Waking up the next morning it is easy to feel embarrassed, stupid and remorseful. Those easy words, those seductive plays; of course they were rehearsed and aimed to trick you but it’s easy to be taken in at the time, get swept away in the moment; thinking that this one’s different, this one is for the long term.
And yet there you are on that cold day, sharp shivers that cut to the bone, more from the icy memories than the cool Spring temperature. A walk of shame that can last four or five years before the wrong can be righted.
Yes, voting Lib Dem can leave even the most battle-hardened with scars for life. We all experiment and do stupid things when we’re young I suppose.
Memories of elections are starting to merge into one for me but I think it was 2005 when it was my turn to dip my electoral finger into the appealing icing offered by the Lib Dems, without considering what, if any, substance there was in the cake underneath. Perhaps that is why I am being so hard on the Lib Dems during this campaign, some latent anger at having been duped by a party that I don’t really associate myself with, or perhaps it is the 2010 deal with the Tories, or perhaps it is the disappointing sight of train fares rocketing and wi-fi being stripped out of East Coast while domestic air travel remains King or perhaps it is just the continued duplicity that seems prevalent within the Scottish Lib Dems, even today.
Take their policy to keep policing local. A fine policy and an important argument against the likely move to combine policing into one cost-saving merged force. I personally have no strong feeling either way; I recognise the financial benefits of shared resources but I also recognise the benefits of having a localised service that can adapt more easily to local factors. However, as much as I understand that the Lib Dems don’t have many policy strings to their bow right now, it is just downright deceitful to assert time and time and time again that they are the only party that is fighting to keep policing local. From Orkney through Aberdeen to Perth, and no doubt beyond, this lie, for there is no other word, is being propagated.
How can we sympathise with Chris Huhne attacking the No to AV campaign for spreading lies when his party is doing the same thing up here in Scotland? I can understand why the Lib Dems would want to wish the Green party away but it doesn’t seem to be working as the (hitherto) 5th party of the Parliament is finally gaining some traction in the polls.
Another Scottish Lib Dem bugbear of mine is equality. The party likes to paint itself as at the forefront of any fight against discrimination and, again, there is plenty of merit in their words and deeds. However, they let themselves down by allowing that moral high ground go to their heads. Take Caron’s rationale for not signing this 1,100-strong petition to include Patrick Harvie in the leader debates:
“I actually think that rather than push for Patrick, I’d have been a lot more engaged with the idea if they’d decided against putting another middle aged bloke in a suit on that stage, where, frankly, there are already enough of them, and gone for a woman who has equal authority and status in their party.”
Given that one of those ‘middle aged blokes in a suit’ is Tavish Scott, I thought this was a pretty shaky premise to build an argument on but Caron went on:
“It just screams of blokes in a huddle again, not looking at the bigger picture. They want Patrick in the debates to give them more balance, but they’ve missed the chance to show that they are aware of and act on other sorts of imbalance.”
That’s fine, I don’t get to dictate what people sign or don’t sign, just as Caron doesn’t get to dictate which co-leader the Green Party puts up to argue for its policies, but I take exception at Caron’s complaints of ‘blokes in a huddle’ when the Scottish Lib Dem MSP group for 2007-2011 consisted of 2 women and 14 men. The worst gender imbalance of any of the so-called ‘main parties’.
So, are they set to improve on this lamentable position given that they so often claim to be the party of equality and fairness? Well, no actually. The number of women in the Lib Dem MSP group is expected to decrease from 2 to 1.
The most recent poll suggests that the Lib Dem group will reduce to eight:
Liam McArthur – Orkney
Tavish Scott – Shetland
Alison McInnes – North East
Mike Rumbles – North East
Mike Pringle – Lothians
Willie Rennie – MS&F
Jim Hume – South
Ross Finnie – West
How’s that for “missing the chance to show that they are aware of and act on other sorts of imbalance”?
It is not only a squeeze on policy that has led to desperation for the Lib Dems, it is the result of the 2007 election. You may have noticed a decline in the number of leaflets stating that ‘only the Lib Dems can win here’. That is because the Lib Dems are sitting in second place in only 5 of the 73 constituencies, and 4 of those seats are SNP-held which should remain the case after May 5th. The Lib Dems are struggling to win seats with an honest vote or a tactical vote which perhaps explains, though does not forgive, the behaviour discussed above.
I have no similar problems with the Conservatives or Labour, parties that I also rarely associate myself with. At least they know their place in the political debate and know what it is they are standing for. I really would question whether that is the case for the Scottish Lib Dems and would question whether Scotland needs them at all. What does Tavish’s party bring that the more grounded, robust left of centre parties of SNP, Labour and Greens not already offer? Are the Scottish Lib Dems just becoming a distraction?
This awkward prospect of letting a political party simply slip away is strengthened by the main news item on the Scottish Lib Dem website. Desperately and unashamedly using the inaccurate headline: “Only Lib Dems have solutions for Scotland”, the article talks about volunteering and scouting. Worthy, fuzzy, well-meaning but ultimately ancillary to the core needs of Scotland. For how long can Tavish Scott scurry around the fringes of the debate, looking for a demographic to lead and expect to remain at the top table? What is left of the party when the easy patter, the quick-win protest vote and the dodgy bar chart is no longer an option?
The only sensible way to deal with the smooth-talking Lib Dems? Just say No.
#1 by cynicalHighlander on April 26, 2011 - 8:02 am
Effect of extra tax on oil companies by reducing investment.
#2 by Douglas McLellan on April 26, 2011 - 8:05 am
Ouch.
Just as I was playing nice as well.
#3 by James on April 26, 2011 - 8:15 am
I swear I didn’t put Jeff up to this 😉
#4 by Douglas McLellan on April 26, 2011 - 8:30 am
I am working all day and evening but I have just articulated, angrily out loud whilst having a shower, my response.
This is going to be an annoying itch all day until I get home today and respond.
#5 by Douglas McLellan on April 26, 2011 - 7:28 pm
Feel better now Jeff? Got that off your chest? From the excellent SNP Tactical Voting website to this diatribe in just, what, six months? Indeed, in your last post at the old site you stated that you wondered why the SNP attracts visceral hatred from some quarters. Does this post answer that for you? Given what you have just written? Do you now understand that there is always a depth of feeling against an opposition party (or even parties). How deep it does and why is down to each individual but I have to ask, how is the view way down there?
I mean, who are you ask if Scotland needs any given political party? It may not want it. Said party may face a disastrous drop in support at this election. But to question its existence? Surely that is only for current party members to address along with current voters? If a party fails at an election in then has to work hard to see if it can change and attract votes or even wait and see if votes will come to them following decisions elsewhere. (Certainly the hatred that people like you have for the Tories is a remarkably unattractive trait that is prevalent in Scotland which is driving votes away from the Lib Dems into the arms of the other parties.)
You ask what the Lib Dems can offer the centre left as opposed to the SNP, Labour and Greens? Well we are not nationalist, paternalistic or socialist. And why should we be only offering something that is defined as centre-left? Yes that is where a lot of Scotland may be in terms of general voting preference but not all of it. Is it really that wrong for a party to offer a variety of policies that appeal to a number of political demographics?
Certainly doing that makes life harder but the idea that really liking one policy (say the Greens Common Good Trusts) should totally and utterly mean that I should oppose all the policies in the other party manifestos (like building a Replacement Forth Crossing)? I am really an unprincipled person if I like the Common Good Trusts and a new bridge? Is it that clear cut for you? What did you mean by “knowing their place†anyway? My place is on the doorstep saying these are the policies that I and my party feel offer Scotland a positive future. Do you we should be denied that? Or is it the fact that we are not exactly tied to one political philosophy which allegedly means we don’t have principles that has prompted you to write this?
The point you make about “Only Lib Dems have Solutions for Scotland†is disappointingly immature. Its an advert. All parties do it. The Tories – Common Sense. Is it Common Sense to reintroduce sentences of less than three months? Labour – Fighting for what Really Matters. Is automatic jail sentences for carry a knife something that really matters. The SNP – A Scottish Government working for Scotland. Who else would it be working for? And even the Scottish Greens state that There Has Never Been A More Important Time to Vote Green. Respectfully, I disagree.
It is one thing to look at a party’s manifesto and say I disagree with these policies. Here are what I think are better policies and you should vote for them. Its totally another to “question whether Scotland needs them at allâ€.
#6 by Jeff on April 26, 2011 - 8:44 pm
It’s hardly a diatribe Douglas.
#7 by Douglas McLellan on April 26, 2011 - 8:57 pm
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diatribe
Noun. 3. A speech or writing which bitterly denounces something.
We have both written diatribes.
#8 by douglas clark on April 26, 2011 - 8:08 am
Well, if anything was to happened to Alex Salmond, perish the thought, I’d be just as happy to stand behind Nicola Sturgeon.
She is at least as good as himself.
#9 by James on April 26, 2011 - 8:13 am
She’s better. Much better. I’ve seen her listen to people, frinstance.
#10 by James on April 26, 2011 - 8:09 am
Scotland Votes had the LDs down to 6 when I put the SoS numbers in. For my money that’s one of the North-east seats and Ross Finnie gone too. Also, Surely Margaret Smith is safer than Pringle? If they lose just one seat it’s surely Pringle?
#11 by Jeff on April 26, 2011 - 8:35 am
Not on the basis of a flat swing in keeping with national voteshare. It is Labour challenging Pringle and SNP challenging Smith. Furthermore, it’s not out of the question for tactical voting to be employed in Ed South to keep Labour out if SNP supporters judge that their candidate has no chance.
#12 by James on April 26, 2011 - 8:41 am
I will make a special hat out of spaghetti and eat it with hot sauce if Pringle doesn’t get his jotters.
#13 by Set In Darkness on April 26, 2011 - 9:12 am
Offering to eat your hat and then making it out of food is cheating. Or having your cake and eating it or mixing your metaphors or something.
This post is harsh, harsh, harsh. Can’t you at least wait until after the election?
#14 by Malc on April 26, 2011 - 12:14 pm
Harsh it is. Isn’t Jeff just noising up the Lib Dems a bit?
#15 by Malc on April 26, 2011 - 12:13 pm
We had Finnie in trouble but surviving on our region watch guide. But that was on better numbers for the Lib Dems…
#16 by Colin on April 26, 2011 - 8:36 am
As a former Liberal Democrat voter I have to say that for me it’s the coalition government that has changed my mind. I feel utterly betrayed by them. They are no longer the party that Charles Kennedy led.
Having said that, since you compare them to the Greens a lot in this article, one area where I have completely agreed with the Scottish Liberal Democrats is science and science funding. Whilst I do like the Greens renewable policies, I could never vote for them whilst they have the science policies that they do. The Greens on science is amongst the worst of all the parties with seats in the Scottish Parliament. Both the SNP and the Liberal Democrats seem to have been quite good on this matter.
Just like at the Westminster the Greens have been silent on this issue and I would love for someone to ask the Scottish Greens what their science policies are (as happened at the Westminster election). Until they distance themselves from such quackery as homeopathy and bizarre alternative medicines and pseudo-science I simply could never vote for them. Maybe I’m being reactionary here, but I find it hard to believe that a party that cannot take an evidence based approach to even the most simplest of scientific concepts could take an evidence based approach to some other issues. However, I’m willing to be proven wrong.
Does anyone have a more detailed analysis of the Scottish Greens science policies or are they much the same as those of the UK party?
#17 by James on April 26, 2011 - 8:40 am
Here’s what Patrick said on that issue – we’re after a “rigorous evidence-based approach”:
“The Scottish Green Party believes that health should not be defined solely by the absence of disease, but that it also encompasses our mental, emotional, social and – for some people – spiritual wellbeing. Health care should therefore be viewed in similarly broad terms, incorporating both conventional medicine and a wide range of other interventions, giving patients the right to take proactive control of their own treatment choices wherever possible.
This doesn’t mean an ‘anything goes’ approach for spending limited NHS funds – as taxpayers we all expect good evidence to exist before our money is spent on novel drugs, and the same should apply to other techniques and approaches to wellbeing. In fact we’ve made manifesto commitments to provide access to proven complementary and alternative therapies through GPs and local health boards.
The success of Glasgow’s Centre for Integrative Care as part of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde shows that it’s possible to provide integrative medicine through the NHS, and that where it is offered patients are keen to take advantage of the treatments. That service is designed around its patients’ complex and specific needs, but a holistic, integrative approach can offer enormous benefits in other settings too.
We are also well aware that many questions remain over the efficacy and safety of certain alternative treatments and practitioners. That is why we believe it is also important to support better understanding and regulation of complementary and alternative therapies.
By researching and regulating complementary and alternative medicines through the NHS in conjunction with conventional medicine, we would establish safeguards at the same time as increasing patient choice, and making appropriate treatments available to all regardless of income. Above all we would encourage a system which views each patient holistically as a person, not just as a collection of symptoms. Crucially this means giving all medical professionals the time they need to devote to each patient, not just those who provide ‘extra’ choices in the private sector.
If health isn’t just about the absence of disease, then a health system shouldn’t just be about treating disease. It should encompass every aspect of wellbeing, and bring a rigorous evidence-based approach to each.”
#18 by Colin on April 26, 2011 - 9:12 am
I find what you’ve posted from Patrick Harvie very disturbing, James. He talks about researching efficacy through the NHS – but much of these remedies will have had their efficacy tested the world over already and have been shown to be bunk. Take the big one for example; homeopathy – it is complete and utter nonsense and should have absolutely no place in the NHS. It’s effects are no bigger than placebo (which isn’t that large an effect anyway). Furthermore, it actually causes harm to thousands of Britons every year who take homeopathic remedies instead of the correct, science based, medicines. For example, the massive spike in Britons catching malaria abroad has been put down to them taking homeopathic tablets that do absolutely nothing.
Then there is of course the disturbing fact that by allowing pesudo-science into the NHS you open a door for peddlers of nonsense such as the anti-vaccination crowd. This isn’t simply a matter of ‘choice’ it’s a matter of life and death in some cases. The anti-vaccination movement is directly responsible for the return of measles and the mumps into our crowded inner cities. I am not being hyperbolic, there have been deaths recently from these diseases which we were supposed to have virtually irradicated years ago.
Now, as a general statement, what Harvie has written disturbs me, but what are the Scottish Greens’ specific policies on these matters? It’s also not just healthcare, it’s science research such as stem cells and research into GM crops. Being opposed to GM crops is fine and is a political move, but by completely banning any research on it you hamper Scottish science and you ignore some of the benefits that can be gained from the research even if it doesn’t mean planting fields of GM wheat, etc.
As for the Green policies you are asking after Jeff, I refer you to the following article from Liberal Conspiracy two years ago. I have never heard of a change in Green science policy and this is why I am unwilling to vote for them.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/06/09/is-the-green-party-anti-science/
I was very disappointed when Evan Harris lost his seat at the general election. A fine supported of science who was actually replaced by someone who supports quackery. Britain took a step backwards there.
If I am wrong and the Scottish Greens have different science policies or the Green party themselves have changed their policies then please do point this out to me, but as it stands I cannot vote for them and if they do happen to get into government after May 5th then I can only hope they defer their science policies to one of the other parties in a possible coalition.
#19 by Aidan Skinner on April 26, 2011 - 11:07 am
What I find really odd about this is the conflation of homeopathy with integrated, patient centered health care. One’s a laudable goal, pursued by governments of all stripes and implemented, albiet imperfectly, by Community Health Partnerships and so on.
One’s a bunch of quack nonsense.
They aren’t related.
#20 by Jeff on April 26, 2011 - 11:50 am
If you ask me, homeopathy is the Scottish/British equivalent of flag burning. Causes a lot of debate for something that barely ever takes place.
Just seems like a convenient stick to beat the Greens with to be honest. Personally I like the argument of Health involving not getting sick in the first place by eating proper food and not just how much money we can throw at a problem a la SNP/Labour.
#21 by Aidan Skinner on April 26, 2011 - 12:17 pm
It gets a few million pounds of funding (out of an NHS budget of approx £100bn), but more importantly it’s unethical for doctors to offer patients treatments which are known to be ineffective.
Preventative and public health is something governments of all stripes support, the SNP’s free fruit scheme a few months back was good for instance.
The Greens have a bit of a problem on homeopathy because of their prior pro-Homeopathy stance and a somewhat equivocal recantation last year. I’m not going to not vote for them on that basis, but it does cause a lot of Green voters I know pause.
#22 by Gryff on April 26, 2011 - 11:59 am
I imagine in this case Harvie namechecks the Centre for Integrative Care, which is a Homeopathic hospital. Unfortunately quacks have somewhat co-opted the language of integrated, whole approach healthcare, which should be central to all conventional health care. (In theory GPs are trained to treat the patient as a whole person, to consider the affect of physical illness on a patients general wellbeing or emotional state etc. In practice I think that depends on how good your GP is.)
#23 by James on April 26, 2011 - 12:01 pm
The Glasgow homeopathic hospital was funded from a bequest, and does a lot of good (non-woo) work too. But the terms of the bequest specify what some of the funding goes on – and I thought also specified the name.
#24 by Jeff on April 26, 2011 - 8:41 am
Good point. As a Maths and Stats graduate I was also enamoured by the Lib Dem focus on science. I don’t know what they were going to spend that £50m on mind, but it looked like a good headline initiative.
I don’t know what the Greens policy is on science matters (James!?) but given how strongly in favour they are of the highly technical renewable industry, not to mention dependent on science proving Climate Change, I wouldn’t have them down as ‘anti-science’…
#25 by Colin on April 26, 2011 - 9:14 am
I mentioned this above, but I guess I should put it in after this post (didn’t know how my message would come out). The Greens have been very good on renewables and renewable technology, no doubt. However when it comes to other, very basic sciences, they have been very poor indeed. I refer you to the same article again;
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/06/09/is-the-green-party-anti-science/
#26 by Colin on April 26, 2011 - 9:17 am
Oh yeah, and here’s the original Guardian article. Some of the comments afterwards are very interesting too:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/01/european-elections-science-stem-cells-gm
#27 by James on April 26, 2011 - 9:46 am
Colin, we’re two different parties, and that describes the English and Welsh party, who also amended policy subsequently.
#28 by Colin on April 26, 2011 - 10:26 am
So what are the Scottish Party’s policies on science and science-based medicine? I’ve asked this above and all I got was a statement from Patrick Harvie that did absolutely nothing to abate my fears of an anti-science and an anti-evidence based approach within the party.
The manifesto is very quiet on the issues, so obviously I have to find it out elsewhere.
#29 by Set In Darkness on April 26, 2011 - 9:17 am
I fully agree with this comment.
Will have to check the Green manifesto for quackery related subjects, but I believe they have been quietly expunged from the SGP. Certainly, you don’t see them talking or promoting the ideas
I could not vote for the GPEW with Caroline Lucas, for example, voting for some homeopathy bill last year (I forget the details now- Westminster holds little interest for me these days)
#30 by Colin on April 26, 2011 - 10:33 am
Indeed. Just to be fair however, other parties have not been perfect either. I was disappointed by Shona Robison fighting to save the Glasgow homeopathic ‘hospital’ when she was shadow health minister. Thankfully she is not anymore – however, the ‘hospital’ still exists. The problem here is that once the hospital has been built and established, to scrap it would draw very bad headlines as voters are instantly turned off with the words ‘hospital closures’. Perhaps we should rename it as the ‘Glasgow Homeopathic ‘Wellness’ Centre’, then close it down?
Thankfully the BMA wants to scrap funding for the homeopathic ‘hospital’ in Glasgow, what with budget cuts coming soon. We will see how this plays out in the coming parliament.
#31 by Malc on April 26, 2011 - 12:15 pm
Wouldn’t the Lib Dems be in better shape if they had someone like Charles Kennedy in the Scottish Parliament? Then perhaps they’d have a little more direction…
Look guys – that’s a constructive criticism!
#32 by Douglas McLellan on April 27, 2011 - 12:13 am
Constructive criticism works fine.
#33 by Malc on April 27, 2011 - 8:19 am
Caron tells me the Rennie posters are outside the Dunfermline constituency where Jim Tolson is standing – but I suspect they’d still be inside the UK constituency that he represented, if that makes sense. Thus, for those he used to represent who are expecting to see him on the constituency ballot (since his name is advertised) there might be some confusion.
But like I say – I expect other parties have done similar… (see – I’m being reasonable!).
#34 by Gryff on April 26, 2011 - 8:49 am
Fine and valid opinions, but not the full smack down James promised on twitter!
Polls are bad, you disagree with the position of an individual Lib Dem blogger, and you (more eloquently) restate the same criticisms of the Lib Dems that have been floating around since last May.
On the other hand, you are probably unfairly harsh on the local policing front. All parties, espedcially in this election of such a crowded centre ground are equally guilty of ‘only we’ -ism. Only the Green’s are fighting for a greener Scotland, only Labour care about jobs, only the SNP will fight for scotland, and for scottish independence, only the LDs are fighting for local police or against the centralising instincts of the big two etc etc. In the case of the single police force it is at least debateably true, because it is couched in the weasling of all political dialogue, in what sense could anyone else be ‘fighting to keep policing local’ Is it on any other parties website? Are they making it a major plank? Are they putting it as centrally as the LDs?
#35 by James on April 26, 2011 - 8:52 am
Well, it’s in our manifesto and we have been talking about it. But you’re right to the extent that we didn’t (for instance) do an entire PEB about it.
#36 by Set In Darkness on April 26, 2011 - 9:22 am
Of the 5 main ones, the LibDem PEB is the worst of the lot – single issue ? really, nothing else to talk about?
A single Scottish policy force will not cause the Police Force to cease to exist and therefore campaigning that it needs “saving” is at best, disingenuous.
Caveat – I’ve not actually seen the Labour one
#37 by John Ruddy on April 26, 2011 - 6:49 pm
Maybe a policy force would help give us an election that looks at policies?
Would they arrest any candidate who just fights on personality?
#38 by Jeff on April 26, 2011 - 9:11 am
Good comment Gryff, you’re certainly correct that any Scot that feels that strongly about keeping police forces unmerged have an obvious party to choose, and I very much like your point about “fighting” for something meaning talking about it lots. The thing is, I don’t think there’ll be too many people bothered by this, one still has local police under a merged service, and the LDs haven’t chosen to focus on this policy because it’s so darn good, they’ve just been played/forced off the park on most of the other policy areas thanks to either the coalition undermining them or other parties having a stronger line.
Hence my particular consternation at the message “Only Lib Dems have solutions for Scotland (but all we’re going to talk about is local policing)”
#39 by Doug Daniel on April 26, 2011 - 10:06 am
Yep, I think the Lib Dems are kidding themselves if they think theie stance on the single police force is a vote winner. Like you, I’m not entirely sure where I stand on the matter, and I suspect this is probably the case for the majority of people. Of those that do have a preference for a non-centralised police force, I doubt it’s their number one priority in this election.
As long as parties aren’t going to start privatising the police, then all people really care about is the number of bobbies on the beat. That’s why the SNP’s 1,000 extra police was a good policy, and as long as any jobs lost in the police are desk jobs rather than bobbies, then not many people are really going to give a toss.
As you’ve indicated in your article Jeff, the Lib Dems seem to have just about ran their course of usefulness in Holyrood. Whatever stance they take on an issue, there is always a better alternative for people to vote for. There just isn’t enough room in the centre-left for three parties (although people like me would argue Labour are on the cenre-right), so unless they can reinvent themselves dramatically in time for the next election, I can’t see how they’ll continue to exist as a parliamentary party after 2016.
I don’t think the number of seats in Holyrood is enough for five major parties anyway, and the Greens are almost certainly going to be the fourth biggest either this time or next.
#40 by Daniel J on April 26, 2011 - 10:25 am
I do think Holyrood could do with a higher number of MSPs.. Doubt it’d be popular though!
#41 by Doug Daniel on April 26, 2011 - 2:42 pm
Probably not, but we’re definitely under-represented. If you look at countries in Europe with similar sizes of population (Slovakia, Croatia, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Ireland), they’re all around the 150-170 mark, with Finland even higher at 200 elected representatives. With only 129 MSPs for a country of about 5 million, I would say we could easily do with another 30 at least, if not 40 or 50 more. Sweden has less than twice the population of Scotland, yet close to 3 times the number of elected representatives with 349, so 179 MSPs would certainly not be an outlandish number.
Having a truly multi-party political system is great in theory, but we just don’t have the numbers to support more than two main parties and a couple of also-rans. With more MSPs, it would be far easier for the smaller parties to get a foothold, thus increasing the variety of voices represented in parliament, and there wouldn’t be such a huge drop in numbers when a party’s vote fluctuates between 7% and 5%.
As you say though, it’d probably be about as popular as “higher pay for MSPs!!”
#42 by John Ruddy on April 26, 2011 - 6:51 pm
I have to say that I think more MSPs would be a good idea. I think we should set a limit on the population per MSP, and the boundary commission should draw boundaries that meet that erquirement.
If it means at the next review we have 133 MSPs, so be it. It would be democratic.
#43 by Doug Daniel on April 26, 2011 - 8:54 pm
It certainly would. The practice of redrawing boundaries tends to have the number of elected representatives as the basis, and then balancing the populations per constituency from that. It would be interesting to have it based on population instead of elected member numbers.
#44 by Daniel J on April 26, 2011 - 10:20 pm
Apologies to Jeff for the tangent 😉
Heartily agree, many academics would appear to agree that 129 MSPs isn’t adequate for a unicameral parliament to scrutinise legislation properly..
#45 by Malc on April 27, 2011 - 8:20 am
“Many academics”?
I wouldn’t let my students away with that generalisation! Do you have evidence of this?
(Incidentally, if I count as an academic, you can use me as an example, since I agree!).
#46 by Allan on April 26, 2011 - 10:09 pm
I’ve heard one or two people who may be voting that way because of that policy…
#47 by Gryff on April 26, 2011 - 12:17 pm
Thanks for the response, on the politics on the strong emphasis on local policing, I can see what you mean.
The LDs are trying to put yellow water between them and (supposedly) a very crowded centre-left. They do this with the oposition to centralised policing, which works in that it is a very solid, traditional Liberal policy, which should appeal to people, and clearer sets them as different to the SNP and Labour. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence is that those who agree with them on this, may well not actually care enough for it to swing their vote.
They also have some brave proposals on Scottish Water, but haven’t had the courage to make more noise out of them, partly because of some issues of detail, and partly I suspect because they are afraid it might confirm the fears of those who think they are to close to the tories.
#48 by dcomerf on April 26, 2011 - 9:21 am
James’s response on the science issue is fine – but it really would help the Green’s cause if they not only signalled support for evidenced based medicine but also stated categorically that they do not believe that there is any evidence for some of this quackery – including homoepathy.
A few specifics make the point much more strongly than admirable generalities. The impression that the Greens have sympathy with new-age mince puts a lot of people off the Greens I suspect.
#49 by James on April 26, 2011 - 9:47 am
That’ll teach me to post longer and more nuanced views. Here’s my position as directly as possible. Homeopathy is utter bollocks.
#50 by Colin on April 26, 2011 - 10:34 am
I’m glad to hear that, but I echo dcomerf’s comments that what we need is a clear statement from the Greens (and all other parties for that matter). Credit where’s it’s due – the Liberal Democrats have generally been very good on the science issues.
#51 by Caron on April 26, 2011 - 10:07 am
Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking that I think our lot have a good record on gender balance. I’ve said enough about it over time on my blog and I’m sure that many people within the party are sick fed up of hearing me talk about it. I was merely pointing out that the Greens had the opportunity to do something a little different and hadn’t taken it. And it does seem that the Greens have taken what I said on board, given that it’s Eleanor who’s submitted the letter to the BBC. It would be good if she were the one appearing.
Having slagged our lot off for gender balance issues, I should also mention that it’s us, via our minister Lynne Featherstone, who are ensuring that Government plays its part in dealing with the body image pressures on women, and to a certain extent men, too. Nobody has done anything meaningful on this before and it’s one of the things I’m proudest about that we’re doing in Government, along with changing the rules on parental leave.
I don’t think there’s any argument against the fact that Labour, Lib Dems, Tories and SNP are the main four parties in Scotland. All four are represented at Westminster as well as Holyrood and in most councils in Scotland. The Greens have currently 2 MSPs, are standing a third of the candidates of any of the big 4 in this election and only scant representation outside Holyrood at Council level. There is an argument that the Greens as potential coalition partners should be represented in the debate – but then what about Margo and the SSP? If every party standing is represented it makes it difficult to have a meaningful debate with deep enough scrutiny of each party’s position. There are strong arguments on each side of this one and for that reason I haven’t, and won’t sign the petition.
It’s interesting that you have Mike P down as the MSP for the Lothians when he’s not even standing on the list. From what I hear on the ground, his campaign for re-election in Edinburgh South is going well.
I think it’s perfectly clear what our place in the political spectrum is – we’re a party which values individual freedom, decentralisation, sustainability and fairness and always have done. I’ve been involved for the best part of 30 years and those are the themes and values which have guided every single one of the manifestos we have put out over that time. I don’t think that the Greens value individual liberty to the same extent, the Labour movement certainly doesn’t and nor, with their thankfully defeated plans to forbid 18-21 year olds from buying a bottle of wine at an off licence, does the SNP.
Sometimes the Greens and Lib Dems reach the same conclusions, like when we both valiantly but unsuccessfully argued against the SNP’s casual quadrupling of pre-charge detention time in an afternoon and we could be effective allies a lot of the time, but we are very different parties with very different traditions.
And you think we have a dearth of policies – I’ve just had a flick through the Green manifesto which has some good ideas but says a lot of worthy sounding things without specifics to back them up. Our manifesto contains 90 pages of specific policies making up action plans on everything from health to housing to transport. You might like our plans for free wi-fi and better 3G mobile coverage on long distance trains…….
#52 by John Ruddy on April 26, 2011 - 6:53 pm
“don’t think there’s any argument against the fact that Labour, Lib Dems, Tories and SNP are the main four parties in Scotland. All four are represented at Westminster as well as Holyrood and in most councils in Scotland.”
I know they are technically different parties, but there is a case for saying that there is also a Green MP at Westminster?
#53 by Lost Highlander on April 26, 2011 - 10:16 am
I live in the Highlands and this should be the center of the Liberals in Scotland but it has suddenly appeared to have a dearth of LD members willing to come out and work for them. And public support has disapeared to become active hostility.
They are struggling to canvass, they are not going door to door and I wonder if they have abandoned Inverness completely as a lost cause leaving there remaining strength for Skye Lochaber & Badenoch. Even the elected councillors who used to drive around with big elect Liberal democrats signs on there cars are nowhere to be seen.
#54 by Gregor on April 26, 2011 - 10:40 am
Well, the Chief Scout is the son of a Tory MP, if that holds any relevance? Haha
Most of the Scout Leaders I know certainly won’t be voting LibDem though 😉
#55 by douglas clark on April 26, 2011 - 10:48 am
James @ 25,
You do realize you shouldn’t have to say that? It is about perceptions. You leave yourself open to questions about the efficacy of prayer and other such tomfoolery. The only correct position for the Greens, Scottish or English, is to say that they believe in evidence based science and trust to luck that people believe them 🙂
#56 by Colin on April 26, 2011 - 11:16 am
Interestingly, since we are on this subject, something concerning a science-based approach came up in our politics today. Patrick Harvie was talking about small producers and organic food. Sustainable farming should be lauded, however he then went onto say this;
“Organic production of food is ever more important nowadays as oil prices rise, and locally grown, organic and non-intensive food production will play an increasingly valuable role in helping to keep our nation’s food bills low, our population healthy and our rural economy vibrant and successful.”
Much of which I can agree with. However, he finishes by saying that organic is valuable for keeping our population healthy. It has been proven that organic food has no discernible health benefits over conventionally grown food. However, I support him in his policies of providing and protecting small Scottish producers.
Also, sustainable farming does not necessarily equate to organic farming (organic and non-organic farming can both be environmentally damaging and environmentally sustainable) and Harvie did make that clear:-
“…organic and sustainable food production for strong local food networks remains the best future for this country’s agricultural sector.”
#57 by cynicalHighlander on April 26, 2011 - 9:21 pm
“It has been proven that organic food has no discernible health benefits over conventionally grown food.”
I presume you are referring to the Which report on this. It was done on an allotment which had been used organically for years and subsequently that report has been shown to be completely flawed.
#58 by John on April 26, 2011 - 12:37 pm
Scottish Water policy and Regional Investment Banks are good and interesting policies – shame that the police issue seemed so initially attractive just because it was 1party against 3.
#59 by Indy on April 26, 2011 - 12:48 pm
I think Colin is bang on the nail. I know people who voted Lib Dem in Westminster and were incandescent with rage when they threw in their lot with the Tories.
In defence of the Lib Dems, there was no reason why the party at UK level should have preferred a deal with Labour to a deal with the Tories. But in Scotland the Lib Dems have a different personna and Lib Dem voters are much more likely to be on the left rather than on the right. Many of them were therefore absolutely aghast at what happened – as aghast as SNP voters or Labour voters would have been if their parties had done the same thing.
The only way the Lib Dems can come back from this in my view is if they cut the link with the UK party entirely.
#60 by Indy on April 26, 2011 - 12:50 pm
Jeff – eat proper food all you like but you will still get old, you will still get sick, you will still need the NHS to support you in your final years – and you will still need political parties who are prepared to guarantee that the NHS will be there for you.
#61 by Jeff on April 26, 2011 - 1:15 pm
Indy, I’m not suggesting we should be aiming to cut NHS spending to zero and the NHS is in very safe hands with the SNP but let’s help ourselves out at least a bit.
Case in point, I was just in a fairly upmarket cafe bar on Ashton Lane but had to leave as there wasn’t anything on the menu that wasn’t clearly an unhealthy option. I think efforts to change Scots eating culture, even a little bit, is worthwhile and if that falls under the Green argument of a more holistic ‘wellbeing’ then that should attract more focus than homeopathy which happens to tie in with preconceptions (and misconceptions) about what the Greens are and what they stand for.
Anyway, I’m off to track down a blueberry & quinoa supersalad 😉
#62 by Indy on April 26, 2011 - 1:08 pm
On local policing. Let’s get this into perspective. Strathclyde Police is the biggest force in Scotland – it covers half the country. Does that mean we have no local policing? No it doesn’t. I don’t know how policing could be any more local than it is now in fact.
Here is the way it works in Glasgow. Each council ward has its own community policing team – sometimes more than one team depending on the size of the ward. For most of us this is the only way we come into contact with the polce.
Our police officers now do surgeries, just like councillors or MSPs you can make an appt to go in and see your local community policing team with any concerns you have.
They do regular surveys across the ward to see what people are most worried about – in some areas it is drnking in parks, in others it is drugs or boy racers or housebreaking or vandalism. That community consultation is used to determine the local priorities.
Crime figures are published regularly by ward area so you can see how the police are doing locally. They are much more proactive than they used toi be – you see police about the place much more than 3 or 4 years ago and because they are attached to the same communities they get to know people, they go in and out of the pubs and shops and businesses to see if everything is OK or of there are any problems.
I know from councillors and MSPs of my acquaintance that complaints about the police have been radically reduced.
I’m not going to claim credit for the SNP for this because from what I can see it is the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police who has really been in the community policing driving seat and has done a fantastic job.
Frankly if he was given the job of running all of Scotland’s police forces you could not get any better. Of course I realise that if someone rubbish was given the job it would cause problems! But for me the issue is what kind of policing do we want? Do we want real hands-on community policing? If we do let’s appoint a Chief Constable – or Chief Constables – who will do that irrespective of the size of the force.
#63 by John Ruddy on April 26, 2011 - 6:57 pm
I have to agree 100% with Indy here. Tayside has a very similar system, and the police are very responsive on a local level, with reports to every community council meeting, local surgeries, and a whole community policing team.
This is all good local policing – and it doesnt matter whether HQ is in Forfar (Divisional HQ), Dundee (Force HQ) or Edinburgh (Justice Ministry) – we get local responsive policing. I suspect it will continue whatever the future structure of the police, because it works.
#64 by CassiusClaymore on April 26, 2011 - 1:43 pm
You’d have to be either spectacularly ill-informed about politics, or an absolute fanboy/girl, to vote LibDem now.
They dumped all their principles when they coalesced, and they are now reaping what they have sown. Their leaders have been exposed as the opportunists that they are. Bottom line – people don’t like being misled and lied to. At least the Tories more or less do what it says on the tin.
On a more local note, Mike Pringle might get a lot of votes but surely none from anyone who’s actually met him. I have met him, and found him shockingly unimpressive (sorry, but veritas convicii excusat). I see Labour taking that seat, despite their shambolic campaign.
CC
#65 by Jeff on April 26, 2011 - 2:14 pm
To be fair to the man, going by his literature on ‘Straight Choice’, Mike Pringle is pulling every Lib Dem trick out of the bag on his leaflet. Despite my post, even I’d be tempted to tactically vote Lib Dem!
(He has a lot of Tories in that area that could switch their votes across)
#66 by CassiusClaymore on April 26, 2011 - 2:47 pm
Jeff
I’ve read his leaflet and I still think Labour win.
Why would a Tory go Lib-Dem, when they can vote for the real thing? Especially when the Tory in question is the able and intelligent Gavin Brown. If you like the Coalition, vote for Gavin. If you don’t, you’re likely to vote Labour or SNP. Either way, you’re not voting Liberal, are you?
The LibDem’s best hope is SNP ‘keep Labour out’ tactical voters. A very faint hope.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer LibDem to Labour here, but I just don’t see it.
CC
#67 by Jeff on April 26, 2011 - 2:54 pm
Yeah, I realised after the fact that it’s Gavin Brown standing. He’s been a solid MSP so should probably hold the Tory vote up well.
Tricky one to call then really, will Lib Dem vote fall deeper than Labour’s, and will both fall low enough that Tories and SNP even are in the mix?
Haven’t a scoob. (Labour are 4/7 favourites with LDs on a pretty tight 13/8.)
#68 by Callum Leslie on April 26, 2011 - 4:06 pm
I think it’s quite unfair to criticise the Lib Dems for having a low number of female or ethnic minority MPs or MSPs. We have women standing in some of our top seats, like Alison Hay, Christine Jardine and Katy Gordon. At the General Election, we had the highest number of female CANDIDATES, but people didn’t vote for them.
#69 by Jeff on April 26, 2011 - 5:56 pm
I like to think the Lib Dems could work out which regions/seats are safe and which are long shots.
I noted that even at Westminster there might be zero female Lib Dem MPs after the next election as the existing 7 (7!) hold marginal seats.
If it’s not the Lib Dems that should be criticised for this inequality, who should?
#70 by John Ruddy on April 26, 2011 - 8:15 pm
“You may have noticed a decline in the number of leaflets stating that ‘only the Lib Dems can win here’.”
Not here in Angus North and Mearns. Our Lib Dem Candidate has a leaflet which has just such a bar chart. He uses the numbers of councillors to show that only the Lib Dems can win (beat the SNP) here. He neglects to include the number of Independant councillors, and if the map that he uses is any guide, presuambly neglects to include any councillors from the former North Tayside part of the constituency, as his map only includes the (massive) Lib Dem constituency of West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine and the (smalll) SNP constituency of Angus.
#71 by Malc on April 26, 2011 - 8:22 pm
By the by, I saw some Lib Dem posters on the drive back from Aberdeenshire this weekend. Some confusing ones in Dunfermline.
Their candidate there is Jim Tolson… yet some of the posters say “Vote Willie Rennie”. I know he’s top of their list in Mid Scotland & Fife, but I don’t get it. Are they asking people not to vote for Jim Tolson so that Willie Rennie gets elected on the list?!
I’m sure other parties have done some daft stuff with posters as well… but I only saw this, and the post was about the Lib Dems, so I figured it fitted.
#72 by Ross on April 26, 2011 - 8:41 pm
seen as the Green Party England&Wales have been mentioned a lot as well regarding science policy I thought i’d post this. Jim Jepps, who is on their national executive was up campaigning with us yesterday and we were discussing this issue. I brought up my personal point in line with that of James, homeopathy = bollocks.
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/13-04-2011-greens-science.html
this one may be less fun to look through
#73 by Ross on April 26, 2011 - 8:42 pm
hmm, wouldny post secind link
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/st
Pingback: Highs and Lows of Holyrood11′s Media Circus |
#74 by A Brown on April 26, 2011 - 11:45 pm
‘There just isn’t enough room in the centre-left for three parties (although people like me would argue Labour are on the cenre-right), so unless they can reinvent themselves dramatically in time for the next election, I can’t see how they’ll continue to exist as a parliamentary party after 2016.’
Just saw Alex Neil on Newsnight calling for lower corporation tax like Ireland. More neoliberal opportunism from the SNP (and yet they get away with it).
#75 by John Ruddy on April 27, 2011 - 8:44 am
In many ways on economic issues, the SNP are not centre-left – they are firmly on the centre-right. Having said that, it worked for Tony Blair and new Labour.
#76 by Gryff on April 27, 2011 - 9:03 am
It is increasingly hard to categorise Scottish parties, what do we make of a party which wants to cut corporation tax, but attempted to impose the supermarket tax? Likewise what do we make of the party that opposes both measures?
What do we make of the SNP and Labours approach to Law and Order? Labour seem to be fighting the Tories for the Hang ’em Flog ’em vote. So where does that put them on the spectrum?
A cynic might suggest that Scottish Labour’s current ideology consists of three things, unionism, populism and oppositionalism. Which is possibly the only way of explaining their voting against policies which seem impeccably Labour (minimum pricing, supermarket tax, apprenticeships in budget).
#77 by Gregor on April 27, 2011 - 8:29 am
Speaking of absolute diatribes, here’s an insight into what Labour are really thinking, courtesy of one of their (former?) staffers.
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/John-McTernan-Playing-nasty-card.6758348.jp
#78 by Jeff on April 27, 2011 - 8:50 am
I thought that was a horrendous article Gregor. Some just seem to have lost all perspective, not to mention forgotten why they lost 4 years ago.
Salmond must be shaking his head in delighted disbelief at his opponents.
#79 by Gregor on April 27, 2011 - 11:57 am
Yeah… Do you think its indicative of Labour members’ feelings though or not? I can’t make up my mind at all.
#80 by Jeff on April 27, 2011 - 1:33 pm
I can’t imagine it is. I am assuming they are forced into going along with it or paying it lip service as a divided party would do even worse than one with a poor leader and rabble-rousing, scaremongering Labour commentators on the sidelines (like McTernan).
I simply can’t picture the majority of Labour activists telling voters that Salmond is ‘downright dangerous’ and only muggers and thieves should vote for him.
#81 by John Ruddy on April 27, 2011 - 5:33 pm
I doubt it from a straw poll of members.
We might think he’s a windbag, a blustering braggart etc. etc., but downright dangerous? No.
#82 by Top Tory Aide on April 27, 2011 - 10:56 am
It’s probably been pointed out but Pringle will lose his seat and even if Smith loses hers she’ll be returned as a list member meaning that she’ll be their sole Lothians MSP.
The idea of them losing North East Fife is also quite surprising and unlikely. However, should they do it I won’t be following James in eating a hat made out of spaghetti and hot sauce.
Pingback: Don’t Blog Back in Anger | Set In Darkness
#83 by Indy on April 27, 2011 - 12:11 pm
I think the problem with people who argue that the SNP or Labour or any of the other parrties is either economically right wing or socially left wing or whatever other combination is that they just cannot get out of a British mindset. Everything has to be filtered through that outlook.
Let’s, for a change, start filtering things through the outlook of about 80 per cent of the Scottish people.
That we want to have a successful economy in order to fund high quality free public services and deliver a more equal society.
This point of view doesn’t fit into the mindset of much of UK politics – where it is assumed that if you are for a successful and competitive economy in which the private sector flourishes you must be opposed to a large public sector. And vice versa – where it is assumed that if you support a large public sector you must be against a competitive private sector.
This is the rut that Scotland needs to get out of. We need to stop looking south and start looking north. The Scandinavian countries have used corporation tax to give themselves an economic advantage – indeed countries like Finland, Sweden and Norway are regularly ranked among the most economically competitive countries in the world. But they are also ranked as the fairest countries in the world, with the lowest rates of child poverty and much much lower levels of inequality than the UK.
That is the “third way” to coin a phrase and Scotland could be a part of that but only if we ditch this pointless and ultimately futile argument about who is more left wing/right wing than each other. It’s the ultimate angels dancing on the head of a pin debate and the vast majority of the electorate don’t give a monkeys.
#84 by Indy on April 27, 2011 - 12:22 pm
As an add-on to that I realise I could be accused of making two contradictory statements here as I said that the electorate don’t give a monkeys about who is more left wing/right wing while also saying earlier that the Lib Dems will suffer because their voters are more left wing.
To clarify, I think about 80 per cent of voters feel pretty much the same way about the basic structure of the public sector and the economy. They support a public sector which is publicly delivered and publicly funded and does all the stuff it does now. They also support a competitive private sector which creates jobs and wealth but pays its fair share towards pubic services. That, in my view, would be the point of view of the typical voter in Scotland, whether they vote Labour, SNP, Lib Dem or indeed Green. (And in fact many Tories probably think that way as well.) It is by going against that consensus, by supporting a Tory administration that is hell bent on dismantling the public sector for ideological reasons, that the Lib Dems have made themselves toxic.
#85 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 1:52 pm
Type your comment here
I have very little to add to this other than my complete agreement. I might argue that most people would still tend to consider a belief in greater equality to be a fundamentally left-wing viewpoint, but entirely concur that the means to this end may well encompass ideas traditionally thought of as right-wing, eg lower corporation tax.
The trick lies in balancing taxation policy to ensure the rich pay their share without avoiding it, and then in ensuring that the tax taken by the Treasury is used in redistributive ways, and that – rather than by veering to the right per se – is where New Labour failed, and betrayed everything the Labour movement once stood for. Peter Mandelson set the tone by proclaiming his intense relaxation with people becoming filthy rich, where Labour should always be censorious of greed.