Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Elections

Polls apart

Feb 19

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Holyrood | 16 Comments

First Minister Alex Salmond has made it clear that he is open to the idea of the 2015 election being pushed back by a year to avoid a clash with Westminster. One could argue that he has the small matter of a 2011 election to get out of the way before contemplating four years hence but it is a fine opportunity, well
taken, to look First Ministerial as this election period rolls on.

There is of course a second solution to the problem of a UK election being held on the same day as a Scottish election – holding the UK one earlier.

Five year terms were in neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Democrat manifesto and the UK is a country that is used to four year terms. Why should changes to our democracy only ever emanate from tawdry convenience rather than the strength of an argument, backed by a public mandate? AV is not the only ‘miserable little compromise’ that the coalition is suddenly in favour of and the only discernible mandate is the shuffling silence from a disengaged public.

The Liberal Democrats wanted fixed terms to rid Prime Minister’s of the power to call a General Election whenever he/she liked but David Cameron preferred five years in the top job rather than four so that we had more time to grudgingly accept the cuts before the next election so here we are, five year fixed terms and everyone has to adjust accordingly.

The simple problem is that five years is too long for the public not to
have a say, particularly as we are movin towards a system where Governments are judged on their past term rather than deliver on promises made during the campaign. 2005-10 term saw changes in leader for all of the main parties, a financial crisis and a rapid demotion of the defining issue of 2005 – the Iraq War.

There was a tangible need for an election in Brown’s dithering fifth and final year and it’s not easy to imagine the same being the case in 2014, 2019 and beyond but the problem of course is that the people don’t care either way. You don’t win votes by talking about how long Parliaments should be and you clearly won’t face protests for selfishly tinkering with the constitutional status quo, so why not act in naked self-interest if you can get away with it?

It would be crude to prolong Malc’s comparison and suggest that the UK’s diminishing democracy coupled with Egypt & co’s capturing of it includes our move from four year terms to five year terms but there is a public carelessness at play here that is, if not dangerous, at least irresponsible.

Clegg and Cameron got their way, Holyrood and Wales are having to adjust accordingly and noone else seems to really care. I guess for those of us who still hanker for four year terms and can’t bring themselves to vote No to AV we’ll just have to hope that the coalition comes unstuck in another way – a Lib Dem wipeout in May perhaps.

Straw men and political opponents

Feb 18

Posted by Guest Blog in Democracy, Elections | 12 Comments

We have a few guests lined up at the moment, and here’s one of them.  We’re chuffed to welcome back Marcus Warner, a frequent contributor to Wales Home, who agrees with Malc’s thoughts about democracy.  But that’s not the only reason we’re publishing it, honest.  Think of this post as part of the ‘mini-series’ on democracy we’ve accidentally ended up doing…

I had planned to do this piece prior, but Malc’s post yesterday made me nod in agreement and spur me on some more. The issue I wanted to add is one of straw men and the tendency for us all to imagine cartoonish cardboard cut outs of our political opponents.

I have been a member of two political parties, a social democrat always and a nationalist as I got further into my political journey. It was surprising, but had I not made a journey from one party to the other, I would have probably would still have the cartoon version Plaid Cymru as standard. I encounter less, but still visible occasions when my Plaid comrades do the same towards Labour. I have noticed as well that often the people with the closest viewpoints on the political compass as it were are the most likely to paint these caricatures of each other.

But more widely than that, would we all not benefit from being a bit more gracious about the other side’s motives, strengths and weaknesses?

From a purely tactical point of view, knowing your enemy is often central to defeating them. Understanding them is crucial in seeking to beat them, but this takes a certain healthy respect and not to indulge in straw men versions of them.

I sit rather clearly and strong on the left of politics, but I  think as I have got older I feel that I have got to understand the right’s motivations more. Too many of us on the left refuse to accept that many on the right believe in lower taxes because they believe people should have more money to spend on how they want to.

They believe in a smaller state because they don’t feel the state can solve everything. They believe in personal responsibility around getting a job or choosing private sector services because they believe people themselves can do it better than the man in Whitehall.

Do I agree with the right’s ideas on how to organise society? No. But one thing we all need to start looking to do is making this about a battle of ideas and about creating a better society, not painting the other side as baby eaters who only have evil motives for putting forward their ideas. It takes certain aloofness to believe that and I point the finger at us all. We might believe we have better ideas on the issues that matter, but no one party, group or wing has the moral high ground from the get-go.

Too much of the political debate focuses on the person suggesting it, rather than the idea itself. Too often ideas are owned by the left/right/nationalists (Welsh, Scots or British) and then they shout ‘bagsy’.

The thing is and I accept this is my anecdotally evidence opinion, but most ordinary punters don’t think like those of us who read this website. They don’t think left, right, nationalist, trot, Friedman etc, they see an idea in the context it is presented to them (context is vital too) and take it at face value. Of course the context may present it falsely – in the positive or the negative – but the point is that voters don’t necessarily have a default setting that many of us in politics do.

This is not some paean to mushy consensus politics. I believe in my ideas and want to test them against other ideas in a vibrant democracy. But I think it would benefit politics, the strength and depth of all our ideas and the public at large if we were willing to understand the counter argument better. Let us not just assume that we only have our ideas out of deep thinking and genuinely held purpose, while everybody else is just a cynical, evil carpetbagger who just wants to lie their way to absolute power before bringing forth the apocalypse.

Next time you see your political foe, perhaps the time has come to buy him or her a pint. Let’s understand more and judge less.

Brian Souter’s £500k campaign donation

Feb 13

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 36 Comments

There are many ways to look at the news that Stagecoach tycoon Brian Souter is to repeat his funding of the SNP with a donation of up to £500k. The two conflicting views that I hold are these:

1 – It allows a fair contest to take place between the historically under-funded SNP relative to the more established (but currently skint) Labour party

2 – It pushes Scotland closer to an unbecoming two-party system, much like the hideously riven-in-two United States

We have already seen this week how large the divide between Labour and the SNP is in terms of consensus politics. As Duncan Hamilton describes in deliciously vicious detail in the Scotland on Sunday today, Labour couldn’t even bring itself to vote for a Scottish budget that contained all of the detail that Iain Gray had been calling for. A political arms race between two parties that increasingly detest each other to the decreasing benefit of Scotland can only end badly. Funding candidates who gleefully talk about getting “pugils at the ready” and calling the other side “patsies” doesn’t seem to be getting us very far. However, as can be backed up by electoral math, Labour and the SNP could be on course to take 100 of the 129 seats in the Parliament this year, a worrying milestone for those wanting to move away from punch and judy politics.

The correlation between winning seats and spending power speaks for itself. The four largest parties all spent about £20k-£30k per MSP during 2007, suggesting that the number of leaflets rather than the message printed on them is key. The Greens spent about £54k per MSP, suggesting perhaps that, all things being equal, more money goes further once you have some momentum. With the top two parties seemingly raising even more than the rest here and now in 2011, the direction of travel for our beloved Parliament is pretty clear.

Interestingly, it is the Liberal Democrats who spent the least, £19k per MSP, which suggests that they have a stronger base of support out there that money is less of a factor with, a suggestion that would perhaps contradict the widely-held prediction that Tavish Scott is on a hiding to nothing come May.

On his Twitter page, Patrick Harvie has noted that he would rather have no money than Brian Souter’s money (albeit through the ‘RT’ of another’s message). One would think that Patrick might believe he could spend said money better than Brian could, or Alex Salmond for that matter, but money is a game changer in Politics, that’s the unfortunate reality of our current setup and probably the least worst solution too. It is commendable that the Scottish Greens believe so wholeheartedly in their message that they stand more squarely on it, eschewing more traditional (and perhaps more grubby) political practices.

With 50%+ of Tory donations coming from the City while Osborne arranges jaw-dropping tax cuts for big business, not to mention the eyebrow-raising sweeping away of bus regulation from the SNP manifesto four years ago (an omission that would have pleased Brian Souter), we just have to make sure that campaign money is a game changer only for elections, and not for policies.

All in all, I am mostly glad that the SNP can fight this election on the same financial footing as Scottish Labour but, with the real risk that our once Rainbow Parliament takes on a distinctly red and yellow hue, we should be careful what we wish and vote for.

(Note – That is a National Express vehicle in the photo, not a Stagecoach one. I am not suggesting anything untoward with its inclusion, and certainly not that Jim Barrie or Stewart Hosie have a face like the back of a bus!)

Can the Greens double up in Lothians?

Feb 10

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Holyrood | 47 Comments

The closest that the Greens have to a heartland in Scotland is arguably Edinburgh. Home to Farmer’s Markets,

Share this:

We’ve waited four years for an election, what’s another day or two?

Jan 30

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 24 Comments

The big news in today’s Scotland on Sunday is that the results of the Holyrood election may not be with us until the Friday or Saturday. Reaction to this news will no doubt range from ‘couldn’t care less’ to the apoplectic.

I have to admit, I am camped quite firmly in the former category, despite being a huge fan of the thrills and spills of election night. It seems downright inhumane to expect returning officers to run two votes in the one day and then push on into the small hours to produce a result that can wait until the next day. Furthermore, waiting that extra day will mean that a more accurate result is counted; rather important given that the 2007 election was won by only 47 votes or so.

A somewhat separate issue is whether this referendum should be held on May 5th at all. On balance, I am not convinced that this is much of an issue either. It is certainly less of a concern than 2015 when the UK General Election will be held around the same time, perhaps even the same day, as the Scottish Parliament election.

Stepping even further back from the question of counting ballots and the date of referendums one may question whether this piece of legislation has had sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. It is easy to forget that it is not just an AV referendum that is being passed here but a significant redrawing of existing constituencies and reduction in the number of MPs, not a decision that should be taken lightly one would have thought.

Now, I can’t say I agree with Lord Foulkes filling the House of Lords with hot air 189 times just to filibuster a piece of legislation that he doesn’t like or fresh-faced Lord McAvoy speaking 77 times on this Bill when he spoke just four words in the House of Commons in four years (source: Lord Rennard at Lib Dem Voice). However, this Bill does seem to come with the rushed rashness that characterises so much of what the coalition is setting out to achieve so a bit of time and a bit of input from across all parties and the full length of the backbenches would not go amiss.

So, if anyone has a fundamental disagreement with the nuts and bolts of the Constituencies Bill then they probably hold a jutified grievance but if someone is moaning about Holyrood losing some of the spotlight in a few months time or having to wait what will probably be less than 24 hours for the final result, I’d have to say they are probably being a bit short-sighted.