This must surely be a first: a Scottish council has removed details from its website after the media complained that there was too much information available.
The specific story related to North Lanarkshire Council's decision to publish full details regarding its recruitment process, including a list of failed candidates. This included several high-profile members of the Scottish media.
The decision to question the level of information made public poses two interesting questions in future, about what details a council has to provide and how far this new found media interest in the right to privacy extends.
It's a strange scenario when a journalist (in this case from the BBC) phones up to question whether the council have broken data protection guidelines in providing certain information; more often than not it's official bodies using this Act as a reason not to give out details to the media.
So the next time that this journalist - or any other one - phones the council it will be interesting to see if this excuse is then thrown back at them. It will surely at that stage be much harder to complain that it's an unreasonable excuse.
However perhaps the most notable point about this case is whether such an interest in protecting an individual's right to privacy will cascade its way across the media as a whole. As a general rule the BBC have a better record than most of not invading privacy (certainly compared to many tabloids).
Whilst none of the people whose names were included in the original list are employed at the BBC they do work for a range of newspapers or associated industries. It would be a useful insight to know how many other media outlets agreed with the BBC pursuing this issue.
If you want to know why, just imagine the following scenario, then consider whether these same complaints would have been made.
Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's former head of media (or someone of similar standing and controversy) had applied for the same job and his name was mentioned in the minutes: does anyone seriously imagine for even one second that this would not have been publicised in every media outlet in the country, including the BBC?
The reality is that the eventual decision to remove the information is correct. People have the right to freedom about their choice of employment; this decision could have had an impact if their current employers found out their identities though (something which is true for anyone going for any new job).
However this same courtesy must surely then be extended to all members of our society, not simply those with links to the media industry. Anyone think that will actually happen?
28 Feb 2009
26 Feb 2009
Making your mind up
If only everything was as simple as some politicians make out. And if only there was any consistency in what many of them argue for.
In my humble view – and feel free to disagree – if there’s anything puts people off politics it’s the black and white nature of the debate, which more often that not completely contradicts itself.
It’s not hard to find examples of this but some Daily Record stories earlier this week really raised my ire as a perfect illustration of this.
In one story opposition politicians slammed the SNP, saying that their alcohol crackdown has clearly been a failure because new stats show Scottish alcohol consumption is at extremely high levels.
Clearly any political action takes some time to seep through, and unless it’s my mistake the SNP have not yet even introduced their plans. Therefore to blame a government which has been in office less than two years for a historical problem is just wrong.
However this rationale has to work both ways.
In another story new SNP government minister Mike Russell is criticised for having written a book in the past which was massively critical of Scotland. By way of defence an SNP source said:
“Scotland has changed significantly since 1998. It is now a substantially better country because we have an SNP government implementing progressive policies.”
Now just as it’s wrong to blame the SNP for every ill which has existed since before 2007 then by that same token the SNP cannot then say that every bit of progress made since 1998 is because of them.
Obviously political debate is going to create confrontation – each party will want to at least give the impression of clear blue water between them and their rivals, whether this is justified or not.
But this insane inconsistency – where each side contradicts itself in attacks or defence – surely does nothing more than infuriate and turn off most people. At a time where there’s been talk of how to engage more people with the political process, maybe this is one thing to think about.
In my humble view – and feel free to disagree – if there’s anything puts people off politics it’s the black and white nature of the debate, which more often that not completely contradicts itself.
It’s not hard to find examples of this but some Daily Record stories earlier this week really raised my ire as a perfect illustration of this.
In one story opposition politicians slammed the SNP, saying that their alcohol crackdown has clearly been a failure because new stats show Scottish alcohol consumption is at extremely high levels.
Clearly any political action takes some time to seep through, and unless it’s my mistake the SNP have not yet even introduced their plans. Therefore to blame a government which has been in office less than two years for a historical problem is just wrong.
However this rationale has to work both ways.
In another story new SNP government minister Mike Russell is criticised for having written a book in the past which was massively critical of Scotland. By way of defence an SNP source said:
“Scotland has changed significantly since 1998. It is now a substantially better country because we have an SNP government implementing progressive policies.”
Now just as it’s wrong to blame the SNP for every ill which has existed since before 2007 then by that same token the SNP cannot then say that every bit of progress made since 1998 is because of them.
Obviously political debate is going to create confrontation – each party will want to at least give the impression of clear blue water between them and their rivals, whether this is justified or not.
But this insane inconsistency – where each side contradicts itself in attacks or defence – surely does nothing more than infuriate and turn off most people. At a time where there’s been talk of how to engage more people with the political process, maybe this is one thing to think about.
25 Feb 2009
When being reasonable is wrong
Most outrageous story of the week is undeniably the news that complaints have been made about a children’s TV presenter because she is disabled.
Cerrie Burnell, who features on CBeebies, was born with only one fully-grown arm but now faces complaints from some parents who claim their child may be frightened by her onscreen presence.
Given that this story initially seemed to be based solely on anonymous online comments it was to be hoped that this was some sort of ‘joke’; however then the BBC confirmed that some official complaints had been received. It should go without saying how disgraceful this is.
However what is most annoying me – beyond the sheer stupidity of this overall story – is the BBC’s muted reaction, simply saying that: "We think that in time all mums and dads and children will love her as much as we do."
This blog has a fairly good record on considering all viewpoints and seeing arguments from different perspectives but in this case there is only one – anyone complaining is completely in the wrong.
Instead this is one of those times when PR departments retreat into themselves and simply hope that by expressing some soft platitudes they will avoid any further criticism (something the BBC hasn’t had to seek recently). However there’s a time when people just have to be honest.
The BBC should have said publicly – and in equally stern words directly to those complaining – that they were the ones with a serious problem and that they needed to get a grip of themselves. The notion that we should somehow lock disabled away from public sight for fear of causing offence is utterly repugnant.
By taking a softly-softly line the BBC may believe that they will have made their lives easier – this may even actually be the case. But that shouldn’t matter – when people make incredibly stupid demands they don’t deserve a sugar coated response. They deserve their idiocy made clear to them in brutal words of one syllable.
Sometimes being reasonable is utterly the wrong thing to do. This is one of those times.
Cerrie Burnell, who features on CBeebies, was born with only one fully-grown arm but now faces complaints from some parents who claim their child may be frightened by her onscreen presence.
Given that this story initially seemed to be based solely on anonymous online comments it was to be hoped that this was some sort of ‘joke’; however then the BBC confirmed that some official complaints had been received. It should go without saying how disgraceful this is.
However what is most annoying me – beyond the sheer stupidity of this overall story – is the BBC’s muted reaction, simply saying that: "We think that in time all mums and dads and children will love her as much as we do."
This blog has a fairly good record on considering all viewpoints and seeing arguments from different perspectives but in this case there is only one – anyone complaining is completely in the wrong.
Instead this is one of those times when PR departments retreat into themselves and simply hope that by expressing some soft platitudes they will avoid any further criticism (something the BBC hasn’t had to seek recently). However there’s a time when people just have to be honest.
The BBC should have said publicly – and in equally stern words directly to those complaining – that they were the ones with a serious problem and that they needed to get a grip of themselves. The notion that we should somehow lock disabled away from public sight for fear of causing offence is utterly repugnant.
By taking a softly-softly line the BBC may believe that they will have made their lives easier – this may even actually be the case. But that shouldn’t matter – when people make incredibly stupid demands they don’t deserve a sugar coated response. They deserve their idiocy made clear to them in brutal words of one syllable.
Sometimes being reasonable is utterly the wrong thing to do. This is one of those times.
24 Feb 2009
Thus far and no further
Here's an idea to cheer up those bored and infuriated by politicians - what if all those people you really cannot stand and perhaps vote against could only remain in office for a fixed period of time?
That's the plan being proposed by Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Equalities and Civil Rights. Ostensibly his plan is to help get more women and ethnic minorities into parliament but may be embraced by many others for their own reasons.
The essential thrust of Phillips' argument is that it's almost impossible to create the opportunities to get more social groups which are currently underrepresented into parliament, for the following reason.
In an average election only one-fifth of MPs choose to stand down, meaning that 80% of seats are not up for grabs. This of course works on the premise that most seats will be held by the same party from one election to the next and is a fairly accurate representation of what happens in practice (1997 being a notable exception to prove the rule).
Thus Phillips' idea is that if term limits were introduced (his suggestion is four, or up to twenty years in office) then this would create many more opportunities to get different groups into winnable seats. As an aside to this it would be interesting to find out what the average length of a term of office is for MPs and how much change this plan would actually create.
However - whatever your reasoning - is this an idea worthy of merit?
There is certainly something to be said for the idea of a more diverse parliament, whether this means in terms of the social background of those entering or in relation to the different professional experiences of many MPs.
One criticism of MPs is either that many are in too long - some are elected and remain in office for decades - and there is a criticism that this leaves them out of touch with real life. There is also the growing fear that the professionalisation of politics means many elected members life experience runs thus: go to university, work for an MP or political party, maybe become a councillor, get elected to parliament.
Certainly both these points have their validity and are in part responsible for creating a certain blandness in politics. If someone has been in office for a great many years or has no experience outwith this it can only hurt the political process as it often means they are much less likely to rebel or show any independence of thought.
Equally, and this is an issue more likely to come to forefront in the years ahead as parliament's composition is made up of more and more professional politicians, it might mean that public policy is less based in reality. If all someone knows is a political life and workplace then they simply cannot understand the real demands placed on people who carry out the very tasks politicians only ever talk about.
In any case many people (politicians mostly!) will argue that there is such a thing as term limits, namely that the voters can get rid of anyone they don't like. This is true up to a point - obviously MPs can be voted out anytime - however it rather ignores the point that most people in this country still vote for a party rather than an individual.
Furthermore there is also the point that, for the most part, once in office an MP is seldom removed even by his own side. It is extraordinarily rare for local party members to judge that a local MP is not performing well enough and thus replace them with a higher quality candidate. It is therefore the quintessential job for life.
And this is not an issue which restricts itself to Westminster; we have the beginnings of Holyrood offering jobs for life. There have so far been three elections to the Scottish Parliament with many MSPs from all parties being elected each time. Given the age profiles and voting patterns there are several whom it is likely will continue for at least the next two or three parliaments, meaning at least 24 years in office.
Given that the Scottish Parliament was meant to offer a new type of politics does this then simply take on the worst aspects of Westminster life? Duncan Hamilton (a former SNP MSP, now SNP special advisor) said when first elected that he was leaving to go back to law. His idea was that MSPs would move in and out of parliament during their working life and create a better way of working; it's debatable this has actually happened.
So considering all of this surely term limits are a sensible way forward and a method of tackling all the problems discussed above? Well, not entirely.
The most obvious argument on this side of the fence is the question of what happens when this policy removes a popular politician from office. If an effective MP works for years locally developing innovative and relevant ideas before ascending to greater office is it a public loss if he is then removed from power just as these are coming to fruition?
Equally, and as part of this, there would be concerns about what this would mean in terms of the top jobs. Had this plan been in place Tony Blair would have been forced out of office in 2001; would such a system simply lead to jockeying in the years running-up to the Prime MInister having to stand down, leading to paralysis in government?
There is also the point of how much term limits reflect real life in a workplace. As a rule I suspect most people would believe the best people to run schools are experienced teachers; the best people to decide on and run health services are experienced doctors and nurses; and the top choice to run a business is someone who knows the company well and is experienced in all aspects of the services it officers.
Assuming then that this is the view we hold does it then make sense to create a different set of rules for politicians? Whilst it may be unfashionable to say so being a politician is in fact an extremely difficult job that requires an inordinately complex balancing act to hold much of the body politic together. Is it not then appropriate to have the most experienced members carry out this task?
In this debate the question of who would actually take these newly vacant seats is also valid. Whilst it is tempting to assume that a greater rotation of MPs would automatically mean a more varied and greater quality of candidate, the reverse could be the case. You could also face the problem of waning interest as an MP approaches his last term of office before he is forced out (although you could equally contend that this could inject a new zest and ability to float different ideas, free from the fear of deselection).
Introducing term limits for all MPs (as opposed just for those at the top as in the case of the US President) would be a fairly radical step and thus one not stepped into lightly. Rather than a knee-jerk 'I don't like politicians much so this is great' response there would have to be serious consideration about what this would be meant to achieve and how likely it is.
In many ways the notion of term limits appeals to me; it could help remove some MPs who have long since ceased to be able to offer any new and vibrant ideas and it could attract more people with different experiences into parliament. All of this could only be a good thing.
Still there's always two sides to every story. Just as there would be some positives it would undeniably throw up numerous problems, not least about constant speculation about who the next PM would be. The simple fact is that in a four term spell as an MP the PM would surely never assume office until the second half of their career, meaning constant speculation and political logjam.
So if term limits for all MPs are perhaps a non-starter, could there be other ways to achieve this? Perhaps instead the question should be asked if in 2009 - with greater technology and such like available - there aren't other ways to involve people formally in the political process. Of course as this would perhaps logically lead to a reduction in the role or number of MPs this may be a little like turkies voting for Christmas.
Ultimately in this debate it should be borne in mind that there is no perfect system. Just as there are undeniably attractions towards bringing in term limits so there are many problems which could arise from doing this.
And there is one other point worth bearing in mind. Although many might cheer the idea of politicians they dislike being forced out after a certain time, that has to be tempered with the fact that it'll just be another politician that gets in.
HAT TIP to Tom Harris MP for drawing this to my attention.
That's the plan being proposed by Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Equalities and Civil Rights. Ostensibly his plan is to help get more women and ethnic minorities into parliament but may be embraced by many others for their own reasons.
The essential thrust of Phillips' argument is that it's almost impossible to create the opportunities to get more social groups which are currently underrepresented into parliament, for the following reason.
In an average election only one-fifth of MPs choose to stand down, meaning that 80% of seats are not up for grabs. This of course works on the premise that most seats will be held by the same party from one election to the next and is a fairly accurate representation of what happens in practice (1997 being a notable exception to prove the rule).
Thus Phillips' idea is that if term limits were introduced (his suggestion is four, or up to twenty years in office) then this would create many more opportunities to get different groups into winnable seats. As an aside to this it would be interesting to find out what the average length of a term of office is for MPs and how much change this plan would actually create.
However - whatever your reasoning - is this an idea worthy of merit?
There is certainly something to be said for the idea of a more diverse parliament, whether this means in terms of the social background of those entering or in relation to the different professional experiences of many MPs.
One criticism of MPs is either that many are in too long - some are elected and remain in office for decades - and there is a criticism that this leaves them out of touch with real life. There is also the growing fear that the professionalisation of politics means many elected members life experience runs thus: go to university, work for an MP or political party, maybe become a councillor, get elected to parliament.
Certainly both these points have their validity and are in part responsible for creating a certain blandness in politics. If someone has been in office for a great many years or has no experience outwith this it can only hurt the political process as it often means they are much less likely to rebel or show any independence of thought.
Equally, and this is an issue more likely to come to forefront in the years ahead as parliament's composition is made up of more and more professional politicians, it might mean that public policy is less based in reality. If all someone knows is a political life and workplace then they simply cannot understand the real demands placed on people who carry out the very tasks politicians only ever talk about.
In any case many people (politicians mostly!) will argue that there is such a thing as term limits, namely that the voters can get rid of anyone they don't like. This is true up to a point - obviously MPs can be voted out anytime - however it rather ignores the point that most people in this country still vote for a party rather than an individual.
Furthermore there is also the point that, for the most part, once in office an MP is seldom removed even by his own side. It is extraordinarily rare for local party members to judge that a local MP is not performing well enough and thus replace them with a higher quality candidate. It is therefore the quintessential job for life.
And this is not an issue which restricts itself to Westminster; we have the beginnings of Holyrood offering jobs for life. There have so far been three elections to the Scottish Parliament with many MSPs from all parties being elected each time. Given the age profiles and voting patterns there are several whom it is likely will continue for at least the next two or three parliaments, meaning at least 24 years in office.
Given that the Scottish Parliament was meant to offer a new type of politics does this then simply take on the worst aspects of Westminster life? Duncan Hamilton (a former SNP MSP, now SNP special advisor) said when first elected that he was leaving to go back to law. His idea was that MSPs would move in and out of parliament during their working life and create a better way of working; it's debatable this has actually happened.
So considering all of this surely term limits are a sensible way forward and a method of tackling all the problems discussed above? Well, not entirely.
The most obvious argument on this side of the fence is the question of what happens when this policy removes a popular politician from office. If an effective MP works for years locally developing innovative and relevant ideas before ascending to greater office is it a public loss if he is then removed from power just as these are coming to fruition?
Equally, and as part of this, there would be concerns about what this would mean in terms of the top jobs. Had this plan been in place Tony Blair would have been forced out of office in 2001; would such a system simply lead to jockeying in the years running-up to the Prime MInister having to stand down, leading to paralysis in government?
There is also the point of how much term limits reflect real life in a workplace. As a rule I suspect most people would believe the best people to run schools are experienced teachers; the best people to decide on and run health services are experienced doctors and nurses; and the top choice to run a business is someone who knows the company well and is experienced in all aspects of the services it officers.
Assuming then that this is the view we hold does it then make sense to create a different set of rules for politicians? Whilst it may be unfashionable to say so being a politician is in fact an extremely difficult job that requires an inordinately complex balancing act to hold much of the body politic together. Is it not then appropriate to have the most experienced members carry out this task?
In this debate the question of who would actually take these newly vacant seats is also valid. Whilst it is tempting to assume that a greater rotation of MPs would automatically mean a more varied and greater quality of candidate, the reverse could be the case. You could also face the problem of waning interest as an MP approaches his last term of office before he is forced out (although you could equally contend that this could inject a new zest and ability to float different ideas, free from the fear of deselection).
Introducing term limits for all MPs (as opposed just for those at the top as in the case of the US President) would be a fairly radical step and thus one not stepped into lightly. Rather than a knee-jerk 'I don't like politicians much so this is great' response there would have to be serious consideration about what this would be meant to achieve and how likely it is.
In many ways the notion of term limits appeals to me; it could help remove some MPs who have long since ceased to be able to offer any new and vibrant ideas and it could attract more people with different experiences into parliament. All of this could only be a good thing.
Still there's always two sides to every story. Just as there would be some positives it would undeniably throw up numerous problems, not least about constant speculation about who the next PM would be. The simple fact is that in a four term spell as an MP the PM would surely never assume office until the second half of their career, meaning constant speculation and political logjam.
So if term limits for all MPs are perhaps a non-starter, could there be other ways to achieve this? Perhaps instead the question should be asked if in 2009 - with greater technology and such like available - there aren't other ways to involve people formally in the political process. Of course as this would perhaps logically lead to a reduction in the role or number of MPs this may be a little like turkies voting for Christmas.
Ultimately in this debate it should be borne in mind that there is no perfect system. Just as there are undeniably attractions towards bringing in term limits so there are many problems which could arise from doing this.
And there is one other point worth bearing in mind. Although many might cheer the idea of politicians they dislike being forced out after a certain time, that has to be tempered with the fact that it'll just be another politician that gets in.
HAT TIP to Tom Harris MP for drawing this to my attention.
21 Feb 2009
Good intentions
A fairly novel proposal from the Scottish Government adorns the front page of today's Scotsman - that killers (ranging from murderers to drink drivers and so on) could be forced to pay for the funerals of their victims.
This is not an idea which it occurs to me has been broached before and is an interesting way of doing more to either punish the guilty parties or provide support for victims of extreme crime.
As much as this may same a reasonable idea - after all, why should a family already dealing with the loss of a loved one also have to find a large amount of money to pay for a funeral? Nevertheless it's an idea which strikes me as being fraught with difficulties.
Perhaps the most obvious point - which is mentioned in the article - is the emotional problems caused by the deceased's family taking money off the person that caused the funeral in the first place. Presumably they would have the right to refuse this money?
There are also two issues related to costs: firstly, would there be a limit on costs or would it just depend how lavish a funeral had been held? And secondly what happens if the killer does not have the money to pay for it?
If the scheme is going to work then it surely has to apply to all cases - you could not have the scenario where only some people were made to pay this charge. However if this is the case then logically - as happens now with fine defaulters - you would have to punish them for not paying.
There has been some talk recently about the length of time convicted killers - murderers in particular - actually spend in prison is 13.5 years. If they could not pay for this it would be interesting to see how much prison time could be added, and how this would compare to the actual killing in the first place.
None of this is obviously to dismiss this out of hand. Any action which would genuinely help victims' families can only be a good thing. But the question has to be whether this would actually do that, or simply create additional mental problems and legal difficulties. However as Bill Aitken points out perhaps these families would prefer tougher sentences rather than money.
The intentions behind this are certainly good - but we all know where that can often lead to.
This is not an idea which it occurs to me has been broached before and is an interesting way of doing more to either punish the guilty parties or provide support for victims of extreme crime.
As much as this may same a reasonable idea - after all, why should a family already dealing with the loss of a loved one also have to find a large amount of money to pay for a funeral? Nevertheless it's an idea which strikes me as being fraught with difficulties.
Perhaps the most obvious point - which is mentioned in the article - is the emotional problems caused by the deceased's family taking money off the person that caused the funeral in the first place. Presumably they would have the right to refuse this money?
There are also two issues related to costs: firstly, would there be a limit on costs or would it just depend how lavish a funeral had been held? And secondly what happens if the killer does not have the money to pay for it?
If the scheme is going to work then it surely has to apply to all cases - you could not have the scenario where only some people were made to pay this charge. However if this is the case then logically - as happens now with fine defaulters - you would have to punish them for not paying.
There has been some talk recently about the length of time convicted killers - murderers in particular - actually spend in prison is 13.5 years. If they could not pay for this it would be interesting to see how much prison time could be added, and how this would compare to the actual killing in the first place.
None of this is obviously to dismiss this out of hand. Any action which would genuinely help victims' families can only be a good thing. But the question has to be whether this would actually do that, or simply create additional mental problems and legal difficulties. However as Bill Aitken points out perhaps these families would prefer tougher sentences rather than money.
The intentions behind this are certainly good - but we all know where that can often lead to.
18 Feb 2009
Controlling the blogging world
There are always two clear signs when news is slow: the Sunday 'papers don't have had a consistent story between them. And bloggers will turn their attention to blogging issues. So in that spirit it's worth looking at some online changes (successful and otherwise) have caught my attention recently.
In the past it's been argued (and agreed with in this blog) that the main reason Labour does not too well in the blogging world is (until 2007) they were in power at a UK and Scottish level, and even to this day still across Great Britain. As such it was inevitable that those people who devote time to blogging would more than likely have some beef with the government.
It's also likely that the main parties to benefit will be those that stand in direct opposition to the governing party. Hence why right-wing bloggers tend to more ubiquitous across the UK whilst in Scotland it is SNP bloggers to the fore. A glance at the Total Politics blog listings endorses this.
In part this post was inspired by an interesting piece looking at Labour's role in cyber-politics, written by Jack Thurston, a former advisor to Gordon Brown. In his many points he notes that had the blogosphere existed in the run-up to the 1997 election then Labour would surely have used it to eviscerate the Tories.
It's hard to disagree with this conclusion although it does occur to me that the reasoning for this may be slightly off, something that goes to the heart of Labour HQ's problems in trying to break into the blogging world. It's also something from which lessons can be learned from the different situation in Scotland where Labour are no longer in power.
Certainly had blogging existed pre-1997 the Tories would have been shredded by it. And Labour's Millbank team might have had something to do with that. But in reality any substantial success would surely have been borne out of the public-at-large (or at least those that read blogs because obviously most that do already know how they're voting) rather than some central command.
The success of the so-called Cybar Nats is often put down to control from SNP HQ. And whilst at least some SNP bloggers are party officials or elected representatives this is only part of the reason. The reality is that it is easier to get wound up to campaign for something if you are the ones seeking to make the change, rather than if you're already in government.
Hence although some Labour officials and elected members may blog (Tom Harris and Tom Watson being two notable examples) the party is not yet in a position across the UK to either inspire its own side or attract other backers. And really it will probably take some time in opposition before that changes.
If you need evidence of this then look no further than Scotland. As above the 'Cyber Nats' were seen as the vanguard of political blogging, capable of controlling and indeed hijacking the entire online scene (blogging and newspaper comments). Whilst this is likely still the overall position there are the early signs of shift in this dynamic.
In recent times there has been a notable rise in the number of anti-SNP blogs (albeit not necessarily pro-Labour) at the same time as some SNP blog have ceased to be, ASwaS being one such example. Equally some of the newspaper comment sites appear to have more anti-SNP posters, again not always meaning pro-Labour.
Not being privy to Labour and the rest of the opposition's online strategy in Scotland (if such a thing exists) it's not clear if this is all being organised centrally; I'm inclined to think not, at least not all. Instead this is surely the very early signs that blogging, like all political campaigning, is easier from opposition.
And in terms of LabourList, which inspired the Jack Thurston piece described above, this is surely Labour's problem in trying to set up an online presence to match sites such as Guido Fawkes or Iain Dale. Because both these sites, whilst very popular, grew by gradually building up a following, not by trying to impose a huge presence from day one.When the times comes that Labour are in opposition again across the UK this is surely what will then happen. A site, possibly running just now but maybe not, will get the odd bit of gossip or insight and get people reading it. They'll comment and then recommend to others before eventually it becomes a huge site. And at the same times Fawkes and Dale (if they are swimming against the public tide) would have to change or lose readers.
Furthermore there is also a big question about what the blogging world is for. Whilst there are many high-quality blogs which examine and consider policy in great detail the most successful blogs are probably those that tout short and sharp posts and spread political gossip. Once more Fawkes and Dale are good examples, as is Recess Monkey.
Labour seem want an online presence because it would appear to be a good idea, and it's obviously where the dynamic is going in terms of young people (albeit sites such as Facebook rather than political blogs). But in order to successfully do this you have to provide a product which the public-at-large will want to buy into, not instead what you would like them to want.
It's ironic that a time where all our main political parties (in Scotland and the UK) accept the market economic model that some of these same parties may find it hard to believe that this is how blogging works. You cannot force people to read them, simply hope that enough do that your popularity takes off.
And the real downside of that is that it makes it enormously difficult to control, especially when you're not in opposition.
13 Feb 2009
Sounding like a politician
It’s no great secret to say that politicians (like estate agents, journalists and now bankers) are not the most popular group with the bulk of the population. Therefore the greatest trick an elected representative can ever pull off is not sounding like one.
In a scene described in the book and film of Primary Colors Bill Clinton once famously came out from behind a podium during a public meeting to comfort a woman who was upset over the impact of local job losses. Compared to the cold reaction of then President Bush (senior) he seemed to be a man in touch with most people.
This is a trick that Tony Blair was very good at, particularly on his road to power and it’s something also evident in Alex Salmond. Although the style of the latter (and the former too) may alienate some people clearly many others engage with his persona and are thus prepared to back him and his party.
You can argue that part of the SNP government’s success to date has been largely achieving this across the board; most of their top ministers have managed to sound reasonable and considered, without falling into political speak and avoidance.
This week however has certainly been a huge example of that beginning to change with the decision to drop the local income tax (at least in this parliament). This action, and the defence of it, really has put the government and its ministers in a very difficult position (and resurrected some past attacks).
Whilst it is probably true to say that there is not a majority in favour of local income tax and that this is simply a reality of minority government this ignores one obvious point (which has been made elsewhere): if this is the case then why not also drop plans for an independence referendum, about which the same points could be made?
In reality this is a question the government cannot answer and thus it also brings back into play many of Labour’s earlier criticisms of the SNP, but this time in a way which is much more justifiable. In the early months of the SNP administration Labour’s main attack was on broken promises – it believed the SNP either had or was planning to drop many of the pledges which swept them to power.
This had some impact, but not much overall to be honest. At that time the SNP was still seen as fresh and new and was delivering high-profile plans such as saving hospitals, scrapping bridge tolls and ending the graduate endowment (student fees). This made them largely impervious to criticism, even as it became clear that promises such as cutting class sizes, writing off student debt and introducing home buyer grants really weren’t going to happen.
Part of the reason was the SNP’s freshness as mentioned above. But another factor was the lack of a major policy to illustrate this apparent breach of trust. Thus whilst Labour may have complained about some ultimately minor policies (in the grand scheme of Scottish political life) being dropped there was a never a ‘biggie’ to ensure this idea of broken promises reached its full crescendo.
However the decision to drop the local income tax achieves just this. Now that such a centrepiece policy has been dropped without even bringing it to the chamber for a legislative vote (albeit that there was a debate on this last December) opposition parties, notably Labour, will have carte blanche to list all the plans the SNP promised in the 2007 election which have now gone by the wayside.
And it’s at this point – when forced to defend this in public, not in the chamber – that SNP ministers who have so far managed to avoid sounding like typical politicians will have to fall into this trap, as was shown by John Swinney on BBC Good Morning Scotland yesterday.
Mr Swinney was asked repeatedly whether or not he was prepared to apologise to SNP voters who expected council tax to abolished, indeed the specific question asked was “will you now apologise, yes or no?” Of course this offer was declined with Swinney performing the political trick of just ignoring the question and talking about what he wanted instead.
As has been noted here before ‘yes and no’ questions are usually very unfair; this one was no different, simply because life is very rarely black and white. But this doesn’t change the fact that Swinney’s obvious refusal to answer and apparent disregard for the question made him sound like just another politician (even though overall his interview came across as quite reasonable).
The First Minister faced the same challenge in First Minister’s Questions later that day, although he at least was questioned by other politicians rather than a journalist, which gives him an advantage of sorts. As Labour and the opposition ratchet up the ‘broken promises’ line in the coming period more senior SNP ministers will be forced into the awkward position of sounding like politicians (although not the First Minister himself who it’s likely will not do media interviews in the next while).
Of course in spite of all these problems it doesn’t spell disaster for the SNP. There is a sad element in politics which means that the public are not entirely shocked by news that a politician isn’t going to keep their promises (very much a ‘dog bites man’ rather than ‘man bites dog’ story).
The challenge for them in the next few weeks will be getting news of actual achievements and delivery out there. Council tax being frozen for two years (and probably four) will help this, although is a double-edged sword in that it involves talking about local government finance. Some other similar actions may help stabilise them too.
In the longer term though this will all present a challenge either for the notion of minority government itself, or at least the SNP’s position there. Minority government may mean that the country as a whole gets what it wants rather than the will of a couple of parties being enforced (although this is debatable) but at some stage people may ask how effective it is to elect a government if it then has to regularly jettison the promises that took it to power citing its minority status.
It may also raise the question about what fundamental distinctions there are between this administration and the previous Labour-Lib Dem one. Neither government (or Executive) can be accused of gross mismanagement in everyday affairs so it comes down to perception of ideas and energy: whilst the SNP certainly won that battle in terms of promises and intent if there is no delivery to go with this then what’s the actual difference?
Furthermore this state of affairs will inevitably impact on any potential independence referendum. When SNP ministers have sounded different from normal politicians this undeniably will have helped build support for them. However as more and more excuses are trotted out i.e. we promised this but circumstances have conspired against us, people may wonder if this is the same for independence. In other words would the promises we’ll hear in any referendum campaign be dropped after people have voted yes, citing ‘circumstances’?
That’s the challenge facing the SNP now. They will undeniably come through this crisis and attention will eventually focus elsewhere (unless there are any other bombshells to come out in the next period). But if they are serious about building a real coalition of support for their raison d’être of independence then that’s a different challenge altogether.
And one thing's for sure, you can’t win that battle by sounding like a politician.
In a scene described in the book and film of Primary Colors Bill Clinton once famously came out from behind a podium during a public meeting to comfort a woman who was upset over the impact of local job losses. Compared to the cold reaction of then President Bush (senior) he seemed to be a man in touch with most people.
This is a trick that Tony Blair was very good at, particularly on his road to power and it’s something also evident in Alex Salmond. Although the style of the latter (and the former too) may alienate some people clearly many others engage with his persona and are thus prepared to back him and his party.
You can argue that part of the SNP government’s success to date has been largely achieving this across the board; most of their top ministers have managed to sound reasonable and considered, without falling into political speak and avoidance.
This week however has certainly been a huge example of that beginning to change with the decision to drop the local income tax (at least in this parliament). This action, and the defence of it, really has put the government and its ministers in a very difficult position (and resurrected some past attacks).
Whilst it is probably true to say that there is not a majority in favour of local income tax and that this is simply a reality of minority government this ignores one obvious point (which has been made elsewhere): if this is the case then why not also drop plans for an independence referendum, about which the same points could be made?
In reality this is a question the government cannot answer and thus it also brings back into play many of Labour’s earlier criticisms of the SNP, but this time in a way which is much more justifiable. In the early months of the SNP administration Labour’s main attack was on broken promises – it believed the SNP either had or was planning to drop many of the pledges which swept them to power.
This had some impact, but not much overall to be honest. At that time the SNP was still seen as fresh and new and was delivering high-profile plans such as saving hospitals, scrapping bridge tolls and ending the graduate endowment (student fees). This made them largely impervious to criticism, even as it became clear that promises such as cutting class sizes, writing off student debt and introducing home buyer grants really weren’t going to happen.
Part of the reason was the SNP’s freshness as mentioned above. But another factor was the lack of a major policy to illustrate this apparent breach of trust. Thus whilst Labour may have complained about some ultimately minor policies (in the grand scheme of Scottish political life) being dropped there was a never a ‘biggie’ to ensure this idea of broken promises reached its full crescendo.
However the decision to drop the local income tax achieves just this. Now that such a centrepiece policy has been dropped without even bringing it to the chamber for a legislative vote (albeit that there was a debate on this last December) opposition parties, notably Labour, will have carte blanche to list all the plans the SNP promised in the 2007 election which have now gone by the wayside.
And it’s at this point – when forced to defend this in public, not in the chamber – that SNP ministers who have so far managed to avoid sounding like typical politicians will have to fall into this trap, as was shown by John Swinney on BBC Good Morning Scotland yesterday.
Mr Swinney was asked repeatedly whether or not he was prepared to apologise to SNP voters who expected council tax to abolished, indeed the specific question asked was “will you now apologise, yes or no?” Of course this offer was declined with Swinney performing the political trick of just ignoring the question and talking about what he wanted instead.
As has been noted here before ‘yes and no’ questions are usually very unfair; this one was no different, simply because life is very rarely black and white. But this doesn’t change the fact that Swinney’s obvious refusal to answer and apparent disregard for the question made him sound like just another politician (even though overall his interview came across as quite reasonable).
The First Minister faced the same challenge in First Minister’s Questions later that day, although he at least was questioned by other politicians rather than a journalist, which gives him an advantage of sorts. As Labour and the opposition ratchet up the ‘broken promises’ line in the coming period more senior SNP ministers will be forced into the awkward position of sounding like politicians (although not the First Minister himself who it’s likely will not do media interviews in the next while).
Of course in spite of all these problems it doesn’t spell disaster for the SNP. There is a sad element in politics which means that the public are not entirely shocked by news that a politician isn’t going to keep their promises (very much a ‘dog bites man’ rather than ‘man bites dog’ story).
The challenge for them in the next few weeks will be getting news of actual achievements and delivery out there. Council tax being frozen for two years (and probably four) will help this, although is a double-edged sword in that it involves talking about local government finance. Some other similar actions may help stabilise them too.
In the longer term though this will all present a challenge either for the notion of minority government itself, or at least the SNP’s position there. Minority government may mean that the country as a whole gets what it wants rather than the will of a couple of parties being enforced (although this is debatable) but at some stage people may ask how effective it is to elect a government if it then has to regularly jettison the promises that took it to power citing its minority status.
It may also raise the question about what fundamental distinctions there are between this administration and the previous Labour-Lib Dem one. Neither government (or Executive) can be accused of gross mismanagement in everyday affairs so it comes down to perception of ideas and energy: whilst the SNP certainly won that battle in terms of promises and intent if there is no delivery to go with this then what’s the actual difference?
Furthermore this state of affairs will inevitably impact on any potential independence referendum. When SNP ministers have sounded different from normal politicians this undeniably will have helped build support for them. However as more and more excuses are trotted out i.e. we promised this but circumstances have conspired against us, people may wonder if this is the same for independence. In other words would the promises we’ll hear in any referendum campaign be dropped after people have voted yes, citing ‘circumstances’?
That’s the challenge facing the SNP now. They will undeniably come through this crisis and attention will eventually focus elsewhere (unless there are any other bombshells to come out in the next period). But if they are serious about building a real coalition of support for their raison d’être of independence then that’s a different challenge altogether.
And one thing's for sure, you can’t win that battle by sounding like a politician.
11 Feb 2009
Media management
How calculating can you get? Whilst every media outlet in the country is focused on the former heads of RBS and HBOS giving evidence to a parliamentary committee it seems one body chooses to sneak out news of changes in personnel.
This statement of course relates to RBS' decision to make 2300 people redundant. Surely no cynical people out there thought it was to do with the first SNP government reshuffle? In reality both these announcements (and reaction to them) are examples of media management at its simplest, but also most infuriating.
Both job announcements (RBS and the reshuffle) were obviously timed to coincide with the Treasury Committee. For RBS they knew they faced a barrage of negative publicity so thought they might as well get it over with in one go. And the SNP knew they might face tricky questions so thought they may as well bury it within a bigger story.
So far so cynical but not really any different from what anyone else would have done. In such circumstances everyone in public life reaches for the simple option - either how to minimise likely criticism or get yourself in the 'papers on the attack.
If you need evidence of that just consider the last point and then compare it with the response of Opposition parties to the SNP's reshuffle. Would it shock anyone to find out that they did not back the reshuffle and thought that it showed the problems at the heart of the government? And if it genuinely would surprise you, well, be prepared to be stunned...
Because of course the reaction to the reshuffle from other Holyrood parties has been one of derision and negativity. On the one hand maybe this isn't a bad thing - as was noted last week false consensus is in many ways worse than contrived outrage. But the usual structure of these stories - government says X therefore everyone else says Y does get tiresome after a while.
At this point the temptation is to blame the politicians - and there is certainly some validity to this. Regardless of what the media may demand this constant appeal to the lowest common denominator - simply saying what is demanded of you without any real thought or consideration - is at the heart of political disengagement. If every party just says the same thing all the time (albeit that roles may be reversed depending on who's currently in government or opposition) then why bother taking an interest?
Ultimately this criticism is valid and does belong at the door of political parties. But the media cannot escape censure on this matter too. Politicians may at times play a cynical game but it's often because it's the only way to survive.
Had the SNP or RBS acted any differently this week - choosing to make their problematic announcements at another time - it would have been political suicide, for two reasons. Firstly they would have had to endure notable bad publicity for each of the stories. And then they may have faced process stories about how their media management skills were extremely poor.
The opposition ultimately face a similar conundrum. The reshuffle today saw three low-profile ministers (whom I'm willing to bet that the public would struggle to pick out of a line-up) removed from office. In the grand scheme of things - and especially in the context of other stories running today - this is hardly earth shattering.
However had any opposition party expressed these views and declined to comment on the reshuffle what do you think the reaction would have been? Applause and acclaim for the outbreak of common sense? Or derision for their inability to challenge the SNP even on today of all days? There's no choice to make.
If we are going to be fair then the media have some challenges to overcome too. Journalists are employed to write stories each day - even if nothing's actually happening. Jeremy Paxman once opined that there were times he wished he could just say to people not to bother watching Newsnight because nothing had actually taken place that day.
At that point you have to wonder who's to blame. On the one hand these days could surely provide a real opportunity for journalists; it'd be their chance to write in-depth pieces about the subjects and policies which shape our everyday lives. Leaving aside whether some of them would be actually be capable of this, would anyone actually care enough to read it? Or more worrying for the newspapers, would they buy the 'paper again the next day?
If something is to qualify for the term 'news' then it surely has to be just that; politician criticises politician hardly even begins to qualify. So whilst we may get turned off by unremitting political negativity it's up to the public to change this.
If people really do want to see more grandiose and meaningful political debate then they can (at least in part) help shape this. It depends on the newspapers they buy, the online sections they read and often contacting the media outlet in question too. Because it's only if an alternative view is demanded that it will change.
Or to put it another way if you're waiting for the media or political parties to change how media management works you'll be waiting a long time. In fact you'd probably be quicker waiting on senior bank executives giving up their bonuses...
This statement of course relates to RBS' decision to make 2300 people redundant. Surely no cynical people out there thought it was to do with the first SNP government reshuffle? In reality both these announcements (and reaction to them) are examples of media management at its simplest, but also most infuriating.
Both job announcements (RBS and the reshuffle) were obviously timed to coincide with the Treasury Committee. For RBS they knew they faced a barrage of negative publicity so thought they might as well get it over with in one go. And the SNP knew they might face tricky questions so thought they may as well bury it within a bigger story.
So far so cynical but not really any different from what anyone else would have done. In such circumstances everyone in public life reaches for the simple option - either how to minimise likely criticism or get yourself in the 'papers on the attack.
If you need evidence of that just consider the last point and then compare it with the response of Opposition parties to the SNP's reshuffle. Would it shock anyone to find out that they did not back the reshuffle and thought that it showed the problems at the heart of the government? And if it genuinely would surprise you, well, be prepared to be stunned...
Because of course the reaction to the reshuffle from other Holyrood parties has been one of derision and negativity. On the one hand maybe this isn't a bad thing - as was noted last week false consensus is in many ways worse than contrived outrage. But the usual structure of these stories - government says X therefore everyone else says Y does get tiresome after a while.
At this point the temptation is to blame the politicians - and there is certainly some validity to this. Regardless of what the media may demand this constant appeal to the lowest common denominator - simply saying what is demanded of you without any real thought or consideration - is at the heart of political disengagement. If every party just says the same thing all the time (albeit that roles may be reversed depending on who's currently in government or opposition) then why bother taking an interest?
Ultimately this criticism is valid and does belong at the door of political parties. But the media cannot escape censure on this matter too. Politicians may at times play a cynical game but it's often because it's the only way to survive.
Had the SNP or RBS acted any differently this week - choosing to make their problematic announcements at another time - it would have been political suicide, for two reasons. Firstly they would have had to endure notable bad publicity for each of the stories. And then they may have faced process stories about how their media management skills were extremely poor.
The opposition ultimately face a similar conundrum. The reshuffle today saw three low-profile ministers (whom I'm willing to bet that the public would struggle to pick out of a line-up) removed from office. In the grand scheme of things - and especially in the context of other stories running today - this is hardly earth shattering.
However had any opposition party expressed these views and declined to comment on the reshuffle what do you think the reaction would have been? Applause and acclaim for the outbreak of common sense? Or derision for their inability to challenge the SNP even on today of all days? There's no choice to make.
If we are going to be fair then the media have some challenges to overcome too. Journalists are employed to write stories each day - even if nothing's actually happening. Jeremy Paxman once opined that there were times he wished he could just say to people not to bother watching Newsnight because nothing had actually taken place that day.
At that point you have to wonder who's to blame. On the one hand these days could surely provide a real opportunity for journalists; it'd be their chance to write in-depth pieces about the subjects and policies which shape our everyday lives. Leaving aside whether some of them would be actually be capable of this, would anyone actually care enough to read it? Or more worrying for the newspapers, would they buy the 'paper again the next day?
If something is to qualify for the term 'news' then it surely has to be just that; politician criticises politician hardly even begins to qualify. So whilst we may get turned off by unremitting political negativity it's up to the public to change this.
If people really do want to see more grandiose and meaningful political debate then they can (at least in part) help shape this. It depends on the newspapers they buy, the online sections they read and often contacting the media outlet in question too. Because it's only if an alternative view is demanded that it will change.
Or to put it another way if you're waiting for the media or political parties to change how media management works you'll be waiting a long time. In fact you'd probably be quicker waiting on senior bank executives giving up their bonuses...
7 Feb 2009
A parliament of diversities?
Sad news emerges this morning that Bashir Ahmad, Scotland's first MSP from an Asian background, has died. Having met him on one or two occasions it's fair to say that all the tributes about his basic humanity are very apt.
Obviously - beyond speaking about the man himself - much of the commentary this morning has focused on his position as the first Scots-Asian MSP. Indeed he remains the only person to hold such a position because his replacement is fellow blogger Indygal, who was next on the Glasgow list for the SNP.
It can therefore be assumed that the next chance for this to change will be in two years at the 2011 Holyrood elections. Nevertheless as we approach the tenth anniversary of devolution it is interesting to look at the composition of the parliament.
There are fairly regular stories about the lack of diversity at Westminster; that it remains a parliament for middle-aged and older, white men. Whilst you might argue that the country as a whole is also white that doesn't perhaps explain the relative lack of women to be found in elected posts there (only 20%).
Of course the Scottish Parliament was meant to be different. By starting afresh, so the theory went, we would bring a range of backgrounds and experiences into the political process that would make for a fresher and more effective legislature.
In Holyrood women still only make up around 33% of MSPs, there has been no-one of any noted disability elected (in comparison with Anne Begg or David Blunkett at Westminster, for instance) and of course only one Asian MSP, out of three elections when 387 people in total have been elected. Whilst you can argue that there is some difference it is hardly massively substantive.
It's never easy to explain why all of this is. According to the 2001 census only around 2% of the Scottish population is from an ethnic minority; statistically then this should mean that there would have been around five such MSPS since 1999, when of course it's only one. Of course this ignores the fact that whilst politicians may talk in national averages this is not how people live their everyday lives.
Thus most MSPs are elected to represent a specific local constituency (in fact technically all are but list MSPs cover a much bigger area) and in each of these the overwhelming majority of voters and party members will be white; it's perhaps then no surprise that this is equally the case of composition of the entire parliament.
The case of women is slightly different. There could be a variety of reasons for this; just as in business women are more likely to be held back by the fact they are (generally) the main care givers in a family which often limits them in a professional manner. Politics is no different, especially in having the time to be a political activist which is the usual passport into elected office.
So the next question is whether or not all of this is a bad thing and whether anything can or should be done to change it. And this is where the general air of consensus that politicians will espouse on this manner often evaporates. Whilst everyone in principle seems to agree that parliament should be representative, achieving this is something else altogether.
The biggest argument in favour of a diverse parliament is that the more views there are the more likely there will be debate and so an ultimate better policy agenda achieved. In fact this diversity doesn't just extend to the personal background of each MSP; it's their views too. That's why having people such as Bill Aitken (who seems to have opinions out of kilter with most MSPs) is a good thing too.
That's the theory anyway and in an ideal world would also be the practice, although as we've seen in recent days this doesn't always play out when the 'mask of consensus' falls. However even if it was possible to have this type of debate how would we then ensure that this diverse parliament actually exists?
In all the talk about Bashir Ahmad's achievement as first Asian MSP it's worth pointing out that no party in Holyrood has yet put forward an MSP in a winnable 'first past the post' constituency seat. Ahmad was elected on the list system, albeit that in putting him second in this list (behind now Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon) it was almost guaranteed he would be elected.
Perhaps given the facts above about the actual ethnic diversity across Scotland as a whole - albeit that there are some constituencies where much of this is concentrated - the list system remains the best option to ensure parliament is more representative of the actual Scottish population. In this regard it's something for all parties to consider about who they put forward.
Ultimately this approach appears to be the most likely way any change will take place. In recent times any party (notably Labour) which has tried to enforce quotas amongst its candidates, for instance through women-only selection shortlists, has run into some controversy. Indeed there is often criticism from non-political women who see such actions as demeaning to them.
The most likely way to change the balance of the parliament - and ensure that more views are heard in each debate - is to encourage more people of all backgrounds to get involved in politics. At a time when the population as a whole seems to be losing such an interest this will be no mean feat. I certainly wouldn't claim to have simple answers to this.
It may be that more can be done to force the parliament out into different communities. The Scottish Cabinet holding meetings in areas around the country and Petitions Committee having a hearing in a Glasgow housing scheme are two ideas that could be built upon. Maybe if more such events took place (albeit at a financial cost) this may spark at least some more interest in our democratic processes.
The testimonials to Bashir Ahmad will no doubt justifiably continue. But as tributes go all parties actually taking action to encourage more people of all backgrounds to get involved in politics and then assume political office would be a much greater legacy for him.
Obviously - beyond speaking about the man himself - much of the commentary this morning has focused on his position as the first Scots-Asian MSP. Indeed he remains the only person to hold such a position because his replacement is fellow blogger Indygal, who was next on the Glasgow list for the SNP.
It can therefore be assumed that the next chance for this to change will be in two years at the 2011 Holyrood elections. Nevertheless as we approach the tenth anniversary of devolution it is interesting to look at the composition of the parliament.
There are fairly regular stories about the lack of diversity at Westminster; that it remains a parliament for middle-aged and older, white men. Whilst you might argue that the country as a whole is also white that doesn't perhaps explain the relative lack of women to be found in elected posts there (only 20%).
Of course the Scottish Parliament was meant to be different. By starting afresh, so the theory went, we would bring a range of backgrounds and experiences into the political process that would make for a fresher and more effective legislature.
In Holyrood women still only make up around 33% of MSPs, there has been no-one of any noted disability elected (in comparison with Anne Begg or David Blunkett at Westminster, for instance) and of course only one Asian MSP, out of three elections when 387 people in total have been elected. Whilst you can argue that there is some difference it is hardly massively substantive.
It's never easy to explain why all of this is. According to the 2001 census only around 2% of the Scottish population is from an ethnic minority; statistically then this should mean that there would have been around five such MSPS since 1999, when of course it's only one. Of course this ignores the fact that whilst politicians may talk in national averages this is not how people live their everyday lives.
Thus most MSPs are elected to represent a specific local constituency (in fact technically all are but list MSPs cover a much bigger area) and in each of these the overwhelming majority of voters and party members will be white; it's perhaps then no surprise that this is equally the case of composition of the entire parliament.
The case of women is slightly different. There could be a variety of reasons for this; just as in business women are more likely to be held back by the fact they are (generally) the main care givers in a family which often limits them in a professional manner. Politics is no different, especially in having the time to be a political activist which is the usual passport into elected office.
So the next question is whether or not all of this is a bad thing and whether anything can or should be done to change it. And this is where the general air of consensus that politicians will espouse on this manner often evaporates. Whilst everyone in principle seems to agree that parliament should be representative, achieving this is something else altogether.
The biggest argument in favour of a diverse parliament is that the more views there are the more likely there will be debate and so an ultimate better policy agenda achieved. In fact this diversity doesn't just extend to the personal background of each MSP; it's their views too. That's why having people such as Bill Aitken (who seems to have opinions out of kilter with most MSPs) is a good thing too.
That's the theory anyway and in an ideal world would also be the practice, although as we've seen in recent days this doesn't always play out when the 'mask of consensus' falls. However even if it was possible to have this type of debate how would we then ensure that this diverse parliament actually exists?
In all the talk about Bashir Ahmad's achievement as first Asian MSP it's worth pointing out that no party in Holyrood has yet put forward an MSP in a winnable 'first past the post' constituency seat. Ahmad was elected on the list system, albeit that in putting him second in this list (behind now Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon) it was almost guaranteed he would be elected.
Perhaps given the facts above about the actual ethnic diversity across Scotland as a whole - albeit that there are some constituencies where much of this is concentrated - the list system remains the best option to ensure parliament is more representative of the actual Scottish population. In this regard it's something for all parties to consider about who they put forward.
Ultimately this approach appears to be the most likely way any change will take place. In recent times any party (notably Labour) which has tried to enforce quotas amongst its candidates, for instance through women-only selection shortlists, has run into some controversy. Indeed there is often criticism from non-political women who see such actions as demeaning to them.
The most likely way to change the balance of the parliament - and ensure that more views are heard in each debate - is to encourage more people of all backgrounds to get involved in politics. At a time when the population as a whole seems to be losing such an interest this will be no mean feat. I certainly wouldn't claim to have simple answers to this.
It may be that more can be done to force the parliament out into different communities. The Scottish Cabinet holding meetings in areas around the country and Petitions Committee having a hearing in a Glasgow housing scheme are two ideas that could be built upon. Maybe if more such events took place (albeit at a financial cost) this may spark at least some more interest in our democratic processes.
The testimonials to Bashir Ahmad will no doubt justifiably continue. But as tributes go all parties actually taking action to encourage more people of all backgrounds to get involved in politics and then assume political office would be a much greater legacy for him.
5 Feb 2009
The mask of 'consensus'
If proof were needed that a week is a long time in politics then this year's Scottish budget provides it in spade loads. Rejected just last week with the vote being tied at 64-64 (before the Presiding Officer backed the status quo) it has now been passed 123 votes to two, with the Greens being alone in maintaining their opposition.
So for now we will no doubt hear much rhetoric from the political classes about how this shows the spirit of consensus at Holyrood, a mature and considered decision, etc, etc. And other such meaningless and frankly false platitudes.
In reality this result wonderfully illustrates the mask of consensus and the ultimate divisions which lie at the very heart of politics; at the same time as we are being told about how this latest vote represents the epitome of agreement each party is rushing to the media to explain why it is a triumph for them and a disaster for their rivals.
And of course - away from those that apparently got what they wanted from the Budget (which if you think about it is really only the Tories and Margo MacDonald) - we have the treatment of the Greens, yet another clear symbol of the lack of consensus actually involved in this process.
The Greens of course aroused the ire of the SNP government by voting against the budget last week, in spite of last minute promises to increase funds for home insulation from £22 million to £33 million. And the price of this action: the scheme has actually now had £7 million cut from it.
This is clearly an act by the SNP to send a message to the Greens; you took us on and lost, and this is the price. The question now is whether this will bring the Greens into line next time or whether a minority government has just burnt one of the parties that has usually helped them win votes (last week aside of course).
In part this point will be answered by the Lib Dems. Some of the talk now is that they may supplant the Greens as being the party upon which the SNP can rely to pass their votes. However an analysis of the usual exchanges between Alex Salmond and Tavish Scott surely makes this unlikely, certainly as a long-term solution?
In a wider sense the fact that such a big majority has endorsed the Budget is good news for the SNP (although it's still worth wondering if they have missed a bit of a coup by not getting a unanimous vote). With Labour backing it you can be sure the First Minister will repeat this fact each chance he gets if Labour seek to raise any complaints about government spending plans (yet another sign of the false consensus).
Ultimately any discussion of consensus should be considered within the following prism: is consensus actually a good idea (certainly in the case of a budget)? And this is in reality, not as some abstract and fluffy political notion.
Of course ultimately it would be wonderful if everyone genuinely did agree and - not only that - got the solutions to any problems or issues correct first time. But this is obviously nonsense; there are a myriad of different views within every single part of the country and political party. And in fact division often helps us nuance and improve the policies we would otherwise end up with.
If we wanted all our politicians to just agree then that would rather negate the purpose of having elections in the first place; we could instead appoint a few men and women to do the job, with the one proviso being they would have to get 100% votes for each issue. In other words it's actually the job of politicians to disagree.
Of course the manner in which they do it is important. The public are obviously put off by the so-called 'Punch and Judy' aspect of politics where each side just says it's right, their opponents are wrong and that's it. However if we are to have a plurality of views represented and hopefully listened to then this has to include division even during (and perhaps especially) troubling economic times.
In doing this it's vital that politicians themselves are honest with the public about what reasonably can or should be achieved, rather than just agreeing with whatever the public dislikes about a given council or government's actions. There is, after all, only so much money to spend.
The entire Scottish Budget is £33 billion per year - a truly huge figure. But in reality only a very small amount of this is realistically available for new spending. Billions are already allocated to councils, the NHS and so on; unless the government is prepared to make some enormous changes (something no administration has been prepared to do) then there is so only so much money available for manoeuvre.
The other danger of seeking this consensus is that it just leads to small changes which ultimately will not bring significant change. By voting for the budget unanimously it's not unreasonable for the public to assume that everyone backs all aspects, or even the vast majority; this is somewhat unlikely. Instead we end up with £33 billion passed on the nod, for the price of a few million here and there.
Short of anyone genuinely introducing radical changes to the way we spend money in Scotland (which the Lib Dems can say they've at least started as part of their agreement with the SNP) this is the reality that lies behind any budget decisions, or indeed any policy issues. So was it really worth everyone pretending to agree?
Now sadly, yes, division would mean that we cannot then talk about a consensus which never truly existed anyway. Hardly a high price to pay. After all they do say that consensus is simply a decision that no-one is truly happy with.
So for now we will no doubt hear much rhetoric from the political classes about how this shows the spirit of consensus at Holyrood, a mature and considered decision, etc, etc. And other such meaningless and frankly false platitudes.
In reality this result wonderfully illustrates the mask of consensus and the ultimate divisions which lie at the very heart of politics; at the same time as we are being told about how this latest vote represents the epitome of agreement each party is rushing to the media to explain why it is a triumph for them and a disaster for their rivals.
And of course - away from those that apparently got what they wanted from the Budget (which if you think about it is really only the Tories and Margo MacDonald) - we have the treatment of the Greens, yet another clear symbol of the lack of consensus actually involved in this process.
The Greens of course aroused the ire of the SNP government by voting against the budget last week, in spite of last minute promises to increase funds for home insulation from £22 million to £33 million. And the price of this action: the scheme has actually now had £7 million cut from it.
This is clearly an act by the SNP to send a message to the Greens; you took us on and lost, and this is the price. The question now is whether this will bring the Greens into line next time or whether a minority government has just burnt one of the parties that has usually helped them win votes (last week aside of course).
In part this point will be answered by the Lib Dems. Some of the talk now is that they may supplant the Greens as being the party upon which the SNP can rely to pass their votes. However an analysis of the usual exchanges between Alex Salmond and Tavish Scott surely makes this unlikely, certainly as a long-term solution?
In a wider sense the fact that such a big majority has endorsed the Budget is good news for the SNP (although it's still worth wondering if they have missed a bit of a coup by not getting a unanimous vote). With Labour backing it you can be sure the First Minister will repeat this fact each chance he gets if Labour seek to raise any complaints about government spending plans (yet another sign of the false consensus).
Ultimately any discussion of consensus should be considered within the following prism: is consensus actually a good idea (certainly in the case of a budget)? And this is in reality, not as some abstract and fluffy political notion.
Of course ultimately it would be wonderful if everyone genuinely did agree and - not only that - got the solutions to any problems or issues correct first time. But this is obviously nonsense; there are a myriad of different views within every single part of the country and political party. And in fact division often helps us nuance and improve the policies we would otherwise end up with.
If we wanted all our politicians to just agree then that would rather negate the purpose of having elections in the first place; we could instead appoint a few men and women to do the job, with the one proviso being they would have to get 100% votes for each issue. In other words it's actually the job of politicians to disagree.
Of course the manner in which they do it is important. The public are obviously put off by the so-called 'Punch and Judy' aspect of politics where each side just says it's right, their opponents are wrong and that's it. However if we are to have a plurality of views represented and hopefully listened to then this has to include division even during (and perhaps especially) troubling economic times.
In doing this it's vital that politicians themselves are honest with the public about what reasonably can or should be achieved, rather than just agreeing with whatever the public dislikes about a given council or government's actions. There is, after all, only so much money to spend.
The entire Scottish Budget is £33 billion per year - a truly huge figure. But in reality only a very small amount of this is realistically available for new spending. Billions are already allocated to councils, the NHS and so on; unless the government is prepared to make some enormous changes (something no administration has been prepared to do) then there is so only so much money available for manoeuvre.
The other danger of seeking this consensus is that it just leads to small changes which ultimately will not bring significant change. By voting for the budget unanimously it's not unreasonable for the public to assume that everyone backs all aspects, or even the vast majority; this is somewhat unlikely. Instead we end up with £33 billion passed on the nod, for the price of a few million here and there.
Short of anyone genuinely introducing radical changes to the way we spend money in Scotland (which the Lib Dems can say they've at least started as part of their agreement with the SNP) this is the reality that lies behind any budget decisions, or indeed any policy issues. So was it really worth everyone pretending to agree?
Now sadly, yes, division would mean that we cannot then talk about a consensus which never truly existed anyway. Hardly a high price to pay. After all they do say that consensus is simply a decision that no-one is truly happy with.
4 Feb 2009
2 Feb 2009
Would protectionism actually help UK workers?
The walkout by energy workers across the UK has brought the debate about protectionism in the face of the world's economic problems into a very clear and obvious perspective.
By protectionism we mean a given country choosing to give priority to its own goods or staff, ahead of those from other countries. Thus refinery workers across Britain chose to strike in protest against a decision by energy owner Total to give a contract to foreign company, and there are claims that British workers are actually being specifically excluded.
However in general terms this is an inordinately difficult subject for politicians to deal with (although thus far both Holyrood and Westminster leaders have called on workers to not strike). On the one hand they want to be seen to back their own domestic workers - and voters. But on the other hand the rise of protectionism is something which cannot happen without enormous consequences for workers and consumers right across Scotland and the UK.
There is one simple measure of this. Look at the clothes you are wearing right now; where were they made? Whilst the UK still has a textiles industry it's in no way comparable to years gone by. As such it's likely that your clothes were made somewhere in Asia. And this is for one simple reason: because it's cheaper, both for shops to have made and you to buy.
This is where the logic of protectionism falls down. If everyone that is either striking or supports the strikers was to only wear UK-made clothing, drive UK-made cars and so on then there would be a consistency to their position. A quick trip down the High Street and a glance at the country of origin on various goods suggests this isn't the case.
The dynamics of a market economy is something which most people don't spend their time contemplating but it is (for better or worse) at the heart of the UK economy and indeed society. The rise in material living standards which this country has seen over the past two decades (and certainly compared with the pre-1960s) is in part linked to the role of consumerism in society.
This has obvious consequences. The transportation of goods across the world and purchase of non-essential products certainly has an environmental impact. And the ability to get goods from abroad at a cheaper rate has cost jobs here. However (to take the logic of protectionism to its logical extent) surely any government seeking to restrict the range and price of goods available in this country would be committing electoral suicide?
This is to say nothing of the incredible and in fact impossible difficulties trying to control all aspects of the economy would involve. If we are protecting one section of the economy then we would have to do this for all. Therefore UK farmers, manufacturers and other workers would all have priority over foreign goods, with no choice for consumers.
So if you wanted to a certain type of potato from overseas but a UK producer grew a different brand you would just have to take what was on offer, not what you wanted. Not only this but you would also have to take the UK product at whatever price it was available for, even if it was notably more expensive. And this would be the case for all aspects of the economy.
Once we go down this road we also have to accept the reverse consequences. Our efforts so far would come at the price of more expensive goods and less choice but at least it would have protected UK jobs. Except it wouldn't because as other countries retaliate we would see job losses as UK workers could no longer sell their goods abroad.
None of this is to be unsympathetic to the plight of workers worried about losing their jobs. At a time where most people are feeling the impact of the credit crunch the worry of unemployment must be an even greater concern. But it's simplistic - and ultimately wrong - to think that protectionism is the way to resolve this.
Protecting UK jobs cannot just be about closing borders and hoping for the best. If there is a role for government it has to be about supporting UK companies to make high-quality goods and services which people at home abroad will want to buy from the UK. And it also means more could be done to identify new business opportunities (possibly by working with spin-out companies from academic or business research and development).
But in those circumstances where British workers lose out (just as sometimes foreign workers will lose out to UK staff) it's about ensuring that entire communities aren't then written off, as happened in the 1980s. So at that point it's about what the government can do by way of financial and training support to these people and communities.
Of course there's also the issue of international standards, especially with trading partners in the EU and the west generally. If we're to have competition then it's vital there's a level playing field in terms of employment conditions, environmental standards and so forth - and that these rules are fairly enforced.
If we do go down the protectionist road then, yes, we can probably save and indeed make some jobs in the UK. But this will be the cost as other countries seek to do likewise: less competition would mean that prices for most goods would ultimately rise; there would be less products to choose from in the first place; and people would lose their jobs anyway as UK companies could no longer sell their goods and services overseas.
This is a difficult message for anyone worried for their job to hear; I know I would find it difficult if it was me. But considering everything above, what's the alternative?
By protectionism we mean a given country choosing to give priority to its own goods or staff, ahead of those from other countries. Thus refinery workers across Britain chose to strike in protest against a decision by energy owner Total to give a contract to foreign company, and there are claims that British workers are actually being specifically excluded.
However in general terms this is an inordinately difficult subject for politicians to deal with (although thus far both Holyrood and Westminster leaders have called on workers to not strike). On the one hand they want to be seen to back their own domestic workers - and voters. But on the other hand the rise of protectionism is something which cannot happen without enormous consequences for workers and consumers right across Scotland and the UK.
There is one simple measure of this. Look at the clothes you are wearing right now; where were they made? Whilst the UK still has a textiles industry it's in no way comparable to years gone by. As such it's likely that your clothes were made somewhere in Asia. And this is for one simple reason: because it's cheaper, both for shops to have made and you to buy.
This is where the logic of protectionism falls down. If everyone that is either striking or supports the strikers was to only wear UK-made clothing, drive UK-made cars and so on then there would be a consistency to their position. A quick trip down the High Street and a glance at the country of origin on various goods suggests this isn't the case.
The dynamics of a market economy is something which most people don't spend their time contemplating but it is (for better or worse) at the heart of the UK economy and indeed society. The rise in material living standards which this country has seen over the past two decades (and certainly compared with the pre-1960s) is in part linked to the role of consumerism in society.
This has obvious consequences. The transportation of goods across the world and purchase of non-essential products certainly has an environmental impact. And the ability to get goods from abroad at a cheaper rate has cost jobs here. However (to take the logic of protectionism to its logical extent) surely any government seeking to restrict the range and price of goods available in this country would be committing electoral suicide?
This is to say nothing of the incredible and in fact impossible difficulties trying to control all aspects of the economy would involve. If we are protecting one section of the economy then we would have to do this for all. Therefore UK farmers, manufacturers and other workers would all have priority over foreign goods, with no choice for consumers.
So if you wanted to a certain type of potato from overseas but a UK producer grew a different brand you would just have to take what was on offer, not what you wanted. Not only this but you would also have to take the UK product at whatever price it was available for, even if it was notably more expensive. And this would be the case for all aspects of the economy.
Once we go down this road we also have to accept the reverse consequences. Our efforts so far would come at the price of more expensive goods and less choice but at least it would have protected UK jobs. Except it wouldn't because as other countries retaliate we would see job losses as UK workers could no longer sell their goods abroad.
None of this is to be unsympathetic to the plight of workers worried about losing their jobs. At a time where most people are feeling the impact of the credit crunch the worry of unemployment must be an even greater concern. But it's simplistic - and ultimately wrong - to think that protectionism is the way to resolve this.
Protecting UK jobs cannot just be about closing borders and hoping for the best. If there is a role for government it has to be about supporting UK companies to make high-quality goods and services which people at home abroad will want to buy from the UK. And it also means more could be done to identify new business opportunities (possibly by working with spin-out companies from academic or business research and development).
But in those circumstances where British workers lose out (just as sometimes foreign workers will lose out to UK staff) it's about ensuring that entire communities aren't then written off, as happened in the 1980s. So at that point it's about what the government can do by way of financial and training support to these people and communities.
Of course there's also the issue of international standards, especially with trading partners in the EU and the west generally. If we're to have competition then it's vital there's a level playing field in terms of employment conditions, environmental standards and so forth - and that these rules are fairly enforced.
If we do go down the protectionist road then, yes, we can probably save and indeed make some jobs in the UK. But this will be the cost as other countries seek to do likewise: less competition would mean that prices for most goods would ultimately rise; there would be less products to choose from in the first place; and people would lose their jobs anyway as UK companies could no longer sell their goods and services overseas.
This is a difficult message for anyone worried for their job to hear; I know I would find it difficult if it was me. But considering everything above, what's the alternative?
