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?