Recent elections in Scotland have been something of a strange affair. Labour, which is opposed to independence, only wants to talk about this. The SNP, which wants independence, appears to have never heard of the concept during electoral campaigns.
This dynamic has not gone unnoticed by other politicians notably retiring SNP MSP Chris Harvie and Margo MacDonald who has challenged the SNP to make the case for independence rather than hiding from it.
The reasons for the paradox mentioned at the start are not too surprising. According to polls most people in Scotland (who may be prepared to vote SNP) are not persuaded of independence’s merits.
As a result Labour clearly thinks that placing doubt in people’s mind about this policy (and thus the SNP) is the key to electoral success. What’s more the SNP’s failure to make the case suggests they agree with this analysis.
The problem with this is that there will always be another election on the horizon which gives a reason not to talk about independence. 2012 sees council elections, 2015 a UK General election and then we’re back to a Holyrood race in 2016. And so on.
So it is worth asking where this leaves the SNP. A claim often made and not without merit is that, ideologically, Labour and the SNP are not massively dissimilar, if you take away the constitutional issue.
Partisans from both parties will vehemently deny this and point to occasional policy disagreements as proof but many of these are hardly substantial e.g. one party wants a 2-year council tax freeze, the other a 5-year freeze. Different, but hardly radically.
If the SNP are not prepared to make a sustained press for independence – something they clearly feel could cost them electorally in Holyrood campaigns – then this leaves us with two major parties that effectively believe and want similar things.
The interesting issue is what this could mean over time for the SNP. For now the very fact of being in government remains a huge SNP achievement; in that regard it’s not a surprise that members, activists and MSPs who want independence would remain quiet.
Not only that but in elevating Alex Salmond to the role of the country’s most powerful and capable politician (essential for their current campaign) it makes it difficult to take him on or even threaten to remove him from power if he does not deliver their policy Holy Grail.
This situation surely cannot remain forever though. If the SNP win next week and again form a government this makes re-election in 2016 less likely. Therefore if they don’t strike now with a referendum it’s possibly off the table for at least 15 years.
What’s more, the perfect constitutional storm could be if a re-elected Alex Salmond decides to step down as First Minister sometime in this coming Parliamentary term.
If this happens a new leader with presumably less status (all due respect to Nicola Sturgeon) would surely be faced with internal independence demands. They may even face a sustained challenge from an independence candidate in a leadership election.
And an even bigger challenge than from their own party could be what the voters begin to think (although this could equally apply to Labour too). If there really is little difference between the SNP and Labour might this see a shift away from one or both?
For now the SNP are an alternative to Labour’s traditional Scottish hegemony. But over time, and the longer they run councils and the Scottish Government, this will surely begin to change; they will be the establishment rather than challenging it.
Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Maybe SNP members will eventually content themselves with either the status quo or even ‘independence creep’ where a few extra powers over time leave Scotland waking up one day and suddenly realising it’s independent.
Equally maybe voters will decide that they want a certain ideological thread running through the country’s government. The fact that they have two parties which deliver this simply gives them a choice and chance to keep both on their electoral toes.
The danger however for the SNP (and again potentially also Labour) is that one or both of these things does not happen. At that point they face potentially huge internal battles alongside weakening public support.
The next week will decide many things; the country’s next government; the leadership of at least one political party and the shape of the country’s politics for the next five years.
What it might not directly deal with though is the place and position of independence within the SNP. But this day can’t be postponed forever – eventually they are going to have to talk about it.
29 Apr 2011
25 Apr 2011
What wins support for political parties?
According to reports Labour will today re-launch their Holyrood campaign in an attempt to claw back the SNP's poll lead before next Thursday.
In reaching this conclusion no doubt the party will have considered numerous matters but the most pressing will have simply been 'how can we win votes?', certainly enough to decide the election.
It may seem an obvious question yet it is one which is very rarely directly considered or debated. It's also surely something which contains a myriad of competing influences and is not as simple as just being popular
In basic terms the answer is not that complex if what we mean is popularity; have policies which resonate with voters and a leadership team which seems upbeat, confident and organised.
However even this is not a simple achievement. Leaving aside a debate about what voters (rather than just the general public) want it's also vital to bring in external support too e.g. media, pressure groups, etc.
And once you begin bringing in additional factors the whole project becomes much more complex. For instance what about the role of ideology? Do you have a red line over which you will not cross?
If all you seek is populist policies then ideology doesn't matter; you just shape your plans to whatever the apparent public mood is at that time but leave yourself open to change whenever it suits.
In some regards all major parties do this, especially at this election. As noted before in spite of the recession all parties seem eager to show how much money they can spend on council tax freezes.
This may be popular and yet it is surely unlikely that every single candidate in every political party agrees with this. Yet their silence is understandable proof that sometimes parties and people put voting expediency before belief.
It's also important to have policies which resonate with the public but also seem deliverable. You can promise 100,000 small things but will the electorate actually remember them? Or you can pledge a five-year council tax freeze which will stick in people's mind in the polling booth.
Even if we ignore the debate around policy then we also have to consider the role of leadership in winning support. And for that we have to think what we actually mean by leadership.
Do we mean a man or woman with firm political convictions that stands valiantly by them in the face of opposition, winning public admiration? Or do we mean someone who seems like a nice person we could engage with directly?
The popularity of London Mayor Boris Johnson is a case in point. Surely at least part of Johnson's political success is based upon his TV appearances and jolly demeanour, rather than a policy or leadership skills analysis?
Is it simply enough for your leader to have any public profile? If people have heard of them that creates a certain X-Factor in our celebrity obsessed culture and it's rare that everything they know about them would be negative.
But even these are not the only answers on how to win support; if they were then a party which was struggling at this stage of a campaign would surely be finished as there's not enough time left before polling day.
So this then brings in the final factor not directly mentioned above (although partly related): appealing to people's emotions.
This can be done in numerous ways; it could be an appeal to tribal loyalty ('my party'), it could be an attempt to seem upbeat and confident in laying out a vision (making them happy) or it could be about scaring voters about what awaits if they don't back you.
It remains to be seen the exact tack Labour take in their re-launch but the 'scare factor' will surely be present if early news trails are anything to go by.
Their campaign to date has focused on the idea of a UK Tory government needing a Labour Scottish Government to oppose them, something which has largely proven unsuccessful. The next step is to attack the SNP' broken promises.
Will this work? Well that's harder to answer. There is little doubt that many of the SNP's headline pledges were not achieved; an ongoing blame game exists about the extent to which this was their fault.
However even assuming that at least some of it was their responsibility then it's worth remembering that they also had a number of achievements which have enjoyed public backing. And certainly the sky has not fallen in on Scotland under their leadership.
So unless Iain Gray can come up with a particular theme which will genuinely chime a scare cord with the public then it's unlikely this will be especially fruitful. Attacking the idea of an independence referendum surely isn't the answer, unless the SNP are foolish enough to engage directly in this debate.
Harold Wilson once noted that 'a week is a long time in politics' so the week-and-a-half before next Thursday's election could yet include many as yet unexpected twists and turns.
The volatility of the opinion polls - switching from huge Labour support earlier to a massive SNP win now - shows nothing is unachievable. In other words it is possible to win and lose political support quite quickly.
But in the longer term - win or lose next Thursday - Labour and other parties will have to seriously consider what actually builds long-term support for a party, and it can't always be as simple as appealing to voters' negative concerns and emotions.
In reaching this conclusion no doubt the party will have considered numerous matters but the most pressing will have simply been 'how can we win votes?', certainly enough to decide the election.
It may seem an obvious question yet it is one which is very rarely directly considered or debated. It's also surely something which contains a myriad of competing influences and is not as simple as just being popular
In basic terms the answer is not that complex if what we mean is popularity; have policies which resonate with voters and a leadership team which seems upbeat, confident and organised.
However even this is not a simple achievement. Leaving aside a debate about what voters (rather than just the general public) want it's also vital to bring in external support too e.g. media, pressure groups, etc.
And once you begin bringing in additional factors the whole project becomes much more complex. For instance what about the role of ideology? Do you have a red line over which you will not cross?
If all you seek is populist policies then ideology doesn't matter; you just shape your plans to whatever the apparent public mood is at that time but leave yourself open to change whenever it suits.
In some regards all major parties do this, especially at this election. As noted before in spite of the recession all parties seem eager to show how much money they can spend on council tax freezes.
This may be popular and yet it is surely unlikely that every single candidate in every political party agrees with this. Yet their silence is understandable proof that sometimes parties and people put voting expediency before belief.
It's also important to have policies which resonate with the public but also seem deliverable. You can promise 100,000 small things but will the electorate actually remember them? Or you can pledge a five-year council tax freeze which will stick in people's mind in the polling booth.
Even if we ignore the debate around policy then we also have to consider the role of leadership in winning support. And for that we have to think what we actually mean by leadership.
Do we mean a man or woman with firm political convictions that stands valiantly by them in the face of opposition, winning public admiration? Or do we mean someone who seems like a nice person we could engage with directly?
The popularity of London Mayor Boris Johnson is a case in point. Surely at least part of Johnson's political success is based upon his TV appearances and jolly demeanour, rather than a policy or leadership skills analysis?
Is it simply enough for your leader to have any public profile? If people have heard of them that creates a certain X-Factor in our celebrity obsessed culture and it's rare that everything they know about them would be negative.
But even these are not the only answers on how to win support; if they were then a party which was struggling at this stage of a campaign would surely be finished as there's not enough time left before polling day.
So this then brings in the final factor not directly mentioned above (although partly related): appealing to people's emotions.
This can be done in numerous ways; it could be an appeal to tribal loyalty ('my party'), it could be an attempt to seem upbeat and confident in laying out a vision (making them happy) or it could be about scaring voters about what awaits if they don't back you.
It remains to be seen the exact tack Labour take in their re-launch but the 'scare factor' will surely be present if early news trails are anything to go by.
Their campaign to date has focused on the idea of a UK Tory government needing a Labour Scottish Government to oppose them, something which has largely proven unsuccessful. The next step is to attack the SNP' broken promises.
Will this work? Well that's harder to answer. There is little doubt that many of the SNP's headline pledges were not achieved; an ongoing blame game exists about the extent to which this was their fault.
However even assuming that at least some of it was their responsibility then it's worth remembering that they also had a number of achievements which have enjoyed public backing. And certainly the sky has not fallen in on Scotland under their leadership.
So unless Iain Gray can come up with a particular theme which will genuinely chime a scare cord with the public then it's unlikely this will be especially fruitful. Attacking the idea of an independence referendum surely isn't the answer, unless the SNP are foolish enough to engage directly in this debate.
Harold Wilson once noted that 'a week is a long time in politics' so the week-and-a-half before next Thursday's election could yet include many as yet unexpected twists and turns.
The volatility of the opinion polls - switching from huge Labour support earlier to a massive SNP win now - shows nothing is unachievable. In other words it is possible to win and lose political support quite quickly.
But in the longer term - win or lose next Thursday - Labour and other parties will have to seriously consider what actually builds long-term support for a party, and it can't always be as simple as appealing to voters' negative concerns and emotions.
23 Apr 2011
Have opinion polls been too important in this election?
Every election tends to have a defining moment or issue; it’s telling that in this year’s Holyrood race the closest we’ve come to this are opinion polls.
Opinion polls are obviously important – not least to journalists and political anoraks – in that they provide a certain barometer of how the race is going.
It is actually a little depressing however if they become the major story themselves. However the lack of substantive policy ideas in this race have brought polls to the fore.
Polls themselves are, like the wind, subject to change. Going back to earlier this year the clear indication was that Labour would not just win but do so easily.
Fast forward to this past week and suddenly this has all changed, now it is the SNP that polls suggest will not only win but do so with some ease.
In each instance all parties will act the same; criticise the polls and their methodologies if they’re behind, support the polls’ results if they’re ahead.
But what do polls really tell us? They give us a certain feel for how a small section of the country (albeit selected in a way to represent the country-at-large) are thinking.
There are however numerous nuances to this. For instance a poll may say that one party is ahead or that another is failing; what it doesn’t always say is the likelihood of those people voting.
Polls can also be skewed towards the person or party that commissions them; for example Labour are hardly likely to release their poll results if they show an SNP victory and vice versa.
But as mentioned above the most depressing aspect of this race has been the way that it is reporting the polls which has been the biggest story of the campaign.
In a race which can actually excite and engage the population the polls would merely be a side dish to the main course, that of substantive policy announcements which chime with the public’s wishes and demands.
Instead – and for numerous reasons – we have had a fairly vacuous campaign featuring occasional policy, celebrity endorsements and precious little else.
The fact though is that the public have been mostly unmoved; the turnout at next month’s elections will surely prove this when it is little more than 50%.
It’s getting to the stage where we’d be just as well making the opinion polls the actual election – there may end up being little difference in the numbers taking part in each of them anyway.
22 Apr 2011
Why has The Sun backed the SNP and how important is it?
Claim and counter-claim have been the order of the day since The Sun threw its weight behind the SNP earlier this week.
The SNP – and The Sun – are anxious to stress that this is about who is best for the job of being First Minister; Labour have more devious suggestions than this. So what reason – or more likely reasons – might lie behind this decision?
If we take The Sun’s position at face value then there are two main influences at play; one, the SNP’s record in government and Alex Salmond’s leadership skills.
There is of course something to be said for this; if the premise of The Sun’s 2007 position was a genuine belief that the SNP would be an incompetent government this clearly has not come to pass.
Whatever anyone’s opinion of the SNP the 2007-2011 Scottish Government can point to a number of policies which enjoy popular support evidenced by polls over the past four years.
Furthermore Alex Salmond can also proven himself to be a confident and capable leader; certainly his profile as First Minister is as high if not moreso than any that have gone before. So these reasons could justify The Sun’s choice.
And they are surely part of the reason. However for all the protestations otherwise it’s hard to escape the feeling that there are wider agendas at work here.
One thing which links every Sun editor in interviews they give is the insistence that owner Rupert Murdoch does not interfere in the editorial process. This claim is echoed by other editors which are part of News Corporation’s business.
Given Murdoch’s worldwide media influence – and some of the stories which exist about his rise to prominence – this seems exceptionally hard to believe. As much as anything if it is true then why do politicians go to such great lengths to know Murdoch at all?
Given the UK Sun’s Conservative support it seems very convenient for them to back the party most likely to beat Labour in Scotland, even if there are other explanations which can be part of the answer too.
And there is also one final reason that they might have supported the SNP completely separate from anything mentioned already – simply that they believe the SNP are going to win.
Newspapers – particularly The Sun – are obviously important and have an influence on elections but they are at times guilty of exaggerating this effect. The reality is that people buy and read newspapers for numerous reasons.
Someone may be an ardent Labour voter yet choose to buy the Daily Mail because they like the Sport section, and so on. A look at this table (albeit a few years old) shows this contrasting readership.
It suits newspapers for politicians to believe their influence because it makes it easier to get access and win readers by showing how influential they are e.g. ensuring a campaign gets a positive government response.
Whilst you can point out that The Sun supported the winner in the 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010 elections – switching its support throughout – you could also say they just switched to the likely winner rather than actually changing the result.
There is also the issue – mentioned earlier this week – that newspaper readership does not automatically equate to voting and in fact The Sun has one of the lowest percentages of readers that actually vote in elections.
It’s surely likely that no single reason lies behind The Sun’s decision although certainly some issues will weigh more heavily than others. The one that people prefer to believe will likely depend on the colour of candidate’s rosette they plan voting for in May.
20 Apr 2011
SNP and The Sun: from execution to excellent
What a difference four years can make; the Scottish Sun has gone from outright opposition to the SNP in 2007 to endorsement in 2011.
The respective front pages could not be more contrasting; a noose to describe what the SNP would do to Scotland four years ago to ‘Play it again Salm’ now.
So what does all of this mean for the election? Is this the final boost the SNP need to win re-election or is The Sun’s influence over-estimated?
There is no doubt that there has been a growing national momentum with the SNP in recent weeks; polls which had previously killed their re-election hopes are now swinging in their favour.
The Sun will have been part of that. Their endorsement is hardly a surprise given the positive headlines they’ve been given the SNP recently, not least front page celebrity endorsements.
Of course the SNP team also seem to have upped their game in recent weeks and so any upsurge cannot just be put down to one newspaper, as influential as Scotland’s biggest selling daily ‘paper is.
From this perspective then it would seem to be game over; surely if Labour have been losing national momentum and The Sun has turned it must be all over? Perhaps, but not definitely.
The most obvious point here is that The Sun’s vehement opposition to the SNP at the last election clearly did matter because they still won; that’s a thought Labour will certainly cling to now.
Indeed Labour’s response – not surprisingly – has been that elections are not won in national newsrooms but through local campaigning; this is surely true as well. The downside of government (local or national) is that you inevitably disappoint or anger people, and no amount of newspaper urging will change that.
It’s also worth considering how many Sun readers actually vote, certainly in comparison to other newspapers.
The polling company Ipsos-Mori carried out a survey (albeit based on UK elections) which put Sun readers’ voting turnout at around 57%, with only the Daily Star having a smaller percentage of readers that vote.
By contrast other newspapers – even the Labour-supporting Daily Record – have at least 65% of their readers taking part in an election ballot.
Again you have to balance this against the fact that because The Sun has more readers then even a lower percentage might be a higher number of actual people. But the general point is that this is not necessarily the killer blow for the SNP.
There is also a discussion to be had about why The Sun has performed such a volte face over its’ opposition and endorsement but that is for another post.
What is true is that it will be Alex Salmond and the SNP who will have the biggest smiles; after all a media endorsement is generally never a bad thing.
But it would also be wrong to assume that this means the Holyrood race is all but over. And it's unlikely any party leader is making this mistake.
17 Apr 2011
The Iceman Cometh to discuss Council Tax
In an election lacking any real substantive policy the one thing that seems to have united all parties is the need to ensure people don't pay more council tax.
Labour's plans to freeze council tax for two years has been gazumped by the SNP's five-year freeze. The Tories had already promised a £200 cut for pensioners whilst the Lib Dems want everyone earning under £10,000 to be exempt.
As noted before truly the apocalyptic warnings we keep hearing about budget squeezes and threats to services must be exaggerated, certainly if all the major parties can throw round such largesse.
The decision whether or not to increase any tax is a legitimate one for discussion during an election campaign. What is worrying is the way all parties appear to be offering this not as part of any overall plan but rather purely as headline-grabbing election baubles.
A party that believes in small government promising a freeze or even reduction in tax to boost public spending can easily justify this; however the two main electoral front runners boast of their commitment to public services all the while slashing the amount available to spend.
No-one likes having to pay taxes but the reality is that a five-year tax freeze will cost £2.5 billion at the same time as the Scottish Government's budget is being cut; whatever way this is painted it has to then result in a smaller public sector.
Now this may not be the worst thing. If money can be shifted away from back office functions into the frontline most people will celebrate this. But anyone who thinks you can cut spending and not see a reduced number of services, nurses, police, teachers, etc is kidding themselves.
Even the defence that hard pressed and hard-working families (for it is always they) can't afford to pay more ignores the fact that many end up doing so by the back door e.g. councils increasing or introducing charges for services which were previously free.
Perhaps the key issue here is a reminder that the tax powers available to the Scottish Parliament are not specific or direct enough; in an ideal world any changes to council tax (whether reforming or scrapping it) would allow freezes and other changes to be more easily targeted where most needed.
For instance we could introduce a deferred tax system for those people that may be property rich but cash poor; why not allow them to put off paying tax until they sell their home or after death (even though this inevitably and depressingly lead to a 'death tax' charge)?
Genuinely discussing how to pay for important services whilst also protecting people from unaffordable increases would be a much more effective discussion to have rather than merely seeing who can give away most in the next month at the expense of services over the next five years.
The play 'The Iceman Cometh' (appropriate for an election which wants to focus on freezing things) could not be more appropriate to this discussion; its' plot centres on the idea that success and happiness can only be achieved when people stop focusing on unattainable dreams and goals.
So it goes for political promises aimed solely at winning and not part of any notable plan for the country-at-large. If politicians honestly want to see the country improve and develop then surely their main promises have to take us somewhere towards achieving that, not merely offering pipe dreams?
Labour's plans to freeze council tax for two years has been gazumped by the SNP's five-year freeze. The Tories had already promised a £200 cut for pensioners whilst the Lib Dems want everyone earning under £10,000 to be exempt.
As noted before truly the apocalyptic warnings we keep hearing about budget squeezes and threats to services must be exaggerated, certainly if all the major parties can throw round such largesse.
The decision whether or not to increase any tax is a legitimate one for discussion during an election campaign. What is worrying is the way all parties appear to be offering this not as part of any overall plan but rather purely as headline-grabbing election baubles.
A party that believes in small government promising a freeze or even reduction in tax to boost public spending can easily justify this; however the two main electoral front runners boast of their commitment to public services all the while slashing the amount available to spend.
No-one likes having to pay taxes but the reality is that a five-year tax freeze will cost £2.5 billion at the same time as the Scottish Government's budget is being cut; whatever way this is painted it has to then result in a smaller public sector.
Now this may not be the worst thing. If money can be shifted away from back office functions into the frontline most people will celebrate this. But anyone who thinks you can cut spending and not see a reduced number of services, nurses, police, teachers, etc is kidding themselves.
Even the defence that hard pressed and hard-working families (for it is always they) can't afford to pay more ignores the fact that many end up doing so by the back door e.g. councils increasing or introducing charges for services which were previously free.
Perhaps the key issue here is a reminder that the tax powers available to the Scottish Parliament are not specific or direct enough; in an ideal world any changes to council tax (whether reforming or scrapping it) would allow freezes and other changes to be more easily targeted where most needed.
For instance we could introduce a deferred tax system for those people that may be property rich but cash poor; why not allow them to put off paying tax until they sell their home or after death (even though this inevitably and depressingly lead to a 'death tax' charge)?
Genuinely discussing how to pay for important services whilst also protecting people from unaffordable increases would be a much more effective discussion to have rather than merely seeing who can give away most in the next month at the expense of services over the next five years.
The play 'The Iceman Cometh' (appropriate for an election which wants to focus on freezing things) could not be more appropriate to this discussion; its' plot centres on the idea that success and happiness can only be achieved when people stop focusing on unattainable dreams and goals.
So it goes for political promises aimed solely at winning and not part of any notable plan for the country-at-large. If politicians honestly want to see the country improve and develop then surely their main promises have to take us somewhere towards achieving that, not merely offering pipe dreams?
16 Apr 2011
Now on Twitter
Anyone interested can now follow this blog on Twitter. The link is: @ideascivil
Given the average length of my posts it's anyone's guess how I'll keep to a 140 character limit.
Given the average length of my posts it's anyone's guess how I'll keep to a 140 character limit.
15 Apr 2011
Holyrood elections: what would a radical policy look like?
In Scotland's divided online world one thing seems to be uniting bloggers from across the political spectrum; this election has been relatively low key with few, if any, stand out policies.
The general feeling seems to be that as a consequence of the closeness of the election and the economic downturn no party is willing or able to propose any radical or major policy.
It's hard to argue with this general feeling but it's also worth asking just what a radical policy would look like and whether or not people would genuinely be prepared to support it.
There have been so many populist policies at this election - council tax freezes, no university tuition fees and so on - that it's hard to believe we have ever been affected by recession.
In the same moment that politicians unite to agree that there's tough times ahead, difficult decisions will have to be made and numerous other platitudes, they seem happy to offer to spend even more money.
If instead they were brutally honest and said that the financial climate we are in meant that they could not fairly promise to spend more money, the policy debate would instead have to shift to reforming or even scrapping some current policies.
Whilst this may make for an interesting debate, is an election really the time to do this? The personal demands of key interest groups - whether in the public or private sector - would likely lead to those promises being ripped apart in the media, not least by political opponents.
Let's imagine that the following policies were suggested by a major party:
This is not to say that all these ideas exactly match my own opinion, merely that they would be fairly radical solutions to perceived problems. Beyond these ideas, what other ideas that aren't on the table would people like to see debated?
As a country and blogging community we have to ask ourselves if it's good enough to demand radical ideas unless we can suggest them too. And this does not mean merely repeating what may be in your party's manifesto.
The closest we've come to a genuinely different policy that was worthy of debate was the Conservatives' suggestion that some 14-year olds leave school to pursue vocational training; otherwise this has indeed been a policy-lite election.
So if we want new policies perhaps we have to lead and make these suggestions. And that also goes for online party cheerleaders who are ever anxious to berate the Opposition for lack of real vision whilst ignoring their own shortcomings.
Any ideas?
The general feeling seems to be that as a consequence of the closeness of the election and the economic downturn no party is willing or able to propose any radical or major policy.
It's hard to argue with this general feeling but it's also worth asking just what a radical policy would look like and whether or not people would genuinely be prepared to support it.
There have been so many populist policies at this election - council tax freezes, no university tuition fees and so on - that it's hard to believe we have ever been affected by recession.
In the same moment that politicians unite to agree that there's tough times ahead, difficult decisions will have to be made and numerous other platitudes, they seem happy to offer to spend even more money.
If instead they were brutally honest and said that the financial climate we are in meant that they could not fairly promise to spend more money, the policy debate would instead have to shift to reforming or even scrapping some current policies.
Whilst this may make for an interesting debate, is an election really the time to do this? The personal demands of key interest groups - whether in the public or private sector - would likely lead to those promises being ripped apart in the media, not least by political opponents.
Let's imagine that the following policies were suggested by a major party:
- all schools freed from any local or national control, with the exception perhaps of some general national targets, and allowed to develop their own curriculum focus;
- the legalisation of minor drugs, allowing the policing focus to be on quality and targeting harder drugs such as heroin or cocaine;
- the complete removal of council housing from council control in favour of community groups with the power to arrange repairs, new builds, etc;
- reform of the current system of local and national democracy; do we really need so many full-time politicians? Could citizens' juries be used on some issues instead?
This is not to say that all these ideas exactly match my own opinion, merely that they would be fairly radical solutions to perceived problems. Beyond these ideas, what other ideas that aren't on the table would people like to see debated?
As a country and blogging community we have to ask ourselves if it's good enough to demand radical ideas unless we can suggest them too. And this does not mean merely repeating what may be in your party's manifesto.
The closest we've come to a genuinely different policy that was worthy of debate was the Conservatives' suggestion that some 14-year olds leave school to pursue vocational training; otherwise this has indeed been a policy-lite election.
So if we want new policies perhaps we have to lead and make these suggestions. And that also goes for online party cheerleaders who are ever anxious to berate the Opposition for lack of real vision whilst ignoring their own shortcomings.
Any ideas?
1 Apr 2011
Thatcher, Holyrood and April Fools
To anyone outraged or upset by the previous post about Margaret Thatcher's popularity in Scotland, it's worth checking today's date.
It's fair to say that the one person the SNP and Labour do not want to emulate in this May's elections is Margaret Thatcher.
Hopefully the joke was obvious. And if not, surely the fact that one of the labels at the end of the article said 'April Fool' should have been a clue!
It's fair to say that the one person the SNP and Labour do not want to emulate in this May's elections is Margaret Thatcher.
Hopefully the joke was obvious. And if not, surely the fact that one of the labels at the end of the article said 'April Fool' should have been a clue!
Thatcher: the key to Holyrood election victory
It has often been said that Margaret Thatcher was the mother of devolution; that without her Scotland would never have felt the need to take the plunge and have a Scottish Parliament.
There is however another key factor which should involve Lady Thatcher in this May’s elections – the fact that she was actually very popular in Scotland and remains so to this day.
Listening to a small band of politicians or even the national media it’s often easy to forget that Thatcher was in fact overwhelmingly popular in the 1980s in Scotland. For instance she was greeted warmly and with a special reception at the 1988 Scottish Cup Final.
It’s for this reason that it remains surprising – and surely a huge missed opportunity – for Alex Salmond and Iain Gray to not make greater use of Thatcher’s tartan popularity and successful legacy.
Turnout at this election is likely to be around 50%, based on previous elections. Clearly then there is an enormous untapped vote that would be inspired by the SNP or Labour’s use of the Iron Lady’s charm and esteem.
In the 1980s Scotland had grown tired of manufacturing and heavy industry; at the time people already wanted to see fewer apprenticeships and more in the way of temporary, low skilled employment. Thatcher helped deliver that for Scotland.
However it wasn’t just here that she showed a vision which ensuring her enduring popularity. The Poll tax remains one of the most significant decisions taken by a government, in spite of media exaggeration about alleged protests which took place against this.
So for all these reasons SNP and Labour strategists looking to steal a march on their rivals could do no worse than look to Mrs Thatcher for the inspiration and ideas they need. Just as David Cameron models himself as ‘heir to Blair’ so should Salmond and Gray do so for the Iron Lady.
The 2011 Scottish Parliament election race is on and very much up for grabs; the party that benefits from Margaret Thatcher’s real and genuine popularity in Scotland will surely emerge victorious.
There is however another key factor which should involve Lady Thatcher in this May’s elections – the fact that she was actually very popular in Scotland and remains so to this day.
Listening to a small band of politicians or even the national media it’s often easy to forget that Thatcher was in fact overwhelmingly popular in the 1980s in Scotland. For instance she was greeted warmly and with a special reception at the 1988 Scottish Cup Final.
It’s for this reason that it remains surprising – and surely a huge missed opportunity – for Alex Salmond and Iain Gray to not make greater use of Thatcher’s tartan popularity and successful legacy.
Turnout at this election is likely to be around 50%, based on previous elections. Clearly then there is an enormous untapped vote that would be inspired by the SNP or Labour’s use of the Iron Lady’s charm and esteem.
In the 1980s Scotland had grown tired of manufacturing and heavy industry; at the time people already wanted to see fewer apprenticeships and more in the way of temporary, low skilled employment. Thatcher helped deliver that for Scotland.
However it wasn’t just here that she showed a vision which ensuring her enduring popularity. The Poll tax remains one of the most significant decisions taken by a government, in spite of media exaggeration about alleged protests which took place against this.
So for all these reasons SNP and Labour strategists looking to steal a march on their rivals could do no worse than look to Mrs Thatcher for the inspiration and ideas they need. Just as David Cameron models himself as ‘heir to Blair’ so should Salmond and Gray do so for the Iron Lady.
The 2011 Scottish Parliament election race is on and very much up for grabs; the party that benefits from Margaret Thatcher’s real and genuine popularity in Scotland will surely emerge victorious.
