The big TV shows of our time are obviously such delights as X Factor and Strictly Come Dancing. Essentially these are popularity contests masquerading as talent shows, where personality seems to matter more than actual ability.
As long as this trend is confined to light entertainment it's probably harmless enough. But when it infects the real life political process it has the potential to harm us all.
It's been reported that John Smeaton (he of the Glasgow Airport terrorist attack fame) is to stand as a candidate in the forthcoming Glasgow North East by-election. His ultimate success will be interesting to track.
Politics is meant to be about selecting the best and brightest minds to represent us all, and hopefully then develop the type of ideas and policies which improve our society. This obviously isn't always what happens.
As a result of this we regularly hear calls to get more 'real' people into politics, but this usually means getting doctors, scientists, engineers, teachers, business people and such like into Parliament. The idea is obviously that people with this real life experience will be best placed to reach solutions to the problems we face.
Having never met John Smeaton it's impossible to say what type of man he is but it's likely that he is a decent, hard working guy. However beyond having been accidentally involved in the terrorist attack it's not obvious what his qualifications are to be an MP.
Again this is a criticism which can no doubt be labelled at many MPs. But when we start potentially picking people on the basis of 'celebrity' and through their position as a columnist for The Sun newspaper it creates a worrying potential for democracy.
The interesting part will be seeing how the public reacts to this. On the one hand you might think he will certainly win because of the points referred to above. But it's to be hoped that the electorate are more sophisticated than this.
We should not decide our elected representatives based on celebrity. Or blind party loyalty. Instead the optimum position has to be deciding who has the best ideas and voting accordingly - and that is a challenge for us all to then take a direct interest in the process.
Creating a celebrity culture in voting would diminish us all and hurt democracy in a way which is much worse than any problem we see at present. Whether or not they watch the X Factor it's to be hoped Glasgow North East voters can see this too.
25 Sep 2009
23 Sep 2009
The public services we are willing to pay for
Never a day goes by without some report or other being issued which highlights deficiencies in a certain part of the public sector. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this as it’s right to try and ensure we get the best services that we possibly can.
As part of this it can be helpful to have problems identified before suggestions are made to staff about potential ways to remedy them. This may help fix the obstacles being faced.
However whilst this approach has to be tried it’s hard to escape the notion that sometimes this boils down to money and what are prepared to pay for. So it was with a report published yesterday.
The topic (which is only incidental to this general complaint) was that migrant children are being let down by Scottish schools not fully catering for their educational needs. One suggestion which the report’s authors HMIE make to resolve this is to give more guidance to schools. What good is this really expected to achieve?
In the current economic and political climate it’s hard to avoid stories each day which highlight cuts (both actual and potential) to various services, including schools and education. Is it actually then a surprise to discover already stretched schools don’t have the money to cater for pupils without English as their first language?
It is obviously correct that all pupils in Scottish schools should be given the support they need to do well in their education. But we have to accept that this will usually mean money rather than just words on a bit of paper (which is obviously what money actually is but you get my point). And if the money doesn’t exist then there are certain things simply won’t happen, new guidance or not.
Too often we hear demands or requests from people for improvements in public services without any explanation of where the extra money their demands would inevitably cost should come from.
This is a lesson government has to learn too. It seems to be accepted by all governments that there is going to be some cuts in public funding (albeit whilst saying that these will be kept away from the frontline). However you cannot admit there is less money and then ask services to do more or new things.
There is little point in demanding changes and improvements if we are not prepared to pay more, or stop doing which already happens. We ultimately get the services we deserve – and that means what we are prepared to pay for.
As part of this it can be helpful to have problems identified before suggestions are made to staff about potential ways to remedy them. This may help fix the obstacles being faced.
However whilst this approach has to be tried it’s hard to escape the notion that sometimes this boils down to money and what are prepared to pay for. So it was with a report published yesterday.
The topic (which is only incidental to this general complaint) was that migrant children are being let down by Scottish schools not fully catering for their educational needs. One suggestion which the report’s authors HMIE make to resolve this is to give more guidance to schools. What good is this really expected to achieve?
In the current economic and political climate it’s hard to avoid stories each day which highlight cuts (both actual and potential) to various services, including schools and education. Is it actually then a surprise to discover already stretched schools don’t have the money to cater for pupils without English as their first language?
It is obviously correct that all pupils in Scottish schools should be given the support they need to do well in their education. But we have to accept that this will usually mean money rather than just words on a bit of paper (which is obviously what money actually is but you get my point). And if the money doesn’t exist then there are certain things simply won’t happen, new guidance or not.
Too often we hear demands or requests from people for improvements in public services without any explanation of where the extra money their demands would inevitably cost should come from.
This is a lesson government has to learn too. It seems to be accepted by all governments that there is going to be some cuts in public funding (albeit whilst saying that these will be kept away from the frontline). However you cannot admit there is less money and then ask services to do more or new things.
There is little point in demanding changes and improvements if we are not prepared to pay more, or stop doing which already happens. We ultimately get the services we deserve – and that means what we are prepared to pay for.
15 Sep 2009
The big freeze
A key plank of the SNP government's initial success and subsequent high poll ratings has been the council tax freeze. It gave them a clear policy win and portrayed them as a party which was careful and organised with public finances.
As a result it's no surprise that since achieving this in their first year they have sought to protect it, meaning there have been council tax freezes in 2008 and 2009. Now the SNP have made clear that even in the current economic circumstances they aim to do the same in 2010.
Of course the previous two freezes were in slightly more prosperous financial circumstances. As it becomes evident that right across the UK public spending is likely to be cut back whoever is in power the debate is whether or not another freeze is the right thing.
The biggest argument in its favour (ignoring political considerations and machinations) is that as people have been suffering through the credit crunch it makes little sense to ask them to pay more, something you could argue may perpetuate some of the economic problems by reducing spending power.
However on the other side the potential cuts to public spending and their impact have to balance this. We of course do not know where any cuts will be made; whilst all parties will no doubt argue that inefficiency and bureaucracy must be tackled it's less clear what this means in practise.
Therefore it's surely inevitable that another tax freeze will affect frontline services (whether health, education, care or other services) one way or another. We have for example already heard claims that there are 1000 fewer teachers in Scotland than a year ago.
Equally over the past year child protection services have been featured heavily in the news following tragic events like Baby P and Brandon Muir. If we seriously want to stop such outrages being repeated then we surely have to invest more in these services, something that appears highly unlikely in the context of a tax freeze.
In some ways it can argued that a council tax freeze will not radically affect a council's finances. Council tax only raises around 20% of a council's overall funding and so a freeze (not a monetary cut) will have a nominal effect on spending options. This is true to a point, although at a time where there is less money overall it certainly does not make things any easier.
There appears to be a political consensus of sorts that some spending cuts will occur, although again without specifics being mentioned and with blame being widely attributed. What is important though is that there is some honesty in this process.
If we honestly believe that another tax freeze is a price worth paying (and it's unlikely any party will publicly oppose this) then we have to accept that on top of everything else service cuts are going to happen.
In this regard then, as it is the SNP government pursuing this policy, they then have to accept this reality and cannot spend the next year claiming to be putting extra money into services, or at least deny that cuts are taking place. Nor can they realistically expect already stretched budgets to cover new work or initiatives.
And this really brings us to the nub of the issue: what do we genuinely want from our public services and are we prepared to pay for this? There is little point in demanding 'something must be done' (as with Baby P) if we never then do anything about it.
Equally politicians cannot on the one hand argue cuts (outwith their control) are taking place but then deny that service reductions are taking place when this is pointed out. And we the public have to accept the same if we actually want such a tax freeze.
Regardless of the taxation system used there is only so much money can ever be raised and thus spent on services. In that regard there are always choices to be made and priorities to be identified. But we must accept that whilst a tax freeze (actually a real terms cut) may sound attractive it does come with certain strings attached.
Something worth remembering the next time politicians or the public decry many of the problems we see around us.
As a result it's no surprise that since achieving this in their first year they have sought to protect it, meaning there have been council tax freezes in 2008 and 2009. Now the SNP have made clear that even in the current economic circumstances they aim to do the same in 2010.
Of course the previous two freezes were in slightly more prosperous financial circumstances. As it becomes evident that right across the UK public spending is likely to be cut back whoever is in power the debate is whether or not another freeze is the right thing.
The biggest argument in its favour (ignoring political considerations and machinations) is that as people have been suffering through the credit crunch it makes little sense to ask them to pay more, something you could argue may perpetuate some of the economic problems by reducing spending power.
However on the other side the potential cuts to public spending and their impact have to balance this. We of course do not know where any cuts will be made; whilst all parties will no doubt argue that inefficiency and bureaucracy must be tackled it's less clear what this means in practise.
Therefore it's surely inevitable that another tax freeze will affect frontline services (whether health, education, care or other services) one way or another. We have for example already heard claims that there are 1000 fewer teachers in Scotland than a year ago.
Equally over the past year child protection services have been featured heavily in the news following tragic events like Baby P and Brandon Muir. If we seriously want to stop such outrages being repeated then we surely have to invest more in these services, something that appears highly unlikely in the context of a tax freeze.
In some ways it can argued that a council tax freeze will not radically affect a council's finances. Council tax only raises around 20% of a council's overall funding and so a freeze (not a monetary cut) will have a nominal effect on spending options. This is true to a point, although at a time where there is less money overall it certainly does not make things any easier.
There appears to be a political consensus of sorts that some spending cuts will occur, although again without specifics being mentioned and with blame being widely attributed. What is important though is that there is some honesty in this process.
If we honestly believe that another tax freeze is a price worth paying (and it's unlikely any party will publicly oppose this) then we have to accept that on top of everything else service cuts are going to happen.
In this regard then, as it is the SNP government pursuing this policy, they then have to accept this reality and cannot spend the next year claiming to be putting extra money into services, or at least deny that cuts are taking place. Nor can they realistically expect already stretched budgets to cover new work or initiatives.
And this really brings us to the nub of the issue: what do we genuinely want from our public services and are we prepared to pay for this? There is little point in demanding 'something must be done' (as with Baby P) if we never then do anything about it.
Equally politicians cannot on the one hand argue cuts (outwith their control) are taking place but then deny that service reductions are taking place when this is pointed out. And we the public have to accept the same if we actually want such a tax freeze.
Regardless of the taxation system used there is only so much money can ever be raised and thus spent on services. In that regard there are always choices to be made and priorities to be identified. But we must accept that whilst a tax freeze (actually a real terms cut) may sound attractive it does come with certain strings attached.
Something worth remembering the next time politicians or the public decry many of the problems we see around us.
12 Sep 2009
Who are the Taxpayers' Alliance?
It's an important part of a democracy that all different viewpoints can be heard, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
Generally (if not always) my own views would go against those of the Taxpayers' Alliance but in theory that's no bad thing; debate can only help us improve our ultimate ideas and actions.
However my key problem with them is their title, a point that notably irked me earlier today following their report that there should be billions of pounds of public spending cuts in the UK.
Again this is a perfectly acceptable perspective to throw into debate, whether you agree or not. From my own perspective these proposals may be too savage but it is true that the economic downturn has to have an impact on public spending, one way or another.
What is not so acceptable is the title, 'Taxpayers' Alliance'. I am, or have been, a member of various organisations over the years, some local and innocuous, others political and less so. But that is my right.
In being part of any group we have to accept that they may not always articulate our own personal views 100%, but presumably they are generally in line with our own, else we would leave, or hopefully have the chance to change/influence the leadership.
And this is where my real problem arises. To the best of my knowledge, unless there's a mistake in my payslip (in which case I expect a hefty rebate sometime soon), I pay tax. Which makes me a taxpayer. So presumably I am a member of the Taxpayers' Alliance and can have my say on their work, and change things if I so disagree?
But this is of course nonsense. The Taxpayers' Alliance is little more than a right-wing economic pressure group (again no bad thing, even if I disagree) with a title which attempts to give it a legitimacy and grandiosity it simply does not have the right to claim.
This language however creates real issues for me. The report in question was a joint one with the Institute of Directors. And their title fully backs up my argument here.
The instant I hear the title 'Institute of Directors' it's clear to me what they are and the basis of membership there. It's not something I'm going to join or likely agree with, but it's a perfectly reasonable group to organise and articulate those specific views.
Similarly with most groups you care to mention: Labour, SNP, Conservative, Oxfam, Christian Aid, the CBI and so many others. Their role and basis for argument and membership is clear, thus their biases are revealed.
However to call yourself something generic and seemingly open to all the public - such as the Taxpayers' Alliance - when in fact you are nothing of the sort is simply disingenuous, and the media's lazy use of them as allegedly impartial spokespeople is just as bad.
In fairness their website, if you read far enough, does expose them as people from a fairly right-wing (economically) and Conservative background but that's not something openly publicised, and certainly not clear when they are being quoted in the media.
Instead they are made to appear as being reasonable advocates of an alternative view, representing millions across the UK (as opposed to their actual c.20,000 membership). And it's clearly not just me that resents this arrogant assertion.
Debate is a good thing and to be encouraged, even when (and perhaps especially so) when it goes against your own views. How else can we ever reach the best possible decision otherwise?
However to use your name to falsely lay claim to mass influence and reach when in fact the opposite is the case is completely unacceptable. If the Taxpayers' Alliance want to rename themselves something like 'The Low Tax Alliance' then all well and good.
But not as things stand. 'Not in my name' has been a political cry for many in recent years; it certainly applies to me for the supposed Taxpayers' Alliance.
Generally (if not always) my own views would go against those of the Taxpayers' Alliance but in theory that's no bad thing; debate can only help us improve our ultimate ideas and actions.
However my key problem with them is their title, a point that notably irked me earlier today following their report that there should be billions of pounds of public spending cuts in the UK.
Again this is a perfectly acceptable perspective to throw into debate, whether you agree or not. From my own perspective these proposals may be too savage but it is true that the economic downturn has to have an impact on public spending, one way or another.
What is not so acceptable is the title, 'Taxpayers' Alliance'. I am, or have been, a member of various organisations over the years, some local and innocuous, others political and less so. But that is my right.
In being part of any group we have to accept that they may not always articulate our own personal views 100%, but presumably they are generally in line with our own, else we would leave, or hopefully have the chance to change/influence the leadership.
And this is where my real problem arises. To the best of my knowledge, unless there's a mistake in my payslip (in which case I expect a hefty rebate sometime soon), I pay tax. Which makes me a taxpayer. So presumably I am a member of the Taxpayers' Alliance and can have my say on their work, and change things if I so disagree?
But this is of course nonsense. The Taxpayers' Alliance is little more than a right-wing economic pressure group (again no bad thing, even if I disagree) with a title which attempts to give it a legitimacy and grandiosity it simply does not have the right to claim.
This language however creates real issues for me. The report in question was a joint one with the Institute of Directors. And their title fully backs up my argument here.
The instant I hear the title 'Institute of Directors' it's clear to me what they are and the basis of membership there. It's not something I'm going to join or likely agree with, but it's a perfectly reasonable group to organise and articulate those specific views.
Similarly with most groups you care to mention: Labour, SNP, Conservative, Oxfam, Christian Aid, the CBI and so many others. Their role and basis for argument and membership is clear, thus their biases are revealed.
However to call yourself something generic and seemingly open to all the public - such as the Taxpayers' Alliance - when in fact you are nothing of the sort is simply disingenuous, and the media's lazy use of them as allegedly impartial spokespeople is just as bad.
In fairness their website, if you read far enough, does expose them as people from a fairly right-wing (economically) and Conservative background but that's not something openly publicised, and certainly not clear when they are being quoted in the media.
Instead they are made to appear as being reasonable advocates of an alternative view, representing millions across the UK (as opposed to their actual c.20,000 membership). And it's clearly not just me that resents this arrogant assertion.
Debate is a good thing and to be encouraged, even when (and perhaps especially so) when it goes against your own views. How else can we ever reach the best possible decision otherwise?
However to use your name to falsely lay claim to mass influence and reach when in fact the opposite is the case is completely unacceptable. If the Taxpayers' Alliance want to rename themselves something like 'The Low Tax Alliance' then all well and good.
But not as things stand. 'Not in my name' has been a political cry for many in recent years; it certainly applies to me for the supposed Taxpayers' Alliance.
3 Sep 2009
Need to know
The argument for a free press is that the public have a right to know all facts in a democracy. It's hard to argue with this.
However as with all rights comes some degree of responsibility. In other words the media also have to consider whether or not they should publish certain information which comes their way.
The last few days have seen the sad story of Stacey Lawrence, who was apparently murdered by her stepfather. This is understandably a tragic story which has received considerable publicity.
However some of the coverage of a particular twist in this story was at best misguided and possibly much worse than that. It doesn't bear repeating but links to the story are here.
The question is what value this possibly adds to the story, other than creating a further sense of horror and surely only causing notable further anguish to the little girl's family?
Had the killer still be at large and there was a need to raise publicity in order to ensure his capture then there may (reluctantly) have been a case for this. As it is, given that all parties in the sad affair are dead it seems a gross misjudgement to have had this latest issue as a banner headline.
The media does have the right and often obligation to inform us of sad and tragic events which take place in our society. But it must also temper this with some decency and consideration for those directly affected.
Sadly that certainly didn't happen this week.
However as with all rights comes some degree of responsibility. In other words the media also have to consider whether or not they should publish certain information which comes their way.
The last few days have seen the sad story of Stacey Lawrence, who was apparently murdered by her stepfather. This is understandably a tragic story which has received considerable publicity.
However some of the coverage of a particular twist in this story was at best misguided and possibly much worse than that. It doesn't bear repeating but links to the story are here.
The question is what value this possibly adds to the story, other than creating a further sense of horror and surely only causing notable further anguish to the little girl's family?
Had the killer still be at large and there was a need to raise publicity in order to ensure his capture then there may (reluctantly) have been a case for this. As it is, given that all parties in the sad affair are dead it seems a gross misjudgement to have had this latest issue as a banner headline.
The media does have the right and often obligation to inform us of sad and tragic events which take place in our society. But it must also temper this with some decency and consideration for those directly affected.
Sadly that certainly didn't happen this week.
