In spite of the accepted and understood importance of giving blood only around 4% of the UK population actually do so and it's especially needed at this time of the year. A politician has a suggestion to improve this.
Rhoda Grant MSP has proposed that employers should give their staff paid time off to go and donate blood. As well intentioned as this is and whilst this might help in some ways it says something sad about our society.
Giving blood regularly is of course inconvenient - anything which takes you out of your normal routine and journey will obviously do this. And as noted here before the options to donate could be improved.
However as a society we have to look first at ourselves and ask if we do everything possible to help other people - or indeed possibly ourselves. Who knows when we or a family member may desperately need this?
At a time when budgets in the public and private sector are being cut it is asking too much for employers to pay more for something that people could ultimately choose to do themselves.
Every time we relinquish our own responsibility to do something and either rely on government or instead ask what's in it for us we hurt ourselves as a society.
This issue is symptomatic of problems we face elsewhere. How often do people demand that "something should be done" about diverse issues such as clearing snow, youth clubs or so many other matters? But who then is prepared to step up to the plate themselves?
There used to be a campaign to encourage blood donation which said that you wouldn't expect to get anything out a bank that you hadn't paid in to. In other words if you want to get blood in time of emergency you should also donate it.
At a time of year where giving and receiving gifts - many of them unnecessary - it should not be asking too much of us to think about giving people the ultimate gift. The inconvenience of taking an hour out of your day should be balanced by the thought that you are literally saving lives.
And we should stop always expecting someone else to do things for us, or else only act if we get something in return.
30 Dec 2010
23 Dec 2010
Have Cable and Co. killed PR?
Of all the policies they want to see enacted, unquestionably the Holy Grail for the Liberal Democrats is voting reform. It’s worth asking if the past few days have ended the chances of this happening.
The one obvious ‘benefit’ the Liberal Democrats secured from the Coalition Agreement with the Conservatives was to have a referendum on introducing a mild form of proportional representation (PR), the Alternative Vote.
For all the arguments for and against PR, supporters and those opposed generally agree on one thing: they will result in more coalition governments as votes and so parliamentary seats are more evenly shared between parties.
However the past few days may have began to suggest to the public that coalition government cannot work and is inherently a ‘bad thing’. Whilst it's still true that no member of the public will be shocked at news politicians disagree, constant fall outs and public disputeswithin government help no-one.
So how might the electorate then react? There have already been suggestions that they will vote against the Alternative Vote in next May’s referendum as a protest against what they see as Liberal Democrat betrayals since joining the coalition.
However media stories of the past few days that many Liberal Democrats are going along with policies they hate simply to stay in government will surely further alienate the public. And this must then be an extra nail in PR’s coffin.
If the instability we currently see – albeit one which could be a temporary Christmas story and then disappear once we are into 2011 – is going to be more regularly repeated and indeed magnified in future coalitions then the public may wish to stop them happening.
The most obvious way to do this is reject a system which makes it more likely, and then potentially revert back to two-party politics at the next General Election, giving one party a decisive mandate.
‘Be careful what you wish for’ is an old saying warning people that what they want may not be what they need. The Lib Dems entering government as a coalition with the Conservatives at this time may be an excellent example of this in practice.
If it ends up costing them voting reform it may be an action they never forgive themselves – or Nick Clegg and Vince Cable – for.
The one obvious ‘benefit’ the Liberal Democrats secured from the Coalition Agreement with the Conservatives was to have a referendum on introducing a mild form of proportional representation (PR), the Alternative Vote.
For all the arguments for and against PR, supporters and those opposed generally agree on one thing: they will result in more coalition governments as votes and so parliamentary seats are more evenly shared between parties.
However the past few days may have began to suggest to the public that coalition government cannot work and is inherently a ‘bad thing’. Whilst it's still true that no member of the public will be shocked at news politicians disagree, constant fall outs and public disputeswithin government help no-one.
So how might the electorate then react? There have already been suggestions that they will vote against the Alternative Vote in next May’s referendum as a protest against what they see as Liberal Democrat betrayals since joining the coalition.
However media stories of the past few days that many Liberal Democrats are going along with policies they hate simply to stay in government will surely further alienate the public. And this must then be an extra nail in PR’s coffin.
If the instability we currently see – albeit one which could be a temporary Christmas story and then disappear once we are into 2011 – is going to be more regularly repeated and indeed magnified in future coalitions then the public may wish to stop them happening.
The most obvious way to do this is reject a system which makes it more likely, and then potentially revert back to two-party politics at the next General Election, giving one party a decisive mandate.
‘Be careful what you wish for’ is an old saying warning people that what they want may not be what they need. The Lib Dems entering government as a coalition with the Conservatives at this time may be an excellent example of this in practice.
If it ends up costing them voting reform it may be an action they never forgive themselves – or Nick Clegg and Vince Cable – for.
22 Dec 2010
What has the Daily Telegraph told us about government?
Big revelations in today's Daily Telegraph: apparently not all politicians get on and many of them even disagree from time to time.
Of course stories about government disagreements are much more serious than that with several Liberal Democrat ministers – notably Vince Cable – criticising many of the policies that they have voted for.
Whilst these statements are now very public they of course were not meant to be so. Each minister believed they were speaking to constituents rather than undercover reporters from the Telegraph.
There will of course be debates about the ethics of this journalistic approach but the purpose of this post is to consider what it actually reveals about the realities of government.
As hinted at in the slightly facetious introduction it is worth remembering that much of what has been printed is not all that surprising: to find that politicians disagree, especially those from different political parties forced together in coalition, will hardly shock the public.
Where this is different is that whilst we might know all these things this is the first time they have been so publicly expressed, in a manner which is generally embarrassing for those that were doing the talking.
If the Telegraph are criticised for the way they got this story they might reasonably respond that the public have a right to know; if government politicians disagree with much of what they are doing then surely we should be aware of this?
However what is the logical conclusion of all this? Governments stand or fall by their ability to defend the actions they have taken – if we say disagreements are not possible then we are effectively saying government is not possible.
What would happen if we did not have collective responsibility in government but instead open disagreements? Whilst it would be nice to think that this would lead to mature and sensible discussions of all policy options would this really happen?
Instead we would surely have day after day of ‘government divided’ stories and so on, with the public growing ever more disenchanted from politics and believing the current government to be incompetent and unstable.
It’s hard to know who’s to blame for this: the media or politicians. Each can legitimately put some blame at the other’s door; if politicians were more open and honest they’d be harder to criticise, if the media were less sensationalist then rational debate could take place.
The Telegraph have written this story because of the obvious divisions in a coalition government but of course these differences of opinion would be true of a one-party government too, albeit that ministers may not then try and distance themselves from their own policies.
Perhaps the Lib Dems deserve some of this bad publicity because they are trying to have it both ways: being in government but then saying to their own voters that they don’t agree with everything and are still deserving of their support and, more importantly, their vote.
This decision largely depends whether or not you believe that doing things in government you don’t agree with shows a necessary and laudable pragmatism worthy of future political support, or is a sell-out which means you’ll never trust those politicians again.
Perhaps it boils down to this: when we go to vote we don’t do so based on what the government wanted to do but rather what it actually did. Once a policy is introduced or a decision taken then that's what the whole government should be judged on, whatever their own private opinions.
Of course stories about government disagreements are much more serious than that with several Liberal Democrat ministers – notably Vince Cable – criticising many of the policies that they have voted for.
Whilst these statements are now very public they of course were not meant to be so. Each minister believed they were speaking to constituents rather than undercover reporters from the Telegraph.
There will of course be debates about the ethics of this journalistic approach but the purpose of this post is to consider what it actually reveals about the realities of government.
As hinted at in the slightly facetious introduction it is worth remembering that much of what has been printed is not all that surprising: to find that politicians disagree, especially those from different political parties forced together in coalition, will hardly shock the public.
Where this is different is that whilst we might know all these things this is the first time they have been so publicly expressed, in a manner which is generally embarrassing for those that were doing the talking.
If the Telegraph are criticised for the way they got this story they might reasonably respond that the public have a right to know; if government politicians disagree with much of what they are doing then surely we should be aware of this?
However what is the logical conclusion of all this? Governments stand or fall by their ability to defend the actions they have taken – if we say disagreements are not possible then we are effectively saying government is not possible.
What would happen if we did not have collective responsibility in government but instead open disagreements? Whilst it would be nice to think that this would lead to mature and sensible discussions of all policy options would this really happen?
Instead we would surely have day after day of ‘government divided’ stories and so on, with the public growing ever more disenchanted from politics and believing the current government to be incompetent and unstable.
It’s hard to know who’s to blame for this: the media or politicians. Each can legitimately put some blame at the other’s door; if politicians were more open and honest they’d be harder to criticise, if the media were less sensationalist then rational debate could take place.
The Telegraph have written this story because of the obvious divisions in a coalition government but of course these differences of opinion would be true of a one-party government too, albeit that ministers may not then try and distance themselves from their own policies.
Perhaps the Lib Dems deserve some of this bad publicity because they are trying to have it both ways: being in government but then saying to their own voters that they don’t agree with everything and are still deserving of their support and, more importantly, their vote.
This decision largely depends whether or not you believe that doing things in government you don’t agree with shows a necessary and laudable pragmatism worthy of future political support, or is a sell-out which means you’ll never trust those politicians again.
Perhaps it boils down to this: when we go to vote we don’t do so based on what the government wanted to do but rather what it actually did. Once a policy is introduced or a decision taken then that's what the whole government should be judged on, whatever their own private opinions.
21 Dec 2010
Are political gestures necessary?
Every Christmas needs its Scrooge characters so Aberdeen City Council (ACC) can play this role after their threat to either cut workers' wages by 5% or face compulsory redundancies.
Of course the issue is obviously much more complex than that. The council's position is simple: they say they don't have enough money because of the recession and so are simply reflecting financial realities, not least those which have already hit the private sector.
In many ways it's hard to argue with that. If you reduce it to household expenses, if your wages go down then you clearly cannot spend as much money (or even more) than before. Councils are no different, and not just Aberdeen.
What's interesting is that - so far at least - there has been no demands for a reciprocal response i.e. if workers are to be laid off and have their wages reduced, why should councillors not do likewise?
Ultimately this would be a fairly meaningless gesture; the amount of money it would save would not come close to having a substantial impact in preventing council cuts.
However it's worth wondering whether this would in any way assuage ACC workers; if they believed those making the decisions were equally affected it may be easier to take.
Or would it? This takes us to the heart of whether political gestures work or not. If you are facing a wage cut or job loss would it make any difference to know that others are in the same boat as you.
Aberdeen councillors may of course point out that such decisions are not up to them; the number of councillors and wages they receive are set based on national formulas, individual councils cannot decide to change any of these details.
Still there would be nothing to stop ACC calling for this on a national basis, following an earlier play freeze. Most councillors earn the basic £15,000 so would be unaffected (the 5% pay cut plans affect only those earning £21,000 or more); however senior councillors such as the leader would be.
The point of asking this blog post's question is simply that political gestures have been high on the agenda recently, is it possible and even desirable to take this a stage further?
Gestures are most easily accepted when they seem genuine and will have a material impact on those making them. ACC councillors (and any other in this position) simply saying they wanted to make such a cut but couldn't would rightly be dismissed by workers.
However if the gesture became hard action i.e. councillors earning enough were to lose the same proportion of their wages, it may be enough to remind staff that it's not simply them being targeted.
What gestures do show - certainly the type mentioned above - is an empathy which reflects the general political mood that "we're all in this together"; whether they would make ACC workers feel better or not is up for debate.
Of course the issue is obviously much more complex than that. The council's position is simple: they say they don't have enough money because of the recession and so are simply reflecting financial realities, not least those which have already hit the private sector.
In many ways it's hard to argue with that. If you reduce it to household expenses, if your wages go down then you clearly cannot spend as much money (or even more) than before. Councils are no different, and not just Aberdeen.
What's interesting is that - so far at least - there has been no demands for a reciprocal response i.e. if workers are to be laid off and have their wages reduced, why should councillors not do likewise?
Ultimately this would be a fairly meaningless gesture; the amount of money it would save would not come close to having a substantial impact in preventing council cuts.
However it's worth wondering whether this would in any way assuage ACC workers; if they believed those making the decisions were equally affected it may be easier to take.
Or would it? This takes us to the heart of whether political gestures work or not. If you are facing a wage cut or job loss would it make any difference to know that others are in the same boat as you.
Aberdeen councillors may of course point out that such decisions are not up to them; the number of councillors and wages they receive are set based on national formulas, individual councils cannot decide to change any of these details.
Still there would be nothing to stop ACC calling for this on a national basis, following an earlier play freeze. Most councillors earn the basic £15,000 so would be unaffected (the 5% pay cut plans affect only those earning £21,000 or more); however senior councillors such as the leader would be.
The point of asking this blog post's question is simply that political gestures have been high on the agenda recently, is it possible and even desirable to take this a stage further?
Gestures are most easily accepted when they seem genuine and will have a material impact on those making them. ACC councillors (and any other in this position) simply saying they wanted to make such a cut but couldn't would rightly be dismissed by workers.
However if the gesture became hard action i.e. councillors earning enough were to lose the same proportion of their wages, it may be enough to remind staff that it's not simply them being targeted.
What gestures do show - certainly the type mentioned above - is an empathy which reflects the general political mood that "we're all in this together"; whether they would make ACC workers feel better or not is up for debate.
17 Dec 2010
The Bigger Picture
The next few weeks should be interesting ones across Scotland’s public services and see some unusual faces getting their hands dirty.
The Education Secretary will be patrolling classrooms and corridors checking for bad behaviour. The Health Secretary will be looking out their mop and bucket to make sure that our hospitals are as clean as they can be.
Of course these situations are not going to happen but it’s worth asking why not, given the fact the country’s new Transport Minister Keith Brown spent the night at Transport Scotland’s headquarters monitoring what turned out to be relatively minor weather problems.
Keith Brown’s choice of evening location this week was of course a media stunt, and an understandable one at that. His predecessor lost his job over his perceived lack of control during previous bad weather so Brown’s overnight location should prevent him suffering the same fate.
However this action does raise the legitimate query of what exactly we elect politicians for, something which is not considered often enough but is an extremely important question.
Traditionally government (local or national) was run along these lines: politicians were elected to oversee the administration’s general direction, civil servants and officials were employed to then put these ideas into practice.
However in recent times it seems this is no longer enough, government ministers are now apparently expected to control every single aspect of their department, and not just in Scotland.
The Home Secretary Theresa May – who’s only been in power for around six months – was asked at a parliamentary committee this week if she had considered resigning after Prince Charles’ car was attacked during last week’s student protests.
It’s hard to express the lunacy of this. The notion that politicians can or should be in control of every single operational decision which technically falls under their purview is simply wrong, and entirely impossible.
The logical conclusion of this is that we will have to install new ministers on a tri-daily basis because somewhere in the labyrinth of their responsibilities must have been made a mistake which is newsworthy and so resignation-worthy too.
The job of politicians should surely be about the bigger picture; setting a general vision and policy agenda and then ensuring that progress is made towards this, including having adequate funds available.
If a policy agenda turns out to be the wrong one or if a monumental mistake is made that the minister could reasonably have foreseen and prevented then of course resignation is a valid course of action. Otherwise it’s a nonsense.
It’s debatable why this situation exists. Is it the fact that we have a 24-hour media with huge story space to fill, meaning any problem will be magnified? Is it part of a general social shift towards responsibility and having someone to blame? Or is it another factor?
One thing is clear, the outcome is that we no longer consider the long-term but instead focus on a day-to-day basis. And this can only be a bad thing for national politicians.
Of course politicians by definition will look to the next election - or indeed merely next day's headlines. But this merely creates the 'I'm better than you' level of debate we are often subjected to, rather than considered plans for how to improve the country-at-large.
A good example of this is unemployment statistics. When released earlier this week they showed that unemployment had fallen slightly in Scotland. Cue celebrations from the government - a government which has been in for such a short period they cannot possibly take genuine credit for this.
However it's also certain that had these figures risen then we would equally hear attacks on the government for their failure. This is obviously just as wrong as the government claiming that they are already responsible for reducing unemployment.
The reality is that almost any government action or inaction will not be felt over a short period of time, it's only in the long-term that we can see their successes or otherwise. And whilst it's understandable these things will be monitored it does not help if the only politicians end up caring about is short-term publicity and stunts.
The people best placed to deal with issues on a short-term basis are the well-paid officials and experts who do this all the time. Having politicians 'swoop in' to fix perceived failings - especially if those politicians really have little technical expertise - is not likely to actually solve problems, merely create the illusion of doing so.
In other words, national politicians should not be dealing with small details but rather focusing on the bigger picture. Assuming the weather’s clear and they can actually see it of course.
The Education Secretary will be patrolling classrooms and corridors checking for bad behaviour. The Health Secretary will be looking out their mop and bucket to make sure that our hospitals are as clean as they can be.
Of course these situations are not going to happen but it’s worth asking why not, given the fact the country’s new Transport Minister Keith Brown spent the night at Transport Scotland’s headquarters monitoring what turned out to be relatively minor weather problems.
Keith Brown’s choice of evening location this week was of course a media stunt, and an understandable one at that. His predecessor lost his job over his perceived lack of control during previous bad weather so Brown’s overnight location should prevent him suffering the same fate.
However this action does raise the legitimate query of what exactly we elect politicians for, something which is not considered often enough but is an extremely important question.
Traditionally government (local or national) was run along these lines: politicians were elected to oversee the administration’s general direction, civil servants and officials were employed to then put these ideas into practice.
However in recent times it seems this is no longer enough, government ministers are now apparently expected to control every single aspect of their department, and not just in Scotland.
The Home Secretary Theresa May – who’s only been in power for around six months – was asked at a parliamentary committee this week if she had considered resigning after Prince Charles’ car was attacked during last week’s student protests.
It’s hard to express the lunacy of this. The notion that politicians can or should be in control of every single operational decision which technically falls under their purview is simply wrong, and entirely impossible.
The logical conclusion of this is that we will have to install new ministers on a tri-daily basis because somewhere in the labyrinth of their responsibilities must have been made a mistake which is newsworthy and so resignation-worthy too.
The job of politicians should surely be about the bigger picture; setting a general vision and policy agenda and then ensuring that progress is made towards this, including having adequate funds available.
If a policy agenda turns out to be the wrong one or if a monumental mistake is made that the minister could reasonably have foreseen and prevented then of course resignation is a valid course of action. Otherwise it’s a nonsense.
It’s debatable why this situation exists. Is it the fact that we have a 24-hour media with huge story space to fill, meaning any problem will be magnified? Is it part of a general social shift towards responsibility and having someone to blame? Or is it another factor?
One thing is clear, the outcome is that we no longer consider the long-term but instead focus on a day-to-day basis. And this can only be a bad thing for national politicians.
Of course politicians by definition will look to the next election - or indeed merely next day's headlines. But this merely creates the 'I'm better than you' level of debate we are often subjected to, rather than considered plans for how to improve the country-at-large.
A good example of this is unemployment statistics. When released earlier this week they showed that unemployment had fallen slightly in Scotland. Cue celebrations from the government - a government which has been in for such a short period they cannot possibly take genuine credit for this.
However it's also certain that had these figures risen then we would equally hear attacks on the government for their failure. This is obviously just as wrong as the government claiming that they are already responsible for reducing unemployment.
The reality is that almost any government action or inaction will not be felt over a short period of time, it's only in the long-term that we can see their successes or otherwise. And whilst it's understandable these things will be monitored it does not help if the only politicians end up caring about is short-term publicity and stunts.
The people best placed to deal with issues on a short-term basis are the well-paid officials and experts who do this all the time. Having politicians 'swoop in' to fix perceived failings - especially if those politicians really have little technical expertise - is not likely to actually solve problems, merely create the illusion of doing so.
In other words, national politicians should not be dealing with small details but rather focusing on the bigger picture. Assuming the weather’s clear and they can actually see it of course.
11 Dec 2010
Can politicians say sorry too often?
It’s an oft-repeated mantra that politicians never apologise. One reason many mistrust the political classes is the belief that they always refuse responsibility and will not ever own up when they do wrong.
In fact this is largely untrue. Quite often politicians and other people in public life will say sorry if they make some sort of mistake. However these apologies are usually forgotten either because people are still angry or media stories really only continue when an apology isn’t forthcoming.
For much of the current Scottish Government’s time in power they have been criticised for arrogance and other charges of never admitting when they get something wrong or fail to deliver on some form of pledge. However this certainly cannot be said of the past few days.
From a government previously accused of refusing to apologise has come so many ‘sorrys’ and regrets that it’s been hard to keep up. First Finance Minister John Swinney apologised for allowing the Parliament’s tax powers to subside, a mea culpa quickly supported by the First Minister too.
Now this week we had Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson apologising for the travel chaos caused by snow and ice on the roads and railways, a repentance echoed by the First Minister. This is a good example of a story dragging on until the minister was prepared to apologise for his department’s perceived shortcomings.
We also had a half-apology with John Swinney - or at least a reversed decision - as he changed his mind over his previous decision to only provide one year of spending plans to Parliament, rather than the usual three.
An apology can be a powerful thing. Used wisely it can disarm a potentially serious and explosive political issue and end the need for inquiries or resignations. In short – as noted above – it can often kill stories stone dead, which is why the public often fail to remember when such acts of contrition are made.
However is it possible to do this too often? A government which is forced to give a large number of apologies or change its mind on a diverse range of issues in a short period of time is clearly one which is facing numerous challenges and problems.
A successful and strong government will ride effortlessly over the waves caused by problems; the fact that they appear so dominant is what carries them through. However if this government loses its way and no longer has the success and momentum it once did, seemingly small stories can cause them untold woe.
It’s not that the public really cares either way. If you have faced some problems because of the government (or at least believe it’s because of them) an apology is really going to resolve your issue, merely perhaps make you feel a bit better. Apologies are really ways of preventing ongoing attacks from your opponents or the media.
Nevertheless where repeated apologies might influence public opinion is simply when the belief begins to arise that a government is struggling and possibly running out of ideas. When the SNP were first elected and for long after they were seen as almost untouchable and in real command of the country; opinion polls suggest this is no longer the case,
There may of course be numerous reasons. Most obviously perhaps it’s in part due to issues such as the recession leading to unavoidable public spending cuts, something which is obviously never popular. However the growing number of apologies that ministers feel the need to make will not help recreate any sense of momentum or success.
As above, apologies are an important part of political and public life, and whatever the public or media might believe, they do often happen when someone has made some form of error, or at least appears to have done so. But their use has to be rationed to be truly effective.
People making apologies day-after-day will achieve two things. Firstly, and obviously, the give an appearance of incompetence if so many mistakes are being made. Secondly however they suggest an administration which has lost its momentum and so is being swamped by negative issues they cannot bat away.
A West Wing-ism is that in politics if you’re not on the offence you’re on the defence; in other words if you’re not out there positively selling your record or putting your opponents under pressure, then it means you must be the one under pressure and attack.
Governments that can get themselves out of this position get re-elected. Governments that can’t, don’t. That’s the simple and stark challenge now facing the SNP.
In fact this is largely untrue. Quite often politicians and other people in public life will say sorry if they make some sort of mistake. However these apologies are usually forgotten either because people are still angry or media stories really only continue when an apology isn’t forthcoming.
For much of the current Scottish Government’s time in power they have been criticised for arrogance and other charges of never admitting when they get something wrong or fail to deliver on some form of pledge. However this certainly cannot be said of the past few days.
From a government previously accused of refusing to apologise has come so many ‘sorrys’ and regrets that it’s been hard to keep up. First Finance Minister John Swinney apologised for allowing the Parliament’s tax powers to subside, a mea culpa quickly supported by the First Minister too.
Now this week we had Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson apologising for the travel chaos caused by snow and ice on the roads and railways, a repentance echoed by the First Minister. This is a good example of a story dragging on until the minister was prepared to apologise for his department’s perceived shortcomings.
We also had a half-apology with John Swinney - or at least a reversed decision - as he changed his mind over his previous decision to only provide one year of spending plans to Parliament, rather than the usual three.
An apology can be a powerful thing. Used wisely it can disarm a potentially serious and explosive political issue and end the need for inquiries or resignations. In short – as noted above – it can often kill stories stone dead, which is why the public often fail to remember when such acts of contrition are made.
However is it possible to do this too often? A government which is forced to give a large number of apologies or change its mind on a diverse range of issues in a short period of time is clearly one which is facing numerous challenges and problems.
A successful and strong government will ride effortlessly over the waves caused by problems; the fact that they appear so dominant is what carries them through. However if this government loses its way and no longer has the success and momentum it once did, seemingly small stories can cause them untold woe.
It’s not that the public really cares either way. If you have faced some problems because of the government (or at least believe it’s because of them) an apology is really going to resolve your issue, merely perhaps make you feel a bit better. Apologies are really ways of preventing ongoing attacks from your opponents or the media.
Nevertheless where repeated apologies might influence public opinion is simply when the belief begins to arise that a government is struggling and possibly running out of ideas. When the SNP were first elected and for long after they were seen as almost untouchable and in real command of the country; opinion polls suggest this is no longer the case,
There may of course be numerous reasons. Most obviously perhaps it’s in part due to issues such as the recession leading to unavoidable public spending cuts, something which is obviously never popular. However the growing number of apologies that ministers feel the need to make will not help recreate any sense of momentum or success.
As above, apologies are an important part of political and public life, and whatever the public or media might believe, they do often happen when someone has made some form of error, or at least appears to have done so. But their use has to be rationed to be truly effective.
People making apologies day-after-day will achieve two things. Firstly, and obviously, the give an appearance of incompetence if so many mistakes are being made. Secondly however they suggest an administration which has lost its momentum and so is being swamped by negative issues they cannot bat away.
A West Wing-ism is that in politics if you’re not on the offence you’re on the defence; in other words if you’re not out there positively selling your record or putting your opponents under pressure, then it means you must be the one under pressure and attack.
Governments that can get themselves out of this position get re-elected. Governments that can’t, don’t. That’s the simple and stark challenge now facing the SNP.
8 Dec 2010
Slipping up?
Whenever politicians are under attack for what they deem to be unfair reasons they often retort that they'll "be blamed for bad weather next". For Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson however this is the exact reason that he has been under fire following the travel chaos caused by recent extreme snowfalls.
It seems an inevitability nowadays that whenever a problem arises that the demands for a scapegoat, inquiries and apologies will not be far behind. In fact Stevenson has already apologised for his government's lack of preparedness.
However is this entirely fair? The recent weather problems - and especially the sudden snowstorm on Monday - are extreme events, certainly much worse than anything in personal memory.
The fundamental problem with our weather is that it is so hard to predict (beyond a few days in any case). For all the claims of incompetence and such like currently being thrown at the Scottish Government it's debatable that any other party would have been more prepared.
The big question is whether the past few days' problems could have been reduced merely by better planning or whether or not significant extra money would have to be spent better preparing this country for such bad weather.
It may be that had more travel announcements been made telling people when and when not to travel as well as gritters being sent out on to the roads earlier then some of the travel problems could have been averted.
However the massive nature of the problems - affecting all forms of transport, not just cars - surely makes it likely that if we want to prevent such problems reoccurring that we would have to spend much more tax money on this, including more vehicles, staff and so on.
We are already in the middle of a huge fight about government cuts and where the axe should fall on important services; if we now want to spend considerably more improving our transport infrastructure we have to accept that will mean even more savage cuts elsewhere, or tax hikes.
And in all of this we have to return to the fact of our weather's inconsistency. If we knew this type of weather would occur each year then of course we would have to plan for it. But the weather of the past year has been unexpectedly extreme; will people be happy to make the painful choices mentioned above if it then turns out we did not need to spend the money?
This of course has to be balanced against those financial losses the country makes when transport grinds to a halt. If people cannot get to work, businesses lose money and so do many individuals. It may that they would be happy to pay any extra price to offset this.
In this regard Opposition parties' demands for an inquiry are actually worthwhile; we do need to know what went wrong and what needs to be done to prevent this in future. But this really needs to come with a price tag so we can understand what exactly it'll cost us to do this.
It's also worth asking the extent to which the public also have to bear some responsibility if we want a country which never stops regardless of the weather.
The BBC wrote an interesting article which examined steps that people in countries such as Sweden take to beat snow, ice and other meteorological problems. This included having to buy two sets of tyres to allow for different travel conditions between summer and winter.
As with the government dilemma above - and in the middle of the effects of financial recession - how many people in Scotland and the UK would currently be prepared to spend a few hundred pounds of their own money buying something they may not need to use?
People stuck on motorways, unable to get home or to work, or seeing their trains and planes cancelled will of course be angry. And the natural instinct is going to be to seek answers and blame someone.
If that ultimately leads us to have a debate on how best to coordinate transport, particularly in the face of such bad weather, then this can only be a good thing. Especially if we understand the price this could cost us and the fact we may end up spending money future weather didn't require.
But there is little point in simply demanding that something be done unless we as a country are prepared to pay the costs of actually doing this. Remember, politicians - whatever political party they come from - really don't control the weather.
It seems an inevitability nowadays that whenever a problem arises that the demands for a scapegoat, inquiries and apologies will not be far behind. In fact Stevenson has already apologised for his government's lack of preparedness.
However is this entirely fair? The recent weather problems - and especially the sudden snowstorm on Monday - are extreme events, certainly much worse than anything in personal memory.
The fundamental problem with our weather is that it is so hard to predict (beyond a few days in any case). For all the claims of incompetence and such like currently being thrown at the Scottish Government it's debatable that any other party would have been more prepared.
The big question is whether the past few days' problems could have been reduced merely by better planning or whether or not significant extra money would have to be spent better preparing this country for such bad weather.
It may be that had more travel announcements been made telling people when and when not to travel as well as gritters being sent out on to the roads earlier then some of the travel problems could have been averted.
However the massive nature of the problems - affecting all forms of transport, not just cars - surely makes it likely that if we want to prevent such problems reoccurring that we would have to spend much more tax money on this, including more vehicles, staff and so on.
We are already in the middle of a huge fight about government cuts and where the axe should fall on important services; if we now want to spend considerably more improving our transport infrastructure we have to accept that will mean even more savage cuts elsewhere, or tax hikes.
And in all of this we have to return to the fact of our weather's inconsistency. If we knew this type of weather would occur each year then of course we would have to plan for it. But the weather of the past year has been unexpectedly extreme; will people be happy to make the painful choices mentioned above if it then turns out we did not need to spend the money?
This of course has to be balanced against those financial losses the country makes when transport grinds to a halt. If people cannot get to work, businesses lose money and so do many individuals. It may that they would be happy to pay any extra price to offset this.
In this regard Opposition parties' demands for an inquiry are actually worthwhile; we do need to know what went wrong and what needs to be done to prevent this in future. But this really needs to come with a price tag so we can understand what exactly it'll cost us to do this.
It's also worth asking the extent to which the public also have to bear some responsibility if we want a country which never stops regardless of the weather.
The BBC wrote an interesting article which examined steps that people in countries such as Sweden take to beat snow, ice and other meteorological problems. This included having to buy two sets of tyres to allow for different travel conditions between summer and winter.
As with the government dilemma above - and in the middle of the effects of financial recession - how many people in Scotland and the UK would currently be prepared to spend a few hundred pounds of their own money buying something they may not need to use?
People stuck on motorways, unable to get home or to work, or seeing their trains and planes cancelled will of course be angry. And the natural instinct is going to be to seek answers and blame someone.
If that ultimately leads us to have a debate on how best to coordinate transport, particularly in the face of such bad weather, then this can only be a good thing. Especially if we understand the price this could cost us and the fact we may end up spending money future weather didn't require.
But there is little point in simply demanding that something be done unless we as a country are prepared to pay the costs of actually doing this. Remember, politicians - whatever political party they come from - really don't control the weather.
1 Dec 2010
Abstention and political Hokey Cokey
"In, out, in, out, you shake it all about". Who would have ever thought that the Hokey Cokey would have become an election song?
This surely must be the Liberal Democrats' next campaign jingle, with the news that Liberal Democrat government ministers - notably Vince Cable - might abstain over the current tuition fees issue.
Cable and other Liberal Democrats are of course being driven by the fact that on the one hand they promised pre-election not to vote for tuition fee increases but on the other are now part of a coalition government that plans on doing just this.
Ever since the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition was formed we have heard considerable talk about new politics and doing things differently. These abstentions however would surely break new ground for politics anywhere in the world.
If Vince Cable abstains when the tuition fees issue is voted upon in Parliament we will have a situation where the government minister that has drafted legislation and then spent several weeks defending it fails to actually vote for it.
Whilst the Lib Dem leadership points to the fact that the Partnership Agreement does allow for even ministerial abstentions on this matter, this is meaningless. The Conservatives surely cannot allow tuition fees to fall as it would cause huge problems for their overall education and funding plans.
This dilemma goes to the heart of the matter; the biggest problem of abstention would surely be the knock-on impact of this decision, particularly amongst Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs.
Conservative MPs could ultimately then feel free to vote for and against whatever policy they want. And if they are criticised or pressured to change their mind they can point to the fact the government ministers are allowed to do this so why should they be any different?
So who knows what other parts of government policy could fall apart? Neither side in the coalition is completely happy (a fact which would of course be true of all such forced partnerships) so could it be that Tory MPs rebel against policies such as the Alternative Vote referendum (although likely there would still be a Commons majority for this matter)?
In some ways Cable's actions could be even more galling for backbench Liberal Democrat MPs, who may become sacrificial lambs for their own Cabinet ministers' unwillingness to cast a vote for something their government wants.
Bearing in mind the above Conservative gripes if high-profile members such as Cable or Danny Alexander abstain, party whips might then have to bring pressure on enough Lib Dem backbenchers to vote for the deal to ensure that the legislation passes.
In the long run this can only create bad feeling on the Lib Dem backbenches to the point that rebellion on some other future issue becomes inevitable; after all not every MP can be bought off with the vague hope that one day they'll be in government, particularly if they lose their seat at the next election.
Since the coalition was formed Nick Clegg (as leader of the Lib Dems and Deputy Prime Minister) has been at pains to point out the limitations of coalition, reminding the country that if no one party gets a majority then ultimately this has to lead to compromise. This of course is an entirely fair analysis.
However the country also has the right to a clear and understandable form of government. If the Liberal Democrats (or Conservatives for that matter) want to officially join in government - with all the benefits that brings - then they cannot then perform the political Hokey Cokey of being in and out at various times.
Whilst the political climate is somewhat different the SNP have shown in the Scottish Parliament since 2007 that minority government is possible, not least where Opposition parties then use this situation to secure support for their own particular priorities.
However perhaps the increased tribalism and history at Westminster makes this impossible. Equally there are maybe more pronounced differences between each of the major parties which makes minority government unpalatable and potentially even irresponsible. But this still requires a decision to be made.
It's always been my view that political parties trying to decide on suitable policies require one simple test: are they comfortable defending the particular policy they are going to suggest to the country?
This doesn't mean it has to be a popular or even comfortable decision, merely that they are satisfied that of all options available to them this is the one they can most easily justify.
By that same token if they cannot bring themselves to defend a particular course of action - even with the above caveats - then it surely seems it's not the correct policy for them or their party to pursue. This is a lesson the Liberal Democrats now have to learn. And the decision they have to make.
This surely must be the Liberal Democrats' next campaign jingle, with the news that Liberal Democrat government ministers - notably Vince Cable - might abstain over the current tuition fees issue.
Cable and other Liberal Democrats are of course being driven by the fact that on the one hand they promised pre-election not to vote for tuition fee increases but on the other are now part of a coalition government that plans on doing just this.
Ever since the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition was formed we have heard considerable talk about new politics and doing things differently. These abstentions however would surely break new ground for politics anywhere in the world.
If Vince Cable abstains when the tuition fees issue is voted upon in Parliament we will have a situation where the government minister that has drafted legislation and then spent several weeks defending it fails to actually vote for it.
Whilst the Lib Dem leadership points to the fact that the Partnership Agreement does allow for even ministerial abstentions on this matter, this is meaningless. The Conservatives surely cannot allow tuition fees to fall as it would cause huge problems for their overall education and funding plans.
This dilemma goes to the heart of the matter; the biggest problem of abstention would surely be the knock-on impact of this decision, particularly amongst Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs.
Conservative MPs could ultimately then feel free to vote for and against whatever policy they want. And if they are criticised or pressured to change their mind they can point to the fact the government ministers are allowed to do this so why should they be any different?
So who knows what other parts of government policy could fall apart? Neither side in the coalition is completely happy (a fact which would of course be true of all such forced partnerships) so could it be that Tory MPs rebel against policies such as the Alternative Vote referendum (although likely there would still be a Commons majority for this matter)?
In some ways Cable's actions could be even more galling for backbench Liberal Democrat MPs, who may become sacrificial lambs for their own Cabinet ministers' unwillingness to cast a vote for something their government wants.
Bearing in mind the above Conservative gripes if high-profile members such as Cable or Danny Alexander abstain, party whips might then have to bring pressure on enough Lib Dem backbenchers to vote for the deal to ensure that the legislation passes.
In the long run this can only create bad feeling on the Lib Dem backbenches to the point that rebellion on some other future issue becomes inevitable; after all not every MP can be bought off with the vague hope that one day they'll be in government, particularly if they lose their seat at the next election.
Since the coalition was formed Nick Clegg (as leader of the Lib Dems and Deputy Prime Minister) has been at pains to point out the limitations of coalition, reminding the country that if no one party gets a majority then ultimately this has to lead to compromise. This of course is an entirely fair analysis.
However the country also has the right to a clear and understandable form of government. If the Liberal Democrats (or Conservatives for that matter) want to officially join in government - with all the benefits that brings - then they cannot then perform the political Hokey Cokey of being in and out at various times.
Whilst the political climate is somewhat different the SNP have shown in the Scottish Parliament since 2007 that minority government is possible, not least where Opposition parties then use this situation to secure support for their own particular priorities.
However perhaps the increased tribalism and history at Westminster makes this impossible. Equally there are maybe more pronounced differences between each of the major parties which makes minority government unpalatable and potentially even irresponsible. But this still requires a decision to be made.
It's always been my view that political parties trying to decide on suitable policies require one simple test: are they comfortable defending the particular policy they are going to suggest to the country?
This doesn't mean it has to be a popular or even comfortable decision, merely that they are satisfied that of all options available to them this is the one they can most easily justify.
By that same token if they cannot bring themselves to defend a particular course of action - even with the above caveats - then it surely seems it's not the correct policy for them or their party to pursue. This is a lesson the Liberal Democrats now have to learn. And the decision they have to make.
