Within the last hour we've had two more polls that confirm the story of YouGov last night - namely that, although both Labour and the Tories have taken a hit from Nick Clegg's win in the first leaders' debate, it's the Tories that have suffered slightly more (thus making Iain Dale's dreams that it would lead to a 1983-style result look even more distant!). ComRes have the Tories down four and Labour down two, although this does have the effect of pushing Labour into third place, which is what will probably dominate the headlines. According to ICM the Lib Dems haven't quite broken out of third place, but they nevertheless knock three points off the Tories, and two off Labour.
Despite my fury at the opportunity given to the Lib Dems in the leaders' debates that has been wholly and cynically denied to other parties with parliamentary representation, I'm beginning to wonder if some good may yet come out of this. To delve into the realms of the fantastical for a moment, there can be little doubt that a Liberal Democrat-led government would go furthest and fastest in providing the sort of constitutional reforms that Scotland desperately needs and that the SNP have been campaigning for - proper electoral reform for the House of Commons (not Brown's majoritarian con), an elected House of Lords, and above all else enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament.
Of course, the Lib Dems are likely to slip back again in the coming days and this will all come to nothing...but just suppose for a moment they don't. Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if by setting up these rigged debates, the ultra-unionists have set in train a process that is now completely out of their control, and one that will indirectly further the Scottish national cause significantly?
Saturday, April 17, 2010
70s-style volcanic ash militancy must be smashed NOW
BA has now cancelled all its short-haul flights on Sunday. What's going on? Have a few specks of dust really been enough to turn Willie Walsh - fearless defender of the decent, hard-working air travellers of this country - into a prize WUSS? Forget about namby-pamby negotiations and compromise, Willie - the only language these volcanic ash fragments respond to is strength. It's high time they were made to understand that if they don't call off their disgraceful secondary picket across the skies of Britain immediately, their generous package of perks will be irrevocably withdrawn.
In fact, I strongly recommend that Willie flies into the volcanic plume without delay to deliver that uncompromising message personally.
In fact, I strongly recommend that Willie flies into the volcanic plume without delay to deliver that uncompromising message personally.
An accidental insight from the Washington Post
Via Alex Spillius' post at the Telegraph blogs, I stumbled across a rather smug Washington Post article about the leaders' debate. At first glance it seemed to confirm my pet theory that whenever Americans write about Britain, every detail about the country seems to go through a strange filter and becomes utterly unrecognisable and alien. But then I realised there was another way of looking at it entirely -
"Quite amusing that the Washington Post article repeatedly refers to the debate as ‘English’. I would normally put that down to American ignorance, but in this particular case it’s a remarkably clear-sighted appraisal of what it actually was – an English debate masquerading as ‘British’. An exclusively English audience, just the three main parties of England present with major parties of Scotland and Wales totally excluded, and to a large extent England-only issues being debated."
"Quite amusing that the Washington Post article repeatedly refers to the debate as ‘English’. I would normally put that down to American ignorance, but in this particular case it’s a remarkably clear-sighted appraisal of what it actually was – an English debate masquerading as ‘British’. An exclusively English audience, just the three main parties of England present with major parties of Scotland and Wales totally excluded, and to a large extent England-only issues being debated."
A barking mad result to complement a deeply flawed campaign?
For many in the political world, much of Friday seemed to be taken up with pondering whether we were about to see a big Liberal Democrat surge on the back of Nick Clegg's strong performance in last night's (closed shop, London parties only) debate, and if so, whether that would harm the Tories or Labour more. Iain Dale was this afternoon desperately trying to convince both himself and anyone else who would listen that it might well be the latter, praying in aid the 1983 election (oddly topical given the storyline of Ashes to Ashes tonight!) when a high watermark for the Liberal Democrats' predecessor parties allowed the Tories to sweep to a landslide victory.
But you only have to think of two numbers to understand why Dale was always barking up the wrong tree - 42 and 23. 42 because that was the Tories' percentage share of the vote in 1983, and not even the outlying polls in this campaign have had them that high. 23 because that was the paltry number of seats the SDP-Liberal Alliance won in 1983 on the back of their 25% of the vote. You don't need a psephologist to tell you that a 25% share this year would be yielding the Liberal Democrats considerably more than 23 seats - and that most of those extra seats are ones that would otherwise be won by the Tories.
In truth, the circumstances of 1983 were unique. Normally when a third party surges the extra support is drawn relatively evenly from the two larger parties, but that was not the case in 1983 due to the fact that one half of the Alliance was to all intents and purposes a segment of the Labour party that had only very recently detached itself. In spite of the huge centrist appeal of the Alliance, the Conservatives lost just 1.5% of their 1979 support, compared to a stonking 9.3% drop for Labour.
Tonight's YouGov poll confirming the anticipated Lib Dem surge shows a much more conventional pattern, with both Labour and the Tories taking a hit - indeed with the Tories being the ones to suffer slightly more. Despite Labour slipping to third place, the UNS seat projections show them still emerging as the largest single party. And, crazy though it might seem, that might just be the best result possible from this deeply unsatisfactory electoral process. If such a barking mad outcome didn't finally lead to a clamour for proper electoral reform, I don't know what would.
But you only have to think of two numbers to understand why Dale was always barking up the wrong tree - 42 and 23. 42 because that was the Tories' percentage share of the vote in 1983, and not even the outlying polls in this campaign have had them that high. 23 because that was the paltry number of seats the SDP-Liberal Alliance won in 1983 on the back of their 25% of the vote. You don't need a psephologist to tell you that a 25% share this year would be yielding the Liberal Democrats considerably more than 23 seats - and that most of those extra seats are ones that would otherwise be won by the Tories.
In truth, the circumstances of 1983 were unique. Normally when a third party surges the extra support is drawn relatively evenly from the two larger parties, but that was not the case in 1983 due to the fact that one half of the Alliance was to all intents and purposes a segment of the Labour party that had only very recently detached itself. In spite of the huge centrist appeal of the Alliance, the Conservatives lost just 1.5% of their 1979 support, compared to a stonking 9.3% drop for Labour.
Tonight's YouGov poll confirming the anticipated Lib Dem surge shows a much more conventional pattern, with both Labour and the Tories taking a hit - indeed with the Tories being the ones to suffer slightly more. Despite Labour slipping to third place, the UNS seat projections show them still emerging as the largest single party. And, crazy though it might seem, that might just be the best result possible from this deeply unsatisfactory electoral process. If such a barking mad outcome didn't finally lead to a clamour for proper electoral reform, I don't know what would.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Are you trying to tell me you don't actually live here, my local Labour candidate?
I received my first Labour campaign leaflet today - always a thrilling moment. I must admit I didn't actually come out in a rash reading it, which is perhaps an indication that it isn't quite as stupidly offensive as so many Labour efforts in the past. However, as is often the case in this campaign, what isn't in it tells you much more than what is. Two obvious things leapt out straight away -
No sign of Gordon Brown. Not only is there no photo of him, large or small, there isn't even the slightest passing reference to him. Perhaps an indication that, even in Scotland, he isn't regarded as an asset by his own party.
Lots of mentions of the Tories, but none of the SNP. This is significant because the SNP are the challengers in this constituency, with the Tories in a dismal fourth place last time round. In fact, I think from memory there was one election where this was one of only two mainland British constituencies in which the Tories lost their deposit, so I think we can safely assume there's no great danger of a surprise Cameron breakthrough here. Thus, once again, the picking of a false fight with the Tories can be taken as a pretty sure indication that Labour are worried about how their pitch for votes would fare against the SNP's if they invited a straight comparison.
The other peculiar thing about the leaflet took a little while to sink in. The general theme is "your local Labour candidate is a local man who is the choice for local people", etc, etc. But in elaborating his local credentials, there are a number of distinctly odd choices of words - this is where he "made a start in life", where he "grew up", where he "went to school" and where he "belongs". Wouldn't it be simpler just to say "I live here"?
Unless, of course, he doesn't. Sure enough, further research reveals (I feel like Kezia 'Nancy Drew' Dugdale sleuthing out the location of Glasgow maternity hospitals in 1973) that my local Labour candidate in fact lives approximately 300 miles away. If a man who lives in the south of England has to rely on 'localism' for his USP, I dread to think what his other qualities might be.
No sign of Gordon Brown. Not only is there no photo of him, large or small, there isn't even the slightest passing reference to him. Perhaps an indication that, even in Scotland, he isn't regarded as an asset by his own party.
Lots of mentions of the Tories, but none of the SNP. This is significant because the SNP are the challengers in this constituency, with the Tories in a dismal fourth place last time round. In fact, I think from memory there was one election where this was one of only two mainland British constituencies in which the Tories lost their deposit, so I think we can safely assume there's no great danger of a surprise Cameron breakthrough here. Thus, once again, the picking of a false fight with the Tories can be taken as a pretty sure indication that Labour are worried about how their pitch for votes would fare against the SNP's if they invited a straight comparison.
The other peculiar thing about the leaflet took a little while to sink in. The general theme is "your local Labour candidate is a local man who is the choice for local people", etc, etc. But in elaborating his local credentials, there are a number of distinctly odd choices of words - this is where he "made a start in life", where he "grew up", where he "went to school" and where he "belongs". Wouldn't it be simpler just to say "I live here"?
Unless, of course, he doesn't. Sure enough, further research reveals (I feel like Kezia 'Nancy Drew' Dugdale sleuthing out the location of Glasgow maternity hospitals in 1973) that my local Labour candidate in fact lives approximately 300 miles away. If a man who lives in the south of England has to rely on 'localism' for his USP, I dread to think what his other qualities might be.
A debate with 60 million losers
I hadn't been planning to say anything more about the leaders' debates (for a while, anyway!), but that was before I saw this headline on Nick Robinson's blog -
"And the winner is...the British electorate"
Given the very real anger out there about the way this process has from the start been driven solely by the self-interest of a narrow metropolitan political and media elite, that is an astoundingly provocative observation for someone in Robinson's position to make. His particular delight in the prospect that this could set the mould for countless similar debates to come will cause more than a few people to shudder. I left this comment -
"I'd have said the British electorate were the principal losers last night, presented as they were with a debased, false choice between three men who agree with each other on 90% of policy matters, with alternative voices (including mainstream parties with substantial parliamentary representation) cynically silenced. Forget the high-minded spin - this was a retrograde step for the democratic process, and if it does indeed set a precedent it's one we could well have cause to repent for decades to come."
"And the winner is...the British electorate"
Given the very real anger out there about the way this process has from the start been driven solely by the self-interest of a narrow metropolitan political and media elite, that is an astoundingly provocative observation for someone in Robinson's position to make. His particular delight in the prospect that this could set the mould for countless similar debates to come will cause more than a few people to shudder. I left this comment -
"I'd have said the British electorate were the principal losers last night, presented as they were with a debased, false choice between three men who agree with each other on 90% of policy matters, with alternative voices (including mainstream parties with substantial parliamentary representation) cynically silenced. Forget the high-minded spin - this was a retrograde step for the democratic process, and if it does indeed set a precedent it's one we could well have cause to repent for decades to come."
Clegg averts calamity by playing his Brucie Unionist Bonus
There was a new full-scale Scottish YouGov poll of Westminster voting intentions yesterday that, remarkably, showed our prospective new party of government slipping back to a humiliating fourth place behind the Liberal Democrats. The SNP remain in second place, but their lead over the Lib Dems now stands at just three points, which raises a question that would have seemed laughable until very recently - could the Lib Dems just possibly maintain their second place in the popular vote from the 2005 election? To be clear, if that actually happens no Lib Dem will be able to claim with a straight face that they've achieved it on the merits of their pitch to the voters. Look no further than what happened in 2005 - the Lib Dems performed well in Scotland because they were opposed to the Iraq war and had a telegenic leader. But guess which other party also had both those advantages? The only - but ultimately telling - difference between the Lib Dems and the SNP was that the London-dominated media allowed one party to be heard and not the other. With the hyperbole over Clegg coming out on top in the first of the rigged leaders' debates last night, it looks almost certain that the gulf in the level of coverage is going to be even more obscene this time round than in 2005. Make no mistake - if the SNP can withstand this outrageous, anti-democratic loading of the dice against them and come out in second place, it'll be as phenomenal an achievement as winning the 2007 Holyrood election outright.
On the presentation of the debate itself, I suppose we should be grateful that Alastair Stewart at least went through the motions of flagging up when a question related to matters that are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but there were still huge shortcomings. Why couldn't he simply have clarified the point properly by adding "which means that the discussion you're about to hear relates to England only"? It would only have taken five seconds to do so. As two of the audience questions flatly contradicted his disclaimer by using phrases like "across Britain" and "throughout the UK", I haven't the slightest doubt that many viewers in Scotland will have been misled into thinking that the answers relating to health, education and crime had at least some relevance to Scotland, whereas of course they had none whatsoever.
The other point on which viewers were cynically misled was when Stewart claimed - without any qualification at all - that the studio audience was 'representative'. It categorically was not. Residents of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were specifically barred from being members of the audience (as they will be in all three debates), and thus by definition the roughly 3% of the UK population who typically support the SNP or Plaid Cymru were not merely under-represented - they were literally not represented at all.
On the presentation of the debate itself, I suppose we should be grateful that Alastair Stewart at least went through the motions of flagging up when a question related to matters that are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but there were still huge shortcomings. Why couldn't he simply have clarified the point properly by adding "which means that the discussion you're about to hear relates to England only"? It would only have taken five seconds to do so. As two of the audience questions flatly contradicted his disclaimer by using phrases like "across Britain" and "throughout the UK", I haven't the slightest doubt that many viewers in Scotland will have been misled into thinking that the answers relating to health, education and crime had at least some relevance to Scotland, whereas of course they had none whatsoever.
The other point on which viewers were cynically misled was when Stewart claimed - without any qualification at all - that the studio audience was 'representative'. It categorically was not. Residents of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were specifically barred from being members of the audience (as they will be in all three debates), and thus by definition the roughly 3% of the UK population who typically support the SNP or Plaid Cymru were not merely under-represented - they were literally not represented at all.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The crossing of a dangerous threshold
So the dark day has arrived. Rather than simply preaching to the (mostly) converted here, I thought I'd sum up my thoughts in the following piece that I've posted both on Nick Robinson's blog and on the Guardian website. It's in slightly abbreviated form at the Guardian due to a character limit.
"The British political process will tonight cross a very dangerous threshold. It’s long been recognised by international scrutinising bodies that, for an election to be deemed free and fair, it’s not sufficient for there to be, for example, no bar on candidates putting themselves forward, and for the principles of a secret ballot to be immaculately respected at the polling stations. In the modern world these nominal freedoms count for nothing if the powers that be allow only a select few participants to put their case on the broadcast media, with publicity for all the others choked off. The process we’re about to see unfold tonight and on subsequent Thursdays is much more redolent of what passes for ‘democracy’ in certain former Soviet republics than it is of the principles of ‘fair play’ that we are constantly told underpin the British system.
Imagine for a moment that you’re a Martian, and having tasted the warmer climes of Russia for a few years you’ve just decided to make a new home for yourself in the even warmer climes of the Ceredigion constituency. You’ve just got your head round the idea that the local choice amounts to a straight battle between the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru. What, then, are you to make of the debate tonight? It’s difficult to reach any other conclusion than that the broadcasters think that only one of the two main choices in the constituency is even worthy of your consideration – the other one might as well not exist. But, of course, you won’t find this unsubtle attempt to ‘guide’ the voters towards the ‘right’ decision so strange – because you’ve seen it all before in the last set of Russian elections.
To be clear, the broadcasters are not simply ‘following orders’ from the three London-based parties as they might do in an ex-Soviet republic. But what there certainly is at play here is a conspiracy of massive shared self-interest between the broadcasters and the three London parties. The broadcasters recognised at a very early stage the potential ratings bonanza these debates represented, and were prepared to do almost anything to ensure they went ahead. As it swiftly became clear that the London parties would take their ball away and refuse to play if they were forced to share a platform with alternative voices, the broadcasters were more than happy to be their servants in ensuring those alternative voices were silenced at all costs. Michael Crick gave the game away several weeks ago when he revealed that the very name ‘Prime Ministerial Debates’ had only been dreamed up by the broadcasters as a wheeze to attempt to justify the exclusion of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
So there it is in a nutshell – the broadcasters in an alleged western democracy working on behalf of a select group of political parties to help them defeat their opponents. Every time the words ‘Prime Ministerial Debate’ are uttered by Alastair Stewart tonight, I hope every TV boss involved in this shameful exercise quietly winces, because that phrase will forever symbolise just how far the broadcasters have abdicated their proper role in the election process of illuminating the full range of choices before the electorate, without fear or favour.
As far as I can see, the only conceivable justification for excluding parties from TV coverage is that they are thorough-going fringe parties, meaning they have failed to demonstrate that they have any realistic hope at all of success at the election – which in a parliamentary election means hope of winning seats in parliament. The SNP have had continuous representation in parliament since 1967, and Plaid Cymru since 1974. Parties representing no fewer than 31 of the 646 seats in parliament prior to dissolution will be banned from participating tonight. The proposition that these parties have no stake in this election is risible and offensive, and yet that is the proposition upon which tonight’s broadcast will be based.
Oh, and before anyone responds to my Ceredigion example by suggesting that the leader of Plaid Cymru has no chance of becoming Prime Minister, in point of fact both the leading candidates in that constituency are in precisely the same boat. Both their parties’ parliamentary leaders theoretically COULD become PM (there are numerous examples both in Britain and around the world of parties supplying the head of government while being well short of a majority of seats), but in practice everyone knows neither will. In any case, the post of Prime Minister will not be on the ballot paper in Ceredigion, but the post of member of parliament for Ceredigion will be. It seems the powers that be have already decided for the voters what the result of that particular election should be.
Talking of who is and who isn’t on the ballot paper, none of the three parties lucky enough to be represented tonight are on the ballot in every constituency in the UK – the Conservatives are missing in two constituencies, while Labour and the Lib Dems are absent in no fewer than nineteen apiece. If Liam Byrne’s strictures on Question Time a few weeks ago were being followed to the letter, there would in fact be an empty platform tonight – because apparently participation in these debates is appropriate only for leaders of parties ‘standing in every single seat’."
I'm searching for a silver lining, and apart from the SNP's excellent PEB tonight the best one I can think of is the stiff competition the TV debate is facing from the schedulers on the other side - not just Have I Got News For You but also Outnumbered, which as far as I can remember is the only genuinely funny sitcom (for a family audience) Britain has produced in the last five years.
"The British political process will tonight cross a very dangerous threshold. It’s long been recognised by international scrutinising bodies that, for an election to be deemed free and fair, it’s not sufficient for there to be, for example, no bar on candidates putting themselves forward, and for the principles of a secret ballot to be immaculately respected at the polling stations. In the modern world these nominal freedoms count for nothing if the powers that be allow only a select few participants to put their case on the broadcast media, with publicity for all the others choked off. The process we’re about to see unfold tonight and on subsequent Thursdays is much more redolent of what passes for ‘democracy’ in certain former Soviet republics than it is of the principles of ‘fair play’ that we are constantly told underpin the British system.
Imagine for a moment that you’re a Martian, and having tasted the warmer climes of Russia for a few years you’ve just decided to make a new home for yourself in the even warmer climes of the Ceredigion constituency. You’ve just got your head round the idea that the local choice amounts to a straight battle between the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru. What, then, are you to make of the debate tonight? It’s difficult to reach any other conclusion than that the broadcasters think that only one of the two main choices in the constituency is even worthy of your consideration – the other one might as well not exist. But, of course, you won’t find this unsubtle attempt to ‘guide’ the voters towards the ‘right’ decision so strange – because you’ve seen it all before in the last set of Russian elections.
To be clear, the broadcasters are not simply ‘following orders’ from the three London-based parties as they might do in an ex-Soviet republic. But what there certainly is at play here is a conspiracy of massive shared self-interest between the broadcasters and the three London parties. The broadcasters recognised at a very early stage the potential ratings bonanza these debates represented, and were prepared to do almost anything to ensure they went ahead. As it swiftly became clear that the London parties would take their ball away and refuse to play if they were forced to share a platform with alternative voices, the broadcasters were more than happy to be their servants in ensuring those alternative voices were silenced at all costs. Michael Crick gave the game away several weeks ago when he revealed that the very name ‘Prime Ministerial Debates’ had only been dreamed up by the broadcasters as a wheeze to attempt to justify the exclusion of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
So there it is in a nutshell – the broadcasters in an alleged western democracy working on behalf of a select group of political parties to help them defeat their opponents. Every time the words ‘Prime Ministerial Debate’ are uttered by Alastair Stewart tonight, I hope every TV boss involved in this shameful exercise quietly winces, because that phrase will forever symbolise just how far the broadcasters have abdicated their proper role in the election process of illuminating the full range of choices before the electorate, without fear or favour.
As far as I can see, the only conceivable justification for excluding parties from TV coverage is that they are thorough-going fringe parties, meaning they have failed to demonstrate that they have any realistic hope at all of success at the election – which in a parliamentary election means hope of winning seats in parliament. The SNP have had continuous representation in parliament since 1967, and Plaid Cymru since 1974. Parties representing no fewer than 31 of the 646 seats in parliament prior to dissolution will be banned from participating tonight. The proposition that these parties have no stake in this election is risible and offensive, and yet that is the proposition upon which tonight’s broadcast will be based.
Oh, and before anyone responds to my Ceredigion example by suggesting that the leader of Plaid Cymru has no chance of becoming Prime Minister, in point of fact both the leading candidates in that constituency are in precisely the same boat. Both their parties’ parliamentary leaders theoretically COULD become PM (there are numerous examples both in Britain and around the world of parties supplying the head of government while being well short of a majority of seats), but in practice everyone knows neither will. In any case, the post of Prime Minister will not be on the ballot paper in Ceredigion, but the post of member of parliament for Ceredigion will be. It seems the powers that be have already decided for the voters what the result of that particular election should be.
Talking of who is and who isn’t on the ballot paper, none of the three parties lucky enough to be represented tonight are on the ballot in every constituency in the UK – the Conservatives are missing in two constituencies, while Labour and the Lib Dems are absent in no fewer than nineteen apiece. If Liam Byrne’s strictures on Question Time a few weeks ago were being followed to the letter, there would in fact be an empty platform tonight – because apparently participation in these debates is appropriate only for leaders of parties ‘standing in every single seat’."
I'm searching for a silver lining, and apart from the SNP's excellent PEB tonight the best one I can think of is the stiff competition the TV debate is facing from the schedulers on the other side - not just Have I Got News For You but also Outnumbered, which as far as I can remember is the only genuinely funny sitcom (for a family audience) Britain has produced in the last five years.
The underwhelming underbelly of the Tory manifesto
Yesterday on the BBC's Campaign Show, Matthew Parris repeatedly made reference to the Tory manifesto pledge on 'English votes for English laws', suggesting he was genuinely surprised by how far it went. Having just caught up with the relevant section of the document courtesy of A Pint of Unionist Lite, I must say I'm slightly baffled as to the basis for Parris' excitement - perhaps he's just seeing what he wants to. All I can see is the reiteration of a platitude about general principles that we've heard many times before - there is absolutely no detail about an actual proposal for change. I don't think it's too hard to imagine how "new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries" could fall short of a specific bar on Scottish MPs voting on the Third Reading of such legislation. And, quite honestly, given the impact on Scotland via the Barnett Formula of much legislation that is supposedly "purely English", it may well be right if it does fall well short of that.
But this is typical of the mealy-mouthed and half-blooded nature of just about every area of the Tories' constitutional proposals. The segment on the Calman Report reminded me of Mo Mowlam's mischievous dig at the Tories' attitude towards the peace process in Northern Ireland - "I welcome their support for the Good Friday Agreement. I now look forward to that support extending to the actual contents of the Good Friday Agreement." It really is hard to see how 'support for Calman' is consistent with a pledge merely to implement their own proposals to "deal with the issues raised by Calman". The one point of potential reassurance is that there is at least now a firm pledge that these proposals will be legislated for within the lifetime of the coming parliament. But as we don't have a clue what they are, it's impossible to know if that pledge is worth the paper it's written on - if we're in for another magical mystery tour along the lines of the 1993 'Taking Stock' proposals, it could all turn out to be distinctly underwhelming.
However, the bit that made me laugh out loud related to the extension of Welsh devolution -
"We will not stand in the way of the referendum on further legislative powers requested by the Welsh assembly."
Wow. You are spoiling us with your enthusiasm for self-government, Ambassador. The truly depressing thing is that absence of direct hostility actually marks dramatic progress for the Conservative party. But can you imagine if they applied similar language to their headline policies?
"We don't have a major problem with lifting the inheritance tax threshold."
"Allowing parents to set up their own schools - och, I suppose we can live with it."
"Scrap the rise in National Insurance? Sigh. If we must..."
But this is typical of the mealy-mouthed and half-blooded nature of just about every area of the Tories' constitutional proposals. The segment on the Calman Report reminded me of Mo Mowlam's mischievous dig at the Tories' attitude towards the peace process in Northern Ireland - "I welcome their support for the Good Friday Agreement. I now look forward to that support extending to the actual contents of the Good Friday Agreement." It really is hard to see how 'support for Calman' is consistent with a pledge merely to implement their own proposals to "deal with the issues raised by Calman". The one point of potential reassurance is that there is at least now a firm pledge that these proposals will be legislated for within the lifetime of the coming parliament. But as we don't have a clue what they are, it's impossible to know if that pledge is worth the paper it's written on - if we're in for another magical mystery tour along the lines of the 1993 'Taking Stock' proposals, it could all turn out to be distinctly underwhelming.
However, the bit that made me laugh out loud related to the extension of Welsh devolution -
"We will not stand in the way of the referendum on further legislative powers requested by the Welsh assembly."
Wow. You are spoiling us with your enthusiasm for self-government, Ambassador. The truly depressing thing is that absence of direct hostility actually marks dramatic progress for the Conservative party. But can you imagine if they applied similar language to their headline policies?
"We don't have a major problem with lifting the inheritance tax threshold."
"Allowing parents to set up their own schools - och, I suppose we can live with it."
"Scrap the rise in National Insurance? Sigh. If we must..."
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Labour's PEB may not have mentioned the SNP once, but it was all about them
It may seem a peculiar thing to say about a broadcast that virtually from beginning to end was devoted to listing a roll-call of the Tories' crimes against Scotland in the 1980s and 90s (even at one point evoking the spectre of 'Maggie Thatcher Milk Snatcher' from the early 70s), but Scottish Labour's PEB last night was all about an attempt to defuse the threat from the SNP. It's rather like thinking up a joke - you start with the punchline and then build the rest of the joke around it. The single line the creators of last night's broadcast will have started with is "this election is a two-horse race" - which, presumably, is the only line of attack against the SNP's positive message that Labour are confident will have the slightest traction. It doesn't say much for Labour's faith in how their pitch for votes would fare in a straight comparison with the SNP's that they so obviously feel their best hope lies in bypassing all that and instead browbeating the voters into thinking the SNP aren't 'really' a choice in this election at all.
So all that the rest of the PEB really tells you about is the context in which Labour's creatives felt they could place their key line for maximum effect, ie. the reaction they hope for is "oh yes, the Tories must be stopped at all costs, so if this election really is a 'two-horse race', I must make sure I back the horse that isn't Tory...wait a moment, doesn't that mean voting Labour and not SNP?". Talk about treating the electorate like children.
In truth of course, all this talk about 'two horse races' is an utter nonsense in Scotland's four-party politics. Due to the inequities of the majoritarian electoral systems so beloved of both Labour and the Tories, many constituencies do indeed have only two candidates who can win - but in only in a tiny minority of cases is that choice between Labour and Tory. If stopping a Tory government is the only thing that counts in this election, how would Labour advise people to vote in, for example, SNP/Conservative marginals like Perth and Angus? There can only be one credible answer. Small hint - it isn't Labour.
So all that the rest of the PEB really tells you about is the context in which Labour's creatives felt they could place their key line for maximum effect, ie. the reaction they hope for is "oh yes, the Tories must be stopped at all costs, so if this election really is a 'two-horse race', I must make sure I back the horse that isn't Tory...wait a moment, doesn't that mean voting Labour and not SNP?". Talk about treating the electorate like children.
In truth of course, all this talk about 'two horse races' is an utter nonsense in Scotland's four-party politics. Due to the inequities of the majoritarian electoral systems so beloved of both Labour and the Tories, many constituencies do indeed have only two candidates who can win - but in only in a tiny minority of cases is that choice between Labour and Tory. If stopping a Tory government is the only thing that counts in this election, how would Labour advise people to vote in, for example, SNP/Conservative marginals like Perth and Angus? There can only be one credible answer. Small hint - it isn't Labour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)