters. Where an individual is born is a rather arbitrary factor in the grand scheme of things.
That said, we as a country go bananas for Andy Murray and JK Rowling and Billy Connolly and Annie Lennox by dint of their birthplace alone. We are proud by association of their success and consider Scotland, and ourselves by extension, to be in some regard partly responsible for their situation. Not an unreasonable argument by any stretch of the imagination.
However, the tendency stops stone dead when it comes to Politics, particularly conservative politicians.
His role may have ended in ignominy but until recently we had a Scot in charge of the reserved brief of Defence in the shape of Liam Fox. That’s a union dividend right there or, at the very least, a reason to be cheerful. I don’t think it’s xenophobic to think that if one was a Scottish solider in the front line then one would have a little internal grin at having a political leader with the same accent, even if it gave you no practical advantage. It’s a little national pride thing, and there’s no harm in it. Similarly, Iain Duncan Smith from Edinburgh is one of the few members of the UK Cabinet who gets the scale of the challenges that underpin Scotland’s deepest ills and he is well placed to do something about it as the Work and Pensions Secretary, another Cabinet position with direct control of Scotland. Isn’t that a reason for a swelling of the Scottish chest moreso than a man who can cycle round a track very fast, Sir or no Sir?
Further afield, we have a (small-c) conservative Scot potentially poised to take over the leadership of Germany. What a celebration that will run through David McAllister’s family home City of Glasgow and Scotland at large if that day comes to pass! A Scottish leader at the world’s top table at last. Perhaps not the exact situation that the SNP has always envisaged but a wee fillip for Scotland nonetheless, surely?
They say there are no heroes any more, noone to look up to who can inspire us but we clearly have such people at home and abroad. Why don’t we know more about them? Why don’t we follow their progress more closely and know of their past more intimately?
Is it possible that in Scotland our choking hatred of everything Tory is so blinding that we deny our own sons and daughters the share of national pride that they have earned?
What do we want Scotland to be famous for – building roads or building high speed rail links?
One may say that the cost of high speed rail is prohibitively expensive and as a result comparing road-building with 250mph rail travel is a false dichotomy. I would argue the other way.
The cost of HS2 is set at £32bn over decades of investment. Let’s say that the Scottish share of that is £4bn.
Monies (to be and already) spent on roadbuilding over the past and next few years includes:
M74 – £700m
Forth Road Bridge – £2bn+
M80 Stepps to Haggs bypass – £320m
M8/Aberdeen Western Peripheral – Goodness knows
So, the money is there if the will is there. Of course, the SNP’s short term view is to keep Scots happy enough for the next few years to make sure they vote Yes in the referendum and a 30 year plan for HS2 doesn’t fit into that timescale unfortunately. A counter-argument could well be that a Yes to independence will release the oil revenues that can be used to be spent on upgrading our infrastructure. Sounds good to me, particularly in light of the coming paragraph, but it’s prudent to operate in the expectation that Scotland will remain a part of the UK.
When I was in Norway, a country with oil-soaked ground beneath its seas, I was amazed at the number of tunnels that linked the archipelago of islands around Trondheim. Distances of 2km, 3km, 5km had been bored down through the ground and up the other end, seemingly with little fuss. Similarly, bridge after bridge was crossed on the little road trip that I was on. S, I couldn’t help but ask myself, why is there so much fuss involved and money being spent on a single Scottish bridge?
I decided to do a little reasarch.
There are over 900 road tunnels in Norway with a total combined length of 750km.
The longest road tunnels (>7km, with opening year and length) are:
• Lærdalstunnelen, 2000, 24505 m, world’s longest road tunnel
• Gudvangatunnel, 1991, 11428 m
• Folgefonntunnel, 2001, 11150 m
• Korgfjelltunnelen, 2005, 8530 m
• Steigentunnelen, 1991, 8079 m
• Bømlafjordtunnel, 2000, 7888 m, see also below
• Eiksundtunnelen, 2008, 7765 m, see also below
• Svartisentunnelen, 1986, 7615 m
• Høyangertunnelen, 1982, 7543 m
• Vallaviktunnelen, 1985, 7510 m
• Åkrafjordtunnelen, 2000, 7400 m
The new Forth crossing will be only 2.7km in length and the Norwegians have finished 6 tunnels that are much, much longer since 2000.
So, the crucial question, how much did they cost?
I was only able to find figures for three of these tunnels but the results may make you weep for your Scottish pounds:
Laerdal – 1,082 million kronor (£120m)
Bomlafjord – $61 million dollars (£38m)
Eiksund – 846 million kronor (£94m)
This is a country that is prohibitively expensive. I know of people who take their own potatoes with them over the border because they can’t face buying them in the supermarkets there. And they can still build long tunnels for a fraction of the price of our smaller Scottish white elephants bridges.
There are other comparisons that can be made. China, for example, built a 26mile bridge (longer than the English channel) for £1.4bn, albeit with wages at a much lower rate than you’d have to pay in Fife/Edinburgh.
So if the cheapest countries in the world and the most expensive countries in the world can build bridges and tunnels for cheaper than Scotland can, there is only one question that need be asked….
WHAT THE HECK ARE WE DOING WRONG!?
Why do Parliament buildings, trams, bridges, solar panels, insulation, heck, railway fares even, cost more in Scotland than in other places? Why can Norwegians happily hop from island to island by car and bike but we still have an old-fashioned network around our Highlands and islands?
So much in our would-be country needs to be ripped up and started again, both metaphorically and physically. Where better to start than with rail tracks, tunnels and bridge plans. High Speed Rail from Birmingham to London makes little sense but from Edinburgh to London (and beyond) it most certainly does. Independence or no independence, let’s shoot for the moon, and ask the Norwegians how the heck they do it.