Here at Better Nation, we are marvelling at the wisdom of the two parties fighting it out for First Minister in May adopting a key plank of our mission statement as their focus for next year. You can picture the ring announcer already…
“In the red corner for this heavyweight contest we have the challenger, known to some as the Grey Man of Scottish politics, the LOLITSP himself… Iain Gray.
And in the yellow corner representing the SNP, originating from Linlithgow but now hailing from the North-East, known for his love of horses and curries, Scotland’s First Minister… Alex Salmond.”
In terms of sloganising the campaign, both camps have hit the ground running. Labour have set their stall out for change and have gone with the tagline “Scotland Deserves Better” (which, if you hadn’t already noticed, has already been delivered in the shape of this blog!).
Last time around, the SNP benefited from the simplicity of their “It’s Time” slogan. Looking to stay in office for a second term,  this time they have gone with “better” in their slogan of “Be Part of Better“. Clearly, not noticing that “Be” is already part of “Better” - indeed, the first 2 letters of it. But that’s a minor point.
So, essentially the public have a choice – is it a case of better the devil they know? Or would they be better off looking to Labour to better the SNP in the election? Are we to listen to Rupert Murdoch’s Sky and “believe in better“? Have we returned to 1997 where things could only get better? Can’t they work better together?
Or is the focus of the post better best forgotten?
Okay, I’ll let it go. Â But there is a point to be made here. Will the public focus be more on the leaders, the campaigns and the image of the parties involved – or is there any danger that respective policies will be examined and issues will actually play a part in this campaign?
I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle. As James has pointed out previously, we’ll have two parties fighting over the same policies as previously. We’ll have parties offering the status quo or a minor change to the status quo (with apologies to the Nats who believe the SNP can or will deliver independence post-May 2011, which of course would be a major change to the status quo) in terms of policy position.
Think about it. We’re arguing over sustaining or ending a freeze on Council Tax (minor change) not whether the system is fair and should be changed anyway (major change). We’re arguing about how the cuts should be distributed (no change to system) instead of asking how to avoid some of them – perhaps by using the tax power we have (reasonably large change given its never been used). Incidentally, I’m not 100% sold on it (and far be it for me to say anything about tax given, as a student, I don’t actually pay income tax) but I’m happy to see one of the parties talking about it.
Elections should be about ideas, about ideology and issues. Instead, with the rise of the TV debate and instant public comment via blogs and Twitter, the cult of personality and image is now the main focus of elections. One faux pas, one minor slip, one moment of not being entirely professional, and the election is gone. So it is absolutely no wonder that parties have shifted their focus from original policy making and debating the issues inside out to a position whereby slick campaigns and professionalism are prized above all else.
With that in mind, its no real surprise that the two parties challenging to provide Scotland’s First Minister have both gone for the same message in their campaigns in attempt to better the other (okay, I used that one already). I guess there are only so many ways you can make it sound like you promising something which is an improvement on what your opponent can.
I do think though, that whatever the rhetoric, the soundbites and catchphrases, Scotland would be better served by having a real debate about the issues. Do that, and we may well see a Scotland which befits the intentions of our political rhetoric. Do it not, and focus solely on beating your opponent in a professional campaign without engaging with the issues and all our nation will be is older, no wiser… and perhaps just a little bit bitter.
#1 by James on November 16, 2010 - 9:00 am
Looks like a race to co-opt this (YT) as the election theme music.
#2 by Jeff on November 16, 2010 - 9:25 am
Good stuff Malc. I should say that it looks certain that the SNP will come out all guns blazing on LIT which would be a major change and not just the minor change of whether council tax should or shouldn’t go up. Big debates may be around the corner but I agree it’s all rather timid at the moment.
And anyway, in my book the slogan “It’s Thyme†for the Greens still beats these two ‘better’ efforts hands down….!
#3 by Malc on November 16, 2010 - 9:47 am
They may well do nearer the time, but I doubt it. The discussion currently is about the Council Tax freeze – the SNP want to maintain it, Labour recognise that councils could use the extra cash. The SNP want to reform to LIT it is true, but they stopped banging the drum for it when they decided not to legislate for it. I know the numbers weren’t there for it before anyone says that. And maybe you are right – but having used it in 2007 as a key plank of their manifesto but being unable to deliver in office, I’m not sure how much traction it will have.
#4 by neil craig on November 16, 2010 - 11:44 am
To have a “real debate about the issues” there would have to be some disagreement among the allegedly separate parties. There would also.of course, have to be some willingness to allow uncensored discussion which ia hardly something the writers here could appeove of.
#5 by Malc on November 16, 2010 - 11:53 am
I’ve no idea what the “allegedly separate parties” refers to.
On the second point. “Uncensored discussion” comes with responsibility. Stick to the topic, don’t slander or libel – and play nice. We’re not stopping debate on the issues. We’re avoiding potential legal repercussions for ourselves – and indeed our commenters. Play by the rules – or stick to your own blog!
#6 by Jeff on November 16, 2010 - 12:22 pm
What a strange comment Neil.
Of course an uncensored discussion amongst our political leaders is a good thing but arguing for uncensored discussion on a website, when it is the editors who have to answer to the law/irate journalists if anything crosses the line (something I have first hand experience of), is just bizarre. The Twitter Joke Trial and Alex Hilton situation alone are surely examples enough to show that comment moderation is necessary.
We’re hardly suppressing debate on here though….
#7 by James on November 16, 2010 - 2:09 pm
I deleted a series of comments that made wild, libellous and Godwin-tastic allegations. The policy is “be nice”, and that was clearly broken. If you want unmoderated free speech I recommend you get your own blog and a libel lawyer.
#8 by Doug Daniel on November 16, 2010 - 12:34 pm
I’m biased, since I’m an SNP member, but I’m optimistic that they will fight the campaign on more than just a few minor differences, and I certainly hope I’m right. It would be tragic if the election was reduced to the parties trying to make minor administrative and timing differences out to be major ideological differences, which is what happened at the Westminster election (I wonder how well the Tories would have fared if they’d campaigned more honestly on their “big idea”, i.e. that many of their cuts would be based on right-wing ideology, rather than because they were absolutely necessary?)
I can’t think of many bigger ideas than independence, but it would certainly be good to see some more in the SNP manifesto. I’d be surprised if LIT wasn’t included again, as I don’t think this was just a flash in the pan idea for the 2007 manifesto. Assuming the Lib Dems still want to replace council tax with LIT, then with any luck the next session of parliament can see the two parties work together to get something going (assuming there are any Lib Dem MSPs left!)
Renationalising rail would be a big idea, and it would certainly be a vote winner for me. I’m not sure Holyrood has the power to do that, though.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Lib Dems campaign for increased powers again – it would be a bit odd, since it’s a Lib Dem Scottish secretary that is bringing in the Calman changes and so it’s technically their own fault if they don’t think the changes don’t go far enough (which they obviously don’t), but since when did something like that stop a party from making promises to voters?
The problem with big ideas is someone needs to come up with the ideas in the first place. What big ideas could the debate be focussing on? That’s the question. LIT is sure to feature, but what else could the parties be focussing on?
#9 by Malc on November 16, 2010 - 1:15 pm
I guess I should have been a bit clearer. I’d love to see big ideas, of course, but what I really want to see is simply some ideas. I want to see a campaign that is about issues and policies, not about spin, image and presentation. I want to see our politicians debating education priorities, NHS funding, how to be greener… but using specific policies to present their ideas not simply knocking other parties for their ideas.
I want to see a positive debate – but really I just want to see that our parties have an idea about how to deliver the “Better” Scotland that their slogans suggest.
#10 by James on November 16, 2010 - 2:07 pm
Agreed on rail renationalisation, but sadly SNP Ministers just extended the Scotrail contract without any consultation. They passed up an opportunity to give the franchise to a public sector operator, and I doubt they’d come back with anything different this time.
#11 by neil craig on November 16, 2010 - 12:42 pm
You allowed a wholly dishonest racist personal attack on me. An attack which was entirely off topic. When I even temperedly asked for some evidence to support the claim the author refused yet still you did nothing. Then you censored the victim. This is obviously inconsistent with ayour claim not to censor or indeed your claim that you censor only to avoid criticism of anybody.
#12 by Malc on November 16, 2010 - 1:06 pm
Neil – the comments got through our moderation system for whatever reason (probably because it was the weekend and we were not watching). When we realised what had happened, we ditched all the comments. We can only apologise for that occurrence. We’ve tightened up the moderation stuff now, so that shouldn’t happen again. In the meantime, if everyone stayed on topic (which I don’t think happened in that case) there wouldn’t have been an issue!
#13 by Jeff on November 16, 2010 - 1:07 pm
It’s a poor defence I grant you but, well, it wisnae me… I don’t know what exchange you’re referring to Neil and I’m sure I would’ve remembered it. Will check it out though.
#14 by J Campbell on November 16, 2010 - 12:49 pm
There is a problem with free and open debate in scotland.
I’m probably being a paranoid cybernat, but the reporting up here seems somewhat slanted to the Labour party, like the article about the Prisons TV which raged against the SNP, mentioned that the policy had been in place since 1999, but kind of forgot to mention who had been administrating that policy from 1999 to 2007.
And if am SNP voter thinks they aren’t getting a fair shout, you Greens must be feeling even more hacked off, since some of your core policies are infiltrating other parties.
You need a rich sponsor to buy the Herald or the Scotsman and change the editorial policies. I don’t know what you’d do about the beeb.
#15 by Malc on November 16, 2010 - 1:18 pm
J – I think the media does have a case to answer on this. See, for example, Joan McAlpine’s blog for a good analysis of the lack of debate around constitutional issues in the MSM. But I think “open and free debate” starts with our politicians, or at least the standard of it does. If they could put their case more positively – and that goes for pro-independence Nats as well – rather than painting the opposing side as worse, then we could have a better debate.
#16 by Chris on November 16, 2010 - 1:00 pm
I think the impending total collapse of Ireland’s economy will focus minds on independence or not. We know the comparisons with Ireland are not straightforward, but it is the country we compare ourselves to the most.
If the SNP chose to make indpendence a key plank in their manifesto then they will suffer for it. Everyone has seen the tapes of Alex Salmond talking about the Arc of Prosperity from Iceland to Ireland. If the cuts are seen to be heavier in small independent countries, the better the devil you know argument may indeed be the winner.
#17 by Malc on November 16, 2010 - 1:20 pm
Chris,
I was using the “Better the devil you know” argument in favour of maintaining Salmond as FM – you know, we’ve had him around for 3 years etc… but I guess you can take it the way you have as well. Independence will, apparently, be a big part of the SNP’s manifesto (post-referendum bill dropping) and you may be right – they may suffer for it. Or we may be sick of the cuts by then, and it may work for them.
#18 by theshooglypeg on November 16, 2010 - 10:22 pm
I agree that we do need some big ideas to debate, if we’re not to limp towards an insipid and uninspiring election. But doesn’t the whole focus on “better” seem a bit lacking in ambition? What about aiming for brilliance, excellence, fan-dabby-dosiness? That’s more likely to get my vote!
#19 by James on November 16, 2010 - 11:07 pm
That’s my favourite comment of the month so far.
#20 by Malc on November 17, 2010 - 3:44 pm
Yeah – need a Facebook-esq “like” for that one. To be honest, I’d settle for better – if they had the ideas to back it up!
#21 by J Campbell on November 17, 2010 - 9:04 am
Trouble with blackguard the Arc of Prosperity is that even with the problems they are doing better than us. Ireland has a better situation now, but they still have to account for that debt. Weird that the EU is being cast as Mrs Doyle to Ireland’s Father Ted.
“You will take this bailout, g’wan, g’wan, g’wan!”
#22 by Exiled Nat on November 17, 2010 - 1:47 pm
This can’t be a serious point?
Ireland’s deficit is above 90% GDP.
The banks are all state owned and now there is no money left. The country is bankrupt.
How is any of that in better shape than Scotland?
#23 by J Campbell on November 17, 2010 - 9:30 am
That should, of course, be “blackguarding”, silly me
#24 by Chris on November 17, 2010 - 10:04 am
The only Big Idea out there right now is the Spirit Level. It looks like Ed Miliband has read it. And in general you would expect Labour and SNP to welcome the hypothesis.
#25 by J Campbell on November 17, 2010 - 10:54 am
I can only guess that Mr Craig was referring to me, though I refute utterly any characterisation of any of my comments as a racist attack on anyone.
That being said I shall now contribute to the harmony of this blog by withdrawing from it utterly.
I remain, of course, hopeful that your ideas get debate in a bigger arena.
Good luck and thanks for your blog
#26 by neil craig on November 17, 2010 - 2:29 pm
Irish deficit “blooms to …a budget deficit equivalent to 32% of GDP this year” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11441473
“UK budget deficit lower than feared … nation’s debt has now reached £903bn – equivalent to 62.2% of GDP”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/18/uk-budget-deficit-lower-than-feared
Some double standards in how our MSM reports things methinks.
#27 by neil craig on November 17, 2010 - 3:02 pm
While not wishing to suggest that any statement by anybody (except Serbs) about anything is in any way less than 100% accurate or that any part of our media ever shows the remotest trace of hypocrisy in any way in which they might, to the untrained eye, appear to be using different reporting standards when different nations are involved I put this for consideration.
Irish deficit “blooms to …a budget deficit equivalent to 32% of GDP this year†http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11441473
“UK budget deficit lower than feared … nation’s debt has now reached £903bn – equivalent to 62.2% of GDPâ€
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/18/uk-budget-deficit-lower-than-feared
OK James?