What I really want to see

Partly I’d like to see all this argument continue much longer, it’s been thrilling to have actual news to follow and for a politics news junkie like myself this is a strong hit. At some point, sadly, we must see the endgame reached.

So here’s what I’d like to see:

Tories governing on a minority basis with confidence from the Lib Dems.
But with an all party economic council, embracing and extending that which Nick Clegg often spoke about in the debates to include the various Scottish, Irish and Welsh national parties and the Green.
From that supply coming from across the house and an agreement that the queens speech shall be drawn from consensus policies drawn from all parties.

Then three sets of reforms.
Firstly, a wide ranging set of procedural reforms of the House of Commons, to be implemented over the summer. These would be measures to make the chamber adequately respond to the three party nature of politics, and would put the leaders of all opposition parties with more than a dozen members 3 questions and a guaranteed question for all other parties. Also to ensure that the calling of members of debates ceases to be based on their relative seniority in the chamber but instead on a mixture of good judgement and pre-agreed order debate by debate.
Secondly, an examination of the democracy of local and regional government within England, aiming to empower the London assembly and review the voting system for councils.
And thirdly, a referendum on the proposals for AV+ from the Jenkins review. Should a vote on that fail either in the house or in referendum, then a requirement for a commission to re-examine the topic to present proposals to parliament within a year such that there is genuine reform within this parliament.

And all of this under a fixed term four year parliament with an agreement for fixed term parliaments hereafter.

"in power too long"

“I cannot think of a better symbol of an out of touch, authoritarian, failing government that has been in power for too long,” Green said

Damian Green in The Guardian today

The Tory leader said Labour had “been in power too long” and Gordon Brown had to end “this sort of nonsense”.

David Cameron seeking reform of No. 10 on BBC News on Tuesday

Doesn’t it occur to you to say, perhaps, maybe after fourteen years we have been in power for too long and that’s why there is this deep cynicism.

John Humphrys interviewing Education Secretary David Hunt in 1994

21/08/2008 It seems to be the Conservative sound bite of choice right now, but it seems an odd one if you ask me. What are they actually proposing? Are they asking for a two term limit of parties or leaders being in government? No. Are they proposing reforms of the electoral system? No. We might get some boundary changes, albeit on a larger scale than usual as we dispense of 60 or so MPs, and every time those happen after a change of hue, there’s always a strange bias towards the new rulers. Something that generally speaking ensures governments stay “in power too long”.

What has propelled this rallying cry? A man working in 10 Downing Street making up lies, then not using them but communicating about them with an idiot affiliated to the Labour Party (Derek Draper). Call me a bit cynical but I find the rage of the Conservatives more than a little artificial. I don’t think a competition on who can be the least tainted MP is what Westminster needs right now, what it needs is debate and reform. And we poor voters look likely to get neither and then end up with the Tories “in power too long” again. Little wonder the country lost appetite for a snap election last year, I suspect we remembered how little difference it would make.

In my more optimistic moments I hope that this seemingly inevitable Tory government does at least correct some of the excesses of legislation from the past few years then implodes after two years and thus forces us finally on the road to full reform when we finally fail to have enough people to agree and form a ruling party. My more pessimistic dreams end with us all bowing down to our new ruler King William.

For King and Four Countries

Just been reading Anthony King’s report on the BBC network news coverage of the four UK nations for the BBC Trust. It’s a very well written, engaging and sometimes rather amusing document. In the main it doesn’t stick the knife in and there is much about the BBC to be praised, but here are some highlights for you to enjoy where that’s not the case. Firstly:

[In the main the BBC is unbiased] … However, there was one exception. Others drew it to our attention – an article in the Scottish edition of the Daily Telegraph was headlined ‘Fibs about Scotland on the BBC’ –and we could observe it for ourselves. It concerns the question of whether or not a group of people collectively called ‘the English’ – and, in particular, people called ‘English taxpayers’ – do, or do not, ‘subsidise’ a group of people collectively called ‘the Scots’. We were not in a position to monitor the BBC network’s entire output on this issue, but some of the coverage could give viewers and listeners the impression that there is a known and settled answer to this question and that the known and settled answer is that the English do, indeed, subsidise the Scots.

There is a very real and strange assumption that there is a subsidy as the BBC has asserted in various media several times. Perhaps no small part of the reason for the arguments to fail to advance towards anything resembling a resolution is down not just to Treasury intransigance but also a misinformed electorate, and possibly also politicians. Just remember, that’s the Daily Telegraph (scots edition admittedly) pointing out to the BBC how to be fair and accurate in reporting on Scotland. Questions of BBC bias are not as simple as Tory or Labour anymore, as my MP would do well to learn (p.s. Greg as you ask more written questions than the average MP, perhaps best not to lay into a journalist for asking questions themselves).

A second gem:

The events in Wales were important. They were obviously important for the people of Wales; the Welsh National Assembly has a wide range of devolved powers and controls a budget of £14 billion … However, the BBC’s UK-wide network, as distinct from BBC Wales, had little to say about any of these developments … Network news did, however, take considerable interest in another story emanating from Wales during the same May-July period. It concerned Shambo, a six-year-old Friesian bull.

It’s noted elsewhere that many in the BBC audience believe that often their local area was more likely to be covered as a quirky local interest story than anything of genuine note.

My favourite:

To be fair, there are millions of people in the UK, most of them in England, who have also failed to grasp, or even to notice, the scale of the changes that have taken place. To judge by what they say on television and radio, some of them sit on the green benches at Westminster, including the front benches.

Indeed, King notes that Ministers at Westminster are deliberately failing to append (of England (& Wales) (& Northern Ireland) to their job titles. He reckons journalists should do their best to make such things clear, though he also notes that our devolved system could hardly be more complicated and he reckons only a “select few” understand the Barnett funding formula, for example.

And a final shocker:

In our travels, we noticed, for example, that not all of the newsrooms we visited had maps of the UK on their walls.

My workplace is littered with UK Maps, indeed it seems you can’t be a director without having one somewhere. Personally I sit typing this with a large map of Scotland behind me, but I’m just a tad biased, and I have some London maps as well.

All in all, a great review, and now we must hope that good things come from it.

McChange Of Plan

“Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, Scottish Politics takes a surreal turn, as Labour demand a referendum on indpendence”

Erm, right. I didn’t think that would happen.

So what’s Wendy Alexander up to? Apparently she’s listened to people. Now, it’s a fine time to finally listen to the people, after the SNP have been in power for a year. Maybe this is Brown finally cracking to a demand Wendy has made many times since taking power, certainly it doesn’t fit that Wendy would just come up with this and then be able to announce it.

Wendy claims the SNP are talking too much about independence without wanting to have the referendum. She’s even slated them for delaying the referendum, but in a way that showed she was basically unaware that the referendum was committed to 2010 in their manifesto. Further, Salmond himself was quoted a few days ago as saying that independence is not the matter in hand just now. Only thanks to Wendy is that the case.

There’s no turning back now, there will be a Scottish Independence Referendum. To steal Mr Dewar’s words. I Like That.

Shame the question will be a complete pain though. How on earth are Labour going to help draft a question? How can they do this positively? Wendy herself has ruled out a referendum on Calman Comission’s proposals, but she can surely change her mind on that – I’d hope for the sake of political sanity that she does.

The SNP, of course, already have their question out there, and more in the white paper that kicked off the national conversation. Indeed they’ve described a potential devolution max option which may well be what Calman and his commission deliver.

No-one wants to campaign for the status quo, and Labour are on a hiding to nothing if they have nothing positive to offer Scotland. A failed yes/no to independence referendum will not be an achievement for Labour, nor will it be the undoing of the SNP. It just confirms the position for a generation. No more, no less.

Meanwhile as I type this News 24 (up to the minute news from the BBC) are repeating a fascinating HardTalk interview with Alex Salmond.

BBC News 24 11:30PM Tuesday 6th May 2008 - HardTalk With Alex Salmond

I’m guessing they recorded it on Friday or Saturday. It seems a fragment of history already.

Why do Labour keep on losing?

I think it’s quite simple, they don’t understand that in bringing devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London they’ve walked towards federalism – and that means giving power back from the centre, and sorting out the union. Something Labour seem terrified by.

Why did Labour lose in Scotland last year? Simple, they didn’t back extra powers for the parliament – if they had they’d have easily dealt with the growth in SNP support. But Brown said no. And yet now they’re on the back foot and scrambling to get Calman and co. to come up with a package of changes in powers to the settlement before the end of the year.

Why did Ken lose in London this week? Simple, Brown stood up to Ken and refused to let him run the tube his way. This stalled the modernisation programme, wasted billions, caused and nearly caused a dozen strikes, massively inconveniencing Londoners. On top of this, the vote has been really poor in the outer suburbs where the Department for Transport must take the blame for failing to act quickly enough on Ken’s requirements to roll out Oyster on suburban rail and ensure that suburban rail in London came up to the standards of the tube. Poor Ken had no option and no power to sort these issues. Neither will Boris, and it will be interesting to see if anyone suggests reform to the London settlement. It certainly needs something but no-one seems to have any ideas, a good start would be somehow getting the London Assembly noticed – to the average Londoner it doesn’t exist.

In both of these cases, had the understanding been there that devolution was a process not an event then people would not have wound up voting in local oppositions to central government in the fashion they now have. Further, the strange fascination with having a mayor has led to a somewhat pointless popularity contest. Were the mayor chosen by the assembly it is plausible that Ken could have still remained in power, Boris would have needed the vote of the BNP member and one other…

What I can’t explain is why with an increased turnout the BNP still got 5% of the London vote and a seat on the assembly. I can cope with Boris being mayor, but it really sickens me to know that some of my tax will pay salary to such a politician.

Us naughty Scots, how dare we…

jockstrapped.jpg

Many’s the day I sat and chuckled with my Scottish mates back hame and laughed heartily at the deprivation we were forcing on poor Londoners by daring to be Scottish and hoping that investment from elsewhere in the union might raise the standard of living. Alas, I’ve now given in, headed south and I’m delighted that at least unlike the Eastern European migrants I don’t have to bother working hard to send money home cos the government does it for me. Perhaps that’s the benefit of being in the same union, if not nation.

Of course, the actual figures are somewhat interesting, but I don’t think London suffers for investment much, certainly not just now. And, the way things are going (with voters favouring independence) we’re probably well on the way to a federal UK. Which may actually be just what Salmond and SNP want:

The SNP is now urging Scots to move to the next level – full political independence. They seem to be nibbling, but there is a studied vagueness about exactly what full-scale independence would actually mean. The SNP propose to remain within the EU, retain the Queen as head of state, and keep sterling as Scotland’s currency, at least for the time being. This looks more like federalism, or perhaps confederalism than old-style 19th century nation-state nationalism. It could even be a form of “devolution max” that is being proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

Iain Macwhirter, The Guardian.

I’m not sure what exactly English Nationalists stand for, and I’ve never seen the SNP campaign in such a racist fashion, nor would I ever expect them to. I’ll voting Green first and Ken (Labour, natch) second come the election anyway.

Ironically, also years of the union hasn’t helped raise living standards much (as Macwhirter points out something like 500,000 poorly paid working class folk are going to lose out from the 10p tax rate), Scotland really needs quite substantial change much as London did, which Ken has delivered, but which can only happen with a government which, to an extent antagonises, and much more importantly challenges those in Westminster and takes advantage of what power it does have.

Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to Google the Commission For Racial Equality’s phone number.

Let's use google for good, then!

OK, so there’s the continuing rumbling rows about politicians expenses. Let’s have some fun seeing what we can find by looking online.

First things first – what data can we get, well there’s a bit on MPs at Westminster, but it’s not very detailed.

Instead, let’s look at MSPs and see what we can find there. We should look at the current financial year (2007-2008), then an expense that might be interesting, so how about Website Costs, which obviously I know something about. We get a total of £15,906.88 accross all MSPs, Charlie Gordon MSP has claimed £10,014.39 of that, now £35.40 of that was for Queen’s Park FC (?) and the remaining £9,978.99 was paid to GMG Solutions.

Hmm. What could make his website so much more expensive than everyone elses? Though admittedly only 20 MSPs claim for this expense anyway. For extra credit you might do a whois search, because then you find it lists a Gavin Gordon as the Administrative Contact. I wonder if he has an M for a middle initial and that GMG Solutions is his company. I’m not seeing anything illegal here, but it does seem odd, does it not, that one MSP claims about 62.9% of all expenses for all MSPs for this year for this type of expense. Maybe he should talk to his colleague George Foulkes who is a marvellous example of restraint in comparison with a single cost of £800 funding a website which includes a blog which even encourages Federalism (but without an rss feed, alas).

Should there not be something similar to the John Lewis list of reasonable prices as used in but not disclosed by Westminster to be used in assessing the costs all representatives charge the taxpayer for all expenses? Maybe Westminster does have something to teach Holyrood? Is it possible that other MSPs are listing their expenses for websites as a different type of expense, and if so are these figures not helpful when examined at this level?

But here’s the question I really want to know the answer to: if all this is public knowledge and freely searchable, why has no-one else picked up on it? After all Charlie Gordon was the subject of some considerable press coverage recently in the Wendy Alexander donations saga. Is it because it’s actually all hidden in so poor an interface as to make only random interrogation a useful method for finding things out? I’d dare say yes – time to try and write a site scraper, or see if anyone at the Scottish Parliament would be willing to provide a data feed.

If this is the last blog I ever make, do write to me in Belmarsh

The London Police have started another lovely new terror campaign, in their continuing efforts to stamp out the rampant threat of terrorism in London that threatens us all. This time they’re targetting people with multiple mobile phones and people who take photos of CCTV cameras.

So, mutiple phones looks suspicious, in that case we’re dead if the terrorists find these sim switching devices. Quick, make the technology illegal, THEN we’ll be safe.

How do you take a photograph in central London without including a CCTV camera anyway? OMG! What if the terrorists find the internet, there’s lots of photos of cctv cameras there – and maybe a map of them! Why look, the London Borough of Lambeth are terrorists.

(sigh)

And that took about 60 seconds of googling, just think what the finest terrorists on earth could achieve in an hour.

Rent

An interesting study reckons the way to sort out the rental market in London would be to encourage bigger brands and longer lets with branded build to let schemes. Now I can definitely see the attraction in this, because if I’m going to rent a property I’d rather it was modern, and well built, with someone caring for the whole block. Obviously if there’s a single owner this would be a good idea, and when you look at the proportion of new build flats that are bought solely to let as an investment there must be mileage in building such properties to be let.

Also, if I’m paying a more sensible rent for a higher quality property then I’ll either not want to buy a place or when I do I’ll actually have more of a deposit together thus negating the need to look for one of the now disappeared 125% mortgages.

There’s definitely the germ of a good idea in this, and it could be approached as a green policy if it helped foster a form of letting that encouraged owners to invest in energy efficiency and the like. Certainly as tenants move house more often than owners they are far more likely to make some form of choice based on a Home Information Pack like energy rating. And this is exactly the kind of scheme I had in my head when I objected to the new office block at the bottom of my road and instead suggested the council build something I could afford to rent/buy and live in.

And if you want to read the actual report it’s over here.

It's Scotland's Toil

If you’ve been following the (ahem) coverage of the recent controversy about The Scottish Parliament investing in Scotland and trying to make it a better place you may be under the misapprehension that Scotland is some pampered area of the UK in receipt of money far in excess of that it brings in.

Ian MacWhirter, as ever calls it almost exactly right in his analysis of the performance of the SNP government, five months on.

The reckoning will come, of course, over next month’s budget. That’s when the opposition hope the SNP will be brought down to earth with a bump, now Gordon has pulled the financial rug out, and Scotland will return to the politics of disillusion and decline. How they’ll laugh as Salmond is forced to eat his manifesto, clause by clause. Yah-hah – see, they’re just as useless as us! Let’s wait and see. I suspect the voters will watch how Salmond copes with the financial situation before withdrawing support.

He also has a nice bit in The Guardian talking about The Herald’s investigation into the alleged subsidising of Scotland.

Of course, Scots could go it alone within Europe tomorrow and thrive, but they don’t because of a sentimental and increasingly anachronistic sense of filial obligation to England. They don’t want to break things up, risk bad feeling, let emotions get out of hand. Like Robert Tressell’s ragged trousered philanthropists, they feed London their wealth and skills; keep quiet about the oil, put up with people like Kelvin Mackenzie and Simon Jenkins because, well, they think its the right thing to do.

He’s not normally an SNP apologist or anything of the sort, indeed most of the time by far the majority of Scots journalists have had much to argue with the SNP as they’ve come from the innate Labour majority. However, much like the ordinary folk they’re starting to think a bit more independently and even if they’ll only vote for the SNP and not for independence it is enough of a shift to change the whole make up of the UK in the longer term. Now if only someone down here in London would start asking for my vote to push Federalism and Proportional Representation into both houses at Westminster. Until then I’m a bit lost on why I vote at all down here, the politics in Scotland at least seem alive.