When you think about it, it really does seem to defy logic.
Labour, having been in power for 13 years, are growing more and more unpopular. The Tories have a fairly popular (if ultimately unknown leader) and then comes what should be the fatal wound: the Gordon Brown bullying stories.
Surely it's now game, set and match to the Conservatives, the keys to Downing Street as good as David Cameron's already? Well as the polls are beginning to show it's not quite as simple as this.
Labour have again cut the Conservatives lead, with some polls suggesting there's perhaps only around five points in it. Due to the vagaries of the UK election system that could actually mean Labour win, or at the very least we have a hung parliament.
So how did we get here? There are a few possible reasons.
It does perhaps suggest that the public really don't care about stories like bullying, even if they do lead to untold excitement for Westminster columnists, commentators and political rivals. We keep hearing that in the context of a recession there's more important things in people's lives and this may be yet another example of that in action.
It's also an interesting hypothesis that Gordon Brown has perhaps been kicked as much as possible and so these attacks have lost any great edge. Either people begin to feel sympathy or else it's like a drug addiction; the more it's taken the less of a 'hit' it gives.
Either way focus is inevitably turning to David Cameron, and this is another problem for the Tories. Because for all the publicity, interviews, adverts and the like, it's not quite clear what he and his party stand for.
Rewind back to 1997 and Labour had a number of things going for them that aren't true for the Tories now: firstly, they'd been out of power for 18, not 13 years; secondly, they had a few clear policies which were easily memorable (smaller class sizes, reduced waiting lists, etc); and, finally they weren't caught up in the political scandals of the day.
Tony Blair was able to play the sleaze card towards John Major in a fairly devastating manner and it just fed into public dislike of the Tories. However the major scandal of today - the MPs' expenses issue - involves all parties, so there's no chance for the Tories to create a clear divide between them and Labour.
Cameron himself is a problem. We know that he seems like a decent and reasonable man, and he clearly has a family life which gives him an insight into challenges other people may face. However that's really about it. What are his passions, what drives him, what is genuine vision for the country, beyond having him as Prime Minister?
The old adage that nature abhors a vacuum is relevant here. If the Tories and Cameron don't tell us what to think about him, people begin to make up their own mind - both the public and journalists. And it's the latter group that are the real problem.
If attacks on Brown are losing their effect - and becoming boring and repetitive - it's unavoidable that journalists will instead turn their fire on Cameron. And what do the Tories have to say? The strategy of keeping heads down and hoping no-one would notice them is beginning to unravel for the Tories and if this leads to public fallouts it can only get worse.
Of course even if Brown does manage to pull off an unlikely win it's possibly not all good news for Labour as the next election would then be 18 years after their first victory. Or to put it another way, just the right time to lose and potentially suffer the same disdain and ire the Tories did post-1997. Brown's victory now may lead to problems for the next Labour leader.
With one possible exception. If Brown and Labour win there is likely to be a referendum on electoral systems, which could mean the end of the first-past-the-post system we currently use to elect MPs. And at this point it gives the smaller parties (including the Liberal Democrats) an influence they have lacked at Westminster for generations.
In the long-term that's the real unknown quality. If Labour can win it will potentially secure an even longer period for them in government, if the Liberal Democrats want to work with them that is. Of course this isn't as assured as it probably was when Paddy Ashdown led them, and Nick Clegg has shown himself to be less Labour-friendly (both in terms of party and ideology).
Of course in all of this it's still the Conservative's election to lose. Their lead may be cut but it is still them that hold this advantage (albeit taking into account points above about how this would actually play out in an election).
But for Brown it is at least game on again, which is more than it perhaps looked like it was going to be for some time. Newspaper commentary will surely continually bring in the Lazarus analogy and this may yet not be entirely misplaced.
Perhaps the only thing we know here is that public opinion isn’t following the patterns we might expect at this stage, which makes the ultimate result very difficult to predict. Indeed it would be a fool who’d stick his neck out and say what the result will be.
So with that in mind my prediction for this year’s election winner is...
28 Feb 2010
23 Feb 2010
What do political bloggers talk about?
One of the issues that many lament about politics (and may be a factor in declining voter turnout) is the manner in which political parties focus entirely on gossip, trivia and personal attacks - anything than talk about actual policy.
Given that there are regular discussions in the blogging world about the extent to which blogging has or might in future influence frontline politics, it struck me as an interesting exercise to look at the specific topics that political bloggers focus on.
Is the blogosphere a place for free thinking ideas on the policies we could or should be pursuing? Is it a chance for rival parties to put forward their own ideas and compare these with their opponents? Or is it simply a place where 'real world' criticisms of politics are reflected online?
To this end this post analyses the last ten postings from the top 20 Scottish Political Blogs (albeit excluding politicians) recently voted for as part of the Scottish Blogging Roundup. It simply looks at the overall figures and does not break them down into party, media, etc although this may be worth a follow-up post at some stage. It is not meant as a criticism of any blog, simply a summary of their content.
The research categorises all 200 postings (10 from each of the top 20) under five simple headings (explanations for each are below) *:
Politics – Process
Any stories about the process of politics e.g. who’s up/down, who's fighting, etc
Politics – Other
A summary of political issues which don’t easily fit into other categories
Policy - Party Political
Discussion of policy issues from a party political perspective, including disputes about which idea is best based on which party came up with it
Policy
Discussions of policy issues based entirely on their own merits
Non-Politics
Anything non-political e.g. football, music, etc
THE RESULTS
The summary breakdown for all these postings was as follows:
• Politics – Process 38%
• Non-politics 25%
• Policy 16%
• Policy - Party Political 13%
• Politics – Other 8%
And to further illustrate these results, here they are graphical form:
The point which is immediately striking is that by far the biggest chunk of the Scottish political blogosphere’s time is spent talking about the process of politics. In other words, who is winning, who is losing, which party is doing well today, which is in trouble and so on rather than any substantial issue.
Unsurprisingly a large part of these discussions are of the ‘my party’s better than your party’ ilk, not really adding much to discussions on the future of Scotland but at least keeping respective sides amused and occupied.
Another interesting fact is that the second most discussed topic is not even anything to do with politics itself, rather it is a chance for the respective authors’ to share something about their personal life e.g. activities, interests, or just breaking up the tedium (and apparently political bickering) with a music video.
In some ways this is perhaps not unexpected. The word ‘blog’ is derived from the longer term ‘web log’ and largely started out as a form of online diary or record of events and happenings. It seems that even political bloggers as a whole find it hard to completely avoid this.
We have to go into third place in the rankings before we find any discussion of policies. This of course is what politics is meant to be all about, otherwise it really is just an endless cycle of elections which are ultimately about winning and then nothing more.
Whilst any discussion of policy is welcome it’s no surprise that this is also done along partisan lines e.g. my policy’s better than yours. However this is neither a shock nor necessarily a bad thing. If the purpose of elections is to differentiate between various ideas then it is inevitable that there has to be a comparison of these at some stage, although there is a lack of non-partisan critique e.g. acknowledging your party's weaknesses or opponents' strengths.
Not until we reach the fourth highest (or, second lowest) do we get discussion of purely policy matters without bringing party fighting into it e.g. we should do this simply because of X, Y or Z. This is perhaps surprising in that blogs could surely be a place where people have the freedom and chance to hypothesise about ideas they’d like to see in power.
It’s also worth noting that the combined discussion of policy (party political and general) amounts to only 29%, or less than a third of total political blog postings. And even if we remove all non-political postings from these calculations it still only amounts to just over one third of commentary on political matters.
So what does all of this tell us, apart from me having too much time on my hands?
The first point that occurs is that of influence, and what bloggers actually are trying to achieve. Given that there are regular discussions about the extent to which online and social media might influence elections, it’s worth asking about the way this might happen.
The bulk of bloggers clearly do not focus on actually policy issues, even simply promoting those of the party they support (and the top 20 political blogs are mostly written by people that have a particular bias). Instead it’s mostly process stories or personal issues from the blogger in question.
This brings us to a chicken and egg discussion, namely does the content of political blogs determine its readership, or does the readership of political blogs determine its content? Do blogs focus on what is essentially three-quarters gossip (personal and political) because that it what readers want or is it this which excludes others from wanting to get involved? This same phenomena could be asked about politics generally.
In fairness most bloggers in Scotland are usually fairly scathing about the notion that their activities have any affect at all on the democratic process, recognising this for the minority pursuit this is. This was even after the brief flurry of activity surrounding the ‘outing’ of extreme bloggers which happened towards the end of 2009.
This is actually a fairly important point in terms of blogging’s long term future. If it really is nothing more than a small group of people talking to each other, most of whom already know their views anyway then it’s surely not something which will survive that much in the future: politically motivated people may instead turn their attentions to something more productive.
If however social media is to play a more important role in the long term then bloggers may have to consider what they offer that can complement this. Many already complain about the media’s focus on trivia but these figures suggest blogging is doing very little to remedy this or provide a genuine alternative outlet.
The alternative is that gossip, trivia and point scoring really are all politics can ever boil down to in a modern democratic society when there is such a general convergence of political ideologies, and a public which is growing increasingly disinterested.
That would be a truly depressing thought, so let’s hope it’s entirely erroneous.
* Obviously there is a degree of subjectivity involved in this, based on my interpretation of which category each individual post should have fallen into. It’s likely however that most people would agree with the overall gist, and if not, feel free to repeat and compare this exercise for yourself. This research was carried out on Sunday 21 February at around 9am.
As for the reasonable question of how my blog compares, the figures are: 40% Policy, 30% Politics - Process, 20% Non-Politics and 10% Politics - Other.
Given that there are regular discussions in the blogging world about the extent to which blogging has or might in future influence frontline politics, it struck me as an interesting exercise to look at the specific topics that political bloggers focus on.
Is the blogosphere a place for free thinking ideas on the policies we could or should be pursuing? Is it a chance for rival parties to put forward their own ideas and compare these with their opponents? Or is it simply a place where 'real world' criticisms of politics are reflected online?
To this end this post analyses the last ten postings from the top 20 Scottish Political Blogs (albeit excluding politicians) recently voted for as part of the Scottish Blogging Roundup. It simply looks at the overall figures and does not break them down into party, media, etc although this may be worth a follow-up post at some stage. It is not meant as a criticism of any blog, simply a summary of their content.
The research categorises all 200 postings (10 from each of the top 20) under five simple headings (explanations for each are below) *:
Politics – Process
Any stories about the process of politics e.g. who’s up/down, who's fighting, etc
Politics – Other
A summary of political issues which don’t easily fit into other categories
Policy - Party Political
Discussion of policy issues from a party political perspective, including disputes about which idea is best based on which party came up with it
Policy
Discussions of policy issues based entirely on their own merits
Non-Politics
Anything non-political e.g. football, music, etc
THE RESULTS
The summary breakdown for all these postings was as follows:
• Non-politics 25%
• Policy 16%
• Policy - Party Political 13%
• Politics – Other 8%
And to further illustrate these results, here they are graphical form:
The point which is immediately striking is that by far the biggest chunk of the Scottish political blogosphere’s time is spent talking about the process of politics. In other words, who is winning, who is losing, which party is doing well today, which is in trouble and so on rather than any substantial issue.
Unsurprisingly a large part of these discussions are of the ‘my party’s better than your party’ ilk, not really adding much to discussions on the future of Scotland but at least keeping respective sides amused and occupied.
Another interesting fact is that the second most discussed topic is not even anything to do with politics itself, rather it is a chance for the respective authors’ to share something about their personal life e.g. activities, interests, or just breaking up the tedium (and apparently political bickering) with a music video.
In some ways this is perhaps not unexpected. The word ‘blog’ is derived from the longer term ‘web log’ and largely started out as a form of online diary or record of events and happenings. It seems that even political bloggers as a whole find it hard to completely avoid this.
We have to go into third place in the rankings before we find any discussion of policies. This of course is what politics is meant to be all about, otherwise it really is just an endless cycle of elections which are ultimately about winning and then nothing more.
Whilst any discussion of policy is welcome it’s no surprise that this is also done along partisan lines e.g. my policy’s better than yours. However this is neither a shock nor necessarily a bad thing. If the purpose of elections is to differentiate between various ideas then it is inevitable that there has to be a comparison of these at some stage, although there is a lack of non-partisan critique e.g. acknowledging your party's weaknesses or opponents' strengths.
Not until we reach the fourth highest (or, second lowest) do we get discussion of purely policy matters without bringing party fighting into it e.g. we should do this simply because of X, Y or Z. This is perhaps surprising in that blogs could surely be a place where people have the freedom and chance to hypothesise about ideas they’d like to see in power.
It’s also worth noting that the combined discussion of policy (party political and general) amounts to only 29%, or less than a third of total political blog postings. And even if we remove all non-political postings from these calculations it still only amounts to just over one third of commentary on political matters.
CONCLUSIONS
So what does all of this tell us, apart from me having too much time on my hands?
The first point that occurs is that of influence, and what bloggers actually are trying to achieve. Given that there are regular discussions about the extent to which online and social media might influence elections, it’s worth asking about the way this might happen.
The bulk of bloggers clearly do not focus on actually policy issues, even simply promoting those of the party they support (and the top 20 political blogs are mostly written by people that have a particular bias). Instead it’s mostly process stories or personal issues from the blogger in question.
This brings us to a chicken and egg discussion, namely does the content of political blogs determine its readership, or does the readership of political blogs determine its content? Do blogs focus on what is essentially three-quarters gossip (personal and political) because that it what readers want or is it this which excludes others from wanting to get involved? This same phenomena could be asked about politics generally.
In fairness most bloggers in Scotland are usually fairly scathing about the notion that their activities have any affect at all on the democratic process, recognising this for the minority pursuit this is. This was even after the brief flurry of activity surrounding the ‘outing’ of extreme bloggers which happened towards the end of 2009.
This is actually a fairly important point in terms of blogging’s long term future. If it really is nothing more than a small group of people talking to each other, most of whom already know their views anyway then it’s surely not something which will survive that much in the future: politically motivated people may instead turn their attentions to something more productive.
If however social media is to play a more important role in the long term then bloggers may have to consider what they offer that can complement this. Many already complain about the media’s focus on trivia but these figures suggest blogging is doing very little to remedy this or provide a genuine alternative outlet.
The alternative is that gossip, trivia and point scoring really are all politics can ever boil down to in a modern democratic society when there is such a general convergence of political ideologies, and a public which is growing increasingly disinterested.
That would be a truly depressing thought, so let’s hope it’s entirely erroneous.
* Obviously there is a degree of subjectivity involved in this, based on my interpretation of which category each individual post should have fallen into. It’s likely however that most people would agree with the overall gist, and if not, feel free to repeat and compare this exercise for yourself. This research was carried out on Sunday 21 February at around 9am.
As for the reasonable question of how my blog compares, the figures are: 40% Policy, 30% Politics - Process, 20% Non-Politics and 10% Politics - Other.
17 Feb 2010
Thinking differently
It's said that a key skill children lack nowadays is the simple ability to think; that they will look for the easy answer and if it's not there just give up.
Whatever the reasons for this it is often the case that adults can be guilty of this same mistake when considering how education should be run, or reformed for that matter. For that reason it's positive that new Education Secretary Mike Russell is prepared to consider different approaches.
This relates to a plan put forward by a Scottish council to transfer responsibility for schools away from the authority itself to an arms-length company, which would have some form of community control. It's not the only local council that has considered this but the first to formally consult on the idea.
The supporting statement for this is that it is akin to the return of Scotland's parish school system of old and a chance for communities to take greater control of their schools, which will ultimately help raise standards.
It is certainly worth considering this. At a time when there are cuts coming in education it potentially saves money (such ventures may avoid some taxation) and potentially tackles some of the centralised bureaucracies which exist in various councils' education directorates, again freeing up some revenue.
So all well and good and something which should be pursued with vigour? Well perhaps, but it may not be as simple as that.
In theory it makes perfect sense to have important decisions about schools taken by the schools and surrounding communities. After all no central administration – whether local or national – can possibly account for every nuance of areas across Scotland.
So school X should be free to concentrate, for instance, on vocational courses whilst school Y turns its attentions to university-entry qualifications. And if this genuinely reflects what all pupils and their parents want then it can only be a good thing.
The problem comes when we look more closely at the issue of choice. Having stand-alone trust schools may help middle-class or aspirational parents, after all if you can choose for your child to attend such a school then it can only boost their academic chances.
However what happens to those pupils that cannot, whatever the reason, travel a great distance to one of these schools and are potentially then stuck in an area which has a school that will only focus on non-academic courses, making gaining a university place seem an unlikely event?
In effect this could lead to a return of an 11+ style system where pupils are pigeon holed at an early age on the type of job (and thus life) they may have. To some extent this is not the worst idea in the world; many pupils forced to sit academic courses end up causing disruption when there time could have been more positively used learning a skill or skills.
But if there is to be a choice it has to be one enjoyed by all pupils, not simply those whose parents can afford it e.g. what if you cannot afford to travel halfway across town to another school if you don’t qualify for free bus travel because you have chosen to bypass your local school?
Trust schools are worth examining, if only because there is a dearth of other new ideas about what can be done to help all pupils in Scottish schools, not least the bottom 20% that are the group which have generally not seen a major improvement in outcomes in the past decade.
For that reason it’s a good thing that the Scottish Government are open to new ideas. Giving pupils and their parents a choice and say in how schools are run may bring huge benefits, but it cannot be a benefit for some to the exclusion of others.
That’s the real test about whether or not we should put our ‘trust’ in these suggestions.
Whatever the reasons for this it is often the case that adults can be guilty of this same mistake when considering how education should be run, or reformed for that matter. For that reason it's positive that new Education Secretary Mike Russell is prepared to consider different approaches.
This relates to a plan put forward by a Scottish council to transfer responsibility for schools away from the authority itself to an arms-length company, which would have some form of community control. It's not the only local council that has considered this but the first to formally consult on the idea.
The supporting statement for this is that it is akin to the return of Scotland's parish school system of old and a chance for communities to take greater control of their schools, which will ultimately help raise standards.
It is certainly worth considering this. At a time when there are cuts coming in education it potentially saves money (such ventures may avoid some taxation) and potentially tackles some of the centralised bureaucracies which exist in various councils' education directorates, again freeing up some revenue.
So all well and good and something which should be pursued with vigour? Well perhaps, but it may not be as simple as that.
In theory it makes perfect sense to have important decisions about schools taken by the schools and surrounding communities. After all no central administration – whether local or national – can possibly account for every nuance of areas across Scotland.
So school X should be free to concentrate, for instance, on vocational courses whilst school Y turns its attentions to university-entry qualifications. And if this genuinely reflects what all pupils and their parents want then it can only be a good thing.
The problem comes when we look more closely at the issue of choice. Having stand-alone trust schools may help middle-class or aspirational parents, after all if you can choose for your child to attend such a school then it can only boost their academic chances.
However what happens to those pupils that cannot, whatever the reason, travel a great distance to one of these schools and are potentially then stuck in an area which has a school that will only focus on non-academic courses, making gaining a university place seem an unlikely event?
In effect this could lead to a return of an 11+ style system where pupils are pigeon holed at an early age on the type of job (and thus life) they may have. To some extent this is not the worst idea in the world; many pupils forced to sit academic courses end up causing disruption when there time could have been more positively used learning a skill or skills.
But if there is to be a choice it has to be one enjoyed by all pupils, not simply those whose parents can afford it e.g. what if you cannot afford to travel halfway across town to another school if you don’t qualify for free bus travel because you have chosen to bypass your local school?
Trust schools are worth examining, if only because there is a dearth of other new ideas about what can be done to help all pupils in Scottish schools, not least the bottom 20% that are the group which have generally not seen a major improvement in outcomes in the past decade.
For that reason it’s a good thing that the Scottish Government are open to new ideas. Giving pupils and their parents a choice and say in how schools are run may bring huge benefits, but it cannot be a benefit for some to the exclusion of others.
That’s the real test about whether or not we should put our ‘trust’ in these suggestions.
16 Feb 2010
New look
As promised earlier my new year's resolution to kick-start this blog remains ongoing.
Therefore, return readers will see the blog has had something of a makeover to try and freshen it up and add some new details. Hopefully more is to come too.
Again, any comments, suggestions or advice welcome. And another post will follow early tomorrow.
Therefore, return readers will see the blog has had something of a makeover to try and freshen it up and add some new details. Hopefully more is to come too.
Again, any comments, suggestions or advice welcome. And another post will follow early tomorrow.
13 Feb 2010
A full-ish feeling... - The Sweet
It's always good to leave a decent gap between your main course and sweet, particularly after such a full entrée. However it's now time to turn our attentions to the full range of delights approaching us on the oncoming cake trolley.
Having looked at what 'cash for dinners' will mean in terms of public reaction and as an indicator of how politicians tackle their opponents, it's worth considering the one point which has been entirely absent from discussions on this subject: namely that of how political parties should be funded.
Modern politics is not a cheap business. If there ever was a time when little old ladies would bake cakes to raise the bulk of money needed to run campaigns, and electioneering was restricted to going around doors with local volunteers then this is certainly only a small party of the story now.
Elections and the years in between them require political parties to raise serious money, which is then used to fund national advertising campaigns, call centres, professional staff and a range of other things.
There are various reasons for this. The overall decline in party members (taking a combined total membership of all parties) certainly generates this need. However social changes do to – the type of communities, workplaces and so on of the past and helped facilitate political campaigning simply no longer exist.
At the same time public expectations of what politics can deliver as well as other distractions e.g. compare TV stations available now compared with, say, 1970 mean that as a country we don’t pay as much attention to what our elected representatives say. So they have to do more to try and catch our eye, even if only for a brief period.
The way that they do this has changed too. Whilst political scandals have always existed they are now a main staple of our electoral menu. And the language and outrage raised in each has to rise significantly each time to attract any attention.
So a falling membership alongside other distractions makes modern politics crave funding to feed its publicity habit. And having politics in the public eye is no bad thing, how else can the public as a whole be expected to take part and make informed choices if they have no idea what each party stands for.
But where is this money coming from? Well we have Labour with trade unions, but also business. We have the Conservatives and big business, not least Lord Ashcroft. And even other parties such as the SNP have taken huge donations in the past. The idea however of selling off our political debate does worry many, and with good reason.
If parties are beholden to certain interests then their decision-making might not then be driven by what is right but rather what their sponsors want or are at least prepared to tolerate. This same point incidentally is true of newspapers that have an ever growing reliance on advertising revenues.
But what is the alternative? There is an economic idea that the way to change behaviour is to force a person or group into an unavoidable financial position e.g. they can no longer access previously relied upon money. This forces them to identify new ways of working, the most effective will lead to success and duplication, the less successful will fall by the wayside.
If all parties tomorrow were restricted to individual donations only, perhaps up to a maximum of £10,000, then politics as we know it would be transformed. The question is whether or not this change would benefit us.
It would instantly force parties to try and find new ways of campaigning, locally and nationally. It would certainly place a greater burden on those staff that are paid for by the public purse but work for politicians, creating a whole new field of potential controversy.
It may lead to a rise of political activism and interest. However it could also lead to even less informed and organised political parties, politicians themselves spending more time on this rather than policy (to the extent the currently happens anyway) and an electorate yet further removed from the people they choose to run the country.
The only alternative to all this is entirely unpalatable in any – and certainly this – financial climate: state funding of political parties. This would guarantee a certain level of revenue to parties and stop them relying on vested interests’ donations.
This would of course have to come with certain caveats. For instance it could only be used for certain purposes e.g. staffing but not media advertising. But the remote prospect of an electorate being prepared to tolerate this during a time when heavy public sector cuts are coming – or any politician being brave enough to suggest it – means it just isn’t going to happen.
Which brings us back to the start really. If we accept that political parties need money to campaign then they are going to have to raise it from somewhere - and sadly big business or trade unions are the only groups that can really afford this.
Given that politicians are never going to vote to restrict their parties to small individual donations only then we are sadly where we are. The one thing we can say with certainty is that ‘cash for dinners’ is not the first political/financial scandal to appear, and nor will it be the last.
Which is bit if bitter taste to leave when we are supposed to be having a sweet. Maybe it’s time to skip coffee and mints and just get the bill. Now, who’s paying...?
Having looked at what 'cash for dinners' will mean in terms of public reaction and as an indicator of how politicians tackle their opponents, it's worth considering the one point which has been entirely absent from discussions on this subject: namely that of how political parties should be funded.
Modern politics is not a cheap business. If there ever was a time when little old ladies would bake cakes to raise the bulk of money needed to run campaigns, and electioneering was restricted to going around doors with local volunteers then this is certainly only a small party of the story now.
Elections and the years in between them require political parties to raise serious money, which is then used to fund national advertising campaigns, call centres, professional staff and a range of other things.
There are various reasons for this. The overall decline in party members (taking a combined total membership of all parties) certainly generates this need. However social changes do to – the type of communities, workplaces and so on of the past and helped facilitate political campaigning simply no longer exist.
At the same time public expectations of what politics can deliver as well as other distractions e.g. compare TV stations available now compared with, say, 1970 mean that as a country we don’t pay as much attention to what our elected representatives say. So they have to do more to try and catch our eye, even if only for a brief period.
The way that they do this has changed too. Whilst political scandals have always existed they are now a main staple of our electoral menu. And the language and outrage raised in each has to rise significantly each time to attract any attention.
So a falling membership alongside other distractions makes modern politics crave funding to feed its publicity habit. And having politics in the public eye is no bad thing, how else can the public as a whole be expected to take part and make informed choices if they have no idea what each party stands for.
But where is this money coming from? Well we have Labour with trade unions, but also business. We have the Conservatives and big business, not least Lord Ashcroft. And even other parties such as the SNP have taken huge donations in the past. The idea however of selling off our political debate does worry many, and with good reason.
If parties are beholden to certain interests then their decision-making might not then be driven by what is right but rather what their sponsors want or are at least prepared to tolerate. This same point incidentally is true of newspapers that have an ever growing reliance on advertising revenues.
But what is the alternative? There is an economic idea that the way to change behaviour is to force a person or group into an unavoidable financial position e.g. they can no longer access previously relied upon money. This forces them to identify new ways of working, the most effective will lead to success and duplication, the less successful will fall by the wayside.
If all parties tomorrow were restricted to individual donations only, perhaps up to a maximum of £10,000, then politics as we know it would be transformed. The question is whether or not this change would benefit us.
It would instantly force parties to try and find new ways of campaigning, locally and nationally. It would certainly place a greater burden on those staff that are paid for by the public purse but work for politicians, creating a whole new field of potential controversy.
It may lead to a rise of political activism and interest. However it could also lead to even less informed and organised political parties, politicians themselves spending more time on this rather than policy (to the extent the currently happens anyway) and an electorate yet further removed from the people they choose to run the country.
The only alternative to all this is entirely unpalatable in any – and certainly this – financial climate: state funding of political parties. This would guarantee a certain level of revenue to parties and stop them relying on vested interests’ donations.
This would of course have to come with certain caveats. For instance it could only be used for certain purposes e.g. staffing but not media advertising. But the remote prospect of an electorate being prepared to tolerate this during a time when heavy public sector cuts are coming – or any politician being brave enough to suggest it – means it just isn’t going to happen.
Which brings us back to the start really. If we accept that political parties need money to campaign then they are going to have to raise it from somewhere - and sadly big business or trade unions are the only groups that can really afford this.
Given that politicians are never going to vote to restrict their parties to small individual donations only then we are sadly where we are. The one thing we can say with certainty is that ‘cash for dinners’ is not the first political/financial scandal to appear, and nor will it be the last.
Which is bit if bitter taste to leave when we are supposed to be having a sweet. Maybe it’s time to skip coffee and mints and just get the bill. Now, who’s paying...?
10 Feb 2010
A full-ish feeling... - The Main Course
Having allowed some time for the entrée to settle, we can now turn ourselves to the main course. In this case we will be chewing over the issue of what ‘cash for dinners’ says about the standard of political discourse in Scotland.
It’s worth considering if there is anything more determined (or sanctimonious) than a politician pursuing a rival over some perceived failing. It’s often the case that the less important the ‘scandal’ the greater the fervour that this is carried out with.
As such it is certain that the SNP’s political opponents will ensure that the ‘cash for dinners’ case continues to cause them problems and discomfort. Ultimately this is an approach all parties both suffer from and are guilty of.
The sheer coverage given to this affair is surely out of sync with the public’s feeling towards it (see previous comments). For all the apparent fury being expressed - and as ill-advised as the auction likely was - selling dinners at an SNP supporters' event for lunch in a public place hardly counts as Watergate.
However the SNP can hardly claim complete innocence in this regard. The glee that accompanied the SNP’s pursuit of Wendy Alexander, leading to her eventual resignation as Labour leader, over a similar scale mistake hardly grants them the high ground to complain of political trickery here.
The fact is that amongst all parties the old political adage if you’re not attacking then you’re losing is often taken to extremes. As such the attacks we read in the paper are often as likely to be because of an individual or party mistake as about real policy substance.
Basically everything has to be turned into a confrontation. It’s not enough to simply point out that not enough is being done to improve, say, education. Instead this has to be about a government or council’s “disgraceful complacency” or “complete disregard for our children”, or some other exaggerated and misplaced accusation.
Inasmuch as all parties do it you can perhaps just dismiss this as being part of politics, and to a point it is. However it is surely also carried out at the expense of public interest in politics.
The media have a tendency to focus on the simple, negative issue partly because this is a quick way to generate a headline. If all parties focus their energies on tripping up their opponents and painting them as evil then this is hardly likely to persuade people to see politicians in anything other than a cynical light.
Perhaps this is just human nature being carried out on a public and large scale. After all people can often be cruel about those they know or work with, it may simply be that politicians carry this a stage further because of the lure of victory if they can somehow wound or damage their opponents.
But like this whole ‘cash for dinners’ affair it does ultimately leave a bad taste in the mouth. And a growing shortage of willing voters at the polling station on Election Day.
It’s worth considering if there is anything more determined (or sanctimonious) than a politician pursuing a rival over some perceived failing. It’s often the case that the less important the ‘scandal’ the greater the fervour that this is carried out with.
As such it is certain that the SNP’s political opponents will ensure that the ‘cash for dinners’ case continues to cause them problems and discomfort. Ultimately this is an approach all parties both suffer from and are guilty of.
The sheer coverage given to this affair is surely out of sync with the public’s feeling towards it (see previous comments). For all the apparent fury being expressed - and as ill-advised as the auction likely was - selling dinners at an SNP supporters' event for lunch in a public place hardly counts as Watergate.
However the SNP can hardly claim complete innocence in this regard. The glee that accompanied the SNP’s pursuit of Wendy Alexander, leading to her eventual resignation as Labour leader, over a similar scale mistake hardly grants them the high ground to complain of political trickery here.
The fact is that amongst all parties the old political adage if you’re not attacking then you’re losing is often taken to extremes. As such the attacks we read in the paper are often as likely to be because of an individual or party mistake as about real policy substance.
Basically everything has to be turned into a confrontation. It’s not enough to simply point out that not enough is being done to improve, say, education. Instead this has to be about a government or council’s “disgraceful complacency” or “complete disregard for our children”, or some other exaggerated and misplaced accusation.
Inasmuch as all parties do it you can perhaps just dismiss this as being part of politics, and to a point it is. However it is surely also carried out at the expense of public interest in politics.
The media have a tendency to focus on the simple, negative issue partly because this is a quick way to generate a headline. If all parties focus their energies on tripping up their opponents and painting them as evil then this is hardly likely to persuade people to see politicians in anything other than a cynical light.
Perhaps this is just human nature being carried out on a public and large scale. After all people can often be cruel about those they know or work with, it may simply be that politicians carry this a stage further because of the lure of victory if they can somehow wound or damage their opponents.
But like this whole ‘cash for dinners’ affair it does ultimately leave a bad taste in the mouth. And a growing shortage of willing voters at the polling station on Election Day.
9 Feb 2010
A full-ish feeling... – The Entrée
As noted earlier, the usual length of my posts mean that it’s easier to break down my thoughts on ‘cash for dinners’ into thee parts. We’ll start, as is the custom, with the entrée of public opinion…
How are the public likely to view this story? In part it depends how closely they read the details.
Some people will obviously get into the full account of what happened and make their judgement accordingly. Given that there is no suggestion of a cover up or public money being abused it is unlikely this will be too damaging for the SNP.
However the problem the SNP face is that most people will not scrutinise this story that closely, instead they will just hear the headline and main points (“cash for access”, etc) and that is a viewpoint from which the party’s actions will not be viewed favourably.
Particularly in the current climate, politicians being linked with financial ‘scandals’ is never going to play well. The only potential ‘bright’ spot for this for the SNP is that most of the electorate already view politicians with cynicism and the suspicion of corruption (not least following some MPs being charged over expenses misuse).
In other words, if you already think that all politicians are dishonest then even if you take the worst possible interpretation of the SNP’s actions, it really just lumps them in with everyone else.
It is surely unlikely given all recent political scandals that anyone who was angry at the SNP would punish them by voting for another mainstream party. It may be just be the Apathy Party will see yet another increase in their support. The main damage to the SNP is dragging them into the mire and making it difficult for them to take the moral high ground on similar issues in future.
However as long as there are no further revelations then surely this story will eventually fade. The journey to that point however may be an uncomfortable one for the SNP, even if in the long-term there's no fatal wound inflicted.
Tomorrow, the main course, specifically what this issue tells us about the way politicians treat and take on their opponents.
How are the public likely to view this story? In part it depends how closely they read the details.
Some people will obviously get into the full account of what happened and make their judgement accordingly. Given that there is no suggestion of a cover up or public money being abused it is unlikely this will be too damaging for the SNP.
However the problem the SNP face is that most people will not scrutinise this story that closely, instead they will just hear the headline and main points (“cash for access”, etc) and that is a viewpoint from which the party’s actions will not be viewed favourably.
Particularly in the current climate, politicians being linked with financial ‘scandals’ is never going to play well. The only potential ‘bright’ spot for this for the SNP is that most of the electorate already view politicians with cynicism and the suspicion of corruption (not least following some MPs being charged over expenses misuse).
In other words, if you already think that all politicians are dishonest then even if you take the worst possible interpretation of the SNP’s actions, it really just lumps them in with everyone else.
It is surely unlikely given all recent political scandals that anyone who was angry at the SNP would punish them by voting for another mainstream party. It may be just be the Apathy Party will see yet another increase in their support. The main damage to the SNP is dragging them into the mire and making it difficult for them to take the moral high ground on similar issues in future.
However as long as there are no further revelations then surely this story will eventually fade. The journey to that point however may be an uncomfortable one for the SNP, even if in the long-term there's no fatal wound inflicted.
Tomorrow, the main course, specifically what this issue tells us about the way politicians treat and take on their opponents.
8 Feb 2010
A full-ish feeling...
It's highly unusual for someone to get indigestion before they have lunch but that must surely be how the SNP leadership are feeling over the 'cash for dinners' affair.
The political and media reaction to this will of course take care of itself. It gives political opponents the chance to make life exceptionally uncomfortable for the SNP. And it gives the media something to write about. Parliamentary investigations will only further protract this story.
However away from the immediate (and often contrived) outrage it’s worth asking three questions which appear to have been avoided thus far:
• What is the public reaction likely to be?
• What does this tell us about how politicians treat each other?
• And what does it say about the way political parties are funded?
Given the usual length of my posts it seems easier to break this down into three parts: the entrée, the main course and the sweet if you like. They are to follow.
The political and media reaction to this will of course take care of itself. It gives political opponents the chance to make life exceptionally uncomfortable for the SNP. And it gives the media something to write about. Parliamentary investigations will only further protract this story.
However away from the immediate (and often contrived) outrage it’s worth asking three questions which appear to have been avoided thus far:
• What is the public reaction likely to be?
• What does this tell us about how politicians treat each other?
• And what does it say about the way political parties are funded?
Given the usual length of my posts it seems easier to break this down into three parts: the entrée, the main course and the sweet if you like. They are to follow.
5 Feb 2010
Dictionaries and budget planning
Dictionary definition of Priority:
1. the state or quality of being earlier in time, occurrence, etc.
2. the right to precede others in order, rank, privilege, etc.
3. the right to take precedence in obtaining certain supplies, etc.
5. highest or higher in importance, rank, privilege, etc.
Nowhere does the definition of priority extend to covering a multitude of issues at the same, each being treated with the same level of importance as the other. However this may be a fact often lost in politics.
As the Scottish Government sets up a body whose job it is to be to scrutinise every last penny of public spending to determine where savings can be made, let's hope they bear in mind the description of priority.
Let us similarly hope that the Scottish Government (and any other parties that may contribute to such discussions) actually have in mind some genuine priorities when they do so. Too often it seems that rather than pick a small number of issues which can actually take priority, politicians just say everything is important.
This is not a semantic complaint. Even in good economic times there is only so much money available to support public services and making meaningful changes to important issues such as health, education, housing, transport, the environment, policing and so on requires a great deal of time and money.
By saying everything is a priority and spreading the money around evenly, the reality is that no change or improvement of substance is really likely to be achieved. Only by focusing time, energy and - most importantly - money can ministers genuinely bring about substantive reforms.
Given the economic times we are in it is sensible for ministers to look at everything we spend to decide exactly where cuts or protected areas must be, rather than vaguely talking about financial implications but never specifying them.
However what is the potential political fall out to this, and thus how effective is this group likely to be?
The first and most obvious point is that in times of economic strife, when you have to cut basic services, it is not the time to be implementing projects such as fully scrapping prescription charges and free school meals.
This is not to say that these are entirely undesirable, simply that extending these rights to people that can (in most cases) afford to pay for them at the same time as you may have to cut essential services to some of society's poorest and most vulnerable does not make sense.
The Scottish Government may even see the sense of this but it is difficult to see them following through on it. The main cry of the opposition parties since the SNP's election has been "broken promises". To now back out of their remaining election pledges which can still be fulfilled in this parliament would be a form of political suicide the SNP are surely not going to take.
But that does then question the extent to which this "Independent Budget Review" is likely to offer any real impact, if certain policies, promises or current spending is off the table.
In reality there is an onus on all sides involved in budgetary discussions and disputes over the coming months. Whichever party was in power just now would be facing tough financial choices and in that regard it ill behoves any opposition party to just complain about any spending change, somehow suggesting they would never have done any such thing.
Equally there is also a responsibility on the Scottish Government to accept that it has an obligation to set out priorities for spending and also to be big enough to accept that certain things it once promised (whether or not they were ever feasible or desirable) are not possible in the current climate.
Since devolution there have been huge increases in the total budget that Holyrood has control of. And partly because of this there has never been any real attempt or desire to examine whether or not money was being spent effectively and on the most important things.
This all has to change. If we accept that we can only spend a pound once and have a huge number of challenges then we must begin to genuinely prioritise. That means pick a small number of issues we want to focus all our resources and energies on, and accept some things will have to lose out.
This is obviously unpalatable in many ways. But it's also the only responsible way to govern if we actually want to improve any of those things we describe as 'priorities'. And any politician wondering about the real definition of this just has to click the link at the top of the page.
1. the state or quality of being earlier in time, occurrence, etc.
2. the right to precede others in order, rank, privilege, etc.
3. the right to take precedence in obtaining certain supplies, etc.
5. highest or higher in importance, rank, privilege, etc.
Nowhere does the definition of priority extend to covering a multitude of issues at the same, each being treated with the same level of importance as the other. However this may be a fact often lost in politics.
As the Scottish Government sets up a body whose job it is to be to scrutinise every last penny of public spending to determine where savings can be made, let's hope they bear in mind the description of priority.
Let us similarly hope that the Scottish Government (and any other parties that may contribute to such discussions) actually have in mind some genuine priorities when they do so. Too often it seems that rather than pick a small number of issues which can actually take priority, politicians just say everything is important.
This is not a semantic complaint. Even in good economic times there is only so much money available to support public services and making meaningful changes to important issues such as health, education, housing, transport, the environment, policing and so on requires a great deal of time and money.
By saying everything is a priority and spreading the money around evenly, the reality is that no change or improvement of substance is really likely to be achieved. Only by focusing time, energy and - most importantly - money can ministers genuinely bring about substantive reforms.
Given the economic times we are in it is sensible for ministers to look at everything we spend to decide exactly where cuts or protected areas must be, rather than vaguely talking about financial implications but never specifying them.
However what is the potential political fall out to this, and thus how effective is this group likely to be?
The first and most obvious point is that in times of economic strife, when you have to cut basic services, it is not the time to be implementing projects such as fully scrapping prescription charges and free school meals.
This is not to say that these are entirely undesirable, simply that extending these rights to people that can (in most cases) afford to pay for them at the same time as you may have to cut essential services to some of society's poorest and most vulnerable does not make sense.
The Scottish Government may even see the sense of this but it is difficult to see them following through on it. The main cry of the opposition parties since the SNP's election has been "broken promises". To now back out of their remaining election pledges which can still be fulfilled in this parliament would be a form of political suicide the SNP are surely not going to take.
But that does then question the extent to which this "Independent Budget Review" is likely to offer any real impact, if certain policies, promises or current spending is off the table.
In reality there is an onus on all sides involved in budgetary discussions and disputes over the coming months. Whichever party was in power just now would be facing tough financial choices and in that regard it ill behoves any opposition party to just complain about any spending change, somehow suggesting they would never have done any such thing.
Equally there is also a responsibility on the Scottish Government to accept that it has an obligation to set out priorities for spending and also to be big enough to accept that certain things it once promised (whether or not they were ever feasible or desirable) are not possible in the current climate.
Since devolution there have been huge increases in the total budget that Holyrood has control of. And partly because of this there has never been any real attempt or desire to examine whether or not money was being spent effectively and on the most important things.
This all has to change. If we accept that we can only spend a pound once and have a huge number of challenges then we must begin to genuinely prioritise. That means pick a small number of issues we want to focus all our resources and energies on, and accept some things will have to lose out.
This is obviously unpalatable in many ways. But it's also the only responsible way to govern if we actually want to improve any of those things we describe as 'priorities'. And any politician wondering about the real definition of this just has to click the link at the top of the page.
4 Feb 2010
Back to blogging
Anyone who's visited here in the last few days will have noticed a slight change in the blog's look and format.
As part of a (belated) new year's resolution I am going to aim to start this up in a meaningful way again.
So as well as aiming for at least a post a week I will look to possibly make further changes to the blog's look.
We'll see how it all goes, but this is the plan anyway.
p.s. This decision is no way due to feeling left out after not making the top 25 Scottish Politics blog lost in the Scottish Roundup vote due to my recent lack of blogging action...
p.p.s. If you've any comments, suggestions or tips on how to update this blog, please feel free to get in touch.
As part of a (belated) new year's resolution I am going to aim to start this up in a meaningful way again.
So as well as aiming for at least a post a week I will look to possibly make further changes to the blog's look.
We'll see how it all goes, but this is the plan anyway.
p.s. This decision is no way due to feeling left out after not making the top 25 Scottish Politics blog lost in the Scottish Roundup vote due to my recent lack of blogging action...
p.p.s. If you've any comments, suggestions or tips on how to update this blog, please feel free to get in touch.
