Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Governance

It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt

Feb 6

Posted by James in Economy, Governance, Holyrood, Parties | 43 Comments

The media pundits and the blogocracy have got their regular metaphor of choice for the Budget. It’s high-stakes poker, and you can see why. John Swinney publishes a draft Budget/deals, then each party decides how to respond/play their hand. Infamously, in 2009 the SNP thought we weren’t committed to the insulation scheme being universal/were bluffing, and when the cards were shown/buttons pressed, it turned out we weren’t. Pocket rockets.

The analogies continue this time, although I can’t work out what the poker equivalent is for the Tories siding early with the SNP and supporting what’s effectively an Osbornomics cuts Budget: suggestions welcome. Equally, by voting against such an ideological Budget at Stage One the Greens have apparently folded early. It doesn’t feel like that to me.

It’s a flawed and misleading metaphor, and its time has passed. Perhaps in previous years, with the overall pot rising, that might have been a justifiable way to see the new minority-Parliament Budget process. But not now.

Now the decision before Parliament is whether or not to sanction about £1.3bn worth of cuts. Even if, like the SNP and the other opposition parties, you’re not prepared to take a serious look at raising revenue (despite the options we’ve already proposed: 1, 2, 3 etc), that’s what a Yes or an Abstain means. There’s a lot of ink spilt about this being a centre-left country, but the reality is that they’re four of a kind on the revenue vs cuts issue.

But it’s not about the men and Margo around the table. As per my comment elsewhere, the parties are not playing a petty game to determine who gets a good headline, or they should not be. It’s a year of Scotland’s public services, services relied on by the vulnerable, the ill, the homeless, the working poor and the unemployed. These are the most crucial set of decisions made in Scottish politics. John’s chosen a Tory budget, and that’s the real reason the Tories were in the bag before it began. They’re not playing a good hand, they’re recognising one of their own. A pair, if you like.

It was a poker post on the first class Burdz Eye View that got me thinking about this. She’s not alone – the CalMerc followed with one the next day, and I’m sure I’ve used the metaphor myself before. Here’s the Herald in 2008, and there’s a story missing here which suggests the Sun actually posted Budget coverage to poker.thesun.co.uk

It’s compellingly simple. John, Andy, Derek, Jeremy, Patrick and Margo are the players. The aim of the game for the opposition parties, the argument goes, is to walk away with a good headline and a nice wee pot while the banker runs the game. It’s not even how it works – by the time there’s a full house in the Chamber the decisions have (generally) been taken as a result of a series of bilaterals. If you’re determined to find a games analogy, it’s more like Bohnanza, except it’s always the Minister’s turn.

The more the media and the bloggers treat it as a game, any game, the less seriously the real-life impacts of these cuts on communities across Scotland get taken. There are no points of principle at stake in poker – it’s just about your hand, how you play it and what you can take from the others. There’s a principle here, though – do we believe in public services or do we want lower taxes?

It all comes down to the Lib Dems now, they say. The Greens should step straight in and get a good deal, I’m told. Sure, we could no doubt negotiate for a little here or there, but it’d be set against those thousands of job losses, the thousands of vulnerable Scots who rely on local services currently under threat so John Swinney and the Tories can work together. If the SNP would rather try again (that’s perhaps the most important article on this year’s Budget) and find a centre-left consensus and look beyond the retailers levy to limit the cuts, we’ll be happy to talk, but any left party that backed this particular Budget in these circumstances would be a busted flush, pure and simple.

Tags: , , ,

Who’s who in the four AV campaigns

Dec 13

Posted by James in Elections, Governance | 10 Comments

Yes to slightly fairer votesA normal referendum campaign has two sides, and in fact the law more or less requires them to do so, but the truth is almost always more complex. Votes on Europe integration in Ireland and elsewhere have seen No campaigns unite trade unionists with right-wing free-marketeers, for example.

Similarly, the No campaign during the 1997 Scottish Parliament referendum campaign brought the “black-hearted unionists” of the Tory party together with some anti-devo Nat fundamentalists, while the Yes campaign was backed by the mainstream of all the non-Tory parties here, superficially united but with very different objectives.

The AV referendum is going to be particularly complicated because of the consequences it has for any future moves to PR. Very few are passionate about AV, and attitudes to PR are therefore a much determining factor for positions on the AV vote. That’s not true for everyone, though, ensuring there are four main campaigns.

Yes to AV, yes to PR. For this group, AV is a stepping stone to fair votes, or at least they believe rejecting AV will hamper future PR efforts. By far the largest chunk of the #yestoav campaign falls into this category. The Lib Dem activists mostly fit here, although their MPs voted unanimously against a PR option being put. The Scottish Greens and the Green Party of England and Wales are here too. Plenty of the leftier Charter 88 end of Labour are here, and so too are UKIP for “balance”. Probably 98% of the #yestoav campaign.

Yes to AV, no to PR. These are the AV true believers, and the smallest by far of the four main campaigns. Very few prominent names are here: I count John Rentoul for the media, and Jack Straw and Peter Hain for Labour.

No to AV, no to PR. This is the overwhelming body of opposition to the vote. Here can be found the overwhelming bulk of the Tory party, plus the Labour dinosaurs like Beckett, Blunkett, Reid and Forkbender. This is the establishment position, the two-party-state-forever crowd. They think they’ve found a way to damage PR by attacking AV’s non-proportionality, implying they are somehow pro-PR. Probably 98% of the #notoav campaign.

No to AV, yes to PR. This is another small group, though bigger than the AV-but-not-PR enthusiasts. It includes a fair few Wallist Greens and indeed even the Green Party of Northern Ireland. Their arguments are that this is indeed a “miserable little compromise“, and that if it’s passed the momentum for change will dissipate – “we just had a vote on this, didn’t we”? Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan, two of the Tories’ most independent thinkers, are here too.

There are of course other campaigns, including the quixotic Bella Caledonia “spoil your ballot for independence”, possibly joined by the Cornish, and those who will vote no to give the Lib Dems a bloody nose and perhaps split the coalition. I understand all these objectives, incidentally, while disagreeing with these campaigns’ conclusions.

Those other smaller campaigns are certainly not open to persuasion on AV itself or PR, I suspect. However, I’d urge the No to AV, yes to PR crowd to look again at their unholy allies. If the referendum is lost, who will be heard? You, with your complex arguments about how this has protected future moves towards PR, or them, the Labour and Tory establishments, crowing as First Past The Post is saved forever?

Perception versus Reality

Nov 18

Posted by Malc in Governance, Westminster | 1 Comment

For the second time in recent weeks, teaching students on politics has provided inspiration for a post. This week we were discussing the relationship between the PM and Cabinet, the conventions which exist and how recent Prime Ministers (particularly Blair and Thatcher) broke with established conventions on how to work with the Cabinet. We also talked about the importance of collective responsibility – and how it is probably more important at the moment, with a coalition rather than single-party government. So that’s the context of the discussion.

One student made the case that perhaps we didn’t really have a coalition. In their view (and, they argued, the view of many others beside) the government was not a Conservative- Liberal Democrat coalition (or even, as some lefty types have rather unhelpfully described it, the “ConDem coalition”). No, they argued that what we really had was simply a Conservative government with just a tinge of Lib Dem seasoning. From the student’s perspective, those Lib Dem’s in government were no longer “true” Lib Dems because they agreed with – and were enacting – so much Conservative policy. No, for the student, Nick Clegg and the other Lib Dem ministers had become a part of the Conservative party, with only backbench Lib Dem MPs maintaining their status as a separate party.

For my part, I pointed out that wasn’t quite the case (and yes, quite possibly this was the first time I’ve defended the Lib Dems!). I argued that a coalition was a combination of the interests and manifestos of two parties, that compromises had to be made and an agreement signed by both sides. I argued that, to provide stable government and a platform to address the economic situation, the Lib Dems had compromised on a lot of issues in order to try to help the country. But above all, I argued that, even though it appears that Nick Clegg and David Cameron are now “best mates”, they’ll still disagree on policy issues – and they’ll still be in different parties.

But the student wasn’t having any of it. What was true didn’t really matter in one sense, they argued, it was the perception of that reality that was important. From their perspective, Nick Clegg had morphed from a “likeable Lib Dem” pre-election to Cameron’s right-hand man, a liberal Tory, post election. And so too had those Lib Dem ministers in the Cabinet because they no longer stood for Lib Dem values – in particular PR, tuition fees and the Vince Cable promise not to raise VAT. In short, they’d simply backed the Conservatives to the extent that they were no longer a noticeably different party.

I’ve no doubt Lib Dem readers (if we have any left by this point!) will argue vociferously that this is not the case. In fact, I suspect Lib Dem members and activists (I’d put “if there are any left” in here, but I know I’d get skelped for being so cheeky) who disagree with some or most of the coalition’s actions will find aspects of it which are distinctively Lib Dem. And if not, they can always make the case that, whether there are Lib Dem policies in there or not it is still better for them to be in government than not, because if the Tories were left on their own then the cuts would be much worse. Now, I’m not sure that is entirely true (and I suspect we can’t really know, given we don’t know how much influence, if any, senior Lib Dems have in Cabinet and ministerial meetings) but again, I’m not sure it matters – its how the thing is spun.

And that really is the crux of the matter. How is the coalition perceived in public? Opinion polls have the coalition in negative approval ratings (by single digits, so not entirely unrecoverable) and a recent YouGov poll had the Lib Dems at 11% – up 2 points on the previous, but down by more than half of their 23% vote share in May. So “not well” is probably the answer. And if that result was returned in an election… well, let’s just say Nick Clegg is happy for the government to continue until 2015.

Of course reality matters – you only need to see the depth of feeling and anger of the masses evident in the student demo(lition) last Wednesday. And the reality is, there are two parties in government in the UK – one larger, and gets more policies through, the other smaller, helping them – and trying to pass some of its own ideas. But the perception – if indeed it is widely held, as the student suggested – is that this is a Conservative government simply being helped along by some supportive Lib Dems. And that might be more damaging to Clegg and co in the long run.

The MS Society, Leuchie and MSPs who agree

Oct 7

Posted by Malc in Governance, Health | 2 Comments

*NB: Declaration of interest – a relative of mine works for MS Society Scotland and I also ran the Loch Ness Marathon for them last year*

I was in Inverness this weekend, helping out MS Society Scotland, cheering on those running for the Society this year and generally helping promote the charity and its work. At the same time, the Politics Show was having a discussion about the impending closure of Leuchie House, Scotland’s only respite care centre for those with MS. Naturally, I missed it live (being outside in the rain in Inverness!) but caught it on iPlayer (the discussion is 45 minutes in, and you can see it here).

I have to say, I was a little disappointed by the tone of the debate. I’ve known about the closure plan for a  few months (since it became public knowledge) and I know a fair bit about the process. I also see that Jackie Baillie secured a Members’ Debate on the issue two weeks ago, which gained cross-party support against the decision. It’s not often that I disagree with a unanimous consensus (and how often do we lament politicians for arguing on minute points of disagreement) but I feel in this case this consensus is misplaced – for both general and specific reasons. I’ll deal with the general first.

As Shona Robison pointed out in the closing of the debate, the government cannot override the decision of an independent organisation, be that a charity, as in this case, or a business (as we saw in the case of the Johnnie Walker closure in Ayrshire). This was an internal decision taken by an organisation through a consultation process which included the entire membership of the MS Society UK – and a democratic decision as well (in spite of some of the more hysterical contributions to the debate) which was voted upon and supported at the MS Society’s AGM. The MS Society is a member-led organisation – and the membership, many of whom have MS, voted against keeping Leuchie House open. Yes, there were grass-roots campaigns (as Derek Brownlee pointed out) but policy decisions are not made by campaigners – they are made by members. That may be a harsh fact, but it is the truth.

More specifically, the MS Society is a charity, with a finite budget, dependent on the good will of the public to help raise funds for them. In the times of prosperity, it is all well and good to spend all the money on everything you can. But in times of austerity, such as we face at the moment, that spending cannot be sustained – we only have to look at the government’s cuts to see that. The MS Society Scotland has 10,500 people in Scotland with MS to consider. Their budget is split between research into how MS works and potential cures, treatment for it, and care for those who have what is a cruel, cruel condition. As Simon Gillespie points out in the piece above, only 13% of the MS Society’s members think they would use Leuchie House or a similar respite care centre, and that those who had the highest dependency needs were the lowest percentage of users of Leuchie. So, the Society has actually looked at what has been requested of it – by those who use its services – and adjusted its services accordingly. That to me seems an entirely logical process. Of course you can’t please everyone all of the time – and yes, some of those who suffer the most, who have the highest dependency needs, as Jackie Baillie points out, are those who will lose out from this decision.

The MS Society Scotland is entirely funded by donations. No public money is awarded to them. The money they spend has to be raised by people willing to do amazing things in order to fund the research and support provided by the society in Scotland. It irks me greatly that elected politicians are now attacking a charitable organisation which provides a service to those with the condition – a service which is NOT made available by the NHS.

I know the MS Society has to be a little more circumspect when dealing with MSPs – and more particularly with Jackie Baillie, who as Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, will potentially be Cabinet Secretary for Health next year. But for me, her objection to the closure of Leuchie – and, indeed, those of all parties – would ring a little less hollow if any of them had made a commitment in their manifesto to fund research into MS or, more particularly in this case, to dedicate some NHS funding to respite care centres like Leuchie. Of course, funding such a respite care centre out of the public purse is unlikely ever to happen, so a charity providing such a service is the only way it could be provided for. This then, makes it much easier for our elected politicians to stand on the sidelines and criticise, even though they probably recognise that the decision was taken out of necessity, difficult and unpopular though it is.

Wither Internal Democracy

Sep 23

Posted by James in Governance, Parties | 15 Comments

Should a party’s annual conference make binding policy, and what role should an ordinary party member have in those decisions? Scotland’s main political parties appear to have come to very different answers to this question, which I will try to sum up below. Please bear in mind that I have only got direct experience of my own party in this respect, and will be happy to correct any factual errors below.

At one end, the Scottish Conservatives adopt an approach to policy-making which does not include any notion of internal democracy. There are no votes on policy matters at conference, even token ones, although early in the Cameron era his Built To Last document was submitted to a vote. Instead, the leadership determines policy: typically just the leader plus his or her kitchen cabinet. In this sense therefore, the Tory system is relatively close to that used by the Workers’ Party of Korea, who rarely bother with the rubber-stamp assembly beloved of other notionally leftwing personality cults. It’s at least honest, and to be fair, since 1998 the Tories have also let the membership choose their leaders from a shortlist of two by one member, one vote. This is clearly progress over the old approach – where MPs only got a vote – or the even older version – a leader “emerged” from the “magic circle”: i.e. it was carved up out of sight in a way that must have been great fun for those who regard politics as a full contact bloodsport.

Next along this sliding scale: Labour. Their procedures used to be highly democratic, including the formal setting of policy through motions such as the composites beloved of union bigwigs and loathed by the Millbank Tendency. This is all basically over now, with the leadership now setting all policy, not even the Blairite National Policy Forum. Some of the changes are relatively recent: until 2007 branch parties and trade unions could bring policy motions for a vote, even if the results would then be ignored by Labour Ministers. Having mentioned leadership above, personally I also deplore the way Labour allows people to join several “socialist societies” and unions and get several votes for a new leader, not to mention the way MPs both sift the candidates then get massively disproportional say in the outcome.

Then the Lib Dems. They have picked a particularly bizarre point on the spectrum from Stalinist control through to radical democracy. As I understand it, their conference is open to all members, all of whom can vote and bring forward motions. The problem is they mean nothing, especially when Lib Dem Ministers have got some selling out to do. This week the issue was so-called “free schools”, discussed here previously by Jeff. As the Lib Dem proponent of the motion said, “Just as the supermarket drives the corner shop out of business, so it will be with schools.” Danny Alexander, described by one Twitter wag as tree-promoter turned economics expert, then declared it would make no difference to policy. The same used to apply to Scottish Lib Dem conference when they were in government here. The membership said that GM crop trials should stop. Ross Finnie pressed on regardless. Curious. Not particularly liberal nor notably democratic.

Although it was put to me that this blogpost was designed to make Greens look good, the brief research I’ve done does show the SNP joining us at the actually democratic end of this spectrum. I must admit I know less about the SNP’s procedures, but I do know that, like the Greens, their conference does formally set policy, with members and branches free to bring motions. I also can’t find an instance of the leadership simply over-ruling them, although Mr Cochrane, the Last Black-Hearted Unionist, has got one. The party’s leadership procedures are posted online in their entirety, and seem pretty hard to fault. Like us, it’s one member, one vote, no special treatment for MPs or interest groups.

The open question is not one of principle, though – obviously it’s hard to make a principled objection to internal democracy. But are parties with actually democratic procedures more likely to survive internal tensions and evolve, or can that internal democracy make it harder to respond to changing circumstances? Does Labour’s “democratic centralism” actually help them more than they pay in demoralised activists, unable even to slow a swing to the right? Those decisions surely weren’t taken simply for self-interest: Peter Mandelson or someone else must have concluded that the open expression of democracy was more damaging than the alternative. My sense is that that move was wrong both strategically and in principle, but I don’t have any evidence for that view.

And is going into government something which ought to change a party’s approach? Did the Lib Dems stick to the policy set by conference except where it restricted Lib Dem Ministers’ activity? Will Labour return to a more democratic approach now they’re in opposition across the country? Have the SNP really managed to keep internal democracy while running the Scottish Government? There seems little point letting the membership set policy only when you’re in opposition, rather than when you might be able to make real change.

As a press officer for a democratic party, I certainly see one downside of the radically democratic approach, not that I’d change it. Any radical new policy development the party makes can’t be unveiled dramatically in March or April of an election year. It must instead be decided in public at our autumn conference. If only there was a way we could agree any policy changes democratically but still keep them under our hats until we could publicise them as effectively as possible.

Tags: , , , , ,