The #leadersdebate – What to Expect

There has been much debate about the debate, especially over whether...

read my new blog at http://tumblr.com/xce8nnm4z

This blog is movin'!

This blog has now moved to...

http://wotsnews.tumblr.com 

Also follow me at... 

http://twitter.com/marionwsteel

Come join me! 

Which party is he for again?

Just in the middle of the Ask the Chancellor debate. Can't help but notice the constant "And George/Alistair/Vince will agree with me here...". They're all having a difficult time telling us what they'll do differently. You can't get a cigarette paper between them!

There may be a new burst of consensual politics or it may be that they are all too scared to get into the details.

So far though George Osbourne is fairing the worst: both the Chancellor and Vince Cable have got a few hits so far.

Equality: Let us not forget how far we have come - or how far we still have to go.

Labour MP, Chris Bryant, has become the first person to hold a civil partnership ceremony in the Palace of Westminster. This reminds us that for all the things Labour promised in 1997, gay rights is one area where they have really delivered. But how far have we came in those 13 years? Is it really “job done”?


Some of the key achievements have been:


• an equalisation of the age of consent;


• a repeal of Section 28/Clause 2A;


• civil partnerships;


• gay adoption;


• gays allowed to serve in the military;


• a ban on discrimination in the work place and in the provision of goods and services;


• the creation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and


• the Human Rights Act and the more recent Equality Bill going through parliament.


On paper it’s easy to see why so many people say “gays have equality, they need to stop banging on about it”. But this simply isn’t true. The “civil partnership” of Chris Bryant MP is a case in point. The fact that it happened in the Palace of Westminster symbolises the great leaps in equality in the last few years. However, the fact that it took place in the members dining room and not in the Palace chapel where weddings normally take place show how far we have to come. Given that Mr Bryant is a former “Church of England curate and chaplain” it is likely he would have liked it to take place in a church but the Civil Partnership Act specifically excludes them taking place in any religious building – regardless of whether the religion would like to or not.


It is obvious that this was added to the Act to placate religions that are less tolerant of gays and lesbians but its effect is to actually discriminate against gays and lesbians who are religious. Whether Civil Partnerships are called marriages or not should not be the issue – it should be whether or not both forms of partnership both have equality of rights. At first glance it is ludicrous to create a whole new law and form of ceremony at a high cost to the taxpayer when only a few lines of the Marriage Act need be changed. However, this has been done specifically to allow for minor revisions in the law to placate those who were opposed to the whole project.


For example, the Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act is almost an identical document to the Marriage (Scotland) Act except for a few changes. One such change is, as said, that Civil Partnerships may not take place in places of religion another is that witnesses must be over 16 (as opposed to the Marriage Act wording “must profess to be over 16”). Yes, this is a legal technicality that may prove to be inconsequential but, if so, why do it? It suggests that if witnesses prove not to be over 16 the partnership may be void. Maybe this is a nice revision that the marriage law would benefit from but why not change the marriage law aswell?


If gays and lesbians were truly to have equality there wouldn’t be these silly differences in law, and Chris Bryant MP could have got married in a church. Nonetheless, when Members of the House of Lords proposed such an amendment (and added it to the Equality Bill by a majority of 74) both the Labour and Conservative “Equality” spokespeople in the Lords opposed the move. Why?

Dumblebore and the 2010 Budget

Dumblebore presenting HM Government's 2010 Budget

I know, that's silly. Dumbledore had more convincing eyebrows than Alistair Darling. But Professor Trelawney's crystal ball may have been consulted to predict our economic future (too far?). Seriously though, the budget is all black magic to me.

Take for example something you think would be a simple fact: the value of this years Scottish budget and the change from last year. Not so, it's election year!

John Swinney, SNP Finance Secretary: “our overall budget is falling in real terms in the forthcoming year for the first time since devolution.”

Jim Murphy, Labour Scottish Secretary: "Next year the Scottish Government will have the highest ever budget - more than double what
Donald Dewar had."

How can they be getting this from the same figures? I tried some investigation with mixed results (any help would be appreciated!).

According to the budget planned ‘departmental’ spending limit for Scotland 2010-2011: £26.2 billion (resource) £3.2 billion (capital) [total - £29.4 billion]. The 2009 estimate spending limit for Scotland: £25.6 billion (resource) £3.9 billion (capital) [total £29.5 billion].

By my reckoning this represents a £100 million drop in cash terms or (if we take into account inflation at 2%) a drop of £2.1 billion in real terms. This doesn't take into account the "barnett consequentials" (extra money given to Scotland in line with extra policy spending in England) which total £82 million but it would still represent a big drop.

This would vindicate the SNP's argument if my figures are right. Any help anyone can give would be great.

The issue I have with this isn't really that we're spending less overall - that can be justified in such a severe recession - but that the Scottish Government cannot chose for itself where it wants to see cuts, it just gets its "paypacket". With full fiscal powers balancing the budget would be up to the Scottish Government - if we want to find extra money for a particular scheme we find it ourselves.

This view is so widely held in Scotland it boggles the mind and yet the UK Government, far from supporting such an idea, spends millions every year on the Scotland Office which is primarily focused on arguing against fiscal autonomy/devolution max or independence.

Yes They Did

After decades of trying, and failing, the Democrats in the US have finally managed to pass meaningful health care legislation. For Senator Ted Kennedy it sadly came to late but for the estimated 30 million uninsured Americans who will now gain health coverage - his legacy lives on.

It calls for us to pause and reflect, in the midst of this terrible recession that has tired us as a nation and has drawn politicians further apart from each other and the people they serve: change is still possible. Indeed, in the midst of a crisis, change is not a bad thing - it becomes imperative. Was it not the Labour government of 1945 facing one of Britain's worst economic crises that radically reformed the UK? They introduced the NHS and expanded the welfare State immensely because it was the right thing to do for the British people.

Yet today our politicians fight over how deep to make cuts, cuts that will go to the core of this very safety net that is the pride of Britain and envied the world over. This is not the answer. It's not the answer President Obama has found nor most of the Western world. The recession should not be seen as a crisis - it is an opportunity. An opportunity to reform this bankrupt State for the benefit of the people who feel so left behind and excluded. It is not enough for politicians to publish their expenses receipts online, to twitter their every move - they must reform the whole political system and regain the trust of the British people.

An electoral system that gives the people a Parliament that they want would go a long way to doing this - it is disgraceful that proportional representation has not been introduced, primarily because politicians fear their cosy majorities. After a decade of devolution, England needs it's own voice - English votes for English laws simply is not enough. England must have its own Parliament properly representing the issues that matter to them. Finally, we've still seen little of how the parties will overhaul the financial system - until they get bankers bonuses under control they will not command the respect of the British people.

These are just some thoughts on what I think will make a difference to the people and their engagement with the political system. But it is for Parliament to debate amongst themselves and with the people to find a radical solution to this current situation - Obama is one step closer to his solution in the US: we must heed his example.

Historic Vote

Just a quick post on tonights vote in the US Congress bringing the healthcare bill one step closer. What has been an eye-opener is how often the word "historic" is used. How often are votes in the Scottish or UK Parliaments described as "historic" and how many in the last decade could truly be described as historic?

As I've said before, our current politicians can't see further than the next election - they don't do historic (with the possible exception of the devolution acts in the UK Parliament).

Usually when they talk about truly "historic" reforms - constitutional reform, electoral reform, joining the euro, reform of the lords - there is certainly no "fierce urgency of now". Britain is bankrupt so maybe their should be more urgency?

Bursts of Colout or Shades of Grey?

The BBC’s “Question Time” is hardly a great barometer for the mood of the nation (although maybe of the electorate?), nor may it have much impact on how people vote but last Thursday’s edition does make it clear why apathy is the biggest vote winner in the UK. What is clear is that Labour and the Tories throwing mud at each other is turning so many people off politicians. The problem may be that so little divides the parties, at least in terms of official policy, so all that is left is to attack the each others personality or to create one that will be disagreeable to the public. “Labour are beholden to the unions.” “The Tories are beholden to the rich.” and so on. They are old insults that were certainly true in the past but back then they didn’t need debated because the parties disagreed on so much policy. However, their policies were based on principles that were well known to the electorate, these principles have been dropped as the parties try to dilute their policies down till Peter Snow’s swing-o-meter is half a dozen shades of grey.

Yet minority parties are providing is a refreshing burst of colour. They have principles and they’re sticking to them, despite our archaic electoral system keeping most of them perpetually out of Parliament. How exciting it was to hear Caroline Lucas MEP retorting to David Starkey’s “insult” of “the Greens are just socialists with a bit of green coloration [Is that even a real word? Certainly not in the real world. ]” with the line “Yes we are and we’re proud of it.” I may not be a socialist but it is so refreshing for politicians to have principles and not sound bites.

Equally, on every issue on Thursday, Charles Kennedy’s response was measured and did not resort to political point scoring. He got to the root of the issue and offered his liberal, view, rather than trying only to dispute his co-panellists views. How much the Scottish Parliament could do with his contribution is obvious every time Tavish Scott appears at First Ministers questions – Charles Kennedy is wasted on the backbenches of Westminster. The Scottish Parliament’s lack of strong leadership willing to break the mould and lead does Scotland a disservice.

What I am advocating is not a return to the politics of the 80s, in the fashion of the late Michael Foot or of Margaret Thatcher. But politicians must be challenged to get off the fence more – to take a side on issues based on principles and visions that are clear to the public. To take the time to reasonably debate issues before jumping head first into controversy with30 second soundbites and personality attacks: after all this a bit more serious than the X Factor. It is what the public want of their politicians. Yes, the public will respond to personality attacks, poll numbers will fluctuate but the only thing really gaining votes is apathy.

Multi-nation debate?

So it has been decided, the SNP and Plaid Cymru are to be excluded from the TV election debates. As expected Alex Salmond has all guns blazing and is full of bluster. But does he have a point?

He is in his favourite position: all the big boys have ganged up on him and its not fair so he'll huff and he'll puff and he'll try to blow their house down. If he's one thing, he's predictable. Sometimes though there is a valid point in all his bluster.

The key argument is that by not including the SNP in the TV debates Scottish voters will not get balanced coverage of the parties platforms. The average Scottish voter will get their political news in small doses: through coverage in the tabloids and in "soundbite" clips on TV news. They probably don't watch political shows like Newsnight or Question Time and they probably won't watch the debates. This makes it even more important that the full length debates contain the full range of Scottish political opinions because in the end they'll be whittled down to a few snappy quotes. No inclusion of an SNP viewpoint, no snappy quote.

Worringly, these debates show a move towards a Presidential form of electioneering - alien to the great British parliamentary tradition. The main justification for excluding the SNP (excluding Alex Salmond needs no argument) is that they have no hope of forming the next government or of nominating the next Prime Minister. But let's not forget that a General Election is not one election but a series of local elections to chose representatives in parliament. In Scotland, the SNP is currently first or second in 27 out of 59 seats (second only to Labour's total) so voters have a choice between one of the three main parties and the SNP. The voter must make an informed choice about who he/she wants to be their MP.

This is not to say that the SNP (or indeed Alex Salmond) should necessary be included in the UK debates on an equal footing but that some sort of middle ground must be found. The debates were decided behind closed doors without the inclusion of the SNP, Plaid Cymru or any other minority party. Maybe a solution might have been to allow them to ask questions of the candidates during the debates but not actually answer questions themselves. I don't have the solution but I know that the debates as they stand will not be fair and balanced for voters in Scotland.

Maybe it should be "And now the UK General Election debates except for viewers in Scotland where they have tonights episode of River City..."

Politicians should be entitled to a private life.

I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, at the Scottish media's reaction to the resignation of Councillor Steven Purcell.

Let's make one thing clear: he has a personal problem and he has done the right thing by resigning to deal with it properly. I sincerely hope that this is not the last act in Cllr Purcell's career, Scotland needs talented leaders like himself, such promise should not go to waste.

Whatever his problems, he should be allowed the space to deal with them without the vultures of the Scottish media "demanding answers". I suspect those vultures, too long sustained by scandal, have been circling since Cllr Purcell came out. Now, they have found the meat they have long wanted.

Scottish media, and the Scotsman in particular, should hang their collective heads in shame. This is not the Scotland we should strive to be, or the one we think we are. The "answers" can wait because they will not make Glasgow, or Scotland a better place right now.

How about we start focusing on what's important to the people of Scotland?

Dancing Round a May (the 6th?) Poll

Election season has started and the pollsters are busy already, sensing a tight election.

Two polls have been published in the last two days which are particularly interesting:

POLL 1: There is no doubt that Sunday's opinion poll published by the Scotland on Sunday makes bad reading for the SNP. They seem to have lost around 4% since the beginning of the year and are now 17% points behind Labour on Westminster voting intentions.  But lets put this in context: Labour are polling 1% less than they did in the 2005 election, the LibDems 8% less and the SNP and Tories are up by 3% and 4%. Not a disaster for Salmond but a big setback considering the SNP's record highs in the polls in recent years - it certainly stymies his chances of 20 SNP MPs.

The real success story is the Tories who are now pushing for second place (only 1% point behind the SNP), remarkable considering their years in the Scottish political wilderness. However, there is a simple explanation for both their boost and the SNP's fall-back that SoS avoided. Namely, the success of both Labour and the Tories in marginalising the SNP in the election. Both parties have made a point of avoiding the SNP at all costs, a clever strategy that seems to be working. This coupled with a bad few weeks for Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon means a slump in the polls.

POLL 2: The Scotsman publishes the first poll on independence since the SG announced it's Referendum Bill. Although no figures were published online, the article claims it shows "an overall drop in support for independence" whereas Nicola Sturgeon argues "The poll actually shows a similar level of support for this independence question as the last YouGov poll in November". The actual figures are a drop of 2% in support (to 27%) AND a 2% drop in votes against, with an increase in "don't knows". This may reveal that the SNP National Conversation is getting people to question their beliefs on the subject but the numbers are to small to draw any conclusions.

The key finding of the poll however is that 31% of those surveyed said that a Tory victory would make them more likely to vote for independence. That this is true is no surprise, the surprise is the size of this figure. It will bring comfort to Salmond and his strategy of holding off till after the election.

The hope is that more polls on independence will be conducted soon to gauge the affect (if any) of the SG latest proposals.

The Sunday Edition

Did anyone hear a starting pistol? This week feels like the start of a long race (or possibly races).

ALEX Salmond launched the Scottish Government's (draft) Independence Referendum Bill, starting a race that so far he's the only one running in. Two years after the SNP government was elected, Alex Salmond believes now is the time to get his hallmark policy through. This in spite of the fact that Labour, the LibDems and the Tories are all opposed to the referendum and will vote it down at the first opportunity. Hilarious observation of the week goes to Rab McNeil at the Caledonian Mercury:

"The Government is pushing for a referendum it would lose, and the opposition is running scared of a plebiscite it would win. You do the maths. I’m totally fogged. Maybe the opposition fears airing any arguments about independence at all. But, given the current state of the Scottish press (almost entirely unionist), the debate would consist of one party being given a megaphone while the other was gagged. What have they to lose? I don’t get it."

Well said. In any event, the opposition won't get a chance to vote on the bill till after the general election. Which is all part of Salmond's strategy. Whatever the result, it's likely the ball game will all change come the general election.

CHANGE was what David Cameron was all about today when the Conservatives launched their election themes. One of which is "change politics", this following on from his policy of changing the Conservative Party. According to The Times, he still has some work to do on the first part of this change, too few minority candidates are likely to win at the election. Undoubtedly, much progress has been made, the parliamentary party will better represent the people of the UK. Worryingly, especially for the party in Scotland, is that the top political hero of the candidates surveyed was Margaret Thatcher, not the most popular politician in Scotland.

BUT the parties will be hoping the electorate keep their eyes on the future and not the past. Not least the Chancellor who led us into one of Britain's worst recession, Gordon Brown. He announced his parties election themes last Saturday: under the slogan "Future fair for all". His speech was impressive but had the feel of one which was intended to scare voters into voting for Labour as the "safe" party, rather than inspiring the electorate.

Looks like the next few months are going to be interesting...

The Salmond in the Room

Buried in depths of the Daily Telegraph website, much further down than Flash Gordon's Romeo and Juliet moment ("Sarah and I, we're a modern love story"), was the news that Alex Salmond is close to making a deal with Sky News over his inclusion in their TV election debate. If this does happen it will be highly likely that the BBC will be forced to follow suit.

Very little coverage is given to the debate behind the debate: why exclude all parties except the big three? Should the BBC, as an impartial broadcaster, include minority parties (in the SNP's case the party that has won both the European elections in Scotland and Scottish Parliament election)? I think they should, to some extent, include the minority parties. I suspect there may have been some deal with Plaid Cymru where they have withdrew their requests for inclusion in return for support of Alex Salmond's inclusion. Indeed, Alex Salmond's best strategy in the debates would be to look beyond the Scottish electorate to positioning himself as the underdog, the representative of the little man. This would certainly tie in with the SNP's current strategy ("We're on your side.").

Strategy aside, no-one seems to be talking about this development? The inclusion of Alex Salmond in the debates could have far reaching consequences not just for the election in Scotland but for minority parties in the whole of the UK. There'll still be a debate in Scotland which would include Secretary of State for anti-SNP Propaganda Jim Murphy, without Salmond there he would look irrelevant. In terms of the whole of the UK, even the rumour of Salmond's inclusion could rerail the whole debate: other minorities (UKIP, the Greens and even BNP) would be calling for their inclusion and the main parties won't contenance any of this. Labour and the Tories, long suspicious of TV debates would welcome any excuse to pull out - as long as they could blame the other for being the first to do so. Further, Labour and the Tories have already pledged to ignore the SNP in this election - they definitely wouldn't want to debate on TV with Alex Salmond.

Anyway, that's my rambling, incoherant thoughts on this issue. I just wish others were talking about it to, we've now had no news or further rumour on the issue since the Daily Telegraph article, so maybe this is all a bit academic.

Don't Mention the Referendum!

The other big issue dominating Holyrood today has been the Scottish Government's decision to delay the independence Referendum Bill till at least the summer. A "draft" Bill will instead be published in the next week or so which will open up a public consultation on it. Having already been delayed, it was expected that the Referendum Bill would have been brought before parliament by now. It has been suggested that the decision to announce it today was due to the debacle over "Fraudgate" (see previous post). Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, it was going to come sooner or later.

The most important consideration in this change of timing seems to be the general election, expected in May this year. Since the opposition parties, and importantly the LibDems, have shown no movement on this issue, this is a sensible decision. Talking about independence in the lead up to the election would have been problematic. For a start it's the one thing that unites the other parties in Scotland against the SNP so they could all "gang up" against them. That's if they even acknowedge the SNP in the election - both Labour and the Tories have made it clear that they intend to ignore them, saying the election is a straight fight between themselves.

Also, the SNPs best argument for independence, which will resonate well with the Scottish electorate, is that independence will 'protect' them from a Tory government. But during the general election they can't say this, it'll sound like they expect a Tory victory and may even want one. After the election, however, which will probably be a victory for the Tories, the SNP can use this argument to their hearts content.

This leads to another good reason to wait: a Tory victory will mean lots of Scottish Labour politicians looking to gather power for themselves. If they think they will win power at Holyrood they'll be wanting more powers to prevent Tory interference. So maybe the opposition will move towards the SNPs position, prodded along by public opinion gathered through the public consultation announced today.

Today's announcement, however, must be seen as a setback for the SNP, they would have hoped to have had some sort of movement or openness on a multi-option referendum by now. No such movement has happened.

Too Kind to Bad People

Another week, another "scandal" dominating Scottish politics. First Minister's questions today dominated by, what the Scotsman has already named "Fraudgate", Nicola Sturgeon's intervention in the criminal case of a constituent. The "scandal" involves the Deputy First Minister writing a letter to court on behalf of a constituent Abdul Rauf who has been convicted of benefit fraud (for the second time) and awaits sentencing. The letter, thanks to Stephen's Linlithgow Journal for getting a copy, says that Mr Rauf has been paying the money back and hopes to pay the rest soon. Further, she cites his "poor health", young family and involvement in the community as considerations to be taken into account when sentencing.

Without a doubt Nicola Sturgeon has made an error of political judgement: as I have said before the opposition are constantly on the lookout for any holes in the governments armour, this move leaves a big gaping one in Nicola Sturgeons.

But does this make her unfit to be Deputy First Minister or Health Secretary as Iain Gray suggests? No. She did not represent Mr Rauf for her own benefit, nor did she do it because she believed those convicted of benefit fraud should be allowed "off the hook". She did it because her own moral compass told her that society would not benefit from locking up Mr Rauf, that he could repent and be forgiven. She only offered this opinion to the court, she did not abuse her executive power by doing anything in her capacity as Deputy First Minister.

There is a similarity here that so far has not been drawn by commentators or fellow bloggers, between this situation and the Megrahi case. Kenny MacAskill made that decision alone based on his own moral convictions which he hoped the people of Scotland shared. He made a error of political judgement but he appealed to our higher ideals and values. He reached out to Scotland to share in his view but, for the most part, the Scottish people responded with confusion and anger. So to has Nicola Sturgeon been met by the disapproval and confusion of her peers in Parliament.

At the time of the Megrahi release my view was that I would rather Scotland be viewed by the world as a country that was "too kind to bad people" than "too cruel to good people". This remains my conviction. If I had been in Kenny MacAskill's or Nicola Sturgeon's position I would have probably made different decisions but that would have been based on politics. If they have been guilty of anything it is of thinking as a person and not as a politician.

Our MSPs should look on their example, esspecially on a day that they have spent looking for scandal and forgetting the needs of their own constituents. The people of Scotland expect Parliament to discuss issues of importance to them, not issues of importance to politicians.

Something is rotten in the state of politics

There was a time when politicians fought over policy. You were on the right wing or the left, you believed in the free market, or nationalisation; in government intervention, or the family. The ideal of the best argument winning maybe didn't exist but the argument was always about who was right and who was wrong.

But something changed, it began to be about personality: who the public liked most. In Britain this happened in the age of Blair, of Cool Britania and the Third Way. Much of the 1997 campaign centred around the positive image Blair projected but it only came back to haunt him. His positive smile of 1997 turned into the smirk of 2007. His downfall came, not in the wake of the Iraq War, but following the cash-for-peerages scandal. Now it is the norm that politicians careers most often end in the scandal. Rather than try to challenge someone on their policies, politicians spend their time scrutinising every detail looking for something improper, hoping that they've found the archilles heel - the scandal that will bring down their rival.

This is often most noticable than at the Scottish Parliament where the opposition are intent on finding something on Alex Salmond that'll stick. The new one borders on the ridiculous. Here are the facts as I see it:

• Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon offered as a prize at an SNP auction lunch in the Parliament with them.
  
• The auction happened outside Parliament and as far as I can tell was not held in secret.
  
• The lunches never took place.
  

This is apparantly a massive scandal, more important to MSPs than the recession or any other issue they should be concentrating on. More important than any other issue to some of Scotland's newspapers who splashed it all over their front pages.

If I were cynical I would say this issue has only miraculously appeared because the Legg report on MPs expenses was published, with some of the worst offenders being Labour MPs. But am I that cynical?

People will rightly be asking, why are our politicians focusing on finding the next scandal, chasing headlines over spurious issues instead of helping improve the country?

Morality and politics never mix.

Just a quick thought on the political gerry-mandering over Margo MacDonald MSP's end of life bill. It appears that the opposition parties have all got together to create an ad-hoc committee to consider her bill, rather than, as expected, it being considered by the Health Committee. I understand this has been done ostensibly to stop the SNP chairing any possible ad-hoc committee which could look into the Independence Referendum Bill (please, no points of order, I'm not a Parliamentary rule anorak!). The argument goes a sensitive issue or national concern, and possibly international concern, has been used as a political football.

Whilst this is true, I think Margo herself hits the nail on the head. The health committee membership is already in place and contains two doctors, each on different sides of the fence on the issue. Any new committee would have to have it's members selected by the parties and parliament. It could end up more complicated and political than chosing a US Supreme Court justice, especially as many MSPs have already made their views on the issue known (or they can be inferred from previous statements). How then can this committee of politicians be truely objective? If an ad-hoc committee has to be set up would it not be better that it was a committee of experts, possibly reporting back to the Health Committee and Parliament? Does not a issue of such importance to many Scot's, in difficult situations, deserve this attention? I don't think it has been treated as such, it is being treated as a whim of a backbench MSP. That it has gained such attention already is testament to the popularity and hard work of Margo MacDonald.

Having not considered this issue in depth myself I am unsure what my views are but I do begin with an open mind. If this is how our national Parliament wants to go forward with this issue then I can only hope that it gives it the attention it deserves. It is not only 129 MSPs that need to make up there mind, it's 5 million Scots.

The President from Illinois

I've been reading "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin for what seems like an eternity now. It's a fascinating book but I just never seem to get time to just sit down and read it. The book, as any good US political book must do, has expertly linked itself to President Obama (it's apparantly one of his favourites). But this isn't just a tenuous link: the similarities between Obama and Lincoln are startling. Both came from humble backgrounds, both lawyers from Illinois and both were outsiders for the presidency knowm for their bipartisanship. But this is all old-hat, we all know the similarities - what is more interesting is how they reacted to the age in which they led their country.

Lincoln was known for sticking to his principles: when he made a decision he stuck to it and followed through. When things got tough, when is country looked on the brink of collapse, he stuck to his principles and worked tirelessly to carry out what was necessary. On watching Obama's first State of the Union address it is clear that Obama is a man cut from the same cloth. Rather than turning right following Republican victories in Virginia and Massachusetts, he has stuck to what he pledged and challenged his party to finish the work that they began.

One shining example of this is his pledge to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the policy that effectively excludes gays from serving in the US armed forces. He promised to do this during the election but many had begun to doubt his conviction, having done little to do this. However, on Tuesday the Defense Secretary will present to Congress some of the first steps that will be taken to get rid of this discredited policy. For a nation known for its patriotism to exclude over 13,000 men and women from the armed forces in which they are proud to serve, is inexcusable.

The funny things is, i've not long read the chapter in my book about the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln giving black men the right to fight alongside their countrymen. The same arguments that are used against allowing gays to serve were used to prevent black soldiers serving. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Obama must follow through on this pledge regardless of the obstacles and prejudice that may step in his way.

Getting by on High Caffeine Energy Drinks

I'm tired. I mean really fatigued, mentally and physically. I work for a large retail company and we are now coming to the end of this years January sale and I'm tired and I think the public are tired to. Today the UK economy begins to wake up from recession but is it really morning in Britain or is the country still half-asleep and running on high caffeine energy drinks like I am?

From what I have seen in the bleary eyes of customers and staff over the past month, in my shop and others I would say this is true. It has now been a year since the height of the "credit crunch" when household names like Woolworths and MFI collapsed, when consumer confidence was at it's lowest and the outlook bleak. Businesses responded by constant sales, heavy discounting and slashing running costs. Far from raising consumer confidence, it appears that it has just worn customers down, entrenching their cost-cutting, save now spend later attitudes. We may yet see more retailers go to the wall if customers continue to stay at home, themselves worried about job security. Growth of 0.1% does not mean we are moving out of this mess: it only means we are standing still. This is clearly an improvement but we are a long way off recovery.

This position has been achieved partly by the government's injection of "energy drinks" into the economy - cutting VAT, increasing/accelerating spending in some areas, plowing money into failing banks. But is this enough to sustain long term recovery? According to the Scottish Government, Scotland is fairing slightly better than the rest of the UK. But on both sides of the border so much more can be done. The Scottish Government possibly shouldn't have scrapped the Glasgow Airport Rail Link and it could have been wrong to oppose the Edinburgh tram project. For it's part, the UK Government's denial of acccerated funding for capital projects in Scotland hasn't helped. Furthermore, both governments may have missed the opportunity to improve the environment while encouraging growth. The Scottish Green Party's call for increased funding for a home insulation scheme during last years budget negotiations is just one: the benefits of such a scheme are immense. It increases sales for retailers and manufacturers, it saves consumers money on heating bills giving them more disposable income and helps us meet challenging climate change targets. I for one hope the Greens continue to call for this during this years budget negotiations. This is only one opportunity of many in this exciting and growing sector of the economy. The government may be to focused thus far on saving the economy as it is at the expense of growing new industry.

Whether the UK Government can do this remains to be seen. It's tired to. After 13 years in government it just can't sustain the momentum for action it once had. It's ran out of the big ideas that catapulted it had in 1997, it no longer has the fresh faces at the helm full of energy and optimism. David Cameron and the Tories seem to have this energy but whether they have the right ideas to lead the country out of recession remains to be seen. On May 6th (as "Bumbling" Bob Ainsworth reliably informs us) the country will make up its mind. The most exciting thing about the election is that whatever the result is we know its going to be a hugely different Parliament with about a quarter of current MPs not standing for reelection for whatever reason.

Lets hope this gives the country the real boost it needs. The fresh faces, ideas and optimism (and possibly "the Wings?") it needs to wake itself out of this long and tiring recession.