Last night’s showing on the BBC of Ant Baxter’s “You’ve Been Trumped” (iPlayer link for as long as that lasts) led to an awful lot of discussion on Twitter last night about the way the SNP, and particularly the First Minister, let down local residents in their haste to suck up to the bewigged billionaire. I even saw a fair few people say they’d voted SNP last time but after watching the film: never again.
The SNP did let down David Milne and Molly Forbes and the rest, of course: I couldn’t disagree. However, I couldn’t let Labour or Lib Dem folk pretend their side were innocent bystanders.
There was also a tone abroad of “so who do I vote for, then?”, which is another fair question. Obviously Greens backed the local residents and their unique ecosystem from the start (that word gets over-used, but it’s true in this case), and I’m always happy to recommend a Green vote.
But thinking about the bigger picture in discussion with Scott, it struck me that none of Scotland’s parties are properly fit to run this country right now. One day I’ll do a post about the achievements of each and every party, because I do see both sides (even with the Tories), but every one of them has at least one overwhelming flaw.
Leaving aside those not in Parliament right now, and leaving out many many more examples:
The SNP: weakness for the interests of the rich (not just Trump: 1, 2, 3, etc), failures on climate change (1, 2, 3 etc), regressive tax policies (Council tax freeze helps the richest most, LIT would exempt wealth and share income etc), snouts in the trough, Health Minister opposed to women’s rights, quiet u-turn on nuclear power.
Labour: authoritarianism, setting up the market in higher education, illegal wars, spending their lives complaining about the Tories or the SNP not delivering on issues they never delivered on in office, pretending Labour austerity is better than Tory or SNP austerity, snouts in the trough.
Tories: economically incompetent, generally incompetent, greedy and incompetent, blatantly cruel, anti-education, anti-environment, anti-women, most committed to sucking up to Murdoch, the NHS again, snouts in the trough, essentially everything except some of Ken Clarke’s now-abandoned justice agenda.
Greens: simply too small, too stretched, and nowhere near the votes we’d need – it’s not plausible to say Greens are ready now to run the country instead of the four parties above. We can’t even afford to stand in the constituencies, for a start.
As a result I think politics here is desperately in need of a realignment of the sort which is commonplace elsewhere in Europe.
In Greece, as the country comes under enormous pressure, the landscape is shifting to try and respond. The centre-right ND absorbed a somewhat more rightwing Orthodox party, SYRIZA went from a minor party to lead the polls, etc. In Italy the Five Star Movement has come from nowhere. In Canada the New Democrats have overtaken the centrist Liberals, and there’s talk of a merger.
Scottish and British politics alike can be characterised as static, stale, partisan, corrupt, and inadequate (although the UK-wide problems are worse: one reason I’ll vote Yes). The revolving doors between government and business twirl far too predictably, and participation withers. Perhaps the referendum, whichever way it goes, will lead to a political realignment of some sort. We desperately need it.
#1 by Commenter on October 22, 2012 - 2:32 pm
That’s a scathing analysis, although it looks like the Greens are more or less without flaw, apart from their ‘too smallness’. I know who I’ll be voting for from now on!
#2 by James on October 22, 2012 - 2:36 pm
Feel free to post any stories of Greens with their snouts in the trough! I’d also accept that this is at least part a function of not having held office in Scotland.
#3 by BaffieBox on October 22, 2012 - 2:43 pm
Whatever way you cut it, the constitutional crisis has made things worse by entrenching the parties, the media and this in turn entrenches the public. I may disagree often with Duncan Hothersall, but his infuriating #brokenpolitics Twitter nonsense infuriated me partly because it is true: the Scottish and UK political system is massively broken, and it will remain broken until 2014 IMO.
We need a clear “Yes” vote in 2014 and look for a fresh start. There will be no such reboot if we return a “No” vote.
#4 by Iain Menzies on October 22, 2012 - 3:20 pm
Just on the Tories, the idea that they are economically incompetent as a party is abit much. There may be a case to suggest thats the case for the current economic team, toh i think it would be wrong, and i think its too early to say. But its not possible to say that with any connection to reality for all of the party and all of its history.
As for generally incompetent. well i dont think that stands up either. Not least because alot that could be done better could be done better if the civil service was better.
On greedy and incompetent, as i understand it both the chancellor and virgin trains have stated that the ticket was paid for. im not sure how spending money that you dont have to makes you greedy.
As for cruel, well really thats not you seeing both sides thats you just disliking the tories. which is fine, its a free country and all. But really why should all disabled people get the same support? There are variations of disability and of need amoung those who can claim to be disabled. Why should someone who has lost a leg get the same level of support as someone who cant move anything more than their eyes? How is it cruel to waste money on those who do not need it and leave those who do need extra support unable to get the funding to get that support? Unless of course they was you decided if a politician is cruel or not is by looking at how much money they give to people. The DWP has said that those claiming now will not get any less than they currently do. That it will be future claiments that will see variation according to need. If thats cruel, well that as may be, but its sensible.
As for EMA, well see above about handing out money as a measure of a politicians worth. You want to do something for education, well you could insist that those under 18 stay in education of one for or another. That idea that you have to bribe people to stay in school seems to say the least odd to me, considering i didnt have to be bribed. Its much better to improve schools…and standards, both things that i would argue Gove is doing, to suport education that giving kids money to buy cd’s.
On paterson, there is a difference between being anti-environment, and anti the green party manifesto.
On women, questioning the current limits on abortion is not to be anti women.
Really your critique of the tory party isnt so much showing that they arent fit to govern but rather that what you think fit to govern means is that a party would do what you would have it do.
Of course the other problem with what you have said about the tory party is you have only mentioned things that are being done in england, by tories that can only really do things in england (other than the welfare stuff).
Also to pull just about ever link from the guardian is hardly seeing both sides.
#5 by James on October 22, 2012 - 3:23 pm
I do take links more readily from papers that don’t have paywalls or reg-walls. That’s why you’ll find I tend to link to the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, the Scotsman and the Record, amongst others. Also, the benefits stuff applies UK-wide. But I agree – these are a mix of policy problems (for me) and things I think everyone should object to.
#6 by EyeEdinburgh on October 23, 2012 - 11:49 pm
On women, questioning the current limits on abortion is not to be anti women.
Asking questions to become better informed is not: supporting a reduction in the time-limits is.
#7 by john problem on October 22, 2012 - 5:41 pm
How long, Oh Lord, how long?
Before we get proportional representation?
#8 by Allan on October 22, 2012 - 7:32 pm
With the SNP, you rather forgot their rather questionable record with regard to public transport.
Firstly, there was the whole scandal involving Transport Scotland’s renewal of the Scotrail franchise despite it coming out that the finance chief of Transport Scotland held shares in First Group. Secondly there is the backdoor erosion of the validity of the blue Disabled/OAP cards (these cards are no longer valid between 1am & 4am). Thirdly there is the governments silence over both cuts in bus routes up and down the country and also the take-over of Arriva Scotland West by McGills, which has resulted in a very much substandard service. Lastly, there is the cack-handed efforts by Keith Brown to promote one less Glasgow to Ayr stopping at Paisley train as an improvement.
BTW, Incompetent is not necessaraly the word that comes to mind regarding the Tories economic record. Idealogically driven & dogmatic probably sums them up on that score.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/3549776/Alex-Salmond-accused-of-governing-with-a-nod-and-a-wink-over-rail-contract.html#
#9 by peter on October 23, 2012 - 1:48 am
being unemployed and having to pay a % of benefit towards my council tax.
believe me, the council tax freeze has helped me.
#10 by Doug Daniel on October 23, 2012 - 10:20 am
Do you not get CT benefit if you’re unemployed? I paid full CT when I was unemployed for the first 6 months I lived in Glasgow, but that was because I was too lazy to fill in the novel the Jobcentre handed me that purported to be a housing benefit claim form (and apparently even a modest amount of savings from the sale of your dead granny’s house means you don’t get Jobseeker’s Allowance…)
Pingback: SNP trumped… | Edinburgh Eye
#11 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on October 23, 2012 - 10:03 am
A realignment after independence is very likely. More likely the ex unionist parties will succumb first, the SNP being the victors will enjoy the limelight for a while. Whether encouraging popular democracy in the the Greek or Italian manner is a step forward is doubtful. The frustrated Greeks seem to be flirting with an aggressive and fascistic hellenism while the 5 Stelle movement looks like a cross between social media, street theatre, old style libertarianism and neo-anarchism. Looks like great fun but would you let them run your country? It is a fact that political parties always disappoint, The nats and nato was a let down but…an alternative? and one able to help deliver a YES in 2014, don’t see one.
#12 by Richard Thomas on October 23, 2012 - 10:11 am
You perhaps rightly refer to the Lib Dems’ lionising appalling people but of course the SNP might justly said to be doing precisely the same thing. Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch and Souter anyone?
#13 by Longshanker on October 23, 2012 - 10:12 am
Excellent piece.
It’s why the referendum is such a dilemma for me.
Rather than a referendum, I’d like to see a groundswell of Modern Chartism or something popular and powerful, to reform the whole political process,
If that was to happen, then the idea of Independence might actually mean something rather than ‘more of the same UK’ as alluded to by John Finnie at SNP conference.
Regards
#14 by Doug Daniel on October 23, 2012 - 10:48 am
It’s half amusing and half depressing that politicians putting their snouts in the trough seems to be about as inevitable as them telling lies. It makes you wonder if perhaps it’s a little unfair to expect politicians to be of a higher moral code than the majority of us, as most people who can claim expenses have probably abused them at some point, to varying degrees. Very few people can refuse what seems like free money (and those of us that do, like me, probably do so more out of trying to prove a point than any real moral superiority) so in some ways, it’s a bit unfair to be too harsh on politicians when they do what seems to come naturally to humans.
It’s the same with these big companies that pay ridiculously small amounts of tax. We give them all these loopholes, then berate them when they use them. What do we expect when we keep electing governments that pander to lobbyists for rich folk?
It’s all a bit like putting a fiver on the ground beside a sign saying “don’t steal this”, waiting for someone to pick it up, and then accuse them of being a thief. If you don’t want to see people living up to the worst traits of human nature, don’t give them the opportunity. Having state-owned properties for parliamentarians to live in when they’re at parliament might be a good start…
#15 by peter on October 23, 2012 - 4:56 pm
doug daniel
yes, you do get CT bebefit, however, you still have to pay 20%. in my case that equates to £20 per month. which, when on benefit, appears an inordinate amount.
therefore, any increase in CT is felt in the pocket.
#16 by James on October 23, 2012 - 5:48 pm
I’d double-check that. Last time I was on JSA I got 100% CTB. Was a fair few years ago though.
#17 by Don Francisco on October 23, 2012 - 8:40 pm
Depressing analysis! I’d have to agree though. One of the reasons I’m not exactly pro independence is that I have little faith politicians in a newly independent Scotland will be any less craven than those in Westminster. I expect less than nothing from Westminster, and I worry about those who think that rule by our own kind will somehow be just and fair. It’s the same kind of people for goodness sake.
The only way I can think to make the system better is to completely change the party system, how it is funded, how an MP is rewarded, etc.
#18 by Craig Kelly on October 23, 2012 - 8:45 pm
I hate it when I say this, but I agree with Iain. Supporting a reduction in the time limit for having an abortion is not to be anti-woman. To suggest such a thing is simple intolerance of others’ views.
It seems to me that this is simply an article outlining where the main parties do not align to the vision of Scotland that you would wish to come to fruition. That’s a profoundly different thing from pointing out the reasons for a realignment of politics in Scotland.
#19 by James on October 23, 2012 - 8:56 pm
Even the u-turns, snouts in the trough, and consistent favouring of the rich over the people? Seriously?
#20 by EyeEdinburgh on October 23, 2012 - 11:48 pm
I hate it when I say this, but I agree with Iain. Supporting a reduction in the time limit for having an abortion is not to be anti-woman.
True, it could be just blithe ignorance of pregnancy, foetal development, healthcare, and other medical / biological issues directly relating to women. And I suppose making prononcements on matters you are blithely ignorant of is possibly not anti-women.
Maybe.
#21 by EphemeralDeception on October 23, 2012 - 11:30 pm
One glaring omission is that the Tory and Labour governments were found guilty of what is now considered as crimes against humanity. The High Court found found them guilty of enforced depopulation of Diago Garcia. Yet the Gov is above the law and overturned it via the unelected Lords.
The contemporary level of corruption, illegal activity and international wrong doing of the UK Gov (Tory and Labour) is without question. So while all parties may not be fit for purpose some are so brazenly unfit that they are beyond reform and neither is the State itself. The UK State is clearly a rogue State and our independence from it is the only way to escape the stain of its worse actions.
#22 by Danny Zinkus Sutton on October 24, 2012 - 1:43 pm
What’s your beef with the Liberal Democrats and electoral reform?
#23 by James on October 24, 2012 - 1:49 pm
AV, the “miserable little compromise”. Actually, it’s a subset of appalling coalition talks management. As soon as it was clear the Lib Dems held the balance of power, they could have set three red lines for talks: actual PR, abolition of tuition fees and the tax allowance stuff. That way the Tories would have been on the back foot – look anti-democratic, anti-student and anti-poor. It would have been win-win for the Lib Dems. Either a coalition that delivered on some key pledges, that everyone would have known were theirs, or plaudits for a principled stance and a better share next time.
#24 by Iain Menzies on October 24, 2012 - 2:37 pm
I dont understand your point on tuition fees.
I think you are 100% spot on with your criticism of teh council tax freeze (that it benefits the better off) even if i doubt i would support your alternative.
But i dont see how the same logic doesnt apply to fees. Why shouldnt those who can support their offspring do so? You can make a case that the systems being put in place down south doesnt actually support those who are less well off, tho i think you would be wrong on that, but to simply say that tehre should be no fees is a policy that helps the better off more than those from poorer backgrounds.
Why the difference?
#25 by James on October 24, 2012 - 2:57 pm
My point is here, contrary to some of the comments, primarily that they promised otherwise. By all means make the case for means-testing: I will continue to disagree. But this was a failure of will and a breach of the promises confirmed in this final ironic 2010 Lib Dem video:
#26 by Iain Menzies on October 24, 2012 - 4:18 pm
OK. If instead of doing what they have done, which i think we can all agree has been to make themselves look a wee bitty silly, instead something like this:
Accept that the Tory party would not accept a full on abolition of fees. Instead insist that there was say a more generous level of support for those who were less able to support themselves, and perhaps even a lower upper limit.
Come out of the negotiation and say this is not our ideal policy. but we dont have enough MP’s to get the policy we want. Argue that this would be the best deal in the circumstances.
My money is there there would have been an election by christmas and a tory majority if there was no coalition.
Im gonna go out on a limb and say you would prefer a coalition, even this one, than a full on evil capitalist tory majority.
If, as i think would have been the case, they could not have gotten the ‘pledge’ into the coalition agreement, would you really say that that one policy should have made of killed the coalition?
#27 by James on October 24, 2012 - 4:21 pm
I would have made those three things red lines, yes. It’s clear, easy to communicate, and reflective of their campaign. It’d have put them in a very strong position pre-negotiations, and left room for compromise elsewhere.
I should say, of course, as a Green I can’t imagine supporting a Tory coalition of any sort.
#28 by Danny Zinkus Sutton on October 24, 2012 - 3:29 pm
Thought that would be the reason.
As a Yes to AV activist I was certainly less than delighted to be trying to sell the reform movements third prize to the people.