There are some who have touted Malcolm Chisholm as a possible Labour leader. I personally wasn’t convinced – the party’s remaining senior MSPs still hold a number of sins against him, including defending the Megrahi decision and voting for minimum pricing – but his reputation as a serial resigner from things won’t be helped by his decision today to leave the Labour front bench less than two weeks after taking the education brief. It doesn’t help Labour look like a steady ship either.
I like Malcolm, and I was personally very pleased he won his seat earlier in the month, but without any notable issue of principle this will come over as flakey to say the least. In December 1997 he was first out from the Blair Government over cuts to child benefit, in 2006 it was Trident, then in 2008 he left again – without an issue that time either.
Surely the next LOLITSP, whoever he or she is, won’t offer him another chance to resign.
UPDATE (from Kate).
It would appear that Malcolm Chisholm resigned his shadow Cabinet portfolio because he wanted to be Labour’s nominee for Convenorship of the health committee. The Labour group (leadership?) wouldn’t wear it and so he kicked his baw away and walked off the pitch. No doubt throwing a contemptuous look at his bench in the process. Though he’s not quite thrown his jersey at their feet in disgust – yet.
There’s no denying it’s an odd one. Yes, he does look increasingly like a serial resigner. And as some have suggested, we do appear to have two independent MSPs by default. Nowt wrong with that frankly.
But curiously, if he wanted a go at a big convenorship, why accept a shadow portfolio in the first place? Or maybe at the time, there was no indication that Labour would get health, an area of great interest to Chisholm, and a seat on Labour’s front-bench seemed like a perfectly acceptable second best option.
James is right to point the finger at Labour too, still demonstrating a complete lack of strategic thinking. Malcolm Chisholm was always going to be a better bet for a convenorship in terms of his skills, knowledge and expertise, than a ministerial brief which he had not engaged in before. Whereas many were surprised to see Ken Macintosh kicked out into the long grass of culture – though his previous employment history here made an obvious two-dimensional match. No, Labour still clearly has a lot of work to do to get its act together. Surely, if it was going to bid for the health committee, it should have borne Chisholm in mind for the post?
We probably have witnessed the end of Chisholm’s hopes for a starring role in Holyrood in the next five years. His group is highly unlikely to support his wish to be the next health committee convenor – unless it is *in* on the resignation and is prepared to stomach more chatter about their inability to be effectual at any level (though of course it will be tomorrow’s chip papers). Realistically, it is probably his own decision and anonymity on the backbenches beckons for the next five years.
Chisholm’s only hope is that the SNP are happy to indulge in a little mischief-making and nominate and vote for him as convenor. It would annoy Labour no end and would ensure such an important committee had a big name convenor. And not one who would automatically play the partisan card on every issue. In fact, they might find a convenor supporting many of their policies and bills, if previous performance can be relied upon. Moreover, it would answer charges, currently piling up, of the First Minister’s talk of a consensual approach being little more than hot air.
If the SNP has any sense, a little magnanimity might go a long way on this occasion.
#1 by Aidan Skinner on May 31, 2011 - 4:23 pm
I’m hoping that he’s taking this step to lengthen the bookies odds on him becoming leader so he can follow through on the plan to fund the party via Ladbrokes.
Doubt it though.
#2 by Brian Nicholson on May 31, 2011 - 6:07 pm
The bookies may want to start odds on how soon he crosses the floor to another party,
#3 by JPJ2 on May 31, 2011 - 6:41 pm
Isn’t he now a more likely defector to the SNP than any of the LibDems touted recently on this site?
#4 by Jeff on May 31, 2011 - 9:02 pm
Touche!
(Quite possibly – I am now at least considering Malcolm Chisholm as Holyrood’s other independent MSP)
#5 by Tony on May 31, 2011 - 8:21 pm
Is he the only principled elected labour representative? A party that relies on scaremongering and lies does not deserve a Chisolm.
What is wrong with having principles anyhow, I’d rather that than some yes man.
“Chisholm’s only hope is that the SNP are happy to indulge in a little mischief-making and nominate and vote for him as convenor. ”
Lol! Exactly what I was thinking…………………..why not!
#6 by John B Dick on May 31, 2011 - 8:24 pm
Malcolm Chisholm was one of the handful of Scottish Labour MP’s who had the vision to leave the Westminster parliament and follow his mentor Donald Dewar into the Scottish parliament.
The positions he has taken in the past leading to resignations were central to the Labour party forty years ago. It is the Labour party which has changed.
If Labour is continuing with the negativity of the past four years and opposing for oppositions sake, then I can see that there is no place for Malcolm Chisholm.
He has a very good chance of being Labour leader after the next election if he stands. There will be very few to choose from. If Labour continues to be directed from London by people who do not know how the Scottish parliament is designed to work, then he may be a large proportion of the Labour MSP’s by himself and maybe the only constituency MSP.
#7 by James on May 31, 2011 - 8:36 pm
Labour will never elect him leader. They cannot rely on him. Agree or disagree with his positions (and I tend to agree with his resignation reasons) it’s utterly impossible for him to lead them now.
#8 by Aidan Skinner on May 31, 2011 - 9:19 pm
Yeah, that fox is somewhat riddled with bullet holes now.
#9 by Ben Achie on May 31, 2011 - 9:17 pm
I cannor remember who said it, Churchill? But the advice was never resign, but get the sack! Principled resignation has served Malcolm well in earning respect from his electorate (the people who reeeealy matter), but Labour is so enfeebled I just cannot imagine him being made their Holyrood leader. Recognising a good man, who doesn’t happen to be in the SNP, must have its attractions for Alex Salmond, though.
#10 by Brian Nicholson on May 31, 2011 - 11:56 pm
Perhaps the more obvious step here is to have Chisholm leave Labour to become an independent like Margo, and then the SNP could more easily apppoint him to the health convenorship.
#11 by James on June 1, 2011 - 7:49 am
Then the SNP would need to give another convenorship to Labour. Ain’t gonna happen.
#12 by Doug Daniel on June 1, 2011 - 9:33 am
I rather like Malcolm’s position as a Labour MSP – without him, Labour might get an extra list seat in Edinburgh when the seats are dished out at election time. Malcolm sitting as a Labour MSP means there is one less seat available for people who intend to just sit and vote against the SNP all the time for the sake of it.
#13 by Hamish on June 1, 2011 - 11:16 am
Kate’s suggestion is so cool. It has got to happen.
But Malcolm will have to sharpen his act; he will be up against Nicola, who is very much on top of her job at Health.
#14 by Doug Daniel on June 1, 2011 - 2:02 pm
Incidentally:
“Moreover, it would answer charges, currently piling up, of the First Minister’s talk of a consensual approach being little more than hot air.”
It’s a little early for people to be accusing the SNP of going back on this, surely? The session has barely started. Other than Willie Rennie and his “steamroller” comment – before the parliament had even had a chance to sit down – where else have these charges come from?
#15 by Mad Jock Mcmad on June 1, 2011 - 10:11 pm
According to Chisholm (Glasgow Herald version) he resigned so he could be nominated as Health Committee Convenor. So he must have got the ‘nod’ from Elmer (as it is in Elmer’s patronage) otherwise why resign in the first place?
My suggestion is Elmer was told to wind his neck in by Murphy and what did he think he was doing offering the convenor-ship to Chisholm – not known for his liking of Nue Labour what ever colour they are being at present.
Elmer tells Chisholm he’s ‘changed his mind’ and would he consider retracting his ‘resignation’. Chisholm tells Fudd where he can stick his education brief. Labour spin machine goes into overdrive to get its version in front of the Scottish media knowing they are unlikely to check with Chisholm. Unfortunately the Herald does and has a completely different and logical time line from the rest of the pack.
#16 by mav on June 1, 2011 - 11:21 pm
The whole episode is bizarre. More importantly it has distracted attention, though only slightly, from the first serious mistakes of the new government and unsurprisingly, Salmonds overconfidence and MackAskills misjudgement is at the heart of it. The initial attack on the Uk Supreme Court was illinformed and a sign that Salmonds eagerness to claim as much as possible will result in over-reach and come across as anglophobia. But Kenny MacAskills comments, ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’, when threatening to withdraw funding from a court with the irritating habit of finding against him, smacks of attempting to interfere with the judiciary. Was he really a lawyer? Chisholm drawing attention from this is a real shame.
#17 by Tony on June 2, 2011 - 8:53 am
Let’s see various charges of hubris that do not bear out, eagerness to jump on imagined cases where the FM’s offer of consensus does not bear out. Now we have charges of Anglophobia, aye that auld worn oot chestnut.
Sure the Justice secretary is only trying his best to protect Scots law as laid out in the Articles of union because the SNP hates the English. This overconfidence and misjudgement are wishful thinkng Marv, what they are doing is speaking out against the wholy unintended consequences of a new British Supreme Court that was never, never intended to arbtrate over Scottish criminal decisions.
I know the arguments about at least having token Jock judges in London whilst there are none in Strasbourg, well it is ECHR they are judging on and that is what the UK signed upto. Aye and it is much quicker than waiting for Strasbourg, but what is that compared to undermining the whole seperate entity and legal integrity of Scots criminal law. We already have a court of appeal who right now know that any particularly cleverly framed appeal over devolution issues will go above their heads. And that is not how it is supposed to be unless it is a real human rights appeal.
#18 by Andrea on June 2, 2011 - 11:05 am
From various newspapers, I understood it went something like
Gray offered Educartion Shadow post to Chisholm
Chisholm didn’t think Labour would get the Health convernorship, so he accepted it.
When he realized that Health was going to Lab, he asked Gray to be appointed there. Gray told him no (I guess he didn’t want to look so stupid to have to change the Shadow Cabinet after 1 week…)
Chisholm told him to go to hell and resigns anyway.
So Grey looks stupid, Chisholm looks like a crying boy who throws everything out because he doesn’t get what he wants. And a rent a quote SNP MSP has the chance to make a pointless intervention to be quoted by newspapers.
Meanwhile, McIntosh is moved to Education, Patricia Fergusson gets Culture
Duncan McNeil will get the Health convernorship
However, Chisholm makes a good point. The convenorships should be elected by MSPs and not appointed by leaders (of all parties). In Westminster they have recently changed this with Select Committe Chairs elected by the whole House and not nominated by whips anymore
For those interested, the convenorships are expected as follow:
Finance: Kenneth Gibson SNP
Justice : Christine Grahame SNP
Education and culture: Stewart Maxwell SNP
Local government and regeneration: Joe Fitzpatrick SNP
Rural Affairs, climate change and environment: Rob Gibson SNP
Infrastructure and capital investment: Maureen Watt SNP
Standards procedures and public appointment: Dave Thompson SNP
Europe and external relations: Christina McKelvie SNP
Subordinate legislation: Nigel Don SNP
Health: Duncan McNeil Lab
Equal opportunities: Claudia Beamish Lab
Public audit: Hugh Henry
Public petitions: David Stewart
Economy, energy and tourism: Gavin Brown Con