Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Screw you, Floella Benjamin

Jan 18

Posted by James in Westminster | 10 Comments

Late last night Twitter buzzed with the bad news that the Lords had rejected efforts to delay implementation of the Welfare Reform Bill, the austerity-led assault on the disabled being opposed by, amongst others, the fantastic #spartacusreport campaigners. For a detailed summary of what happened, both in terms of Ministerial speeches and the amendments, read Sue Marsh’s relatively optimistic report on it here.

The second thing Twitter buzzed with was word that Floella Benjamin had voted with her Lib Dem colleagues and against the disabled. Confirmation is here – disclose the Lib Dem section of those Not Content with the amendment to see the name Baroness Benjamin.

For some reason this particular voting decision stuck in my throat worst of all. Sure, it may be unfair to pick on her out of the 229 unelecteds who voted for this Tory agenda, but I grew up watching her on Playschool, and I feel personally aggrieved.

Floella – you were a ground-breaker, not just a rare and charming non-white face on our black and white TV but also the first woman shown properly pregnant on TV, apparently. You came across as such a kind and benevolent person, and yet last night you chose the Tory agenda over the needs of people with disabilities. Previously I might have looked at your twitter stream and thought it looked like the kind of anodyne and inoffensive stuff you might expect from a former childrens’ TV presenter, but today crap like this looks like a pretty sick joke.

The best childrens’ TV introduces kids to difference and helps them understand the diversity of society. I remember this including some fairly cack-handed efforts on the disability front (I do also remember that going horribly wrong in the early 1980s, admittedly) by Playschool and others. To discover that the lovely lady from the television helped to end DLA last night, and helped to push people with disabilities into poverty is just too much to tolerate. Tell me I’ve had a failure of perspective, but did the Dukes of Hazzard vote to hike up tuition fees? Did Ivor the Engine decide not to try and overturn his own privatisation? Did the Wombles do a u-turn on nuclear power? Did Dangermouse join the bloody Lib Dems?

The Question

Jan 18

Posted by Kirsty in Constitution, Westminster | 13 Comments

The members of the commission set up by the UK government into the West Lothian Question have been announced.

The commission will be chaired by former House of Commons clerk Sir William McKay and is made up of non-partisan experts with “constitutional, legal and parliamentary expertise”.

The rest of the panel are senior parliamentary lawyer Sir Stephen Laws, his predecessor Sir Geoffrey Bowman; the UK’s former ambassador to the UN, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, as well as two academics, Professor Charlie Jeffrey, the head of social and political science at Edinburgh University, and Professor Yvonne Galligan, a researcher in gender politics at Queen’s University Belfast.

Ever since the 1970s the West Lothian Question has plagued parliamentary relations between the nations of the UK. First posed by Tam Dalyell, then MP for West Lothian, it queried how a Scottish MP at Westminster post-devolution could vote upon policies affecting English seats, when that same MP could not vote on the same issue affecting his or her own constituency because it would have been devolved to a Scottish Parliament.

Today, the question more commonly challenges how Scottish MPs (and Welsh and Northern Irish members) continue to vote upon English matters while MPs from England have lost the power to influence the same policies, now devolved to the nations. There have been previous attempts to remedy the situation – notably reducing the number of Scottish MPs – but the discrepancy became particularly stark under the last Labour government, where Labour’s MPs from Scottish constituencies enabled the passing of controversial legislation for England like foundation hospitals and tuition fees.

The commission has been tasked, by the original coalition agreement drawn up between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, with recommending new ground rules for MPs on the Westminster Question. It will not cover financing, or the number of MPs: its purpose is rather to recommend a solution to the problem of who votes on parliamentary business covering England in Westminster that is under the auspices of the devolved assemblies elsewhere.

It seems unlikely that the commission will settle on all or nothing.

Burke’s dictum that “You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament” won’t soothe the sense of injustice after over a decade of Scottish MPs dictating domestic policy for England. Nor is Pete Wishart MP’s suggestion, speaking on the announcement of the commission members, that “There is only one clear answer to the West Lothian Question and that is for both Scotland and England to be fully in charge of their affairs by becoming independent and equal nations”, likely to gain the approval of the coalition government at the moment.

So with neither all MPs voting on everything, or no Scottish MPs at all being outcomes the commission is likely to reach, one possible solution is a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, whereby MPs from devolved nations refrain from voting on matters pertaining to England alone, as SNP MPs do at the moment. It was the aim of Conservative backbencher Harriet Baldwin’s Legislation (Territorial Extent) private member’s bill, which fell at its third reading last September, largely due to Ministers preferring the commission to be left to do its work.

I doubt MPs representing devolved constituencies will enjoy being relegated to not quite full Members of Parliament, meaning the restriction on voting will have to be made mandatory rather than voluntary. The archaic divisions in the House of Commons, coupled with the ways votes are called, could make implementing this a nightmare, although that indicates to me the need for more reform of the practices of parliament rather than an insurmountable obstacle in and of itself.

An alternative solution is federalism: an English chamber for discussing English issues. Sittings in Westminster Hall could change to focus on such legislation and only MPs from English constituencies would attend. It’s a reasonable option, soothing some of the issues West Lothian Question poses.

The Question of course only arises because of power moving closer to the people, or at least for people living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Restricting what legislation certain MPs can vote on might resolve the Question in neat terms of day-to-day House of Commons life, but it does little to right the fundamental imbalance in power and influence which drove Dalyell’s original point.  Each nation’s representatives legislating on issues affecting that nation alone naturally brings more power and influence to all people in the UK. Whether the commission on the West Lothian Question will recommend this solution, at a time when most parties at Westminster oppose constitutional changes like independence for Scotland, will be interesting to see.

If you tolerate YES then your children will be next – how the NO campaign can succeed

Jan 17

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 58 Comments

Another guest, this time from Andrew Graeme Smith, a London-based Scot who works in the PR industry. He grew up in Edinburgh and studied at Dundee, and you can read his blog at www.blackberrybanter.wordpress.com

Well, the battle lines have been drawn and the campaigns are about to properly kick off as we enter the longest and most important three years in Scottish constitutional history. All that stands between Scotland and independence are the matters of public opinion and a NO campaign that will involve a bag of dirty tricks and mud-slinging tactics that will make the scrutiny of a US Presidential campaign look like a walk in the park.

By day I work for a PR firm and spend lots of time working on campaign strategies and plans for a wide range of clients, so it’s with a professional hat on that I’ve been thinking about what form the NO campaign will take. On one hand they’ve already rejected most of the advice that I would have given them (The Tories should have elected Fraser, Labour should have elected Macintosh and both parties should have tried to embrace and shape the meaning of devolution-max) which leads me to expect that they’ll do the exact opposite of what I suggest, and then hopefully they’ll stand no chance of winning whatsoever!

One interesting aspect of the last few weeks has been the obvious divisions across the NO camps, but in some ways this makes perfect sense because nobody can have a monopoly on the idea or reasons why people might wish to vote NO. While it’s fair to assume there will be a nominal umbrella campaign for a NO vote it will probably only be used for letterheads, posters, adverts and the odd speech. There is unlikely to be much of a focus on a formal campaign because, as the recent discussions about the role of Alistair Darling show, the unionist parties know that they have utterly nothing whatsoever to gain from entering a presidential campaign against Alex Salmond.

This leads to my second point. If we are to believe the recent social attitudes survey then simple math dictates that the unionist parties don’t need to win over any new converts in order to win the referendum, all that they have to do is ensure that their own supporters turn out and don’t vote the wrong way, this stands in stark contrast to the YES campaign which can’t win the referendum without winning over new voters. This means that the approach of the unionist parties will almost certainly be very insular and will be directed almost entirely at their own supporters in a bid to ensure that they don’t vote yes.

Which leads me to my final point: the individual and collective campaigns will be incredibly negative. There will be some patriotic talk about World War 2 and the wonders of the NHS, but that won’t be enough to make them feel confident of victory. What they will probably do is make sure that the SNP are attacked from all angles in a bid to destroy their credibility in the eyes of their own supporters. This tactic has already been used over the last few days as we have seen the SNP fending off accusations from all angles, the assumption behind this strategy isn’t that the electorate will all want to drape themselves in Union Jacks, the idea will be to conflate the concept of independence with the specific policies of the SNP and the assumption is that if people don’t feel entirely confident about SNP economic policies then their doubts will lead them to vote no.

The history of referendums in Britain show that cross party campaigns can be very popular, and the recent AV referendum has shown that promoting negative messages and appealing to people’s inner doubts can be very popular (how about ‘she needs a new cardiac facility NOT an independence referendum’ for a new slogan?). The AV campaign is an interesting case study because the NO campaign managed to get 2/3 of the vote in Scotland, and as the polling data shows it was only really once the negative advertising and the big political beasts had been unleashed that the NO campaign began to really establish a lead. In the case of AV people were being asked to vote on a reasonably inconsequential change – just imagine how much scare-mongering will be done on something as major as independence.

If the referendum has more than one question then almost everything I’ve written will be invalid (and possibly the topic for a future article) as the middle option will change the nature of the debate and pull both campaigns out of their comfort zones. I would expect that if there is a FFA option then the NO campaign will probably try to run a positive and more formal campaign that’s based more on the Make Poverty History type of model than anything that I’ve outlined. If this is the case then I would expect it to be presented as a conversation between civic Scotland about the future of the country balanced with some whining about the Nationalists being on the sidelines. Equally, all of this is conjecture and speculation and may well prove to be wrong, regardless, I would be keen to know everyone else’s views.

Ed Balls Commits The Inevitable Final Betrayal Of The Left By Labour Party

Jan 16

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 31 Comments

Or, err, not.

Despite a slightly cackhanded Guardian interview  Ed Balls’s Fabians speech did not, in fact, commit Labour to supporting every Tory cut as they made it.

What he committed to was Labour opposition to the ill considered, economically illiterate, counterproductive Tory plan to reduce the deficit by whatever means they could see.

He also committed to doing the right thing

“Which is why Ed Miliband and I have argued for a global plan for growth, with clear medium-term plans to get deficits down, but stimulus now to avoid a global slump too.”

Is he capitulating to the ill informed, ineffective, counter productive Tory and Lib Dem deficit reduction plan?

“George Osborne and David Cameron took it as read that deep and immediate spending cuts and tax rises would at least serve the goal of deficit reduction – no matter how much Labour warned that going too far, too fast would be bad for borrowing as well as for jobs and growth.”

Don’t think so.

Does he have a direct, specific criticism of the Coalitions economic strategy or is he just whining?

“On the surface of things, cutting EMAs and the Future Jobs Fund saved money and reduced borrowing.

But  at what cost? How much more will it cost our society and our economy to leave those young people long-term unemployed and
unproductive; they and their children receiving benefits rather than paying taxes and contributing to the national wealth?”

Ok, yeah. The man’s got a point.

Is he betraying the public sector and capitulating to George Osborne?

“But George Osborne’s economic mistakes mean more difficult decisions on tax, spending and pay. It is now inevitable that public sector pay restraint will have to continue for longer in this parliament.

Labour cannot duck that reality. And we won’t. Jobs must be our priority before higher pay.”

Nope, don’t think so. He’s recognising that Osborne’s economic ineptitude is doing serious, long term harm to the economy and that preserving employment over wage rises has to be the priority compared to job losses for some, pay increases for others. Tiny American flags are neither here nor there.

He goes on to advocate dispersing the agreed increase in public sector wages such that those at the bottom of the pay scale get a significant increase while those at the top see nothing. Seems reasonable to me. There’s then a great deal of talk about the need for pay reform at the executive level both inside and outside the public sector.

The only really significant thing in the Guardian interview was the he said no Shadow Cabinet member should commit to reversing particular spending cuts 3 and a half years hence. He didn’t say “Labour accepts all Tory Cuts”, Jim Murphy followed  strategy last week when he opposed some defence cuts and accepted others.

2015 is a very long time away. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats  are doing untold harm to the economy with their ill judged, misconceived and counter productive austerity program. Labour would do things differently, and opposes the current cuts program – as evidenced in their support for the #spartacusreport led opposition to the welfare reform bill. However, unless something incredibly unexpected happens any incoming government in 2015 will find itself with an irrevocably damaged economy and an ongoing deficit.

At that point decisions will have to be made as to how best to go forward, reversing cuts that have been in place in for 4 or 5 years is not necessarily the best way to go at that juncture. The spin that’s been applied to this, particularly in the Guardian article is ineffective – trying to wear a scratchier, more uncomfortable hair shirt than the Tories and Lib Dems is ineffective and not where Labour needs to be in terms of narrative. Those who already agree with the Tory, Lib Dem and SNP cuts agenda will agree with it regardless, those who who could be convinced by a Labour alternative won’t be convinced by the mealy-mouthed Guardian interview and won’t read the text of his Fabians speech.

Good idea, bad politics. Which is unusual for him.

(Note to cybernats: because the SNP are accepting the Tory cuts program in Scotland rather than raising revenue to ameliorate them you should haud yer wheesht)

There’s only one team in Tallinn

Jan 15

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 25 Comments

Herewith a guest post from SNP activist Richard Thomson. Richard is a former SNP researcher and Westminster candidate who used to blog at scotsandindependent.blogspot.com. He is now a full-time journalist based in Aberdeenshire.

Since the SNP’s victory in May, Scottish politics had been very quiet. Attribute that to what you will, although the leadership vacuum in the three main opposition parties certainly played a role. However, with this week’s referendum stushie, the brutal truth for Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie is that it’s taken an intervention from the Prime Minister, however ill advised and counterproductive it may have been, to come anywhere close to seizing the political agenda from the SNP.

The PM marched his troops up to the top of the hill last Sunday over setting an 18 month window for holding a referendum. Now, he faces the prospect of having to march them back down again after Alex Salmond revealed what was probably one of the worst kept secrets in Scottish Politics – that there would be a 2014 referendum.

To call for an 18 month timescale on Sunday before running away from that on Monday only to launch a ‘consultation’ on Tuesday is frankly incredible. There’s a book, or at least a series of FOI requests to be written about the twisting and turning going on behind the scenes in Whitehall. There’s nothing like a well-worked strategy and even the most loyal supporter of the Lib/Con coalition would have to concede that this was nothing like a well-worked strategy.

To my mind, Labour, the Conservatives and their Lib Dem partners in government lost the moral authority to set the terms of an independence referendum with the SNP landslide in May. To go from a position of saying ‘no referendum, ever’ to bleating about having one and having it yesterday holds no credibility whatsoever. If a referendum was what was required, then there was ample leverage during the last Scottish Parliament to extract just about any concession on franchise, supervision and timing that could possibly have been desired.

But that chance was spurned and now the SNP is firmly in the driving seat. Forget the misguided talk from Michael Moore about a ‘legally binding’ referendum – there’s can be no such thing in the UK. If the Westminster Government genuinely wants to remove any possibility of grounds for challenge as to the legislative competence of Holyrood to hold a referendum, then it should get on with it, stop trying to attach strings to the vote and accept with as much grace as can be mustered that it has been overtaken by events on this one.

Much of the last week of coalition politicking has left an unpleasant taste in the mouth. Arguments about process, hiding behind the narrowest possible interpretation of the Scotland Act to imply that your opponents have no respect for the rule of law, trying to exert muscle over the what, when and how of people’s ability to voice an opinion on their future governance; none of it is very impressive, far less the sign of a coalition confident in its arguments.

All this rolling around in the mud also highlights, albeit inadvertently, what many in nationalist ranks suspect is the absence of a positive case for the union. This much-vaunted positive case, which must exist somewhere because lots of important people assure us that it does, is always spoken about as if it is a given, yet its elements are never unpacked for examination.

In more wicked moments, I have a vision of there being a strongbox down in the vaults of the Bank of England, embossed with a plate saying ‘Positive Case for Union – open only in Emergency’. Eventually, someone, possibly even Douglas Alexander, decides to blow the dust off and take it upstairs, the better to unleash its power to vanquish ‘narrow nationalism’ once and for all.

“Get out the way! Positive case for Union coming through!”, its bearer will shout. A crowd, hushed with expectation, will gather round, desperate to see for themselves what they have long been told will clinch the debate over their future governance.

After a battle with the lock, the lid creaks open. Then, in the unforgiving light of day, the awful truth emerges – whatever was in there before has turned into little more than a pile of dust. Closer inspection shows a fragment of a picture of what could be a Spitfire, but no-one’s really sure. There’s a bit of what looks like a fragment of a plate from what might be a Royal Wedding, or perhaps even a Coronation. But apart from that and the spiders, there’s nothing – whatever once was there having been eaten away by the ravages of time.

Everyone agrees about the need for a debate on Scotland’s future. Right now, nationalists must feel like Billy Dodds in Tallinn, kicking off while the other team argue about timing and procedural squabbles instead of making sure they are ready to pull on their jerseys and get on with it.

FIFA doesn’t supervise referendum campaigns. If it did, there’d be a strong case for awarding the independence campaign the 3 points now on the grounds of the opposition failing to turn up.