If it's good enough for one then it's good enough for all. It's worth asking if the British media - particularly certain tabloid sections of it - might now be strongly contemplating this very notion.
The past few days have seen notable events which tell us a great deal about the way modern media works; the Sky football sexism row and the re-emergence of the News of the World phone hacking story.
This post is not meant to analyse the merits or intricacies of either issue, rather to consider how the media reacts when the spotlight is shined upon them.
There is undeniably a sensationalism which pervades the UK media, most concentrated (though not exclusively) in tabloid newspapers.
Journalists - driven to attract a diminishing audience - turn more and more to hyperbole rather than merely reporting facts; the human effects of this were evident as part of the Joanna Yeates murder.
We can all remember extreme front pages where newspapers have sought to ridicule and destroy the figure in question rather than merely explain what the situation might be.
Furthermore these same media outlets feed a retributive and angry culture in which all mistakes must result in attack, ridicule and humiliation.
And yet in spite of this willingness - indeed at times seeming desire - to destroy, one group often appears immune from this treatment; the journalists themselves.
The very people - workers and owners alike - that are happy to splash people across front pages (even if those people might previously not have been public figures) for ultimately private activities seem reluctant to do so to themselves.
When media people make mistakes it either is not reported at all or else it only makes the media sections of broadsheets or perhaps some little-read blogs. In other words it is effectively ignored.
But the events of the past few days have shown that - occasionally at least - even journalists risk being brought down by this culture of recrimination.
Richard Keys and Andy Gray might not themselves be sensationalistic gossip journalists but they were part of a company (News International) that is at the heart of this media approach.
Equally, in terms of the phone hacking story, many remaining (or departed) staff at the News of the World, and no doubt other newspapers too, are desperate for this issue to go away before they too end up inside a police interview room.
However even although the phone hacking story is becoming a bigger issue, it is still relatively minor and has not received blanket coverage.
Imagine for one moment a senior political advisor had been caught hacking the phones of political rivals and then sacked. His house would currently be deluged by journalists as would his family and friends; but strangely this has not happened to the journalists under scrutiny.
This post is not a call to destroy or humiliate journalists that may have broken the law or acted in some other way inappropriately, it is merely a reminder of what happens when you help create a culture of vindictiveness.
Unlike many in the media it's worth noting that people going to jail or losing their jobs is not something which should bring any pleasure; personal tragedy in one should never bring happiness to another.
Nor is any of this designed to suggest that people who do things wrong in their private or professional lives should not face the consequences of this, simply that creating feeding frenzies does not make for a happy culture.
What it is designed to do is ask people - the public and journalists alike - if the type of media we have creates a culture in which we would happily choose to live.
Journalists might argue - and may even be correct to say - that all they do is represent that aspect of humanity and our particular culture that likes gossip and can be cruel to those we either dislike or simply don't know.
If that's true then it hurts us all - but in fact this is surely too simple an analysis and in effect tries to shift any blame or responsibility from those most at fault for this culture; the media themselves.
We need a strong media, one that is not afraid to challenge authority and report important issues. They should be free to do so without fear of government interference.
But these past few days show that all of us - journalists included - must live in this vindictive culture and deal with its consequences. It is to be hoped - if not in any way expected - that this might inform the way they work in future.
Because, of course, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too.
28 Jan 2011
26 Jan 2011
Budget battles
Discussions continue at Holyrood ahead of the vote on Scotland’s Budget for next year. Whether they are fruitful or not remains to be seen.
Budget negotiations are always fraught under a minority government as each party wants to be seen to get something. This is magnified in an election year.
The SNP will recognise the victory merely of passing a budget and being able to point to some strengths within it. Opposition parties face a different dilemma.
On the one hand Labour, the Conservatives and Lib Dems have spent some time criticising numerous aspects of the plans however they face two problems: to vote it down or what to change?
Neither is a simple choice. Voting it down would bring an early election and could look irresponsible but they cannot let it pass unchanged meaning their complaints look like having been empty rhetoric.
The first enforced change already seems evident: the so-called ‘Tesco Tax’ has just been voted down by the Local Government Committee; what will fill the £30 million hole this leaves isn’t clear.
The SNP’s argument that the 'Tesco Tax' merely brings Scotland into line with what England charges is a valid one, although does perhaps undermine notions of using additional fiscal powers to give Scotland a competitive advantage.
On the other hand Opposition parties do have a responsibility to explain where this £30 million is to be found. It’s not good enough merely to say ‘no’, an alternative must be proposed.
What each party is acutely aware of is that their actions now will form a key part not only of the election campaign but of the early battles which will take place in the new parliament, regardless of which party’s leader occupies Bute House.
The BBC’s guide to what the budget (as it stands) means for each government department – and thus issue which concerns the public – gives a stark picture of cuts and fiscal pressures.
This is obviously not a surprise in the current climate but it should also inform parties’ manifesto promises; there is no point in talking about notable cuts in spending in areas such as education and health but pretending the service will continue unaffected.
This goes to crux of the challenge all parties face which will have a knock-on effect on public perceptions of the parliament and politicians; that of giving an honest appraisal of what cuts will mean in practice.
For some time now the Opposition parties’ strategy has been to condemn any cut emanating from the SNP government but this is of course a nonsense; if there is less money then something has to be cut.
If parties disagree with the specific suggestions and propose reasonable, costed alternatives then this is a legitimate approach. However just saying ‘no’ to cuts without any idea of what could instead be done helps no-one.
Equally the government cannot act as though it’s full steam ahead as before cuts. For instance, in education you cannot cut around 9% in spending and then continue to talk about implementing a new and resource-driven curriculum.
It is to be hoped this is a lesson and mantra that all parties take to heart which could give us a realistic if perhaps low-key set of election promises. This is perhaps not exciting but is at least realistic.
This close to an election no party wants to be seen as irresponsible which surely means that the Budget will be passed, albeit with some changes (or 'victories') that each party can claim as there own.
Beyond this though what we are really seeing on budget negotiations is the start of the election campaign, each party vying to show what they would do if given the keys to power (particularly in Labour and the SNP's case).
So let battle commence!
Budget negotiations are always fraught under a minority government as each party wants to be seen to get something. This is magnified in an election year.
The SNP will recognise the victory merely of passing a budget and being able to point to some strengths within it. Opposition parties face a different dilemma.
On the one hand Labour, the Conservatives and Lib Dems have spent some time criticising numerous aspects of the plans however they face two problems: to vote it down or what to change?
Neither is a simple choice. Voting it down would bring an early election and could look irresponsible but they cannot let it pass unchanged meaning their complaints look like having been empty rhetoric.
The first enforced change already seems evident: the so-called ‘Tesco Tax’ has just been voted down by the Local Government Committee; what will fill the £30 million hole this leaves isn’t clear.
The SNP’s argument that the 'Tesco Tax' merely brings Scotland into line with what England charges is a valid one, although does perhaps undermine notions of using additional fiscal powers to give Scotland a competitive advantage.
On the other hand Opposition parties do have a responsibility to explain where this £30 million is to be found. It’s not good enough merely to say ‘no’, an alternative must be proposed.
What each party is acutely aware of is that their actions now will form a key part not only of the election campaign but of the early battles which will take place in the new parliament, regardless of which party’s leader occupies Bute House.
The BBC’s guide to what the budget (as it stands) means for each government department – and thus issue which concerns the public – gives a stark picture of cuts and fiscal pressures.
This is obviously not a surprise in the current climate but it should also inform parties’ manifesto promises; there is no point in talking about notable cuts in spending in areas such as education and health but pretending the service will continue unaffected.
This goes to crux of the challenge all parties face which will have a knock-on effect on public perceptions of the parliament and politicians; that of giving an honest appraisal of what cuts will mean in practice.
For some time now the Opposition parties’ strategy has been to condemn any cut emanating from the SNP government but this is of course a nonsense; if there is less money then something has to be cut.
If parties disagree with the specific suggestions and propose reasonable, costed alternatives then this is a legitimate approach. However just saying ‘no’ to cuts without any idea of what could instead be done helps no-one.
Equally the government cannot act as though it’s full steam ahead as before cuts. For instance, in education you cannot cut around 9% in spending and then continue to talk about implementing a new and resource-driven curriculum.
It is to be hoped this is a lesson and mantra that all parties take to heart which could give us a realistic if perhaps low-key set of election promises. This is perhaps not exciting but is at least realistic.
This close to an election no party wants to be seen as irresponsible which surely means that the Budget will be passed, albeit with some changes (or 'victories') that each party can claim as there own.
Beyond this though what we are really seeing on budget negotiations is the start of the election campaign, each party vying to show what they would do if given the keys to power (particularly in Labour and the SNP's case).
So let battle commence!
24 Jan 2011
Cash machines, banks and honesty
Last week Christmas came very early (or late) for some people after a cash machine in Dundee started giving out double money.
The good fortune of people that benefited - and by all accounts once word spread they came from far and wide - was compounded by the fact that they're to be allowed to keep the money.
Bank Machine - the company which own the ATM - have effectively laughed off the cost which could have run into hundreds of pounds, although they have said they will leave it to people's consciences to return the money.
This could be a chance for a comment on modern values, honesty and so on but it's not. Instead it's worth thinking about the company's response and what this says about access to our own money.
Rather like the bookmakers publicly laughing when they make a big gambling loss - because it encourages people to gamble in future - Bank Machine's response means this issue goes away quickly. Which is very convenient for the banks.
For some time banks have been closing local branches under the rationale that more people were banking online and using chip-and-pin or bank machines. Thus they needed less open banks.
Indeed many banks cited the range of free services their ATMs provided as being justification for these closures and associated job losses. Ultimately if it was what the public wanted then it's hard to argue too much with this.
However this obviously isn't the end of the story because eventually banks started to sell these machines to other companies. Again if it hadn't impacted on customer service this is largely irrelevant - but of course it did, by charging for use.
Many large banks began transferring their 'assets' (i.e. cash machines for customer use) to companies that could charge anything up to £3 just to take out £10; a price that particularly hits those on low incomes that have to take out smaller amounts of money.
There is even evidence companies (and by extension banks) target poorer areas to use these machines as a money-making venture; to wit, 60% of cash machines in Glasgow's Shettleston charge compared to only 10% in Hyndland.
Ultimately if companies choose to set up new cash machines in places where they did not previously exist then you can argue that this is a service that people can choose to use or not, thus justifying any fee. But this is not true of what had been existing services.
Many banks - including my own - transferred existing cash machines to these companies with the only service difference being that the new machine came with a charge. This is surely unacceptable.
It's therefore no surprise that companies and banks that provide these machines don't want us talking about them, even in the wake of an embarrassing cash giveaway. After all the industry was worth £250 million per year five years ago so can afford an occasional hit like this.
So perhaps those people that deliberately took money they knew wasn't rightfully theirs will examine their consciences and hand the cash back. But then perhaps the banks could also do the same.
The good fortune of people that benefited - and by all accounts once word spread they came from far and wide - was compounded by the fact that they're to be allowed to keep the money.
Bank Machine - the company which own the ATM - have effectively laughed off the cost which could have run into hundreds of pounds, although they have said they will leave it to people's consciences to return the money.
This could be a chance for a comment on modern values, honesty and so on but it's not. Instead it's worth thinking about the company's response and what this says about access to our own money.
Rather like the bookmakers publicly laughing when they make a big gambling loss - because it encourages people to gamble in future - Bank Machine's response means this issue goes away quickly. Which is very convenient for the banks.
For some time banks have been closing local branches under the rationale that more people were banking online and using chip-and-pin or bank machines. Thus they needed less open banks.
Indeed many banks cited the range of free services their ATMs provided as being justification for these closures and associated job losses. Ultimately if it was what the public wanted then it's hard to argue too much with this.
However this obviously isn't the end of the story because eventually banks started to sell these machines to other companies. Again if it hadn't impacted on customer service this is largely irrelevant - but of course it did, by charging for use.
Many large banks began transferring their 'assets' (i.e. cash machines for customer use) to companies that could charge anything up to £3 just to take out £10; a price that particularly hits those on low incomes that have to take out smaller amounts of money.
There is even evidence companies (and by extension banks) target poorer areas to use these machines as a money-making venture; to wit, 60% of cash machines in Glasgow's Shettleston charge compared to only 10% in Hyndland.
Ultimately if companies choose to set up new cash machines in places where they did not previously exist then you can argue that this is a service that people can choose to use or not, thus justifying any fee. But this is not true of what had been existing services.
Many banks - including my own - transferred existing cash machines to these companies with the only service difference being that the new machine came with a charge. This is surely unacceptable.
It's therefore no surprise that companies and banks that provide these machines don't want us talking about them, even in the wake of an embarrassing cash giveaway. After all the industry was worth £250 million per year five years ago so can afford an occasional hit like this.
So perhaps those people that deliberately took money they knew wasn't rightfully theirs will examine their consciences and hand the cash back. But then perhaps the banks could also do the same.
21 Jan 2011
Crime reporting and media responsibility
In the sad case of Joanna Yeates it seems there's a new suspect. Someone for the media themselves to convict, ignoring the minor frivolities of a court case and legal process.
Except of course haven't we been here before? Didn't the same newspapers now reporting this arrest previously assure us that it was all the work of her landlord?
The murder of Joanna Yeates was an obvious outrage, the time of the year when people are supposed to be together and happy was instead marred by such a terrible event.
Understandably people wanted quick answers so when Joanna's landlord Chris Jefferies was arrested it was obviously going to be a big story.
What suited the media even more was that Mr Jefferies looked a bit odd, like a mad professor. And he wasn't married and was a former teacher.
This lead to nothing short of a character assassination as Mr Jefferies was ripped apart by the national media. Nothing was off-limits; his character, looks, history, personality. Everything was fair game, true or not.
And of course there were plenty of anonymous knives in his back; psychic detectives who apparently always suspected something might happen.
Voices defending him were quiet and often ridiculed. But of course Mr Jefferies was eventually released without charge, albeit on bail.
It remains to be seen what happens with this latest arrest, which is not yet a formal charge. It may well be that this man is guilty or that instead he'll be released too.
Whatever occurs with the case though, one thing is needed in future; to quell an insatiable media that wants to ignore due legal process and instead have their own show trials.
It's time for the legal system to defend itself. The media's actions are unacceptable on so many levels, not least the fact that even if Mr Jefferies had been charged their coverage could have rendered any potential conviction unsafe.
It is only right and proper that we have a free media in this country, one that is not controlled by the judicial or political system. However with these rights come responsibilities.
If the media persist in going over the top and sensationalising events like this - flying in the face of public interest if not perhaps what interests the public - then they should be accountable through the courts.
Only at that point will journalists realise that the same call for accountability and restraint that they are so used to demanding from public figures are standards they have to abide by too.
And it might just save yet more people and families from being seen as little more than passing entertainment by an irresponsible media.
Except of course haven't we been here before? Didn't the same newspapers now reporting this arrest previously assure us that it was all the work of her landlord?
The murder of Joanna Yeates was an obvious outrage, the time of the year when people are supposed to be together and happy was instead marred by such a terrible event.
Understandably people wanted quick answers so when Joanna's landlord Chris Jefferies was arrested it was obviously going to be a big story.
What suited the media even more was that Mr Jefferies looked a bit odd, like a mad professor. And he wasn't married and was a former teacher.
This lead to nothing short of a character assassination as Mr Jefferies was ripped apart by the national media. Nothing was off-limits; his character, looks, history, personality. Everything was fair game, true or not.
And of course there were plenty of anonymous knives in his back; psychic detectives who apparently always suspected something might happen.
Voices defending him were quiet and often ridiculed. But of course Mr Jefferies was eventually released without charge, albeit on bail.
It remains to be seen what happens with this latest arrest, which is not yet a formal charge. It may well be that this man is guilty or that instead he'll be released too.
Whatever occurs with the case though, one thing is needed in future; to quell an insatiable media that wants to ignore due legal process and instead have their own show trials.
It's time for the legal system to defend itself. The media's actions are unacceptable on so many levels, not least the fact that even if Mr Jefferies had been charged their coverage could have rendered any potential conviction unsafe.
It is only right and proper that we have a free media in this country, one that is not controlled by the judicial or political system. However with these rights come responsibilities.
If the media persist in going over the top and sensationalising events like this - flying in the face of public interest if not perhaps what interests the public - then they should be accountable through the courts.
Only at that point will journalists realise that the same call for accountability and restraint that they are so used to demanding from public figures are standards they have to abide by too.
And it might just save yet more people and families from being seen as little more than passing entertainment by an irresponsible media.
20 Jan 2011
How would an independence debate go?
It appears that politics and academia in Scotland are having something of a falling out. Well at least between some politicians and some academics anyway.
Full details here but the essence of the dispute is that two Professors (Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott) felt they were unfairly questioned by two MSPs, Wendy Alexander and David McLetchie, during an appearance at Holyrood’s Scotland Bill Committee.
The extra heat in this spat is that the professors’ evidence had been used by the SNP to support the idea of an independent Scotland, something McLetchie and Alexander obviously both disagree with.
Having read the transcript of the exchanges it could fairly be described as ‘robust’ but it’s hard to avoid the fact that the professors look slightly weakened by it all. Being questioned about a research paper you wrote (even if you hadn’t expected to be so) is hardly unfair after all.
Beyond that it also plays into the idea of ‘academic ivory towers’ many people believe in when two professors effectively feel the need to run and tell tales when spoken to in a way they don’t like.
However it is worth asking what this whole episode tells us about the way a genuine independence debate would actually go. Would we really have polite, well-constructed discussions where all sides were heard equally? Or instead a slanging match?
Hamish McDonnell at the Caledonian Mercury makes the not entirely unfair point that any independence vote would surely be decided on gut instinct rather than considered debate and analysis.
Up to a point this is likely correct. Of those that have already made up their minds (either way) surely a large proportion of them have done so on the basis of intrinsic beliefs rather than thorough research. So surely this would be true of the wider public?
Part of the problem of working this out is that the independence debate is not something which substantially exists in the current minds or concerns of most people on Scotland. Of course some get very exercised about it but in the absence of a tangible event (a referendum, for example) the public are simply are not discussing this.
In this regard McDonnell’s point is correct. However it’s surely the case that this would – to an extent at least – change if such a vote was due to take place.
Clearly in the event of such a plebiscite many would simply not take part and another large section of the populace would do so on a fairly superficial basis; effectively, gut instinct. However beyond this a notable part of the electorate surely would consider the benefits or otherwise of such a move.
At this point we would see mainly loud, soundbite shouts from political parties (Good! Bad! Who knows?!) but there would at least be some discourse space for people to seriously consider if it would genuinely help them or the country-at-large.
Enter the academics again. Because part of the problem here is that it is by definition a theoretical debate. We cannot say with absolute certainty that it would be a disaster or instead a utopia.
This is arguably the independence movement’s biggest problem. Unless Scotland was genuinely in the midst of disaster and collapse (and current problems aside, we’re really not) are people going to make the theoretical leap if they don’t know where they’ll land?
What is certain is that anyone who chooses to take part in such a debate at that time should not do so lightly or under fear of questioning. Both sides would be hugely partisan in their analysis of, well, analysis. And in such circumstances it’d be foolish not to expect rigorous questioning on work done.
The same goes for appearing at parliamentary committees. It would be nice if everyone was always nice but that doesn’t always happen. And perhaps on something this important (whatever side you’re on) it shouldn’t be; serious issues demand serious analysis.
Full details here but the essence of the dispute is that two Professors (Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott) felt they were unfairly questioned by two MSPs, Wendy Alexander and David McLetchie, during an appearance at Holyrood’s Scotland Bill Committee.
The extra heat in this spat is that the professors’ evidence had been used by the SNP to support the idea of an independent Scotland, something McLetchie and Alexander obviously both disagree with.
Having read the transcript of the exchanges it could fairly be described as ‘robust’ but it’s hard to avoid the fact that the professors look slightly weakened by it all. Being questioned about a research paper you wrote (even if you hadn’t expected to be so) is hardly unfair after all.
Beyond that it also plays into the idea of ‘academic ivory towers’ many people believe in when two professors effectively feel the need to run and tell tales when spoken to in a way they don’t like.
However it is worth asking what this whole episode tells us about the way a genuine independence debate would actually go. Would we really have polite, well-constructed discussions where all sides were heard equally? Or instead a slanging match?
Hamish McDonnell at the Caledonian Mercury makes the not entirely unfair point that any independence vote would surely be decided on gut instinct rather than considered debate and analysis.
Up to a point this is likely correct. Of those that have already made up their minds (either way) surely a large proportion of them have done so on the basis of intrinsic beliefs rather than thorough research. So surely this would be true of the wider public?
Part of the problem of working this out is that the independence debate is not something which substantially exists in the current minds or concerns of most people on Scotland. Of course some get very exercised about it but in the absence of a tangible event (a referendum, for example) the public are simply are not discussing this.
In this regard McDonnell’s point is correct. However it’s surely the case that this would – to an extent at least – change if such a vote was due to take place.
Clearly in the event of such a plebiscite many would simply not take part and another large section of the populace would do so on a fairly superficial basis; effectively, gut instinct. However beyond this a notable part of the electorate surely would consider the benefits or otherwise of such a move.
At this point we would see mainly loud, soundbite shouts from political parties (Good! Bad! Who knows?!) but there would at least be some discourse space for people to seriously consider if it would genuinely help them or the country-at-large.
Enter the academics again. Because part of the problem here is that it is by definition a theoretical debate. We cannot say with absolute certainty that it would be a disaster or instead a utopia.
This is arguably the independence movement’s biggest problem. Unless Scotland was genuinely in the midst of disaster and collapse (and current problems aside, we’re really not) are people going to make the theoretical leap if they don’t know where they’ll land?
What is certain is that anyone who chooses to take part in such a debate at that time should not do so lightly or under fear of questioning. Both sides would be hugely partisan in their analysis of, well, analysis. And in such circumstances it’d be foolish not to expect rigorous questioning on work done.
The same goes for appearing at parliamentary committees. It would be nice if everyone was always nice but that doesn’t always happen. And perhaps on something this important (whatever side you’re on) it shouldn’t be; serious issues demand serious analysis.
15 Jan 2011
The fractured left
Arguably the most famous scene from Monty Python's film The Life of Brian is where the People's Front of Judea list their main hates in life, notably the Judean People's Front and the Judean Popular People's Front.
The fact that these groups share identical goals - if slightly differing names from them - is deemed irrelevant. As is the opportunity to work together to beat what should of course be the common enemy, the Romans.
This is an analogy used many times but it seems especially apt to consider the far left in Scotland's ability to do exactly the same in light of the George Galloway/Gail Sheridan story.
Galloway has of course previously indicated that he will be standing for election to the Scottish Parliament this May and he was expected to be the left's standard bearer - or at least most prominent candidate - in this race.
However that may now change as Gail Sheridan, the wife of Tommy, throws her hat into the ring. This has caused complaints from Galloway as he clearly believes that her candidacy will impact on his hopes of election. Of course the Scottish Socialist Party are standing too.
For all of Galloway's profile - between his previous stint in Westminster, regular column in the Daily Record and Big Brother appearance - it was always debatable that he would win a seat. The fact that he has represented a Glasgow seat before was no guarantee of re-election.
The logic would therefore appear to be that Gail Sheridan standing should end any hopes he has. The hard left vote in Glasgow has only once in the past been enough to elect two MSPs (Tommy Sheridan and Rosie Kane); two prominent candidates should split the vote sufficiently to ensure no-one else joins this list.
This will likely be the logic expressed should neither be elected however it may in fact be wrong. As above, Galloway, for all his prominence, has been out of Scottish and Glasgow politics for some time and was never guaranteed to just walk straight back into a seat.
As evidence consider what happened when Galloway was ejected from the Labour Party. Rather than standing as an independent in Glasgow he chose to stand elsewhere. This was a decision which brought him a famous win in Bethnal Green and Bow but suggested he wasn't invincible in Glasgow.
Gail Sheridan's position is even stranger. Galloway himself yesterday pointed out that the reason he did not want to stand alongside Mrs Sheridan was that he was worried it would effectively turn the election into a public referendum on Tommy Sheridan.
Galloway's additional worry was that such a tactic by the Sheridans was a mistake, and it's hard to argue with this. Tommy Sheridan will have been sentenced by the time of the elections and unless his appeal is successful it will surely be seen as the final nail in his coffin if his wife has a poor electoral showing.
And in all of this we have the essential problem for the left. This whole article has focused on the issues which are currently at the heart of the hard left's campaign and yet none of it is about policy. And it's this which will surely kill any notion of a 2003-style triumph this time around.
It's surely accepted that the very best the far left can do in Glasgow is elect one MSP yet already three candidates have been mentioned (Galloway, Sheridan, SSP) and there could yet even be more. It's this fracturing that makes the left's case in Scotland so hard to advance.
Of course there are differences in beliefs between these groups - the issue of whether Scotland should be independent is an obvious one - but it is a form of playground politics to refuse to work with people with whom you share so much in common simply because of minor differences.
The fact is that most people in Scotland are not far left (or right); their views are fairly central in the political spectrum. For evidence of this just look at the groups which are elected time and again at council, Scottish Parliament, Westminster and European Parliament levels.
The far left may dispute this or wish it was different. But it's not. And if they cannot get agreement even amongst themselves on a candidate or electoral platform then how can they possibly hope or expect the voting public to do so?
The final scene of the clip from The Life of Brian shown above features one man sitting on his own who's all that's left of one particular Judean faction. If the far left in Scotland can't agree any platform that's exactly what they will soon look like.
UPDATE: The original article omitted mention of Rosie Kane. Thanks to a comment from James at Better Nation this has been amended.
12 Jan 2011
In it together?
Since taking office in May – and in the face of notable financial challenges – the mantra of the UK coalition government has been that “we’re all in it together”.
In this sense what they have been saying is that everyone in the country – including in the public sector – has to share some of the financial pain that recession inevitably leads to.
It's hard to argue with that. Any householder knows you can't spend more money than you have; if you have less you must spend less. So far, so basic.
However the flawed instincts of many in the coalition government are also showing with their likely decision to not impose another tax on excessive bankers’ bonuses this year, as happened in the last year of the previous government.
This is not about taxing the rich or taking class revenge or anything else; it’s about a logical conclusion of the “we’re in it together” statement.
If the public as a whole have to share the pain caused by recession then for many this will mean job losses or significant reductions in income and spending power. Surely it is only fair that this is in part shared by those at the top too?
Furthermore in basic economic terms handing out huge financial bonuses to people at the top whilst those at the bottom see their income cut makes no sense in terms of beating recession; those on lower incomes have a greater propensity to spend their money on things which create wealth and jobs.
By not imposing this tax the coalition government is also missing a chance to direct money to where it actually needs to be; not only in the pockets of consumers but also potential and current entrepreneurs.
Ultimately bankers are only ‘wealth creators’ in the loosest sense of the phrase. As a rule they are not ploughing their own money into ventures designed to create jobs, merely spending other people's.
Indeed given the fact that many of them are owned by the public purse it makes some of them hard to distinguish from large, well-paid regeneration agencies!
If the government wanted to send a signal about its intentions to create jobs (rather than simply making it easier to sack people) they could use a bankers’ tax to subsidise start-up companies, in the hope that this creates work across the UK.
By not having the tax this year they do two things. Politically it’s suggest that they divergent priorities with the public-at-large which is surely never a good thing. And it also entirely undermines all claims that “we’re in it together”.
In this sense what they have been saying is that everyone in the country – including in the public sector – has to share some of the financial pain that recession inevitably leads to.
It's hard to argue with that. Any householder knows you can't spend more money than you have; if you have less you must spend less. So far, so basic.
However the flawed instincts of many in the coalition government are also showing with their likely decision to not impose another tax on excessive bankers’ bonuses this year, as happened in the last year of the previous government.
This is not about taxing the rich or taking class revenge or anything else; it’s about a logical conclusion of the “we’re in it together” statement.
If the public as a whole have to share the pain caused by recession then for many this will mean job losses or significant reductions in income and spending power. Surely it is only fair that this is in part shared by those at the top too?
Furthermore in basic economic terms handing out huge financial bonuses to people at the top whilst those at the bottom see their income cut makes no sense in terms of beating recession; those on lower incomes have a greater propensity to spend their money on things which create wealth and jobs.
By not imposing this tax the coalition government is also missing a chance to direct money to where it actually needs to be; not only in the pockets of consumers but also potential and current entrepreneurs.
Ultimately bankers are only ‘wealth creators’ in the loosest sense of the phrase. As a rule they are not ploughing their own money into ventures designed to create jobs, merely spending other people's.
Indeed given the fact that many of them are owned by the public purse it makes some of them hard to distinguish from large, well-paid regeneration agencies!
If the government wanted to send a signal about its intentions to create jobs (rather than simply making it easier to sack people) they could use a bankers’ tax to subsidise start-up companies, in the hope that this creates work across the UK.
By not having the tax this year they do two things. Politically it’s suggest that they divergent priorities with the public-at-large which is surely never a good thing. And it also entirely undermines all claims that “we’re in it together”.
7 Jan 2011
Bears, the woods, the Pope and Mike Russell
Whenever people want to show how obvious something is they ask questions such as “Is the Pope Catholic?” or “Do bears shit go to the toilet in the woods?”.
To that list we might as well add “Do politicians ever do things to win elections?” because the very statement seems so stunningly obvious. However apparently not in Holyrood.
Education Secretary Mike Russell is currently facing calls for his resignation on the grounds that he tried to influence SNP councillors to vote against closing schools in Argyll and Bute.
For anyone not involved in full-time politics this is something of a puzzle. A politician being asked to resign because he tries to get other politicians to vote a certain way?
Of course the reality is a more complicated than this. As Education Secretary Mr Russell may ultimately be asked to agree to any decision; by interfering now he is seen to have compromised his ability to make a fair future decision.
It may well be that Mr Russell is wrong on this issue and SNP councillors right to consider whether or not closures are needed. But this should be the debate, not a process story of who said what to whom.
Political rivals are saying that Mr Russell’s actions are so extreme that he should be removed from post. Clearly everything must be rosy in Scotland's garden if this is all our politicians have to get upset about.
All too often the issues which most vex our politicians are not matters which would cause significant concern to the public. And it’s partly this which alienates politicians from the electorate as the two groups' priorities seem so distant.
This is not to take the side of or criticise any single political party because all parties are capable of getting excited about issues such as this which are irrelevant to the public, and then making demands for resignations or apologies.
It feels as though every time a politician says or does anything it's followed by "shock" or "outrage" or any other hyperbolic response. But by continually reacting with such extreme responses it's no surprise that the public simply stop listening.
There are surely enough issues of substance in the country for politicians of all parties to get their teeth into without having to invent matters of controversy or outrage. Perhaps if they did so the public may even start listening and reversing the growing disenchantment with our political institutions.
To that list we might as well add “Do politicians ever do things to win elections?” because the very statement seems so stunningly obvious. However apparently not in Holyrood.
Education Secretary Mike Russell is currently facing calls for his resignation on the grounds that he tried to influence SNP councillors to vote against closing schools in Argyll and Bute.
For anyone not involved in full-time politics this is something of a puzzle. A politician being asked to resign because he tries to get other politicians to vote a certain way?
Of course the reality is a more complicated than this. As Education Secretary Mr Russell may ultimately be asked to agree to any decision; by interfering now he is seen to have compromised his ability to make a fair future decision.
It may well be that Mr Russell is wrong on this issue and SNP councillors right to consider whether or not closures are needed. But this should be the debate, not a process story of who said what to whom.
Political rivals are saying that Mr Russell’s actions are so extreme that he should be removed from post. Clearly everything must be rosy in Scotland's garden if this is all our politicians have to get upset about.
All too often the issues which most vex our politicians are not matters which would cause significant concern to the public. And it’s partly this which alienates politicians from the electorate as the two groups' priorities seem so distant.
This is not to take the side of or criticise any single political party because all parties are capable of getting excited about issues such as this which are irrelevant to the public, and then making demands for resignations or apologies.
It feels as though every time a politician says or does anything it's followed by "shock" or "outrage" or any other hyperbolic response. But by continually reacting with such extreme responses it's no surprise that the public simply stop listening.
There are surely enough issues of substance in the country for politicians of all parties to get their teeth into without having to invent matters of controversy or outrage. Perhaps if they did so the public may even start listening and reversing the growing disenchantment with our political institutions.
6 Jan 2011
2011 predictions - A summary
As many have noted before only a fool makes predictions. This seems to me as good a reason as any to make them.
This blog's predictions have been made over the past few days and have focused on four key issues. Links to each of them are summarised below.
Of course as Harold Macmillan once said whether or not these come true will depend on "events" and who really knows what they will be?
This blog's predictions have been made over the past few days and have focused on four key issues. Links to each of them are summarised below.
Of course as Harold Macmillan once said whether or not these come true will depend on "events" and who really knows what they will be?
5 Jan 2011
2011 predictions - The UK coalition government
The last of my 2011 predictions carries on from looking at the Alternative Vote referendum and considers what this could mean for the current UK coalition government.
As noted before the main reason that the Lib Dems are prepared to tolerate their role as pantomime villains in the UK coalition government is that they are so desperate to introduce PR into UK elections. However what happens after the referendum on this is held?
In the unlikely event that the plebiscite decides in favour of voting reform then this would further tie them to the coalition as the legislation to bring in voting changes passes through Parliament. Arguably by the end of this period they'd have been in joint power for so long that they'd have to see it through to its conclusion.
However what if in fact the referendum is lost? The Lib Dems would be facing four more years of forced marriage to a party they do trust or get on with, and one in which they take the blame for all the problems. If they do not at least have the comfort of PR to fall back on could this split the coalition apart?
This is certainly at least a possibility. The Lib Dems at all levels (ministerial and backbench) have taken such a hammering recently that they surely have to have at least a form of fightback at some stage. Whether this involves a major rebellion, demand for a distinctive policy of their own or a combination of these things remains to be seen.
May might provide two events which define the coalition's future: not simply the electoral reform referendum but also elections around the UK including the Scottish Parliament. If the referendum is lost and there is a poor (or even disastrous) showing in these elections then this will surely be a wake-up call to Lib Dem MPs.
Would this lead to the collapse of the coalition though? The answer is surely no. The Lib Dems - notably leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have invested so much in getting into this coalition government that to leave it now could be fatal. Without a leadership contest - a stage we are still surely some distance from - Clegg will remain in post and the Lib Dems in the coalition.
Nevertheless as hinted at above though the real problem the party faces is that they are currently as being little more than the Conservatives' lapdogs just now, casting aside every promise they ever made or belief held for the chance of power. This is surely something they have to make a concerted effort at changing.
What the party needs just now is to firstly hope that most of the major bad news policies e.g. top-up fees are now behind them. This gives them four years to rebuild their UK reputation. To do this they are going to need to a big policy win which will define them and re-attract support. Scrapping control orders for terrorist suspects isn't the answer either.
For the Conservatives they surely (presently at least) have little to complain about from the coalition. They are back in power and seem to be shielded from any major criticism by the very presence of their junior partners. The only potential change to this is if the Lib Dems start demanding and getting major policy wins as their price for continuing with the coalition.
But either way it's hard to see 2011 ending and differently from the way it started. And that means the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition surely has some way to go yet.
As noted before the main reason that the Lib Dems are prepared to tolerate their role as pantomime villains in the UK coalition government is that they are so desperate to introduce PR into UK elections. However what happens after the referendum on this is held?
In the unlikely event that the plebiscite decides in favour of voting reform then this would further tie them to the coalition as the legislation to bring in voting changes passes through Parliament. Arguably by the end of this period they'd have been in joint power for so long that they'd have to see it through to its conclusion.
However what if in fact the referendum is lost? The Lib Dems would be facing four more years of forced marriage to a party they do trust or get on with, and one in which they take the blame for all the problems. If they do not at least have the comfort of PR to fall back on could this split the coalition apart?
This is certainly at least a possibility. The Lib Dems at all levels (ministerial and backbench) have taken such a hammering recently that they surely have to have at least a form of fightback at some stage. Whether this involves a major rebellion, demand for a distinctive policy of their own or a combination of these things remains to be seen.
May might provide two events which define the coalition's future: not simply the electoral reform referendum but also elections around the UK including the Scottish Parliament. If the referendum is lost and there is a poor (or even disastrous) showing in these elections then this will surely be a wake-up call to Lib Dem MPs.
Would this lead to the collapse of the coalition though? The answer is surely no. The Lib Dems - notably leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have invested so much in getting into this coalition government that to leave it now could be fatal. Without a leadership contest - a stage we are still surely some distance from - Clegg will remain in post and the Lib Dems in the coalition.
Nevertheless as hinted at above though the real problem the party faces is that they are currently as being little more than the Conservatives' lapdogs just now, casting aside every promise they ever made or belief held for the chance of power. This is surely something they have to make a concerted effort at changing.
What the party needs just now is to firstly hope that most of the major bad news policies e.g. top-up fees are now behind them. This gives them four years to rebuild their UK reputation. To do this they are going to need to a big policy win which will define them and re-attract support. Scrapping control orders for terrorist suspects isn't the answer either.
For the Conservatives they surely (presently at least) have little to complain about from the coalition. They are back in power and seem to be shielded from any major criticism by the very presence of their junior partners. The only potential change to this is if the Lib Dems start demanding and getting major policy wins as their price for continuing with the coalition.
But either way it's hard to see 2011 ending and differently from the way it started. And that means the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition surely has some way to go yet.
4 Jan 2011
2011 predictions - The Alternative Vote referendum
So with my 2011 predictions having focused exclusively on Scottish politics (Holyrood elections and the post-election landscape) thus far it seems apt to broaden out the analysis, starting with possible changes to how we vote in UK elections.
Electoral systems are not high up on the list of public concerns or interests but will become a notable issue this May across the UK as a referendum is held into changing the way we elect MPs, switching from first-past-the-post to the (slightly more proportional) Alternative Vote.
This is the big issue which has taken the Liberal Democrats into government and is part of the reason they can tolerate the abuse and unpopularity they currently suffer; introducing proportional representation into Westminster elections has long been the party's Holy Grail.
Electoral systems across the UK are extremely varied; in Scotland alone we use four different voting systems to elect MPs, MSPs, MEPs and councillors. This is because of the belief many hold that first-past-the-post unfairly favours large parties; the Liberals are an obvious group that lose out in elections by winning less MPs than their share of the vote should give them.
The theory for the Lib Dems is that having PR in UK elections could make them regular members of the government. However the big problem for them is that it currently looks like they're going to lose this UK referendum, killing any hope of PR in UK elections for at least a generation, and this will in no small part be due to their current role in government.
As above the public don't tend to get too exercised by talk of electoral systems and reform but as anger against the Lib Dems grows (taking the blame for the policies of the whole coalition, such as top-up fees) it seems the public could punish them by voting down their favoured policy.
Events in recent weeks with public splits between members of the two governing parties will not have helped either. Whilst as noted before the public will not be too fussed or shocked by politicians fighting the general impression that coalition governments bring instability will not endear the public to a system which effectively ensures perpetual coalitions.
An additional nail in the Alternative Vote's coffin (and thus PR's) is that many major media outlets seem opposed and likely to campaign this way. As such, and given all the points above, it seems extremely unlikely that this is a vote which can be won.
If AV is voted down it likely ends any hope for the next two or three decades of changing Westminster's voting system. Opponents of doing so from all parties (notably Labour and the Conservatives) will refer back to the result as a reason not to in future. And with the principle of needing a referendum to change this having been established it will be difficult for any party to try and force it through solely on parliament's say so.
Also as has been noted elsewhere even if the Liberals do pull off an unlikely victory in the referendum it is still to some extent a pyrrhic victory. The Alternative Vote is the mildest form of PR imaginable and if it is introduced for Westminster elections it will require at least, say, 20 years to bed in and have its success judged, during which time no other PR system can really be introduced.
The results and implications of the AV referendum won't be restricted to the issue it's about; the future of the UK coalition government is linked to this too. And that's where the next prediction will fall.
Electoral systems are not high up on the list of public concerns or interests but will become a notable issue this May across the UK as a referendum is held into changing the way we elect MPs, switching from first-past-the-post to the (slightly more proportional) Alternative Vote.
This is the big issue which has taken the Liberal Democrats into government and is part of the reason they can tolerate the abuse and unpopularity they currently suffer; introducing proportional representation into Westminster elections has long been the party's Holy Grail.
Electoral systems across the UK are extremely varied; in Scotland alone we use four different voting systems to elect MPs, MSPs, MEPs and councillors. This is because of the belief many hold that first-past-the-post unfairly favours large parties; the Liberals are an obvious group that lose out in elections by winning less MPs than their share of the vote should give them.
The theory for the Lib Dems is that having PR in UK elections could make them regular members of the government. However the big problem for them is that it currently looks like they're going to lose this UK referendum, killing any hope of PR in UK elections for at least a generation, and this will in no small part be due to their current role in government.
As above the public don't tend to get too exercised by talk of electoral systems and reform but as anger against the Lib Dems grows (taking the blame for the policies of the whole coalition, such as top-up fees) it seems the public could punish them by voting down their favoured policy.
Events in recent weeks with public splits between members of the two governing parties will not have helped either. Whilst as noted before the public will not be too fussed or shocked by politicians fighting the general impression that coalition governments bring instability will not endear the public to a system which effectively ensures perpetual coalitions.
An additional nail in the Alternative Vote's coffin (and thus PR's) is that many major media outlets seem opposed and likely to campaign this way. As such, and given all the points above, it seems extremely unlikely that this is a vote which can be won.
If AV is voted down it likely ends any hope for the next two or three decades of changing Westminster's voting system. Opponents of doing so from all parties (notably Labour and the Conservatives) will refer back to the result as a reason not to in future. And with the principle of needing a referendum to change this having been established it will be difficult for any party to try and force it through solely on parliament's say so.
Also as has been noted elsewhere even if the Liberals do pull off an unlikely victory in the referendum it is still to some extent a pyrrhic victory. The Alternative Vote is the mildest form of PR imaginable and if it is introduced for Westminster elections it will require at least, say, 20 years to bed in and have its success judged, during which time no other PR system can really be introduced.
The results and implications of the AV referendum won't be restricted to the issue it's about; the future of the UK coalition government is linked to this too. And that's where the next prediction will fall.
2 Jan 2011
2011 predictions - Scottish politics after the Holyrood election
After considering the possible results of the Scottish Parliament elections, it makes sense for the next of my 2011 predictions to look at the state of Scotland's political landscape after this.
If my expectation that Labour will emerge as the largest party in the fourth set of Holyrood elections (and thus form the government) is correct then there one big question that looms: the future of the SNP, particularly in terms of leadership.
Current First Minister Alex Salmond celebrated his 56th birthday on Hogmanay so would be 60 at the time of the 2015 elections. Would he remain as leader for four years, trying to win in 2015 before handing over to someone else (likely Nicola Sturgeon) after a year or so?
In fact if the SNP do lose seats in May's election - although it partly depends on the total number - there may come a pressure to make a leadership change now for someone younger. Whilst it would surely be the case that Sturgeon would still win it creates a dilemma about what to do with Salmond.
There's an old adage that your biggest strength is often your biggest weakness; the SNP may find this out if it changes leader. Alex Salmond's profile and stature in Holyrood doesn't just dwarf his rivals, it does the same with SNP MSPs. Unlike Westminster where it's large enough for former Prime Ministers to effectively 'disappear', this is not an option really open to former First Minister.
Whoever ends up leading the SNP it is surely likely that one mantra which is a major part of the Scottish political lexicon won't go away is 'broken promises'. It obviously remains to be seen what all the parties will campaign on in advance of May but what is guaranteed is that a newly-defeated SNP - angered by the constant 'broken promises' refrain will surely turn this around.
So assuming Labour do emerge as the largest party they will have to implement many promises - either from the manifesto or just made when criticising the SNP - fairly quickly or face attacks in this regard. Expect teacher employment and school buildings to be at the heart of this.
As for the other parties the biggest conundrum would be the Liberal Democrats. Post-May they could either be right at the heart of Scottish and UK politics as the only party with government ministers north and south of the border or they could be cast even further adrift.
The ultimate answer will surely depend on electoral numbers. Labour have seen the problems (and successes) that an SNP minority government has faced and may wish to avoid this; if a coalition with the Lib Dems gives them a majority they may think this is worth the criticism they'll receive for working with the Tories' UK partners.
However if such a coalition would leave them short of a majority they may decide otherwise. A minority coalition government could be the worst of all worlds as the face criticism for working with the Liberals whilst still not being able to implement all their plans. In this regard they would surely emulate the SNP and go it alone.
Another potential scenario is that even if Labour were the largest party then the SNP could combine (officially or unofficially) with other parties to keep them out of government. However this is surely extremely unlikely. The SNP made great play in 2007 of their moral right to govern after emerging as the largest party; they would surely find it difficult to now justify going against this.
They would also have to think about the long-term consequences of this. If Labour does emerge as the biggest party then the SNP combining with the Lib Dems, given their reputation due to the UK coalition, could be a disaster for the SNP. This same principle would also be true should Labour attempt to keep the SNP out of power if the nationalists remained the largest grouping.
The final issue is what happens to the smaller parties. As noted before the Greens are the party best placed to pick up even a small number of extra seats in May. Whilst this puts them in a position akin to the 2003 elections it remains to be seen if they would how have any greater impact than they did then.
Recent weeks have obviously shown the problems that can occur when a natural and charismatic leader falls from grace. All smaller parties will obviously thus be wary of the dangers this can bring. However without a major figure or issue to campaign around it's hard to see the big parties stranglehold on Holyrood being broken.
And with that my predictions move a little bit away from the Holyrood scene and start to look at the future of UK elections, something which will of course have an impact on the Scottish Parliament elections too.
If my expectation that Labour will emerge as the largest party in the fourth set of Holyrood elections (and thus form the government) is correct then there one big question that looms: the future of the SNP, particularly in terms of leadership.
Current First Minister Alex Salmond celebrated his 56th birthday on Hogmanay so would be 60 at the time of the 2015 elections. Would he remain as leader for four years, trying to win in 2015 before handing over to someone else (likely Nicola Sturgeon) after a year or so?
In fact if the SNP do lose seats in May's election - although it partly depends on the total number - there may come a pressure to make a leadership change now for someone younger. Whilst it would surely be the case that Sturgeon would still win it creates a dilemma about what to do with Salmond.
There's an old adage that your biggest strength is often your biggest weakness; the SNP may find this out if it changes leader. Alex Salmond's profile and stature in Holyrood doesn't just dwarf his rivals, it does the same with SNP MSPs. Unlike Westminster where it's large enough for former Prime Ministers to effectively 'disappear', this is not an option really open to former First Minister.
Whoever ends up leading the SNP it is surely likely that one mantra which is a major part of the Scottish political lexicon won't go away is 'broken promises'. It obviously remains to be seen what all the parties will campaign on in advance of May but what is guaranteed is that a newly-defeated SNP - angered by the constant 'broken promises' refrain will surely turn this around.
So assuming Labour do emerge as the largest party they will have to implement many promises - either from the manifesto or just made when criticising the SNP - fairly quickly or face attacks in this regard. Expect teacher employment and school buildings to be at the heart of this.
As for the other parties the biggest conundrum would be the Liberal Democrats. Post-May they could either be right at the heart of Scottish and UK politics as the only party with government ministers north and south of the border or they could be cast even further adrift.
The ultimate answer will surely depend on electoral numbers. Labour have seen the problems (and successes) that an SNP minority government has faced and may wish to avoid this; if a coalition with the Lib Dems gives them a majority they may think this is worth the criticism they'll receive for working with the Tories' UK partners.
However if such a coalition would leave them short of a majority they may decide otherwise. A minority coalition government could be the worst of all worlds as the face criticism for working with the Liberals whilst still not being able to implement all their plans. In this regard they would surely emulate the SNP and go it alone.
Another potential scenario is that even if Labour were the largest party then the SNP could combine (officially or unofficially) with other parties to keep them out of government. However this is surely extremely unlikely. The SNP made great play in 2007 of their moral right to govern after emerging as the largest party; they would surely find it difficult to now justify going against this.
They would also have to think about the long-term consequences of this. If Labour does emerge as the biggest party then the SNP combining with the Lib Dems, given their reputation due to the UK coalition, could be a disaster for the SNP. This same principle would also be true should Labour attempt to keep the SNP out of power if the nationalists remained the largest grouping.
The final issue is what happens to the smaller parties. As noted before the Greens are the party best placed to pick up even a small number of extra seats in May. Whilst this puts them in a position akin to the 2003 elections it remains to be seen if they would how have any greater impact than they did then.
Recent weeks have obviously shown the problems that can occur when a natural and charismatic leader falls from grace. All smaller parties will obviously thus be wary of the dangers this can bring. However without a major figure or issue to campaign around it's hard to see the big parties stranglehold on Holyrood being broken.
And with that my predictions move a little bit away from the Holyrood scene and start to look at the future of UK elections, something which will of course have an impact on the Scottish Parliament elections too.
1 Jan 2011
2011 predictions - Scottish Parliament elections
It's no surprise what the first of my 2011 predictions will cover: for politics in Scotland there's only one show in town this year and that's elections to the Scottish Parliament.
The main story of this will of course be whether or not the first ever SNP government can retain power or if Labour (and possibly a coalition partner) will sweep back into office.
Cutting to the chase - and whilst there's still some time to go before the vote - Labour seem likely to emerge as the largest party, giving them a mandate to form a government, whether minority or coalition. However it's unlikely to be a massive victory for them.
It remains to be seen what Labour - or indeed anyone else - will promise to do if elected. The recession will surely make everyone's promises much more modest and this could yet hurt turnout if the electorate are underwhelmed by the choices on offer.
The SNP's problem is not that they are seen as having failed but that the extent of their 2007 results means that even a slight shift away from them could be fatal to their hopes of a repeat result. Whilst they may blame the recession for some things, the 'broken promises' line that all parties (especially Labour) are playing on will likely have some impact.
Thus people who in 2007 chose to back the SNP for the first time because of pledges such as smaller classes, the writing-off of student debt, home loans amongst others may be less inclined to do so this time. And the electoral numbers involved mean even small changes could be significant.
2007's election was as close as they come: 47 seats to the SNP, 46 to Labour. In one constituency seat there was only 48 votes between the two parties, showing how tight the race was. Whilst they did well in some constituency seats (notably Govan and Dundee West) the SNP's big success was in the number of list (regional) seats they won.
In my view this will be where the SNP come unstuck this time. It's unlikely there will be a big change in constituency seats between the SNP and Labour (although the two seats mentioned above stand a good chance of returning to Labour) but even a slight reduction in SNP regional votes could cost them a few seats.
The question is who would gain from this. The predicted decline of the Liberal Democrats due to their UK government involvement likely rules them out although it's not clear that they will end up with substantially fewer MSPs overall. The ongoing Socialist schism means that the Greens could gain, even with two or three extra MSPs.
Assuming that the above is correct it leads us to wonder whether Labour would govern alone or in a coalition. As numbers go this could only really involve the Liberal Democrats; Labour's gamble would have to be whether joining with them at a Holyrood level hinders any Westminster attacks. This is clearly an option they're considering though.
Next we'll consider what might happen in Scottish politics after the dust settles on the Scottish Parliament elections.
The main story of this will of course be whether or not the first ever SNP government can retain power or if Labour (and possibly a coalition partner) will sweep back into office.
Cutting to the chase - and whilst there's still some time to go before the vote - Labour seem likely to emerge as the largest party, giving them a mandate to form a government, whether minority or coalition. However it's unlikely to be a massive victory for them.
It remains to be seen what Labour - or indeed anyone else - will promise to do if elected. The recession will surely make everyone's promises much more modest and this could yet hurt turnout if the electorate are underwhelmed by the choices on offer.
The SNP's problem is not that they are seen as having failed but that the extent of their 2007 results means that even a slight shift away from them could be fatal to their hopes of a repeat result. Whilst they may blame the recession for some things, the 'broken promises' line that all parties (especially Labour) are playing on will likely have some impact.
Thus people who in 2007 chose to back the SNP for the first time because of pledges such as smaller classes, the writing-off of student debt, home loans amongst others may be less inclined to do so this time. And the electoral numbers involved mean even small changes could be significant.
2007's election was as close as they come: 47 seats to the SNP, 46 to Labour. In one constituency seat there was only 48 votes between the two parties, showing how tight the race was. Whilst they did well in some constituency seats (notably Govan and Dundee West) the SNP's big success was in the number of list (regional) seats they won.
In my view this will be where the SNP come unstuck this time. It's unlikely there will be a big change in constituency seats between the SNP and Labour (although the two seats mentioned above stand a good chance of returning to Labour) but even a slight reduction in SNP regional votes could cost them a few seats.
The question is who would gain from this. The predicted decline of the Liberal Democrats due to their UK government involvement likely rules them out although it's not clear that they will end up with substantially fewer MSPs overall. The ongoing Socialist schism means that the Greens could gain, even with two or three extra MSPs.
Assuming that the above is correct it leads us to wonder whether Labour would govern alone or in a coalition. As numbers go this could only really involve the Liberal Democrats; Labour's gamble would have to be whether joining with them at a Holyrood level hinders any Westminster attacks. This is clearly an option they're considering though.
Next we'll consider what might happen in Scottish politics after the dust settles on the Scottish Parliament elections.
Predictions for the year ahead
As the opening ten hours of the new year disappear before us it's a good time to look ahead and imagine what the remaining 8750 hours might well bring us.
Over the next few days the major issues that will face politicians in the coming months will be under the microscope, with suggestions for what might well happen included. Feel free to suggest your own or disagree with my analysis.
So it's crystal balls out as we look at topics such as the Scottish Parliament elections, Alternative Vote referendum and a range of other matters. First post later today.
Over the next few days the major issues that will face politicians in the coming months will be under the microscope, with suggestions for what might well happen included. Feel free to suggest your own or disagree with my analysis.
So it's crystal balls out as we look at topics such as the Scottish Parliament elections, Alternative Vote referendum and a range of other matters. First post later today.
