"The Tories, every election, must have a bogey man. If you haven't got a programme, a bogey man will do."
Said by Aneurin Bevan, Labour's Minister of Health between 1945 and 1951, and the father of the NHS (albeit an NHS that looked a hell of a lot more like the SNP government's version of it than the monstrosity that is currently developing in England). Incidentally, Bevan also said this -
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin."
Hmmm. I wonder what he would make of the semi-blissful marriage of mutual self-interest between Labour and Tory in the anti-independence campaign?
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Wisdom on Wednesday : Rachel Reeves, look away now
"We are called upon at the beginning of the 20th century to decide the question propounded in the Sermon on the Mount, as to whether we will worship God or Mammon. The present day is a Mammon worshipping age. Socialism proposes to dethrone the brute god Mammon and to lift humanity into its place."
Keir Hardie, one of the founders of the Labour party, and a man who Blair McDougall cites as his hero. Now just look into your heart for a moment, Blair - do you honestly believe that the neoliberal UK of today is closer to Hardie's ideal than an independent Scotland would be? Truly?
Keir Hardie, one of the founders of the Labour party, and a man who Blair McDougall cites as his hero. Now just look into your heart for a moment, Blair - do you honestly believe that the neoliberal UK of today is closer to Hardie's ideal than an independent Scotland would be? Truly?
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Miliband gives ringing endorsement to, you know, that guy
Some news stories are beyond satire. From the Press Association (or possibly from a script for The Thick of It) -
"There are three not very well-known candidates," said the BBC interviewer. "What do you know about them and can you name them?"
Mr Miliband replied: "I think we have got three great hitters. I think we have got three people who are determined to show that they can make a difference, that they can make a difference to the people of Scotland."
Interviewer: "Can you name the three of them?" Mr Miliband: "Look, what I say is, there is Tom Harris, there is Johann Lamont and a third candidate who is also putting himself forward."
Interviewer: "He is the front-runner, Ken Macintosh." Mr Miliband: "Ken Macintosh, yes."
Interviewer: "He is the front-runner but you can't name him." Mr Miliband: "No, look, Ken Macintosh is going to be an excellent candidate."
* * *
"Can you name the three of them?"
"Look, what I say is : No."
Of course, Miliband recently informed us that our elected First Minister isn't that big a figure in Westminster, and when people want to know what is really going on in Scotland, they instead turn to the obvious political colossus - Ann McKechin. Hmmm. Perhaps Mr Miliband ought to reflect on whether he might be going astray there, because I think we can safely assume that Alex Salmond is considerably better informed on the Scottish Labour leadership contest than the UK Labour leader presently appears to be.
It's also worth pointing out that Miliband's seeming reliance on the not exactly objective source of McKechin for obtaining his hazy information on this far-off land of ours is eerily reminiscent of the story of how Michael Heseltine came to vote in favour of imposing the poll tax on Scotland but not on England, as mischievously recounted by Donald Dewar in the House of Commons. A Lib Dem MP enquired whether Dewar had heard that the reason Heseltine voted the way he did was that he - amazingly - thought the Scottish people wanted the poll tax. Dewar replied : "It's worse than that. What he actually did was ask the Secretary of State [Malcolm Rifkind] whether the people of Scotland wanted it - and he believed the answer."
"There are three not very well-known candidates," said the BBC interviewer. "What do you know about them and can you name them?"
Mr Miliband replied: "I think we have got three great hitters. I think we have got three people who are determined to show that they can make a difference, that they can make a difference to the people of Scotland."
Interviewer: "Can you name the three of them?" Mr Miliband: "Look, what I say is, there is Tom Harris, there is Johann Lamont and a third candidate who is also putting himself forward."
Interviewer: "He is the front-runner, Ken Macintosh." Mr Miliband: "Ken Macintosh, yes."
Interviewer: "He is the front-runner but you can't name him." Mr Miliband: "No, look, Ken Macintosh is going to be an excellent candidate."
* * *
"Can you name the three of them?"
"Look, what I say is : No."
Of course, Miliband recently informed us that our elected First Minister isn't that big a figure in Westminster, and when people want to know what is really going on in Scotland, they instead turn to the obvious political colossus - Ann McKechin. Hmmm. Perhaps Mr Miliband ought to reflect on whether he might be going astray there, because I think we can safely assume that Alex Salmond is considerably better informed on the Scottish Labour leadership contest than the UK Labour leader presently appears to be.
It's also worth pointing out that Miliband's seeming reliance on the not exactly objective source of McKechin for obtaining his hazy information on this far-off land of ours is eerily reminiscent of the story of how Michael Heseltine came to vote in favour of imposing the poll tax on Scotland but not on England, as mischievously recounted by Donald Dewar in the House of Commons. A Lib Dem MP enquired whether Dewar had heard that the reason Heseltine voted the way he did was that he - amazingly - thought the Scottish people wanted the poll tax. Dewar replied : "It's worse than that. What he actually did was ask the Secretary of State [Malcolm Rifkind] whether the people of Scotland wanted it - and he believed the answer."
Monday, June 6, 2011
In your eyes, I see the light, leading me hame again...
The new Labour Hame site (which I assumed was a spoof when I first heard about it) shows encouraging signs of filling the massive void in my life left by the demise of And Another Thing and Scottish Unionist. A couple of choice examples to kick off with -
After Jeff Breslin's thoughtful article in which he lists about two dozen specific and varied reasons why he can't imagine himself voting Labour at present, the commenters home in on just two of them (opposition to nuclear power and GM crops) and announce "we don't want the likes of you, Breslin, stick with the Greens!". Now, that's what I call a core vote strategy...
After Kezia Dugdale test-drives her latest contrived wheeze about a "Citizens' Convention" deciding on the referendum question in place of the citizen-elected Scottish Parliament, a commenter (presumably sympathetic to the SNP) points out that any such convention would logically have to reflect the composition of the parliament anyway. But the second commenter ("Dave") suggests that the convention should reflect each party's share of the popular vote, not seats in parliament, thus cunningly stripping the SNP of their majority. Just one problem there - if we have the same system of proportional representation for the convention that Labour carefully selected for the Scottish Parliament, presumably the composition of the two bodies will be...well, identical. Oh, and a second problem - even if we had an Israeli-style system of pure PR, there would still be a pro-independence majority courtesy of the regional list vote.
But other than that, what a truly fabulous point, Dave.
After Jeff Breslin's thoughtful article in which he lists about two dozen specific and varied reasons why he can't imagine himself voting Labour at present, the commenters home in on just two of them (opposition to nuclear power and GM crops) and announce "we don't want the likes of you, Breslin, stick with the Greens!". Now, that's what I call a core vote strategy...
After Kezia Dugdale test-drives her latest contrived wheeze about a "Citizens' Convention" deciding on the referendum question in place of the citizen-elected Scottish Parliament, a commenter (presumably sympathetic to the SNP) points out that any such convention would logically have to reflect the composition of the parliament anyway. But the second commenter ("Dave") suggests that the convention should reflect each party's share of the popular vote, not seats in parliament, thus cunningly stripping the SNP of their majority. Just one problem there - if we have the same system of proportional representation for the convention that Labour carefully selected for the Scottish Parliament, presumably the composition of the two bodies will be...well, identical. Oh, and a second problem - even if we had an Israeli-style system of pure PR, there would still be a pro-independence majority courtesy of the regional list vote.
But other than that, what a truly fabulous point, Dave.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Taggart actors are so easily distracted
What a peculiar hotch-potch of a Party Election Broadcast from Labour. It's as if they can't quite bring themselves to let go of their old (ie. pre-Easter Monday) campaign message of "now the Tories are back", but at the same time also want to cram in the 'new' message of "oooh, isn't independence scary?". What they ended up with was effectively "now the Tories are back at Westminster, isn't independence from Westminster scary?", which I'm not sure is going to entirely resonate.
Incidentally, I gather that the husky voice warning us that the SNP were being "distracted" by their "crazy obsession with independence" may well have belonged to none other than Taggart actor John Michie. Which is a tad ironic, given that the same Mr Michie found himself so distracted by his own crazy obsession with...er, Scottish independence, that he went on This Week just days before the 2007 Scottish Parliament election to tell Andrew Neil all about it. If memory serves me right, he felt that independence would unleash a "new entrepreneurial spirit" in Scotland.
Labour certainly know how to pick 'em.
Which brings me to Richard Wilson's monologue at the end. I trust this means we'll hear no more complaints from Labour about celebrity endorsements for the SNP from non-Scottish residents such as Sean Connery and Alan Cumming. After all, if we heed Wilson's advice and elect Iain "the Snarl" Gray as our national leader on Thursday, I somehow don't think the One Foot in the Grave star will be here to enjoy the 'benefits' personally. And if he says otherwise, I don't be-lieeeeeeve it.
Incidentally, I gather that the husky voice warning us that the SNP were being "distracted" by their "crazy obsession with independence" may well have belonged to none other than Taggart actor John Michie. Which is a tad ironic, given that the same Mr Michie found himself so distracted by his own crazy obsession with...er, Scottish independence, that he went on This Week just days before the 2007 Scottish Parliament election to tell Andrew Neil all about it. If memory serves me right, he felt that independence would unleash a "new entrepreneurial spirit" in Scotland.
Labour certainly know how to pick 'em.
Which brings me to Richard Wilson's monologue at the end. I trust this means we'll hear no more complaints from Labour about celebrity endorsements for the SNP from non-Scottish residents such as Sean Connery and Alan Cumming. After all, if we heed Wilson's advice and elect Iain "the Snarl" Gray as our national leader on Thursday, I somehow don't think the One Foot in the Grave star will be here to enjoy the 'benefits' personally. And if he says otherwise, I don't be-lieeeeeeve it.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Labour become the nasty party again
Scottish Labour's very own Prince of Darkness John McTernan informs us in the Scotsman today that fear always beats hope in political campaigning, and it looks like his party have decided to put that theory to the test over the remaining few days of the election campaign. I've just received a delightful leaflet inviting me to draw the following contrast -
"Knife crime wrecking lives under SNP
Carry a knife - go to jail with Labour"
On the flip-side of the leaflet I'm introduced to the "McKennas", a 'typical, hard-working, Labour-voting family' (they look a remarkably smug bunch, it has to be said). The McKennas apparently worry themselves to sleep every night about the bloody SNP being soft on crime. "Bernadine" McKenna warms to the theme in the following monologue...
"The problem is getting worse. I'm backing Labour's policy of 'carry a knife, go to jail'. There's no excuse to carry a lethal blade but folk know they'll get away with it. I worry about what could happen to our family."
I'm worried about what might happen to your family too, "Bernadine". I'm desperately concerned about what might become of your fine daughter "Sarah" McKenna if she pops round to lend her Auntie Joanna a kitchen knife in future - under Labour it'll be straight to Cornton Vale for that young lady. No excuses, you knife-wielding scum!
But it seems "Frank" McKenna is in full agreement with his wife -
"[The SNP] are wrong not to back this tough approach. Now the Tories are back, we need Labour to focus on the things that really matter, like keeping our streets safe."
Do you know what...those words are reminding me of something. Isn't that remarkably similar to what John Park is quoted as saying every single day in the press? In fact, doesn't some of it appear word-for-word in Labour's manifesto? Crikey. Take a well-earned bow, "Frank" McKenna - you're the co-author of Labour's manifesto! You've devised some of the party's best-loved catchphrases from this campaign! When oh when is this man and his camera-friendly chin going to get the credit they deserve?
I do have a small quibble, though, "Frank". The general rule of thumb for political rhetoric is that you can tell how vacuous it is simply by reversing it and seeing if it still makes sense. Your statement reversed reads as follows -
"When the Tories weren't in power in London, we didn't need Labour to focus on the things that really mattered. It was OK if our streets weren't safe."
So that's what you have to believe if you buy into Labour's "now the Tories are back" drivel.
And what's this? "Bernadine" and the magnificently-chinned "Frank" have both had their say, but nothing from "Sarah" McKenna? Are teenagers meant to be seen and not heard under Labour?
"Knife crime wrecking lives under SNP
Carry a knife - go to jail with Labour"
On the flip-side of the leaflet I'm introduced to the "McKennas", a 'typical, hard-working, Labour-voting family' (they look a remarkably smug bunch, it has to be said). The McKennas apparently worry themselves to sleep every night about the bloody SNP being soft on crime. "Bernadine" McKenna warms to the theme in the following monologue...
"The problem is getting worse. I'm backing Labour's policy of 'carry a knife, go to jail'. There's no excuse to carry a lethal blade but folk know they'll get away with it. I worry about what could happen to our family."
I'm worried about what might happen to your family too, "Bernadine". I'm desperately concerned about what might become of your fine daughter "Sarah" McKenna if she pops round to lend her Auntie Joanna a kitchen knife in future - under Labour it'll be straight to Cornton Vale for that young lady. No excuses, you knife-wielding scum!
But it seems "Frank" McKenna is in full agreement with his wife -
"[The SNP] are wrong not to back this tough approach. Now the Tories are back, we need Labour to focus on the things that really matter, like keeping our streets safe."
Do you know what...those words are reminding me of something. Isn't that remarkably similar to what John Park is quoted as saying every single day in the press? In fact, doesn't some of it appear word-for-word in Labour's manifesto? Crikey. Take a well-earned bow, "Frank" McKenna - you're the co-author of Labour's manifesto! You've devised some of the party's best-loved catchphrases from this campaign! When oh when is this man and his camera-friendly chin going to get the credit they deserve?
I do have a small quibble, though, "Frank". The general rule of thumb for political rhetoric is that you can tell how vacuous it is simply by reversing it and seeing if it still makes sense. Your statement reversed reads as follows -
"When the Tories weren't in power in London, we didn't need Labour to focus on the things that really mattered. It was OK if our streets weren't safe."
So that's what you have to believe if you buy into Labour's "now the Tories are back" drivel.
And what's this? "Bernadine" and the magnificently-chinned "Frank" have both had their say, but nothing from "Sarah" McKenna? Are teenagers meant to be seen and not heard under Labour?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
If gender equality isn't an issue for the left, what is?
It goes without saying that the Tory MP Dominic Raab was a thoroughbred idiot for making his 'Kevin Baker-esque' remark that feminists are "onbnoxious bigots", and deserves everything that's coming to him as a result. Which is a pity, in one sense, because there's a fairly obvious grain of truth in the broader point he was making, if only he could have expressed himself in a slightly less abusive manner. Specifically, he suggested that Harriet Harman's claim that men were to blame for the financial crisis was sexist. Well, the simplest way to judge if double-standards are at play is usually to take the polar opposite of a statement and try it on for size. If a bank with an overwhelmingly female management team had made a catastrophic blunder, would it be deemed reasonable to blame that on the shortcomings of women in general? Plainly not, and rightly so.
'Reverse sexism' is absolutely endemic in our society, and its manifestations are so familiar we don't even register them most of the time. I used to watch Australian soap operas when I was a teenager (I'm glad to say I've long since kicked the habit) and it suddenly dawned on me one day that the characters who did something stupid or selfish were almost always male - and of course it was invariably the women who showed them the error of their ways and got them to apologise. Generally, the only female characters who were ever permitted to go slightly astray were teenagers - the message seemed to be that grown-up women are 'mature' in every sense and are thus blameless, whereas many men never attain that state and are thus blameworthy. That's a recurring theme in advertising as well.
Does any of this really matter? Well, it certainly does when the underlying assumptions start influencing government decisions and legislation. I've discussed in the past the pernicious effect of Scottish Labour's insistence (and sadly other parties are not immune to this) that domestic violence is almost exclusively something that men do to women, in spite of the plentiful evidence that it's also something that women do to men, men do to men, and women do to women. Thousands of victims effectively become 'the enemy', because if their stories are heard and taken seriously in sufficient numbers (ie. if they no longer seem like aberrations or 'outliers'), it jeapordises the precious official fiction. And when you're already in a vulnerable position, being the enemy of policy-makers as well is not a comfortable place to be.
Perhaps the most extreme example of the very concrete gender discrimination this distorted thinking can ultimately lead to is the Swedish law on prostitution, which criminalises men who pay for sex, but regards women who sell sex - even when they are acting completely independently - as the victims of 'male violence'. I've no idea how that law nominally treats the inconvenient examples of women who pay men or other women for sex, or indeed men who pay men, but the guiding thinking is clear enough - the former "can't happen", while the latter is "marginal". Once again, allowing the full range of experiences to be heard on an equal basis would imperil the ludicrously simplistic narrative of blame.
Whether prostitution should in principle be legal or not is a matter for debate. But if it is to be a criminal act, and two adults consensually agree to commit it, it's surely self-evident that it's grossly discriminatory to regard just one of those adults as wholly responsible for the decision, and the other as the equivalent of a helpless child - purely on the basis of the gender of each. The ideology that underpins the law is actually rooted in Marxism - the notion that women can't be responsible for a seemingly free choice (because their thinking is distorted by male oppression) is a classic example of 'false consciousness'. Which makes it doubly ironic that the politicians who are most keen on applying the Swedish logic in Scotland are to be found, again, in the Labour ranks. In pretty much every other respect The People's Party abandoned socialism (not to mention social democracy) years ago, but it remains quaintly wedded to full-blooded Marxism when it comes to gender politics.
What's truly depressing is that vigorous opposition to this irrational and unjust ideology is generally only associated with certain sections of the right, particularly the radical libertarian right. If equality - true equality - between the genders isn't to be considered a natural concern for the left, I really don't know what is.
'Reverse sexism' is absolutely endemic in our society, and its manifestations are so familiar we don't even register them most of the time. I used to watch Australian soap operas when I was a teenager (I'm glad to say I've long since kicked the habit) and it suddenly dawned on me one day that the characters who did something stupid or selfish were almost always male - and of course it was invariably the women who showed them the error of their ways and got them to apologise. Generally, the only female characters who were ever permitted to go slightly astray were teenagers - the message seemed to be that grown-up women are 'mature' in every sense and are thus blameless, whereas many men never attain that state and are thus blameworthy. That's a recurring theme in advertising as well.
Does any of this really matter? Well, it certainly does when the underlying assumptions start influencing government decisions and legislation. I've discussed in the past the pernicious effect of Scottish Labour's insistence (and sadly other parties are not immune to this) that domestic violence is almost exclusively something that men do to women, in spite of the plentiful evidence that it's also something that women do to men, men do to men, and women do to women. Thousands of victims effectively become 'the enemy', because if their stories are heard and taken seriously in sufficient numbers (ie. if they no longer seem like aberrations or 'outliers'), it jeapordises the precious official fiction. And when you're already in a vulnerable position, being the enemy of policy-makers as well is not a comfortable place to be.
Perhaps the most extreme example of the very concrete gender discrimination this distorted thinking can ultimately lead to is the Swedish law on prostitution, which criminalises men who pay for sex, but regards women who sell sex - even when they are acting completely independently - as the victims of 'male violence'. I've no idea how that law nominally treats the inconvenient examples of women who pay men or other women for sex, or indeed men who pay men, but the guiding thinking is clear enough - the former "can't happen", while the latter is "marginal". Once again, allowing the full range of experiences to be heard on an equal basis would imperil the ludicrously simplistic narrative of blame.
Whether prostitution should in principle be legal or not is a matter for debate. But if it is to be a criminal act, and two adults consensually agree to commit it, it's surely self-evident that it's grossly discriminatory to regard just one of those adults as wholly responsible for the decision, and the other as the equivalent of a helpless child - purely on the basis of the gender of each. The ideology that underpins the law is actually rooted in Marxism - the notion that women can't be responsible for a seemingly free choice (because their thinking is distorted by male oppression) is a classic example of 'false consciousness'. Which makes it doubly ironic that the politicians who are most keen on applying the Swedish logic in Scotland are to be found, again, in the Labour ranks. In pretty much every other respect The People's Party abandoned socialism (not to mention social democracy) years ago, but it remains quaintly wedded to full-blooded Marxism when it comes to gender politics.
What's truly depressing is that vigorous opposition to this irrational and unjust ideology is generally only associated with certain sections of the right, particularly the radical libertarian right. If equality - true equality - between the genders isn't to be considered a natural concern for the left, I really don't know what is.
Friday, January 21, 2011
After Johnson
A few quick-fire reflections on the implications of Alan Johnson's departure as Shadow Chancellor...
1) Blairism is dead. Again. For now. And not within the coalition government, unfortunately. But worth a hearty cheer, all the same.
2) Labour's top team has lost its best communicator, and now looks a little less likeable and 'normal' in general.
3) Our assumption that the departure of Brown and Darling would mean that the Labour leadership looks much less Scottish than for decades isn't quite as true as we thought it would be.
4) On the other hand, Douglas Alexander now sticks out like a sore thumb as the most over-promoted shadow minister since...well, the Gold Standard that was David Mundell.
5) Cancel point 4. I was forgetting Liam Byrne.
1) Blairism is dead. Again. For now. And not within the coalition government, unfortunately. But worth a hearty cheer, all the same.
2) Labour's top team has lost its best communicator, and now looks a little less likeable and 'normal' in general.
3) Our assumption that the departure of Brown and Darling would mean that the Labour leadership looks much less Scottish than for decades isn't quite as true as we thought it would be.
4) On the other hand, Douglas Alexander now sticks out like a sore thumb as the most over-promoted shadow minister since...well, the Gold Standard that was David Mundell.
5) Cancel point 4. I was forgetting Liam Byrne.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
How would a Galloway candidacy affect the SNP v Labour battle?
I'm ever so slightly dismayed by the hints from George Galloway that he might be gearing up for a run in the Holyrood elections next year. Although I certainly don't agree with everything he says and does, I've thus far been able to take a certain amount of satisfaction in his occasional triumphs since being expelled from Labour, as it was that party he was a perennial thorn in the side of (along of course with a US Senate Committee that was almost as clueless as Menendez and co). However, if he does stand for the Scottish Parliament, he unfortunately seems somewhat more likely to do harm to the SNP than to Labour, simply because the SNP are so reliant on their list seats in Glasgow (and because Labour have no list seats to defend in the city at all). I can see five possible scenarios...
1) Galloway is no longer the force he was, and in any case his defection to the bright lights of London a few years ago has done him few favours in Glasgow. He receives a derisory vote, making no difference to the distribution of seats.
2) Galloway still has a big enough personal following to secure a seat, but in doing so he simply takes a seat that would have been won by another far-left candidate anyway. This ties in with Jeff Breslin's theory that the socialists are likely to recover sufficiently from their 2007 trouncing to at least sneak a seat in Glasgow.
3) Galloway does still have a big following, and it's one that the two 'indigenous' socialist parties can no longer match following the Sheridan saga. He takes a seat on the Glasgow list that would otherwise not have been won by the far-left, and that would otherwise have been taken by the SNP.
4) Same as scenario 3, except that either the Lib Dems or Greens underperform in Glasgow to such an extent that Galloway takes a seat that would otherwise have been won by one of them, not the SNP.
5) Galloway doesn't poll strongly enough to take a seat, but does do well enough to split the socialist vote and prevent another far-left candidate from being elected. This would leave an extra seat available on the list to be seized by a grateful SNP, or another mainstream party - but almost certainly not Labour.
So that makes three scenarios that would have no impact on the Labour v SNP battle, one that would harm the SNP, and one that might even conceivably help them. Unfortunately I think scenario 3 is probably more likely than 4 or 5.
1) Galloway is no longer the force he was, and in any case his defection to the bright lights of London a few years ago has done him few favours in Glasgow. He receives a derisory vote, making no difference to the distribution of seats.
2) Galloway still has a big enough personal following to secure a seat, but in doing so he simply takes a seat that would have been won by another far-left candidate anyway. This ties in with Jeff Breslin's theory that the socialists are likely to recover sufficiently from their 2007 trouncing to at least sneak a seat in Glasgow.
3) Galloway does still have a big following, and it's one that the two 'indigenous' socialist parties can no longer match following the Sheridan saga. He takes a seat on the Glasgow list that would otherwise not have been won by the far-left, and that would otherwise have been taken by the SNP.
4) Same as scenario 3, except that either the Lib Dems or Greens underperform in Glasgow to such an extent that Galloway takes a seat that would otherwise have been won by one of them, not the SNP.
5) Galloway doesn't poll strongly enough to take a seat, but does do well enough to split the socialist vote and prevent another far-left candidate from being elected. This would leave an extra seat available on the list to be seized by a grateful SNP, or another mainstream party - but almost certainly not Labour.
So that makes three scenarios that would have no impact on the Labour v SNP battle, one that would harm the SNP, and one that might even conceivably help them. Unfortunately I think scenario 3 is probably more likely than 4 or 5.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Labour's AV alibi, gift-wrapped by Nick Clegg
Prompted by Andy Burnham's declaration that Labour will be giving next year's AV referendum no priority at all, John Rentoul has written what strikes me as a too-clever-by-half article that 'records the demise' of electoral reform. The most peculiar line is this -
"many Labour supporters have since decided that it is a bad idea by the simple equation: electoral reform means coalitions and Labour does not like this coalition"
Which is then flatly contradicted by this observation just four paragraphs later -
"what AV is not: it is not a proportional system"
Precisely. Which (unfortunately) means that it would not make coalitions any more or less likely than at present. If Labour MPs really are in a mind to rage against literally any system that can throw up the arithmetic for a coalition, then clearly they should be seeking to do away with first-past-the-post forthwith, because it is that, not AV, which has contrived to produce the current government.
And, for what it's worth, I think the rumours Rentoul is spreading of the death of the patient are greatly exaggerated in any case. There are any number of examples that demonstrate the far greater volatility of the electorate when faced with a referendum question - the Common Market vote in 1975 is the best-known example, but the more recent Northeast of England Assembly referendum produced an equally startling turnaround in the final stages. With YouGov showing an eleven-point lead for the No side, let's say I'm 'cautious pessimistic' about the outcome - but the arguments haven't even begun to be seriously put before the electorate yet. To pronounce the result a foregone conclusion at this stage is risible.
What is fair to say, however, is that not only was Clegg's desire to hold the vote on the same day as the devolved elections a cynical and disrespectful tactical manoeuvre, it's also proving to be spectacularly counter-productive - as Burnham's comment demonstrates, it's delivered to Labour a gift-wrapped alibi for not engaging in the campaign.
"many Labour supporters have since decided that it is a bad idea by the simple equation: electoral reform means coalitions and Labour does not like this coalition"
Which is then flatly contradicted by this observation just four paragraphs later -
"what AV is not: it is not a proportional system"
Precisely. Which (unfortunately) means that it would not make coalitions any more or less likely than at present. If Labour MPs really are in a mind to rage against literally any system that can throw up the arithmetic for a coalition, then clearly they should be seeking to do away with first-past-the-post forthwith, because it is that, not AV, which has contrived to produce the current government.
And, for what it's worth, I think the rumours Rentoul is spreading of the death of the patient are greatly exaggerated in any case. There are any number of examples that demonstrate the far greater volatility of the electorate when faced with a referendum question - the Common Market vote in 1975 is the best-known example, but the more recent Northeast of England Assembly referendum produced an equally startling turnaround in the final stages. With YouGov showing an eleven-point lead for the No side, let's say I'm 'cautious pessimistic' about the outcome - but the arguments haven't even begun to be seriously put before the electorate yet. To pronounce the result a foregone conclusion at this stage is risible.
What is fair to say, however, is that not only was Clegg's desire to hold the vote on the same day as the devolved elections a cynical and disrespectful tactical manoeuvre, it's also proving to be spectacularly counter-productive - as Burnham's comment demonstrates, it's delivered to Labour a gift-wrapped alibi for not engaging in the campaign.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Second preferences are second preferences - unless you're Tom Harris, obviously...
One thing I find quite amusing about Tom Harris' rabid opposition to even the most trivial electoral reform is that every time he opens his mouth on the subject he reveals just how hopelessly (or perhaps willfully) he misunderstands it. Tonight he's trying to incite the Labour NEC to expel Ken Livingstone for helping the campaign of Lutfur Rahman, who is standing against the official Labour candidate for the mayoralty of Tower Hamlets. (Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that Tom has yet to reconcile himself to the prospect of a non-Blairite Labour candidate for London mayor in 2012, and is desperately scrabbling around for a get-out clause?) The point is that Livingstone was merely campaigning for second preference votes for Rahman, who he felt had been wrongly deselected by Labour after being chosen by party members as the official mayoral candidate. Tom regards this as a self-evidently lame excuse, and goes on to assert that "even in a ballot conducted under the Alternative Vote, Labour Party members should only campaign for the Labour candidate".
This is plainly nonsensical. It was Labour that gave people two preferences - and yet it's supposed to only want them to use one? A second preference vote, regardless of which candidate it is for, cannot possibly harm the official Labour candidate as long as the first preference vote was for him. Does Tom understand this simple principle? I think there are two possibilities - either he doesn't, or he is extremely keen to sow confusion in the minds of others about it. Actually, his post is rather revealing about one of his true reasons for being such a reform-phobe - clearly he cannot stomach any change that undermines the absolutist partisan tribalism he needs for comfort. "I can vote for Labour, and for someone else as well? I feel faint!"
In contrast, I doubt Tower Hamlets voters will have thought any less of Livingstone for being capable of thinking beyond the party line now and again, and indeed, if the party hierarchy are mature enough to accept the perfectly rational justification for his display of free-thinking, the incident might even end up helping Labour's image by extension. Something else that Tom would doubtless find utterly incomprehensible.
This is plainly nonsensical. It was Labour that gave people two preferences - and yet it's supposed to only want them to use one? A second preference vote, regardless of which candidate it is for, cannot possibly harm the official Labour candidate as long as the first preference vote was for him. Does Tom understand this simple principle? I think there are two possibilities - either he doesn't, or he is extremely keen to sow confusion in the minds of others about it. Actually, his post is rather revealing about one of his true reasons for being such a reform-phobe - clearly he cannot stomach any change that undermines the absolutist partisan tribalism he needs for comfort. "I can vote for Labour, and for someone else as well? I feel faint!"
In contrast, I doubt Tower Hamlets voters will have thought any less of Livingstone for being capable of thinking beyond the party line now and again, and indeed, if the party hierarchy are mature enough to accept the perfectly rational justification for his display of free-thinking, the incident might even end up helping Labour's image by extension. Something else that Tom would doubtless find utterly incomprehensible.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Labour's presumption comes unstuck
I was on Twitter for the first time in ages today, and I was intrigued to spot this so-called "top tweet" from the sainted Kezia Dugdale -
"Ha - "Let's stick together" is an unfortunate theme tune for #SNPConf in light of commitment to breaking up Britain!"
Now, I'm quite sure Kezia and her Labour retweeters were convinced they had spotted a connection there that would never have occurred to a Nat in a million years - but in fact the very first thing that leapt out at me when I heard the choice of 'theme tune' was that it's near-identical in sentiment to Altogether Now, Labour's pick for the 1999 election when they were attempting to draw a sharp distinction between their own values and the SNP's plans for "divorce" (yawn). Given the care that goes into these decisions, I doubt the similarity is entirely a coincidence, and all I can say is - what a stroke of absolute genius. It boldly colonises campaigning territory that Labour always presumptuously imagined to be its very own - unity, cohesion, solidarity.
The party election broadcasts that accompanied The Farm's ditty in 1999 were, if I recall, somewhat stomach-churning, featuring lots of images of Donald Dewar tugging his forlock (figuratively speaking) in the presence of Tony Blair. The intended message could hardly have been less subtle - "working together" and "cooperation" meant that devolution could only be a cosmetic development, with the old chain of command remaining exactly as it was before. I'd say it was high time that the Scottish electorate were presented with a rather more inspiring vision of national solidarity than an intention to defer to the wisdom of grown-ups in London at every conceivable opportunity.
"Ha - "Let's stick together" is an unfortunate theme tune for #SNPConf in light of commitment to breaking up Britain!"
Now, I'm quite sure Kezia and her Labour retweeters were convinced they had spotted a connection there that would never have occurred to a Nat in a million years - but in fact the very first thing that leapt out at me when I heard the choice of 'theme tune' was that it's near-identical in sentiment to Altogether Now, Labour's pick for the 1999 election when they were attempting to draw a sharp distinction between their own values and the SNP's plans for "divorce" (yawn). Given the care that goes into these decisions, I doubt the similarity is entirely a coincidence, and all I can say is - what a stroke of absolute genius. It boldly colonises campaigning territory that Labour always presumptuously imagined to be its very own - unity, cohesion, solidarity.
The party election broadcasts that accompanied The Farm's ditty in 1999 were, if I recall, somewhat stomach-churning, featuring lots of images of Donald Dewar tugging his forlock (figuratively speaking) in the presence of Tony Blair. The intended message could hardly have been less subtle - "working together" and "cooperation" meant that devolution could only be a cosmetic development, with the old chain of command remaining exactly as it was before. I'd say it was high time that the Scottish electorate were presented with a rather more inspiring vision of national solidarity than an intention to defer to the wisdom of grown-ups in London at every conceivable opportunity.
Friday, October 8, 2010
McKechin's appointment leaves 'the Snarl' in the spotlight
Just about the only Shadow Cabinet appointment that was utterly predictable was Ann McKechin's as Shadow Scottish Secretary - as a very low-profile Scottish MP who somehow managed to get elected to the top team, it was a no-brainer that she would draw the short straw. The most important practical upshot is that, for the first time, Iain "the Snarl" Gray has effectively become the 'real' leader of Scottish Labour, no longer in the shadow of Jim Murphy. In principle, it's of course entirely right (and long-overdue) that the Holyrood leader should have primacy - in practice, it leaves them with a rather obvious weakness.
As for the other appointments, my instinctive reaction is disappointment that Miliband has ducked out of the choice between husband and wife for the key role of Shadow Chancellor, and appointed Alan Johnson instead - that looks very much like a sop to the Blairities, and thus a step backwards.
As for the other appointments, my instinctive reaction is disappointment that Miliband has ducked out of the choice between husband and wife for the key role of Shadow Chancellor, and appointed Alan Johnson instead - that looks very much like a sop to the Blairities, and thus a step backwards.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Sorry, Matt - Angus MacNeil and Stewart Hosie are both in the pink!
Now that Ed Miliband has moved Labour onto the ground occupied by many Liberal Democrat members and voters (if not necessarily the current party leadership), it's encouraging to see that a conversation has started over at Liberal Democrat Voice about the possibility of ditching the coalition with the Tories before this parliament is out. Matt Gallagher raises a very interesting prospect, and one which hasn't received enough attention thus far - what will be the psychological impact if, as seems highly likely, Labour at some point make enough by-election gains to enable them (theoretically) to form a coalition with the Lib Dems without the support of the nationalist parties? If by that stage there are opinion polls showing massive disapproval ratings for the Tory/Lib Dem administration, and perhaps even majority support for an alternative coalition, the enhanced arithmetical viability of that alternative might present the Lib Dems with a severe dilemma.
However, where Gallagher's argument takes a wander off into the bizarre is his suggestion that the by-election gains Labour need to trigger this scenario would come at the expense of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, rather than the Tories. I'm not sure he's thought that one through - perhaps he was misled by the frequency of Labour/SNP by-election battles in the last parliament? Anyway, I left this comment -
"For the life of me I can’t see why Matt is thinking of by-election gains from the nationalist parties rather than the Tories. As far as the SNP are concerned Labour would only have a theoretical chance in two of the six seats, and what are the statistical chances of either of those falling vacant? Angus Brendan MacNeil and Stewart Hosie are both in the pink as far as I’m aware!
The truth is that the arithmetic for a progressive coalition is already there, because the nationalists would be happy to give it a fair wind. But, sadly, some Lib Dems were determined to promote the narrative that “the numbers simply aren’t there” in order to justify their unholy alliance with the Tories, and a number of Labour neanderthals did the same because they were so horrified by the idea of having to work with other parties. 'Purity or death' is the mantra for the likes of John Reid and Tom Harris."
However, where Gallagher's argument takes a wander off into the bizarre is his suggestion that the by-election gains Labour need to trigger this scenario would come at the expense of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, rather than the Tories. I'm not sure he's thought that one through - perhaps he was misled by the frequency of Labour/SNP by-election battles in the last parliament? Anyway, I left this comment -
"For the life of me I can’t see why Matt is thinking of by-election gains from the nationalist parties rather than the Tories. As far as the SNP are concerned Labour would only have a theoretical chance in two of the six seats, and what are the statistical chances of either of those falling vacant? Angus Brendan MacNeil and Stewart Hosie are both in the pink as far as I’m aware!
The truth is that the arithmetic for a progressive coalition is already there, because the nationalists would be happy to give it a fair wind. But, sadly, some Lib Dems were determined to promote the narrative that “the numbers simply aren’t there” in order to justify their unholy alliance with the Tories, and a number of Labour neanderthals did the same because they were so horrified by the idea of having to work with other parties. 'Purity or death' is the mantra for the likes of John Reid and Tom Harris."
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The SNP are like Cheryl Cole : they don't need a parachute
And so, with a single press release, the SNP have put an end to one of my theories from a few weeks ago - there is clearly now no chance whatever of a full-scale coalition with the Tories after the election in May. In one sense, to rule that possibility out so unequivocally seems a trifle rash, given that it provides the most plausible route by which the SNP might be able to remain in power if they slip to second place. It's also worth pointing out that their Welsh sister party Plaid Cymru have no such bar on coalition with the Tories, and indeed came within a whisker of forming one in 2007. So the SNP have consciously made a choice they didn't have to make - they've cut away their own safety-net, and ensured they will almost certainly have to defeat Labour outright next May to hold on to power.
It's not hard to see why they've done it, though, since the election battle will to a large extent be fought over which party can best stand up for Scotland against a Tory-led government at Westminster - hence the suggestion in the press release that it's Labour who are quietly keeping their options open and might well consider a deal with the Tories. The supporting evidence cited is that there is a Labour/Tory coalition in no fewer than five of Scotland's 32 councils, and that since 2007 Labour have voted with the Tories in the Scottish Parliament more often than the SNP. Now, in the literal sense, that's a bit thin - while Labour's irrational hatred of the SNP would probably lead them instinctively to favour coalition with the Tories if that was the only way of keeping the Nationalists out (hence what's happened in the councils), they nevertheless have a fiction of anti-Tory purity to maintain to keep their own electorate onside, and that would almost certainly preclude any chance of a formal coalition with the Tories at Holyrood. As for the parliamentary voting record, it is of course much easier for opposition parties to find common cause against something than it is for any opposition party to vote with the government in favour of a specific proposal. Such statistical analyses are therefore very crude - but Labour can hardly complain about their use in this case. They have, after all, spent much of the last decade-and-a-bit using voodoo statistics to peddle the fantasy of a de facto SNP/Tory alliance, both at Holyrood and at Westminster.
It's not hard to see why they've done it, though, since the election battle will to a large extent be fought over which party can best stand up for Scotland against a Tory-led government at Westminster - hence the suggestion in the press release that it's Labour who are quietly keeping their options open and might well consider a deal with the Tories. The supporting evidence cited is that there is a Labour/Tory coalition in no fewer than five of Scotland's 32 councils, and that since 2007 Labour have voted with the Tories in the Scottish Parliament more often than the SNP. Now, in the literal sense, that's a bit thin - while Labour's irrational hatred of the SNP would probably lead them instinctively to favour coalition with the Tories if that was the only way of keeping the Nationalists out (hence what's happened in the councils), they nevertheless have a fiction of anti-Tory purity to maintain to keep their own electorate onside, and that would almost certainly preclude any chance of a formal coalition with the Tories at Holyrood. As for the parliamentary voting record, it is of course much easier for opposition parties to find common cause against something than it is for any opposition party to vote with the government in favour of a specific proposal. Such statistical analyses are therefore very crude - but Labour can hardly complain about their use in this case. They have, after all, spent much of the last decade-and-a-bit using voodoo statistics to peddle the fantasy of a de facto SNP/Tory alliance, both at Holyrood and at Westminster.
Friday, October 1, 2010
A little less conversation, a lot more numbers please
A few days ago, Political Betting stalwart John Loony shared a very funny letter he had written to the BBC, complaining bitterly about their decision to allow Emily Maitlis and Nick Robinson to talk over the announcement of the Labour leadership result, first with Robinson's extrapolation (ahem) that David Miliband had won based on the result of the first count, and then with an explanation of the electoral college system. Here's an excerpt...
"Yet the presenters of the programme decided to start squawking and prattling all through the declaration of the second round, in a way which prevented us from hearing the result being declared, apparently to explain the workings of the Electoral College system and the Alternative Vote system. This was in spite of the fact that every single viewer was, by definition, interested in hearing the result; every single viewer was, by definition, already fully familiar with the way the EC and AV systems worked; and the fact that anybody who did not know or understand how the system worked was, by definition, not watching the programme in the first place. The presenters knew these facts before they started speaking."
Of course in one sense John is entirely wrong - while most people watching would certainly have been interested in hearing the result, that doesn't mean to say that they had the slightest clue about how the labyrinthine electoral system worked. This is an argument I've had on PB many times before - many posters there seem to feel that the BBC makes far too many concessions to its audience's assumed ignorance during election results programmes. But we political obsessives don't 'own' those programmes - everyone has a stake in the selection of a potential future PM, and it's entirely appropriate that a more casual audience is equipped with the information they need to make sense of what is happening. And if Nick Robinson felt strongly that he had advance information about which way the result was going, there was probably also a case for allowing him to communicate that to the viewers. So I'd suggest the real mistakes made were as follows -
1. The presenters' total silence during the result of the first count gave the impression that they were going to remain quiet for the duration. That maximised the irritation when they suddenly started drowning out the result, and then didn't stop. For my own part, I fully expected that the interruption was going to be very brief, and by the time I realised that I really was going to have to switch over to Sky I had already missed the entire result of the second count.
2. Any explanation of the intricacies of the electoral college system should have occurred well before the announcement of the result. Explaining it while the result was being read out almost seemed to be sending the patronising message : "this is why we're not bothering to let you listen, because as you can see it's all very complicated and you probably wouldn't understand it anyway".
3. Any extrapolations or other nuggets of information from Robinson should have been delivered by a caption on the screen, rather than by voiceover. This is standard practice during the live broadcast of the Budget, for instance - the BBC wouldn't dream of talking over the Chancellor while he's on his feet, no matter how incomprehensible the contents of the speech.
4. Robinson should really have done his homework better on how to extrapolate the result from the first count. He seemed to have only looked at the party members' and MPs' sections, and just assumed that David Miliband's stronger than anticipated showing there was being replicated in the unions' section. A much simpler and more reliable way of approaching it would have been to look at the percentage gap between the two brothers in the overall electoral college - I gather there were people in the hall who instantly said "Ed's won" upon hearing that the gap was just 3%.
"Yet the presenters of the programme decided to start squawking and prattling all through the declaration of the second round, in a way which prevented us from hearing the result being declared, apparently to explain the workings of the Electoral College system and the Alternative Vote system. This was in spite of the fact that every single viewer was, by definition, interested in hearing the result; every single viewer was, by definition, already fully familiar with the way the EC and AV systems worked; and the fact that anybody who did not know or understand how the system worked was, by definition, not watching the programme in the first place. The presenters knew these facts before they started speaking."
Of course in one sense John is entirely wrong - while most people watching would certainly have been interested in hearing the result, that doesn't mean to say that they had the slightest clue about how the labyrinthine electoral system worked. This is an argument I've had on PB many times before - many posters there seem to feel that the BBC makes far too many concessions to its audience's assumed ignorance during election results programmes. But we political obsessives don't 'own' those programmes - everyone has a stake in the selection of a potential future PM, and it's entirely appropriate that a more casual audience is equipped with the information they need to make sense of what is happening. And if Nick Robinson felt strongly that he had advance information about which way the result was going, there was probably also a case for allowing him to communicate that to the viewers. So I'd suggest the real mistakes made were as follows -
1. The presenters' total silence during the result of the first count gave the impression that they were going to remain quiet for the duration. That maximised the irritation when they suddenly started drowning out the result, and then didn't stop. For my own part, I fully expected that the interruption was going to be very brief, and by the time I realised that I really was going to have to switch over to Sky I had already missed the entire result of the second count.
2. Any explanation of the intricacies of the electoral college system should have occurred well before the announcement of the result. Explaining it while the result was being read out almost seemed to be sending the patronising message : "this is why we're not bothering to let you listen, because as you can see it's all very complicated and you probably wouldn't understand it anyway".
3. Any extrapolations or other nuggets of information from Robinson should have been delivered by a caption on the screen, rather than by voiceover. This is standard practice during the live broadcast of the Budget, for instance - the BBC wouldn't dream of talking over the Chancellor while he's on his feet, no matter how incomprehensible the contents of the speech.
4. Robinson should really have done his homework better on how to extrapolate the result from the first count. He seemed to have only looked at the party members' and MPs' sections, and just assumed that David Miliband's stronger than anticipated showing there was being replicated in the unions' section. A much simpler and more reliable way of approaching it would have been to look at the percentage gap between the two brothers in the overall electoral college - I gather there were people in the hall who instantly said "Ed's won" upon hearing that the gap was just 3%.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Will the AV campaign herald a severe bout of Lib Dem wistfulness?
Although on the face of it the most dramatic moment in Ed Miliband's speech was his comment on Iraq, and more particularly the bizarre exchange it triggered between David Miliband and Harriet Harman, perhaps of much longer-term significance was the almost throwaway confirmation that the new Labour leader would be supporting a Yes vote in the forthcoming AV referendum. There had been a growing sense that the battle for this very minor reform of the voting system was on the way to being lost, but to some extent that was based on the assumption that Labour were happy to sabotage the campaign now that they were no longer directing it. The prospect of a Yes campaign encompassing both the Liberal Democrats and a fresh Labour leader who may very well still be enjoying a political honeymoon perhaps tilts the probabilities back to a positive outcome.
All the same, the more thoughtful Liberal Democrats will surely be reflecting tonight on their party's short-sightedness back in May. One of the main excuses for refusing to seriously investigate a progressive alternative to a Tory-led coalition was that it was unthinkable to countenance allowing Gordon Brown to remain in office, even for a brief period. That might have seemed to make sense in the feverish atmosphere of the moment - but the perspective changes considerably now that we've reached the point by which Brown would already have been gone. For the avoidance of four short months of discomfort, the Liberal Democrats now face the prospect of having to endure four-and-a-half more years of coalition with a party that the majority of members will increasingly regard as very obviously the 'wrong' partner. To say that the ad hoc alliance between Clegg and Miliband to push for modest electoral reform is likely to make the Lib Dem rank-and-file feel a touch wistful is something of an understatement.
Marriages are often blown apart by a yearning for the greener grass on the other side - could the same thing happen to the Lib Dems and Tories over the next two or three years? Intriguingly, Ed Miliband himself doesn't seem to think so, with indications that he's digging in for the full five year long-haul. He may of course be right, but it's far from a certainty.
All the same, the more thoughtful Liberal Democrats will surely be reflecting tonight on their party's short-sightedness back in May. One of the main excuses for refusing to seriously investigate a progressive alternative to a Tory-led coalition was that it was unthinkable to countenance allowing Gordon Brown to remain in office, even for a brief period. That might have seemed to make sense in the feverish atmosphere of the moment - but the perspective changes considerably now that we've reached the point by which Brown would already have been gone. For the avoidance of four short months of discomfort, the Liberal Democrats now face the prospect of having to endure four-and-a-half more years of coalition with a party that the majority of members will increasingly regard as very obviously the 'wrong' partner. To say that the ad hoc alliance between Clegg and Miliband to push for modest electoral reform is likely to make the Lib Dem rank-and-file feel a touch wistful is something of an understatement.
Marriages are often blown apart by a yearning for the greener grass on the other side - could the same thing happen to the Lib Dems and Tories over the next two or three years? Intriguingly, Ed Miliband himself doesn't seem to think so, with indications that he's digging in for the full five year long-haul. He may of course be right, but it's far from a certainty.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
It's hard to criticise Ed Miliband for making common cause with the progressive bits of the coalition
So 72 hours and a keynote conference speech later, and it's still not entirely clear to what extent Ed Miliband represents an authentic break from New Labour. Iain Dale, for what it's worth, seems convinced that the younger brother's left-wing positioning during the leadership campaign was effectively a confidence trick, while much of the rest of the right-wing blogoshere is equally certain that we've just seen a return to a John Smith/Neil Kinnock-style Labour party. My guess is that Danny Finkelstein (someone whose analysis I usually don't have much time for) is closest to the mark in observing that, while Miliband is most certainly not "Red Ed", he is in fact slightly to the left of New Labour. If that's how his leadership pans out, my verdict would be - could be a lot better, but definite progress. It would be churlish to say otherwise.
Certainly it seems we can rest assured that the branding of the party as New Labour is now at a definitive end - Miliband used the term repeatedly in his speech, sometimes approvingly, but always in the past tense.
Despite my ambivalence over the content of the speech, I was slightly puzzled about Andrew Neil's assessment that this was an unalloyed dash back to the centre ground (what most of us in Scotland would call the centre-right), and that it was now hard to see where the differences are either with Labour's past or with the Cameron/Clegg coalition. Really? It was of course to be expected that there would be some distancing from the unions, but even just off the top of my head, can you imagine Tony Blair saying that :
* There should be a living wage over and above the national minimum wage?
* The gap between rich and poor does matter, and that the most equal societies are the most successful?
* The Iraq war was a mistake, was not a war of last resort, and undermined the UN?
* Civil liberties (or, as Blair used to put it, "that civil libertarian nonsense") have been too far eroded in the name of the war on terror?
And as far as any shared agenda with the coalition is concerned, that was to a considerable extent confined to the areas where the current government are on the correct side of the libertarian/authoritarian divide, and where New Labour were always on the wrong side. It's scarcely a departure from progressive values to accept that Ken Clarke may have a point about the futility of short prison sentences, for instance.
But I did have a number of concerns, and by far the greatest was the fair wind Miliband seemed to be prepared to give to Iain Duncan Smith, and to the havoc he might be about to wreak on the benefits system, leaving the lives of the most vulnerable wrecked in his wake. However, the extraordinary common ground between the two parties on this area has been a constant for a decade-and-a-half now, so I suppose we can't expect miracles. Tony Blair's humiliation in seeing his successor as Labour leader join mainstream opinion in denouncing the invasion of Iraq - and receive warm applause for it from the same party conference the former PM so very recently held in the palm of his hand - will have to suffice for today.
Certainly it seems we can rest assured that the branding of the party as New Labour is now at a definitive end - Miliband used the term repeatedly in his speech, sometimes approvingly, but always in the past tense.
Despite my ambivalence over the content of the speech, I was slightly puzzled about Andrew Neil's assessment that this was an unalloyed dash back to the centre ground (what most of us in Scotland would call the centre-right), and that it was now hard to see where the differences are either with Labour's past or with the Cameron/Clegg coalition. Really? It was of course to be expected that there would be some distancing from the unions, but even just off the top of my head, can you imagine Tony Blair saying that :
* There should be a living wage over and above the national minimum wage?
* The gap between rich and poor does matter, and that the most equal societies are the most successful?
* The Iraq war was a mistake, was not a war of last resort, and undermined the UN?
* Civil liberties (or, as Blair used to put it, "that civil libertarian nonsense") have been too far eroded in the name of the war on terror?
And as far as any shared agenda with the coalition is concerned, that was to a considerable extent confined to the areas where the current government are on the correct side of the libertarian/authoritarian divide, and where New Labour were always on the wrong side. It's scarcely a departure from progressive values to accept that Ken Clarke may have a point about the futility of short prison sentences, for instance.
But I did have a number of concerns, and by far the greatest was the fair wind Miliband seemed to be prepared to give to Iain Duncan Smith, and to the havoc he might be about to wreak on the benefits system, leaving the lives of the most vulnerable wrecked in his wake. However, the extraordinary common ground between the two parties on this area has been a constant for a decade-and-a-half now, so I suppose we can't expect miracles. Tony Blair's humiliation in seeing his successor as Labour leader join mainstream opinion in denouncing the invasion of Iraq - and receive warm applause for it from the same party conference the former PM so very recently held in the palm of his hand - will have to suffice for today.
McTernan's loose talk in the presence of the lower orders
Tom Harris last night on John McTernan -
"John was his brilliant usual self"
John McTernan this morning, being interviewed by Andrew Neil -
"Just as I wouldn't ask my butler about policy, so I wouldn't ask Labour party members how to win back the south of England."
Tom can rest his case, I feel - the man is sheer class.
Incidentally, I left a comment on Harris' blog last night, which thus far seems to have failed to make it through moderation (although hope springs eternal). I should have taken the precaution of saving it, but it was broadly a response to this sentence -
"I say 'mistake' because my blood pressure goes up when I hear all the old tosh about Scottish politics being so different from politics everywhere else in the country."
It's a bit difficult for Tom to maintain the fiction that Scotland is not radically different from the rest of "the country", given the notoriously wicked - and yet directly elected - "separatist" government that lords it over humble souls like Harris and McTernan (when they occasionally drop in for a visit, I mean). I also made the point that, even if Harris is given the rather peculiar object of his heart's desire next May - namely Iain "the Snarl" Gray as First Minister - that will simply be yet further proof of a gulf between ourselves and the politics of the south of England. Labour may have edged into a one point lead in the latest Britain-wide poll, but that's as nothing to the 25-or-so-point advantage they routinely enjoy over the Tories in these parts. I think Tom is going to have to face up to it - for reasons best known to himself, he literally campaigned for Labour to step aside and allow David Cameron to take office in May, and deep down it may well be that he also now hankers after the impossible dream of a Tory renaissance in Scotland. How else is he going to see the political uniformity across "the country" that he so craves?
On a closely related theme, I was slightly puzzled at Tom's stated enthusiasm for McTernan's contribution to Newsnight Scotland last night, given that one of the key (and utterly risible) points that McTernan made was that Jack McConnell was always given free rein in policy terms by London Labour. Since when did Tom think that a capacity for Scotland to strike its own policy path is in any sense a desirable thing?
"John was his brilliant usual self"
John McTernan this morning, being interviewed by Andrew Neil -
"Just as I wouldn't ask my butler about policy, so I wouldn't ask Labour party members how to win back the south of England."
Tom can rest his case, I feel - the man is sheer class.
Incidentally, I left a comment on Harris' blog last night, which thus far seems to have failed to make it through moderation (although hope springs eternal). I should have taken the precaution of saving it, but it was broadly a response to this sentence -
"I say 'mistake' because my blood pressure goes up when I hear all the old tosh about Scottish politics being so different from politics everywhere else in the country."
It's a bit difficult for Tom to maintain the fiction that Scotland is not radically different from the rest of "the country", given the notoriously wicked - and yet directly elected - "separatist" government that lords it over humble souls like Harris and McTernan (when they occasionally drop in for a visit, I mean). I also made the point that, even if Harris is given the rather peculiar object of his heart's desire next May - namely Iain "the Snarl" Gray as First Minister - that will simply be yet further proof of a gulf between ourselves and the politics of the south of England. Labour may have edged into a one point lead in the latest Britain-wide poll, but that's as nothing to the 25-or-so-point advantage they routinely enjoy over the Tories in these parts. I think Tom is going to have to face up to it - for reasons best known to himself, he literally campaigned for Labour to step aside and allow David Cameron to take office in May, and deep down it may well be that he also now hankers after the impossible dream of a Tory renaissance in Scotland. How else is he going to see the political uniformity across "the country" that he so craves?
On a closely related theme, I was slightly puzzled at Tom's stated enthusiasm for McTernan's contribution to Newsnight Scotland last night, given that one of the key (and utterly risible) points that McTernan made was that Jack McConnell was always given free rein in policy terms by London Labour. Since when did Tom think that a capacity for Scotland to strike its own policy path is in any sense a desirable thing?
Bracing wind of open democracy is no humiliation
Scottish Labour's obligatory knee-jerk rant about the SNP's regional lists for next year's election -
"The release of this list is not only deeply embarrassing for the SNP, but it is a humiliation for Alex Salmond that his own party members have effectively deselected so many of his sitting team."
While I may have expressed dismay in the previous post about Anne McLaughlin's fate (and I take the same view about two or three others) I'm quite sure that's arrant nonsense on the part of John Park. Does he really think that the public would prefer the cosy 'closed shop' culture that brought us the expenses scandal to one where merit takes precedence over the privileges of incumbency? It's a brutal process in many respects, but one that ought to leave the SNP - on balance - in stronger rather than weaker shape going into the election.
"The release of this list is not only deeply embarrassing for the SNP, but it is a humiliation for Alex Salmond that his own party members have effectively deselected so many of his sitting team."
While I may have expressed dismay in the previous post about Anne McLaughlin's fate (and I take the same view about two or three others) I'm quite sure that's arrant nonsense on the part of John Park. Does he really think that the public would prefer the cosy 'closed shop' culture that brought us the expenses scandal to one where merit takes precedence over the privileges of incumbency? It's a brutal process in many respects, but one that ought to leave the SNP - on balance - in stronger rather than weaker shape going into the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)