If Labour Want To Win In 2016, They Need To Dump Lamont.

Of all the reactions to the announcement of the date of the Independence referendum a couple of weeks ago, the most…  umm..  extreme has been from George “is right again” Laird, he of the “Campaign For Human Rights” blog.  His prediction is that Alex Salmond has announced the date of his “political death” with the date of the referendum.  While I think it highly likely that Scotland will vote no, Salmond’s political career will survive into 2015 and beyond thanks to one person.

 

Johann Lamont.

Like Thatcher was lucky to be opposed by a Labour party intent on seeing how many ways it could split up, and Blair was opposed by a Conservative Party intent on keeping the Thatcherite flame alive at a time it was utterly toxic in the British public’s eyes.  So Salmond is incredibly fortunate to have been opposed by two of the weakest “Scottish” Labour leaders in living memory.  Iain Gray seemed to oppose just for opposition’s sake, yet somehow did not have the presence of mind not to run away from anti-cuts protesters in Glasgow Central.  The cowering of Gray and co in Sub-Way’s Union Street branch essentially settled the 2011 Holyrood election.  The way things are going, Lamont’s just not going to be in the race come 2016.

I posted about Lamont’s infamous “Something for nothing” speech last autumn.  Even now I still can’t get over the sheer stupidity of Lamont attacking the SNP Government from the right.  Not only is there very little votes here for that kind of position, it also alienates people with a genuine grievance over the increasingly tight fisted benefits system in this country.  It also means that “Scottish” Labour have effectively boxed themselves out of the benefits debate, including the debate over the Bedroom Tax.  How?  Ask yourselves this question, how can a political party that has advocated an end to the “Something for Nothing” society credibly campaign against the Bedroom Tax? 

If there was any political nous at the top of “Scottish” Labour (and it can’t possibly because Tony Blair has it all), Labour would have told their councils to write off Bedroom Tax generated debts.  They would have had a ball over Salmond’s grandstanding over renewables.  The biggest inroads would have been made though over justice – MacAskill’s cuts to the Legal Aid budget mean that people with a disposable income of just £83 a week have to pay for legal representation.  For a party that used to pride itself on standing up for the poor no not raise a whimper at this issue is disgusting.  But then again, Lamont probably thinks that, like MacAskil, there’s nothing wrong with Scottish justice so anyone on trial is guilty anyway.

Where Lamont has been lucky has been with the referendum campaign.  Had most of the attention not been on Yes Scotland’s lacklustre and frankly amateurish campaign (not helped by some amateurish posturing by Salmond & Sturgeon), then Lamont’s utterances would have put her in more trouble.  Firstly Lamont had wanted a review of powers for Holyrood, adding the caveat that there would be a look to see if powers could be taken back to Westminster.

This weekend though, things have started to come apart for Ms Lamont.  Her party’s devolution commission has recommended that Income tax is devolved to Holyrood.  While this is a sop and falls way way short of the full fiscal autonomy that should be on the table, even this step has met resistance with not very many Scottish Labour MP’s greeting this proposal with open arms.  Neighbouring MP (and shadow defence secretary) Jim Murphy is said to be one of those unhappy at the proposals.

Lamont’s jump the shark moment though was the interview on Friday morning on GMS.  She did not answer the question, put several times by Gary Robertson, of whether she had spoken to Ed Milliband about the proposals.  Then came the questions about the Better Together financial backer (and Tory donator) Ian Taylor.  Lamont ignored the questions about whether Better Together should give back the money, not even registering the quote from John Mann about Ian Taylor’s previous donation to the Conservative Party being “Dirty money”.

John Mann is a left wing Labour MP, so in theory should be on the same side as Lamont.

Within Lamont’s phaffing about starting some sort of debate (that really should have been the one that took place when the pro-Union parties instead decided to come up with Calman), the realisation dawned that not just that “Scottish” Labour are not going to win in 2016, but that Lamont this far out from that election is a lame duck leader.  There’s the rank bad strategic mistakes, the poor communication skills and the distinct lack of cast iron policies coming from whoever is doing Lamont’s thinking for her (oh and we do not need some sort of NHS watchdog, we need better standards and properly accountable NHS boards) .  As for Friday, no offence, but if you are being mauled to pieces by Gary Robertson then really you should give up politics.

The reason why Lamont will stay in her position is that there is no outstanding candidate ready to take her place.  Tom Harris thought that he could go the Salmond route, without realising that he doesn’t have either the personality or the popularity of Salmond (being a strident Blairite, still not that popular a stance in the Scottish party). Ken McIntosh is still very much an unknown quantity despite being John Swinney’s shadow. Jackie Baillie…  seriously?

In the event of a vacancy, there are two outsiders that would be worth considering.  Kezia Dugdale will see her stock rise in future years, however the person I think that might be one to watch would he Hugh Henry.  He was part of the furniture when Labour ran the…  ah..  Scottish Executive, holding deputy positions under McLeish and McConnell before becoming Education Secretary.  He does have the experience, the big question however is whether he could take “Scottish” Labour to where it should be in order to challenge the SNP.  Whatever happens, “Scottish” Labour needs to recognise the oncoming catastrophe that is heading its way and take steps to avoid it.  Starting with the removal of their current leader.

"They May Get Rid Of Me Over This..."

Most big stories are discovered in mundane circumstances.  At lunchtime on Monday, I went down to our canteen to have my lunch and noticed that one of the flat screen televisions was on…  and was playing footage from the eighties.  Even though the sound was either off, or I was too far away to pick up any sound, It soon dawned on me that one of the big political hitters of the eighties had died…  and by process of joining the dots deduced that it was the biggest of the lot.

Graffitti in Belfast shows that not everyone is "on message"

The strange thing was that I didn’t feel happy about the news, maybe slightly sorrowful.  Not for her, but for the thousands of people who were victims of her policies.  I had though that I would be posting “The Witch is Dead” from the Wizard of Oz on my Facebook, but on the day a dignified stance seemed more apt rather than the frankly embarrassing sight of parties being held, or the posting of the “Witch” song.

I had previously posted about Thatcher on the 30^th anniversary of her first Election win in 2009, and looking back most of the arguments made then still stand up.  The destruction of the heavy industries, which had been a cornerstone of Scottish society, had not helped.  Indeed it could be argued that the lack of investment in these industries made Thatcher’s decisions the easy choices, rather than the tougher re-investment choices that maybe she should have taken.  After all Germany & Poland (to name two countries) still have their own, modernised, heavy industries.

There are two things missing from the obituaries and other pieces.  Firstly there is no mention of just how lucky she was.  Barbara Castle might have become the first female Prime Minister had she ran when Harold Wilson resigned.  Had Callaghan been able to read the runes and gone to the country in the Autumn of 1978, he would have had a better record to defend and had better polling than when he was eventually forced to go to the country the following March.  Had Callaghan won, he would have been the first recipient of Britain’s new found oil wealth, rather than Thatcher.  The biggest stroke of luck though came when Argentina invaded the Falklands.

In the spring of 1982, Thatcher was the most unpopular Prime Minister ever – the title of this post comes from a conversation Thatcher had with her economics advisor Alan Walters at the time of the 1982 Budget when more cuts were on the cards (sound familiar?).  When Argentina invaded the Falklands, Thatcher insisted on putting together a task force to retake the islands by force if necessary, aided by the Chief of Navy Staff at that point.  It was risky, and was not a smooth ride but the re-taking of the Falklands was Thatcher’s turning point.  Within a year, Thatcher secured her second term (with a 144 seat majority) and with it time to bed in her political legacy.

Secondly, the strand of Conservative thinking that Thatcher came to represent did not come fully formed into the world on the afternoon of May 4th 1979, indeed this was thinking that had been brewing away in the background since the 1950’s, though only someone with a personality like Thatcher would have taken those reforms and turned them into the British equivalent of a revolution. Influenced by the fledgling think-tank IEA, the Conservative economic team of Nigel Birch, Enoch Powell and the Chancellor Peter Thorneycroft fought for, and lost the battle to, implement measures to control money in the late 1950’s & impliment cuts.  MacMillan, with an eye on the upcoming Westminster election (which he called in the autumn of 1959) brushed aside their en masse resignations as “a little local difficulty”. 

The three former treasury ministers though began to influence younger politicians, including Thatcher who entered parliament in that 1959 election, and sparked debate over the best way forward for the UK.  Heath made baby-steps in the direction of the monetarists during his term, but he and his Chancellor Barber u-turned when the Economy downturned in a desperate “dash for growth”.  When Heath’s “Who Governs” gamble went belly up, it was just a matter of time, even more so when the second election of 1974 saw Labour gain a majority.

With Powell no longer a member of the Conservatives and another leading right winger (Keith Joseph) shooting themselves in the foot, the former Education Minister emerged as the leading right wing candidate, but not the favourite.

In a sense, this is the other reason why I haven’t been as joyous as other people…  the realisation that there are now many “disciples” in powerful positions to keep the “reforms” Thatcher put into place firmly in place.   Until the left has a long hard think about where it wants to go and generate the ideas necessary for that journey, then we’ll be stuck with the Tories, the yellow Tories and the pink Tories all swapping power in Westminster…  For some Thatcher saved this country from terminal decline, for most people here in Scotland she destroyed livelihoods.  Manufacturing has not recovered since Thatcher’s premiership.  I rather suspect that rather than save this country, her years will be seen as the beginning of the end of the UK. 

Rather than glory in her death, we should remember her victims.  The many people thrown on the scrapheap.  The people so turned off by life that a cycle of drink or drugs is the only alternative.  The 251 British casualties in the Falklands as well as the Argentineans killed when we torpedoed a ship heading away from the islands (the General Belgrano).  The victims of disasters in Zeebrugge, Kings Cross, the Piper Alpha oil rig and Hillsborough football stadium – all disasters where neglect of procedures were key.  Oh, and the biggest of the lot the Labour Party which has been missing in action for the past 30 years. 

No, we don’t shed a tear for her passing, just for the victims.  Not that they got very much consideration from our much vaunted “Free Press” this week, but ho…  hum…

UKIP: A Rise That Stops At The Border?

Firstly, a bit of a rant.  It gives me no satisfaction to say that Labour Hame are at it again.  The latest post wonders where the UKIP constituency is in Scotland and comes to the ridiculous conclusion that Eurosceptic voters are voting for a party that would…  er…  take an Independent Scotland into the EU without consulting the Scottish people.

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage with the losing Eastleigh candidate Diane James

When I pointed out the gaping holes in this argument, I did query whether this post was a joke and brought up that the one party that subscribed to the Michael Howard doctrine that prison works was…  er…  “Scottish” Labour, the comment was not published, with the moderators obviously taking offence at their spin being shown up.  Such a badly thought out piece does obscure an interesting question, why are Scots so immune to the charms of UKIP?

The main reason appears to be that the issue that is at the heart of UKIP’s current rise – immigration – has never appeared at the top of many Scot’s pressing issues list.  It’ts not just that immigration has not had the same impact on people’s lives here that it has down south its also that the perception that immigration deprives people of work has never taken root.  Of course part of that is, like it or not, down to the failure of the BNP to make in-roads to the Scottish electorate so that kind of spin has never found an audience here.

The other reason is that UKIP’s attacks on the EU have been spun with middle England heavily in mind.  Hence the spin about “Criminal gangs from Bulgaria & Romania coming to our country for benefits”  UKIP’s spin about EU regulations is also aimed at Middle England playing to employers.  However, none of these reasons are cause to be as smug as Nicola Sturgeon has been by saying that UKIP “has never moved beyond the far fringes of Scottish Politics”

Another of UKIP’s selling points has been opposition to “Gay Marrage”.  Nowhere in the UK has there been as strident an opposition to “Gay Marrage” as there has been in Scotland, with various fundamentalist Christian groups organising demonstrations.  Sturgeon herself was at the centre of one such Demonstration when the Scottish cabinet met in Renfrew last summer.  Were UKIP to turn their attention to Scotland – and lets be honest there are a lot of ex-Conservative votes to be had up here – Gay Marrage would be an ideal starting point for them.

Similarly, I’m not sure that the SNP synopsis of Eurosepticism being equal to the “Little Englander” syndrome holds up.  Remember that Labour were split in the 1970’s over entry to what was then called the EEC, while arguably the most influential Eurosceptic over the past 20 years has not been Bill Cash, Theresa Gormley or one of John Major’s cabinet “Bastards” but the former Financial Times journalist and current Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls – it was he who convinced Gordon Brown that the Euro in it’s current format wasn’t going to fly.

Sure UKIP have spoken the language of the “Little Englander” – in terms of regulations and the impact of “Open door immigration” (or freedom of movement).  It would however take a small re-calibration for UKIP to espouse left of centre concerns about the EU.  For example, the enforced “outsourcing” by the EU of Ferry services here in Scotland – this has seen Serco win the tender to provide services for the route from the mainland to Orkney & Shetland.

Personally though, I suspect that the perception gap will be just to big for UKIP to bridge for them to gain the polling success that have achieved so far in England – even if I think there is too much hype and not enough substance surrounding UKIP.  That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be complacent that UKIP could never gain popularity here.  Remember that Germany’s National Socialist party and Italy’s Fascist Parties were essentially the 1920’s versions of the “none of the above” parties.  Like down south, the immediate victims of any UKIP rise here would be the Conservatives.  Penny for the thoughts of those people who chose not to vote for Murdo Fraser to become Scottish Conservative leader then?

The Downgraded Chancellor

You know that on the one hand the news that broke on Friday night about Moody’s downgrading their credit rating for the UK from AAA (With Standard & Poor and Fitch expected to follow) should mean not very much in the short term for the UK. Higher borrowing & prices will eventually filter into the UK economy.

Gideon going through his times tables...  once again!

Of course, the problem for Gideon Osborne and the coalition is that they have placed so much stock in protecting the UK’s AAA credit status.

Indeed, not only was protecting Britain’s AAA status the cover for Osborne’s “Scorched earth” policy, but as the man himself pointed out at the last Westminster Election – “We will safeguard Britain’s credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament.” – this was an election pledge. Still, that’s what happens when you jump into bed with the Lib Dem’s.

So where does this leave Gideon? Osborne must now be under immense pressure to pull something out of the hat in next months Budget. As I’ve pointed out before, Osborne’s problems stem from his lack of understanding that taking money out of a contracting economy will only hinder any recovery… if there is one. His inflexibility regarding “Austerity” is even more marked given the plethora of u-turns performed by this government since election. Osborne himself contributing to that list with last years botched attempt at a budget.

The good news for Osborne is that his shadow, Ed Balls, has similarly misdiagnosed the issues within the UK economy. Balls has urged a sort of dash for growth, not knowing that growth is but a symptom. The real issue is that since 2007 there has been a chronic lack of the movement of money – there is very little liquidity in the economy.

The lack of liquidity in the economy was what started the event that brought about the current crash – the credit crunch.  Banks were not lending to each other, so were forcing each other to the bank of last resort.  Even Barclays (who’s name was strangely missing from Robert Peston’s report on Northern Rock). Since then, the liquid economy at large has dried up.  Tighter credit controls, higher fuel prices and stagnating wages have all played a price in the lack of the movement in our money.  It’s no coincidence after all that HMV, Jessop’s and Comet did not have the most competitive of pricing strategies.  So where should politicians be looking for ideas to get the economy moving?

Labour’s policy at the moment is for a cut in VAT.  The problem here is that VAT is a tax on spending, which is useless when there is very little spending.  The best way out of that cul-de-sac is a continuation of the raising of the tax threshold – the only good thing to come out of the coalition.  Putting  money into the low paid will have two effects. 

Firstly, because the low paid live a more hand to mouth existence, that extra money will be spent, creating a bottom up stimulus to the economy.  Secondly, that money will find its way back to the treasury.  Low paid workers tend to buy goods that are taxed – either through duty (cigarettes & alcohol) or through VAT.

While it’s OK (for the moment) for Balls & co to get things wrong (they are still only the opposition, though they really should be striving to look more like a government in waiting at this point), things are a lot more difficult for Osborne.  Balls referenced John Smith’s description of John Major (a “devalued prime minister of a devalued government”) when he taunted Osborne with the line about being a “devalued Chancellor”.  Last year saw the shredding of Osborne’s (fledgling, but frankly overrated) reputation as a political operator.  So far this year, we are seeing Osborne become the worst chancellor in living memory.  Gordon Brown might have sold our gold reserves and reinvented Lazes Faire as “Light Touch”, but at least he wasn’t dumb enough to pin his reputation on something always likely to happen. 

After all, what was it Brown said about this being no time for a novice…

You’ve Never Had It So Bad!

On a day of political anniversaries (50 years since Harold Wilson’s election as Labour Leader), Ed Miliband chose yesterday to go to the scene of Harold MacMillan’s famous “You’ve never had it so good” quip to give some sort of sighter of Labour’s economic strategy for the next Westminster elections.

Miliband’s own version of that phrase isn’t quite the more snappy title of this post, but the more wordy “Far from feeling they have never had it so good, millions across Britain today fear they will never have it so good again”.  This suggests that Labour will fight on the issue of falling living standards.  In theory asking the question “Are you better off now than you were five years ago?”  should solicit a negative response for the current government.  Yet polling suggests that Cameron & Co’s disastrous handling of the economy is more trusted than Milliband & Balls.  Oddly Balls gets an awful lot of the blame for the last government despite holding that key economic post of…  Education Minister.

As I’ve pointed out previously, one of the things that will make a Milliband premiership unlikely is the amount of time gifted to the Tories in spinning their version of events unchecked.  This is probably why Milliband & Balls are crafting policies that lack any radical departure from austerity.  The majority of these policies will not be seen for at least 18 months or so, but yesterday Miliband unveiled two policies that fit into the strange narrative of One Nation Labourism.

Firstly Milliband, and lets be honest here, has squarely parked his tanks on the Lib Dem’s lawn by pilfering their plans for a Mansion Tax.  Labour’s plans would be administered on properties worth more than £2 million.  Money raised here proposed to be used to fund the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate.

While Labour’s attempt to highlight the low paid is good news, there is one problem here.  Thanks to the Lib Dem policy of raising the tax threshold (which was £5,225.00 in 2007 and is now £8,105.00) the introduction of a 10p low rate of tax will act as a tax increase for many people at a time when incomes are still being squeezed.  If Labour were looking for policies that would help the low paid, a continuation of the policy of raising the tax threshold would be a viable alternative.

While lowering VAT would lower prices, raising the tax threshold would put money back into the pockets of the low paid.  There is also the added bonus that the low paid also tend to buy goods with duty and VAT applied, which would bring money back into the treasury.  Cutting taxes at the bottom would also be a much more effective way of putting some liquidity into the economy.  I would hope that after two years in opposition, there are better ideas to come than reinstating a tax band that is now obsolete.

In, Out, In, Out...

You know, this is getting to be a bit irritating.  Last year, I was mulling over a post on Ms Lamont’s chances and what she had to do to win in 2016 (a post which if it was done today would be four words – Whistling Dixie, move along) when the Scottish Referendum broke.  This year I have three posts I can’t finish when Cameron has announced that there will be an in/out referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the EU.

Cameron’s decision, I think stems from three reasons.  Firstly, I don’t think that he gets on with very many of the European leaders.  I have this feeling that since the veto in December 2011, Cameron had been smarting from the treaty going ahead despite his veto.  In effect, I think that it’s not really Britain’s relationship with the EU that is strained, but Cameron’s relationships at EU summits.  As I pointed out at the time, Cameron has proved himself to be a poor negotiator at these gatherings.  By flouncing out and not being prepared to play hard-ball (when Wilson, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown would have gained some sort of quid pro quo), Cameron had taken the easy way out.  Maybe this is Cameron’s revenge for being bypassed & ignored.

Secondly, I think that Cameron has done this to placate Eurosceptic’s both within his party and out with.  His announcement seems to have gone down well with his backbenchers, and quelled the murmurings gathering about his leadership.  I find this strange as most of the Tories natural bedfellows do not operate in governments across the channel.  The continental cousins of Thatcher operate in the EU and work for the ECB.

Of course, what this also does is pull the rug from underneath UKIP’s feet.  After being unceremoniously bitch-slapped on Politics Scotland at the weekend, 1950’s man Nigel Farage must feel the tide starting to go against him.  The strange thing is that the electoral impact of UKIP, I suspect, has been overrated.  They might be getting 12% in polls, but are still to make that final step from fringe party to mainstream party.  In sharp contrast, the last outside party to generate such a fuss was the SDP.  Within a year of their formation, they had won 2 By-elections (in Crosby & Glasgow Hillhead) to add to the 28 defections from Labour.  To date UKIP don’t really look like taking a Westminster seat – thought they do poll strongly in European Elections.  Despite the hype & hyperbole, UKIP simply are not the roadblock to an overall majority imagined by Cameron.

This leads us to the third reason, namely the Scottish Referendum and, more importantly, the Westminster Elections.  Cameron wants to become the first Tory leader to win an overall majority since John Major in 1992.  Cameron obviously believes that there are votes to be had in a referendum, there are probably strategic reasons for this as well.  This has probably paid dividends already with Miliband’s rather floundering response at PMQ’s today.   Polling evidence unfortunately takes longer to percolate.  I would wonder though how Euro-sceptical we are though, after all the battleground for elections in this country are not fought on our relationships with our European parties.  This brings us to the Scottish referendum.

The strange thing is that this does not really impact at all on the Scottish Referendum.  The SNP think (and they have a point) that the main argument of Better Nation has disappeared.  As I’ve said before, people won’t vote No because of any desire to have Scottish voices (filtered through the UK) on the big stage, there are bigger issues related to the bread & butter issues that will mean a No vote.  If Cameron has been taking an interest in the early exchanges in the referendum campaign, he will have noted though the self inflicted trouble Yes Scotland are in over the EU. 

The EU referendum will provide a constant reminder of the mess that Salmond has made over this issue – in short it’s the wound that does not heal.  Unless the SNP perform a U-turn and promise a referendum over entry to the European Union (which I think is a necessity if the polling for a Yes vote is to recover), then we will continue to march towards a No vote.

I think that overall Cameron’s motives are all to do with his performance as Prime Minister and not very much to do with our relationship with the EU, he has announced this to divert attention away from our failing economy and infrastructure that’s falling apart.  Oh and to win the next election.  The problem is that for the moment an awful lot of people have been suckered in by Cameron’s actions without questioning his motives or the consequences. In the meantime, Cameron is back on the front foot of British politics.

First Footing 2013… With The Best Of 2012

Firstly, a happy new year to all of my readers.

2012 saw 36 posts, a decrease that probably reflects the sheer boredom with the Independence referendum…  already.  With 28 months till the next Westminster elections, speculation about what will happen there will probably begin to feature more on these pages.

So, what are the most read posts of 2012.  At 10th place is “Some Thoughts About That Opening Ceremony”, a post about that…  er…  opening ceremony.  As I mused towards the end, “maybe the most interesting thing to say was that it was probably a much better advert for the Union than anything “Better Together” will throw at us over the next two years” as the strictly non ennobled Danny Boyle cherry picked key shared British experienced and produced an opening ceremony only hardened Independence supporters and right wing Tory MP’s could possibly hate.  In 9th place is the first appearances of two recurring themes, Independence & the collective failure of “Scottish” Labour.  In this case “Worse Than Chloe Smith”was about Ian Davidson’s bad tempered, foulmouthed, rant on what he, rather wittily, calls Newsnat Scotland.  Jack Whitehall was apparently unavailable.

At 8,another post about the failures of Labour in the Independence debate.  Given the current climate for crystal-ball gazing over 2015, “The Week Labour Lost The Next Election” set out how Labour under Ed Milliband had severely hindered their chances of government at the next Westminster Elections.  Meanwhile i got my own crystal ball out in October to call the Independence referendum for the seventh best read post of 2012 – “Why Scotland Will Vote No in 2014”.  Bubbling under the top five is a post from March looking at the likely scenarios facing Scotland “After The Referendum”.

The fifth best read post of 2012 was a review of the Council elections that took place in May – with the feeling that the SNP would look back at “The What If Elections”.  If anything, the SNP’s problems started here.  In the aftermath, Jeff at Better Nation mused on whether now was the time for Alex Salmond to step asside for the Deputy First Minister to take the reigns and deliver a yes vote.  At number four in this list is my response to that post – “A Potted History of the Anointed Ones” – making the point that the history of favoured successors to successful political leaders is not a happy one.

Into the top three, and at three was a post wondering if the (at the time) forthcoming Council elections would see the SNP’s “jump the shark moment”.  Or, as the post put it “Is the SNP Backlash Coming?”.  This post also flagged up the possibility of the SNP losing Renfrewshire, despite that council’s former leader running the national campaign.  Hmmmm…

The highest placed post about the referendum is at number 2, and is about the last (at the moment) decent idea “Scottish” Labour have had.  “The Foulkes Manouvre” is about George Foulkes idea/wheeze that there should be dual referendums, one for Independence and (in the event of a no vote) one for “Devo max”.  The spanner in this idea was that “Scottish” Labour seems to have mislaid simple concepts, like representing the people that elected them and adopting popular ideas. Need I mention Devo Max again?

So what is the best read post of 2012 then?  In June Chloe Smith came to prominence as the front person for yet another government u-turn.  Her mauling at the hands of Jon Snow and Jeremy Paxman prompted the post “Chloe Smith & The Quality of Scottish Based Political Interviewers”.  A piece bemoaning the quality of BBC Scotland’s political interviewers while recommending that the BBC tap up STV’s Bernard Ponsonby.

So, that’s that for 2012.  Proper blogging will resume soon.

2012: The Year Of The Omnishambles

When I started this blog, I did reviews of the sporting year and what I liked from television.  The sporting reviews live on, this years sporting picks of the sporting year can be found across at this blog’s sister site, Fan With A Laptop.  Doing these posts it occurred that there was a bit of a gap in terms of looking back at the year that had gone on for this site, which is where this post came from.

You don't represent the quiet Bat People in our society, do you?

2012 does though seem like the year of the Omnishambles as both the Coalition government at Westminster and the SNP government at Holyrood  have unravelled to different degrees and for different reasons.  Thanks to the appropriation of the word Omnishambles, 2012 has also made Armando Ianucci look prescient for the first time since “The Day Today” correctly foresaw how rubbish ITV news would end up.

However, back to Westminster as it is the UK Government that has descended the most into shambles.  Osborne’s budget in March was the start, but the signs were there from last years strop at the EU summit at Brussels.  Then there was Cameron’s intervention regarding the Holyrood government’s intention to hold a referendum on Independence, which has lead to there being a referendum on Scottish Independence.  As we will see, Cameron’s blundering here will not result in any damages to his government.  Unlike, say, a botched budget statement.

When the budget statement was made in March, I listed five similarities to those announced by Gordon Brown.  Brown’s budgets did have a tendency to have hidden measures in them that caused them to come apart a bit.  In sharp contrast the unravelling of Osborne’s 2012 budget went so far beyond anything that happened to Brown, that you do wonder how on earth Osborne is still in his post.

If the reasons for the scrapping of the 50% tax rate were proven to be false, then it was the scorn poured on the Chancellor for the Granny/Pasty/Caravan taxes he thought up to prove that we were all in it together.  All of them badly thought out taxes that caused collateral damage to the reputation of the Coalition government.  But most of all to George Osborne, who has seen his reputation as a political strategist plummet alongside his reputation as an economist.  The u-turn budget was bad enough, without the double dip recession.  Oh and the awful growth forecasts.  No wonder Osborne got the bird at the Paralympics.

In theory this should all be (relatively) good news for Miliband the Younger & Labour.  The problem is that while they have a poll lead averaging 9%, they still have a problem in terms of people trusting them on the economy.  Not helped when the perceived architect of the UK’s economic woes (which I find strange, Balls was only Brown’s economic advisor for New Labour’s first term and did not fulfil an economic brief for the rest of New Labour’s time in office) holds the post of Shadow Chancellor.  If your shadow Chancellor is not as popular as an incredibly unpopular Chancellor, then there are decisions that will need to be made about who you would have as your Chancellor in waiting.

Not that Labour at Westminster is the only opposition party with decisions to be made.  Their Scottish counterparts at Holyrood have huge decisions to be made about their future direction, particularly because the SNP Government have shown signs of weakness this year.  The SNP have pressed ahead with Minimum Pricing, and found themselves in the middle of a legal battle.  As I’ve pointed out on more than one occasion (and had a heated debate with one of the local SNP hierarchy over the pages of the Paisley Daily Express), Minimum Pricing will not work as price bears no influence on underage drinkers and people with an addiction to alcohol. 

Meanwhile, Kenny MacAskill’s proposals to reform Legal Aid looks to have met some resistance, this coming less than a year after Salmond & MacAskill’s toys out the pram moment with the UK Supreme Court.  That’s not to mention the various funding issues with the NHS and Higher Education as well as the introduction of a set of new qualifications (phasing out the 25 year old Standard Grades).  If you were being kind you could make the case that they were maybe a wee bit distracted.  After all we will now be getting the much craved Independence Referendum.

Ah, the Referendum.  The Holy grail for SNP activists.  Except since both campaigns were set up, the campaign for Independence – “run” by a group called “YES Scotland” – has essentially fallen apart over two issues.  Europe and currency.

The SNP claimed that I-Scotland would continue to be a member of the EU, as a “successor state” to the UK.  When questioned by fellow Buddie (and currently the most famous person to come from Glenburn) Andrew Neil, Salmond stated that he had sought legal advice on the matter.  Fast forward to October (and several Freedom of Information requests later) and the Deputy First Minister’s admission that there was no legal advice sought, and that there would be advice.  The final hole in that argument was put by the President of the European Commission when he said that any new country would have to apply.

The most common sense approach to EU membership would have been to point out that membership of the EU was an aspiration for I-Scotland and that we would only seek membership if the Scottish people consented.  Except that now, in the unlikely event of Scotland voting yes, the whole of the EU knows how desperate we are to join.  Sturgeon’s arguments for joining the EU are like a poker player giving away their best cards before the game has started.

Rather like Europe, the issue of what currency we use has a common sense answer (a Scottish Pound, tacked on to the Sterling – there are countries around the planet who have their own currency which is tacked to the US Dollar).  Instead Swinney (probably realising that the Euro is so toxic that it would be a distinct vote loser) has proposed I-Scotland entering a currency union with R-UK, with the Bank of England setting interest rates and acting as the Lender of Last Resort. For as long as the SNP fail to square the Winton paradox of asking us to leave a union where we have a little say in the direction of that union to join another union where we have even less of a say in the direction of that union, then a No vote will remain the most likely result come 2014.

Returning to the theme of leaders presiding over omnishambles.  The reason that Alex Salmond will not be losing that much sleep over the many tactical blunders he has made this year will be the knowledge that, like Thatcher, Blair and (to a certain extent) Osborne, Salmond knows that his opposite number does not look like a likely replacement to him at the polls.  From every conceivable angle, Joanne Lamont does not remotely look like the next First Minister of Scotland.  In the autumn of 2012, Lamont even committed her, and maybe “Scottish” Labour’s, biggest mistake.  Lamont attacked the SNP from the right, adopting phrases & terminology more commonly heard in those Labour supporting organs…  the Daily Mail & Daily Express.

Lamont’s series of speeches calling for an end to the “Something for nothing” culture not only read like any speech any Conservative politician would have made since…  oh pick any year from 1983 onwards.  They also confirmed “Scottish” Labour’s drift to the right, which they have been in denial over since the days when Jack McConnell was First Minister.  This means that firstly there is an opportunity for the Green Party to hoover up disaffected Labour voters, there is also an opportunity for the SSP to pick up votes here and get themselves back on the national stage…  if they buck up their ideas and find a way to bury the hatchet with Solidarity.  Secondly, “Scottish” Labour are in serious danger of being in the political wilderness for the next decade unless they change tack quickly.  How to reposition “Scottish” Labour to the left of the SNP should be on their “to do” list in the new year if they have any designs on regaining power in 2016.  I would also suggest that they replace Lamont, as she quite clearly is not First Minister in waiting material.

It’s not just in politics that a shambles has turned into an omnishambles.  Rangers Football Club descended into firstly administration and then liquidation, with the reporting firstly showing disbelief then ignorance of the facts.  The BBC also descended into the world of shambles when ITV disclosed the biggest open secret in British broadcasting by outing Jimmy Saville as a sexual predator, most of the shambles surrounded the broadcast of two tribute programmes last Christmas and the simultaneous spiking of a Newsnight programme that would have outed Saville.  It was during this period of recrimination that saw Newsnight broadcast a report claiming (wrongly) that a senior Tory was a paedophile.  Cue meltdown in the Twittersphere as many people proved Cameron right by showing that too many tweets do make a twit (Sally Bercow, George Monbiot being the chef twits…  innocent face#).

If 2012 was the year of the Omnishambles, what will 2013 bring?  Will next year be the year we descend into some sort of Stewart Pearson hippy hell, or will another of Malcolm Tucker’s expletive ridden asides look remarkably prescient?  As long as I get to retire to the planet of the teddy bears, I’ll be happy…  maybe.

Happy new year to your all and see you in 2013.

Obama 2: The Best Is Yet To Come

You know conventional wisdom dictates that sequels are rarely as good as the original, conventional wisdom also dictates that second term presidents always have one eye on the history books.  The re-elected Barak Obama will have his work cut out if he is to be remembered for his achievements rather than his promise.

Yet for all of the relief and pleasure at the Obama victory (or is that the Romney defeat) in this country, the thought that Obama really should have won this by a larger margin remains.  The very reason that this election campaign came down to a dog-fight could be summed up in four words.  The first Presidential debate.

I had long thought that Obama should have been heading for a comfortable victory.  Obama’s opponents from the other side of the pond look more than divided – with the advent of the Tea Party wing they look more and more like an American version of the Labour Party from circa 1981.  As a result, the list of candidates for the primaries looked rather like a group of zealots and religious fundamentalists exposing 19^th century views.  Even with the election of the most sensible candidate, Romney, Obama really should have won much more comfortably.

Yet, Romney had chipped away at Obama’s achilles heel – the economic performance of the USA in the past four years.  What made this election tighter than it should have been was undoubtedly Obama’s poor performance in the first Presidential debate – in the aftermath Romney’s polling experienced what could be called a “Clegg Bounce”.  It is arguable that Obama’s reaction to Storm Sandy certainly helped Obama recover enough of the ground lost in that debate to see him over the finish line in the same way that Brown’s visit to Rochdale (and all that…) saw the momentum steadily swing towards Cameron in the last General Election.

Obama’s victory already guarantees that certain things will not happen.  The USA will not provoke a trade or economic war with China, or worse.  There will also be no disproportionate response to the antics of Israel or Iran.  However Obama’s legacy really depends on how he deals with the supposed “Fiscal Cliff”.  There are though people looking at the lessons that can be learned & transplanted here.

Nick Robinson lists five lessons in his post yesterday.  His first, “Incumbents Can Still Win” obviously resonates with our own government – though there should be caveats attached.  Since the Second World War, only Ford, Carter and George Bush (senior) have lost as sitting presidents – two terms are the norm.  The much bigger lesson, which is one that has been the case in British politics since Thatcher and was clearly on show here, is that opposition parties need to fashion themselves into a credible alternative government in waiting.  Blair did that, Cameron fell just short of that while Kinnock, Hague & Howard all failed to do this.

The other lesson that resonates in British politics is that negative campaigning works.  “Labour Isn’t Working”, “Labour’s Tax Bombshell” & “You Can’t Trust The Tories on The NHS” are all slogans that spearheaded negative aspects of election winning campaigning.  Sure the negative aspects were always a part of the main campaigns, but in the United States the negative campaign was the main spearhead.  Anyone who doubts that such negative campaigning won’t work here needs to look at the current Scottish Referendum campaign, where the SNP’s pro Independence message has become undermined by opposition attacks not on the main issues but on what are really fringe and just off core issues.

When Obama entered the White House in 2009, the USA was at its most precarious economic position since the 1930’s.  He hasn’t quite turned things around, partially down to the various “Checks and balances” inherent in the USA government machine.  Four more years gives the US time to cement “Obama-care” into the government and should (mid term elections providing) give Obama the chance to become the reforming president he wants to be.  Unfortunately we have 2 years of Obama the Tory to get out of the way first.

“John Major With An I-Pod”

As wee Dougie Alexander’s described the Prime Minister on GMS yesterday morning in the aftermath of the Government’s defeat in a debate about the EU’s proposed budget.

While I understand why Alexander made the comparison – and it does somewhat hit the spot – a further look at the comparison will show that it doesn’t stack up.  In the 1990’s the Conservatives were genuinely split between supporters of the EU and Eurosceptics – MP’s who initially agreed with Thatcher’s own damascene conversion on the EU, which was outlined in her famous Bruges speech.  As a result the Tory party that John Major led was pretty close to ungovernable, especially given the slender 21 seat majority Major scraped home with in the 1992 Westminster Election.  Nowhere is the dramatic reversal in John Major’s fortunes so evident than in the perception of his biggest achievement after that Election win.

Five months before that election, Major took part in the final round of negotiations which would shape the European Union’s latest treaty.  This treaty was specifically about proposals for a currency union.  From those final negotiations in the Dutch town of Maastricht, Major managed to negotiated an opt out not just of currency union for Britain but also from a series of workers rights known as “The Social Chapter”.  This was hailed at the time as a triumph.  Then came the election that saw Major re-elected but on a much reduced majority.

As a result, Major found it more and more difficult to ratify what was known as the Maastricht Treaty, as a small but vocal minority of Tories aided by John Smith’s Labour Party blocked and frustrated any attempt to get the bill through parliament.  Major managed to get the bill through, but only after tieing the bill to a no confidence vote.  The Eurosceptic genie was out of the bottle.  So why is this different to the circumstances Cameron faces?

For a start, Cameron’s trouble’s are entirely of his own making.  Milliband the younger’s jibe about Flashman strikes as more than a jibe, that there is something there that Cameron believes that he is a much more talented politician than he actually is.  He has cultivated the right of his party in an attempt to keep them onside, despite the fact that the right wing of the Tories hate him – probably for giving up on the Lisbon Treaty.  At the same time Cameron wants to cultivate an image of himself as a pragmatic “One Nation” Tory, despite the fact that the two “images” are completely and utterly incompatible.

Because Cameron has tried to keep onside with the right of his party, he has done things in office which might have appeared to look good to the right but has in reality been executed in a poor fashion.  Most famously, he walked out of last December’s summit because he could not get an opt out from, of all things, more stringent financial regulations.  As I pointed out at the time, neither Brown, Blair, Major or Thatcher would have flounced out of a EU summit at 5am without any quid pro quo.  Then again, and this is probably key, neither of the aforementioned Prime Ministers probably felt that they should have been there and that they were entitled to be there.   Call it work ethic if you want, but i suspect that those four Prime Ministers felt that they had to work at the job and I suspect that Cameron is too lazy at working at his job.

The Government’s defeat, Cameron’s first Common’s defeat as Prime Minister, means that Cameron will now head off to this weekend's EU conference very much between a rock and a hard place.  While most of Cameron’s fellow EU leaders would like to successfully negotiate a real terms freeze (ie rises pegged at inflation) at the very least, our parliament, including the elected SNP MP’s, have voiced displeasure at this and urged a total freeze in the EU’s budget. 

While a lot has been said about Labour’s blatant attempt at…  er… politics (Interesting to see Cameron’s comments on the subject, given he spent 4 and a half years attempting to clamber aboard every passing bandwagon), the SNP’s motives here should fall under some scrutiny.  As has been explained previously, the argument has been that I-Scotland would be allowed into the European Union without having to apply.  What I find strange is that all of this assumes that this argument is popular.  Yet a cursory glimpse of the (admittedly Anglocentric) media shows that not only was the defeat popular, but that Milliband the Younger is seriously thinking about outflanking the Tories by promising an in/out referendum in the EU.

On this issue above most, Salmond looks seriously behind the curve, while most of the political establishment at Westminster race to show their Eurosceptic stripes.  At Westminster, Salmond’s own party has failed to see the bigger picture in traipsing through the same lobby as Bill Cash and Peter Bone.  After all, as a proposed country that would be a net-receiver of EU funds, what do you think the SNP’s response would be towards r-UK if this happened in the future?