I am currently reassessing my online activities. I am not currently updating this blog, but you can still view the archive.

Archive: 2009 June

European election leaflets: The main parties

3 June 2009 22:53

Categories: Current affairs, Fife, Politics, Scotland

The decision to vote

A series of posts

  1. A pathetic situation
  2. Five disturbing things about democracy
  3. How should politics be reformed?: Part 1
  4. How the new politics might look: part 2
  5. European election leaflets: The main parties
  6. European Parliamentary Election literature: small parties
  7. A second opinion
  8. I decided! And I decided to vote

Scottish Conservatives

This is a pretty substantial leaflet, with lots of copy for you to read. It’s pretty slick. One thing that strikes me is that it avoids the tacky symbolism adopted by the other right-wing Eurosceptic parties. The only sign of nationalism is a rather washed-out Union Flag acting as a background.

Content-wise, it starts with a number of cut-outs of newspaper headlines chronicling Labour’s many disasters — as if we needed reminding. Below that is a picture of Gordon Brown photoshopped to make him Janus-faced, which is disappointingly base.

Policy-wise, the focus is very much on European issues. While I may not agree with all of their policies, I appreciate the effort they have taken to tell us exactly what they have done and plan to do in the European Parliament.

Unfortunately, this focus on Europe goes out of the window during the message from David Cameron and Annabel Goldie. They essentially encourage you to vote to send a message about the Labour government in Westminster. There is no escaping the fact that the European Parliamentary election is a second-order election, and will therefore often be used as a way to “send a message” to the government. But I’d rather the Conservatives wouldn’t encourage people to discard European issues for a European election.

No word on the coalition of charmers they are trying to build up either.

Scottish Greens

We have not heard a peep from the Greens. No leaflet came through the door. So I have taken a look at their website.

The blurbs are full of the sort of stuff you come to expect from Greens. For instance, it attacks “reckless growth”, apparently oblivious to the fact that it is the lack of growth that is hurting everyone so much just now. They attack the economic system, but offer little in the way of alternative ideas, apart from more control and more regulation. And renewable energy.

Among their main plans is a promise to create “hundreds of thousands of jobs”. Good luck with that one. They also advocate mutual financial institutions, glossing over the problems that hit the Dunfermline Building Society.

Scottish Labour

This leaflet is not just tailored for Scotland. It is aimed more narrowly at Fife and Tayside. We learn that Labour has the vote of Kariann and Kenneth from Rosyth, whose are pictured with their son Ryan. Oddly, they all look rather glum. Their quote says:

It’s Gordon Brown’s leadership that will get us through these tough times. Labour is the only party on the side of hard working families, standing up for Scottish people nationally and in Europe.

They’re not doing a very good job of it though, are they? As for “Gordon Brown’s leadership”, I can only imagine that Kariann and Kenneth are by now the laughing stock of Rosyth. There can’t be many towns in Scotland that have been more badly hit by Labour’s disastrous economic policies than Rosyth.

I’ll never forget the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, when Gordon Brown stood in Rosyth banging on about job security — only for 700 jobs to go at Lexmark. According to this page, 1,599 jobs had been lost in Rosyth — around an eighth of the town’s population — between 1997 and 2006. Labour’s economic legacy in Gordon Brown’s patch.

When you open up the leaflet, the first thing it does is play the unionist card, as you would expect from Labour. It’s not that I disagree with the message, but it does seem a bit ham-fisted. It is perhaps a mistake for the rest of this page to focus on Labour’s economic record, which is in tatters.

Page three concedes that “it may seem hard to talk about an upturn now”. It certainly is hard to talk about it while Labour are in charge. There is only a brief mention of what Labour’s MEPs have done, and nothing at all about what they plan to do in the future. The rest focuses on the SNP’s record in the Scottish Government. Above this blurb is a rather unflattering photograph of Gordon Brown and Lindsay Roy, two people who always look uncomfortable in front of a camera. Neither of them look particularly happy, reflecting the mood of the times.

The back page sees the return of Kariann and Kenneth, telling us what they think. They tell us that the SNP “have broken almost all their election promises”, then list all the “wrong decisions for Scotland” the SNP have made. Nothing about European issues.

They are “not voting for the Tories because of the last recession.” Hahahahah! Quite why the relatively benign recession that happened almost twenty years ago matters more than the one that is ruining everyone’s lives today is not entirely clear, although I suppose we have come to expect this sort of logic from Labour supporters. Anyone but the Tories, never mind the facts.

Scottish Liberal Democrats

The Lib Dem message on the front is simple and effective: “Stronger together, poorer apart”, illustrated by a tug-of-war team wearing orange and black. Inside, the copy focuses on “international action” that the Lib Dems help take.

Admirably, the entire leaflet focuses largely on European issues. There is a section at the bottom on why each of the other major parties are so bad. Gordon Brown is pictured shaking hands with George Bush — a bit of a cheap shot. The SNP are bad because a “broken up” Britain would be weaker in Brussels. The Conservatives would also isolate us from Europe. Apparently the Tories “only agree with small fringe parties including UKIP and Sinn Féin.” Ouch! Another low blow.

Despite the cheap shots, this is easily the leaflet that speaks the most to me. I appreciate the focus on European issues, underlining the importance of international action in certain areas — a concept I agree with.

SNP

The SNP are a major party, so there are none of the amusing loon-policies. However, what it does mean is a lot of bland platitudes. “SNP MEPs will always do what’s best for our nation, our families and our communities.” What does this actually tell us? Would any party say they wouldn’t do that?

One thing that differentiates the SNP is the promise to “Campaign for Scotland to be a member of the European Union in its own right” — in other words, independence. Surprise surprise.

Disappointingly, Alex Salmond’s message focuses on what the SNP Scottish Government is doing, rather than what the party plans to do in Europe. The back of the leaflet provides a list of what the SNP is doing to protect Scottish jobs. This feels more like an opportunity to remind us of what the Scottish Government is doing rather than a plea for us to vote SNP in the European Parliamentary election.

« Previous in series — Next in series »

1 comment

How the new politics might look: part 2

3 June 2009 16:42

Categories: Blogging, Current affairs, Internet, Make My Vote Count, Media, Newspapers, Politics, Scotland, Technology, Television

The decision to vote

A series of posts

  1. A pathetic situation
  2. Five disturbing things about democracy
  3. How should politics be reformed?: Part 1
  4. How the new politics might look: part 2
  5. European election leaflets: The main parties
  6. European Parliamentary Election literature: small parties
  7. A second opinion
  8. I decided! And I decided to vote

Continued from yesterday’s article. The Guardian’s New Politics supplement (PDF link) is the basis for this article.

MPs’ pay

I am not averse to MPs being paid a good salary, but I think the current balance is too high. Aditya Chakrabortty says that MPs’ salaries puts them in the top 5% of single earners. Meanwhile, a recent article on the BBC website shows that when you add MPs’ expenses to their salary, an MP’s household earns more than 96% of UK households — assuming the MP’s partner doesn’t work.

This means that fundamentally MPs have little empathy for what the experience of common people are. Given that it is supposed to be the House of Commons, it doesn’t seem quite right.

I’m not sure that a formal link with average earnings would be appropriate. And, as Jenni Russell notes, you wouldn’t want pay to be too low so that particularly able candidates were dissuaded from running. But something a bit more in line with the rest of us would be more ideal, and would probably improve MPs’ image no end too.

Jenni Russell suggests that an MP’s salary should be raised, and allowances cut. There may be something in this, but we wouldn’t want such a system to be unfair to those who live particularly far away from Westminster. That would affect Scotland in particular.

MPs’ hours

Anne Perkins argues that recent reductions in MPs’ hours have reduced the amount of scrutiny government plans receive. She suggests that MPs should therefore have shorter holidays. I’m not so sure. Perhaps we could have the government actually doing less. Given the trail of destruction Labour has left behind, I’d find it difficult to argue against the idea that less government is better than more bad government.

The executive

I completely agree that the Parliament is not strong enough in relation to the government, so I would fully support moves to alter the balance. I am not sure about the detail of some of Martin Kettle’s ideas. Electoral reform would hopefully be enough as it would automatically bring more scrutiny to the government by forcing it to engage more with opposition politicians.

Party whips

David Hencke starts off by saying, “The whips are essential to the running of an efficient political process in the sense that elected governments need to push policies through parliament.” But why should governments be allowed to push policies through parliament? Policies should be accepted because the MPs are convinced that they are the right policies, not because of the arm-twisting tactics of political party elites. The existence of whips is an insult to representative democracy.

Select committees

Michael White’s point is related to the role of party whips, and he notes that committees would be vastly improved if they weren’t so heavily controlled by keeping party rebels out. I also like Michael White’s point about “ministerialitis”.

Political parties

I am not opposed to the concept of political parties. For instance, you can at least be fairly sure that if someone has managed to become a candidate for a major party, they are not a complete loon. You (usually) can’t know that much about an independent. (Any word on who Duncan Robertson is yet?) They also reduce the cost of information for the voters, because you can have a fairly good idea of what a candidate’s broad position is if they are aligned with a particular party.

But I do think that political parties are too strong. Many of the other reforms mentioned above — particularly the power of the party whips, and introducing the right kind of electoral reform — would rein their powers in to the right level.

Party funding

I agree with Seumas Milne that state funding of political parties should not be considered at all. I wouldn’t necessarily agree that political parties’ expenditure should be capped. If they can raise the money, let them spend it. From what I read, it’s not as though political parties’ coffers are exactly overflowing at the moment anyway. Limiting personal donations may be a good idea, and bringing more transparency to more large-scale donations seems sensible.

Communications

Andrew Sparrow’s points about television footage chime with me. The restrictions on TV footage of Parliament do baffle me, particularly the ban on uploading content to YouTube. Proceedings should be seen by as many people as possible, and that means using channels like YouTube.

His idea of allowing journalists to blog from the press gallery is also a good idea which I see no harm in. I also like the idea of providing a press centre for bloggers — though I would say that, wouldn’t I?

MPs’ staff

There is a bit of a pongy whiff about MPs hiring relatives as staff members. In some cases I think it would be sensible though. It does remove the risk that the person you’re hiring isn’t up to the job, because you already know about them. I wouldn’t be in favour of an outright ban.

The press

Ian Aitken’s main point — that the press needs to step up to the plate and scrutinise politicians more — is difficult to disagree with in principle. It’ll be tricky to proceed with though, with the press facing such an uncertain future.

Conclusion

There are lots of interesting ideas for reform floating around at the moment, and I don’t agree with all of them. There are some really tricky issues which have no easy answer, such as House of Lords reform.

I think a careful look at a few big areas could go a long way towards meeting a couple of major goals:

  1. Restoring trust in politics
  2. Strengthening parliament and backbench MPs in relation to the government

MPs’ pay is obviously a huge issue just now, but the jury is out on exactly how this should be reformed. Some are arguing that MPs should be paid more, but that won’t be a popular option in the current climate.

I certainly think the role of political parties should be seriously considered. There are suggestions about the way they are funded. The role of the party whips is also something which should be seriously looked at.

Most of all, adopting a decent electoral system — preferably Single Transferable Vote — will deal with a lot of the problems facing politics in the UK. Voters would feel that they had more of a say, and Parliament would be strengthened in relation to the government.

« Previous in series — Next in series »

1 comment

How should politics be reformed?: Part 1

2 June 2009 00:42

Categories: Current affairs, Make My Vote Count, Media, Newspapers, Politics, Scotland

The decision to vote

A series of posts

  1. A pathetic situation
  2. Five disturbing things about democracy
  3. How should politics be reformed?: Part 1
  4. How the new politics might look: part 2
  5. European election leaflets: The main parties
  6. European Parliamentary Election literature: small parties
  7. A second opinion
  8. I decided! And I decided to vote

The crisis currently facing politics in the UK is massive. Citizens feel detached from the political process and trust in politicians is rock-bottom. It’s been widely noted that this is a perfect opportunity to reform the rotten system.

I only want to briefly cover the main ideas for reform, so I will use The Guardian’s “A New Politics” supplement (PDF link) as the basis for this article. It gives a good overview of the most common suggestions for political reform in the UK.

One thing before I start though. Ten years ago in Scotland, when the Scottish Parliament was set up, there was a lot of talk about what the “new politics” would look like. I think it’s fair to say that most of us have been disappointed with what the political elites came up with.

On with The Guardian’s suggestions.

Written constitution

For a while now, I have been sceptical of the desirability of a written constitution. I’m sceptical about rules in general. After all, it was rules that got us into this expenses mess in the first place. Politician after politician lined up to excuse their behaviour: “it was completely within the rules”. In many cases, their behaviour was in the rules. The overwhelming message to the voters was: screw the morals, I only care about the rules!

Think to yourself, why is murder taboo? It certainly isn’t because murder is against the law. It is because murder is absolutely abhorrent. You don’t need rules to tell you that. So what would a written constitution do? It might give people with dubious morals a set of loopholes they can exploit, with a ready-made excuse for their behaviour.

As for Timothy Garton Ash’s suggestion that every schoolchild should be taught about the importance of such a constitution, can we not leave that sort of cheesy crap to the Americans?

The monarchy

I am no monarchist, and I really wouldn’t mind if the monarchy was abolished. But who really believes that doing away with the Queen would restore trust in politicians? The Queen is probably the one person involved in the government that anyone has a modicum of respect for at the moment.

Electoral reform

As you may guess from my previous post, I have a strong interest in electoral reform. For several years I have felt that the voting system is the most important part of the system to get right.

For me, the First Past the Post voting system is the thing that stinks the most about Westminster. As I pointed out, it is the sort of system that allows a party to gain a thumping majority having gained the votes of just 16% of the population.

It also means the creation of safe seats, the modern equivalent of rotten boroughs, where voters are utterly neglected. Incidentally, there appears to be a correlation between the safeness of an MP’s seat and their likelihood of being implicated in the expenses scandal.

John Harris seems happy to settle for the Additional Member System currently used in the Scottish Parliament. But this system has enough problems to merit its own post. His other suggestion of Alternative Vote Plus is not ideal as it has the same problems as AMS, but with the added “bonus” of being rigged in favour of the larger parties and having a relatively low level of proportionality.

For me, little other than Single Transferable Vote will suffice. STV vastly reduces the number of safe seats and places more power into voters’ hands, and takes it away from the smoke-filled rooms of political parties. I am quite perturbed that John Harris neglected to mention STV at all.

Parliamentary protocol

Here, Hugh Muir seems most concerned with the quaint traditions such as Black Rod and “blather about “honourable” and “right honourable gentlemen”?” As with the monarchy, though, I see little harm in these things, and it really isn’t the issue at hand. I would certainly like to see a less stuffy approach though, and I think the Scottish Parliament has just about got the balance right on this sort of thing.

House of Lords

Jonathan Freedland wants an elected House of Lords above all else. But I think more elections and more elected politicians are the last thing we need. Of course the present system is unacceptable in many ways, but there is no denying that it has saved our skin a number of times by holding the government to account in ways which I doubt an elected House of Lords would ever be able to do.

One possibility would be for people to be appointed for a term at random, like doing jury service (this is also one of The Guardian’s separate sections, so I consider it further below). Perhaps it would be good for Lords to be appointed, but by a wider range of bodies, not just the Prime Minister.

Local government

Simon Jenkins suggests that MPs have a dual role, and they must do a lot of local work in their constituencies which would have been “unheard of 50 years ago”. He suggests that there should be local mayors to relieve MPs of these duties. Again, I would be reluctant to introduce more elected officials. Surely the answer is to strengthen the already-existing local authorities.

The speaker

I have no firm views on how the role should be reformed, but none of Jackie Ashley’s suggestions sound undesirable.

MP numbers

Given some of what I have written above, you wouldn’t be surprised to learn that I would be in favour of reducing the amount of MPs. 400-odd sounds about right to me. Again, the increased workload of each MP should in fact be absorbed by local government.

Representation

I would not be against attempts to increase, say, the number of female MPs. But stunts such as quotas have no place in a truly meritocratic system. Moreover, it is well known that voters tend to see such initiatives as an insult, and a backlash ensues. This is certainly not one way to restore faith in politics.

Direct democracy

Julian Glover says, “use the jury system as a model”. That is one suggestion for reform of the House of Lords, so I wouldn’t be totally opposed to that idea. I doubt many would be too keen on that idea though, and I don’t think I’d be up for taking five years out of my life either.

Mr Glover seems to think there is something fundamentally wrong with the concept of representative democracy, but I really do not think so. The role of such juries should be limited, and I wouldn’t give them much of a role in the House of Commons.

I will consider The Guardian’s other proposals tomorrow

« Previous in series — Next in series »

5 comments

Brawn illegitimately?

1 June 2009 20:24

Categories: History, Opinion

In my chats about Formula 1 with more casual fans, or perhaps those who just hear headlines in the news about F1, I have noticed a worrying trend. There are many people out there who simply do not buy the idea that Brawn have become so dominant on merit. There are a number of reasons.

First of all, there is no doubt that this is an unusual situation, which raises suspicions among many. This is, after all, a team that did not exist a few weeks before the season began. With hardly any meaningful testing, they hit the ground running in Australia and have been dominant ever since. Never has a new team been so successful so quickly.

Of course, those who have studied the situation know that there are good reasons for this. For starters, the car was always going to be mighty. It is the first car which Ross Brawn — one of the smartest men in the business — has overseen the development of. That Ross Brawn, a man who has been responsible for so many World Championships in the past fifteen years, should be able to put together a winning car should not be such a surprise.

The Brawn team is helped by the fact that the team knows how to win races. Ross Brawn himself has the confidence, experience, expertise and management skills to turn an average team into a great one. He was a pivotal influence in the dominance of Michael Schumacher throughout his entire career. You can add Ferrari’s dominance in the late 1990s and early this decade to Ross Brawn’s CV.

The old Honda team and Jenson Button also won a race, which must count for something. It has been noted that often the first race is the most difficult one to win, so Button’s win in 2006 — though some saw it as a bit of a fluke — must count for something, despite the two year long slump the team took afterwards. This is especially the case when you consider Toyota, who seemingly did their best to throw away victory in Bahrain. That was a scenario which some saw as the jitters of a team not used to winning.

There is also the fact that this car was basically developed with Honda’s resources. Honda gave up on the 2008 season pretty much straight away, allowing them to focus fully on 2009 while others had to split their development between two radically different cars.

The fact that Honda have pulled out has also given Brawn the ability to run with Mercedes engines. There seems to be little doubt now that Mercedes has the strongest engine in F1.

Many casual observers do not seem to be aware of these factors surrounding Honda’s exit. It rather underlines just what a mess the Honda management made of F1 by letting this massive PR opportunity slip. Not only that, but Honda continues to pay Brawn for the privilege of not entering F1. Their customers, including Force India who used to run Ferrari engines, have been effusive about the Stuttgart company’s lump.

Brawn have also probably been helped by the fact that this year’s World Championship is being run to radically different technical regulations to last year. The cards were thrown in the air by Max Mosley, and Brawn have ended up with all the aces in their hand. You could argue that it was engineering excellence rather than luck that has placed Brawn in this position. But ask Max Mosley’s “man in the pub”, and he thinks it’s all too fishy.

This hasn’t been helped by the fuss that was made over the diffusers earlier this season. In my conversations with more casual fans, I have been left with the distinct impression that there are many out there who believe that the F1 community is also sceptical of Brawn’s success and that there is a full-blown investigation into whether Brawn are cheating. This nasty impression could have been avoided had the FIA simply declared that the diffuser was fully legal before the season started, but petty political interests yet again got in the way of common sense.

I wasn’t sure if I was the only one who was encountering these sceptical views about Brawn’s success. But speaking to other F1 fans, it seems as though the public at large is suspicious of the emergence of Brawn and Jenson Button. I heard something similar on last week’s Formula 1 Blog.com podcast. I have even caught myself being sceptical when I sought to explain just what it was that made Brawn so superior this season.

I think it’s a shame that people should find it so difficult to come to terms with Brawn’s success. There is no real suspicion that Brawn have cheated their way to the top. The car is a beauty, and the real consensus among the F1 community is that engineering excellence has brought Brawn where it is.

What does this situation tell us? Perhaps that the FIA should quit meddling with the rules all the time and bring about stability in the regulations. That would remove much of the doubt that a team that climbs its way to the top does so on merit.

Perhaps it also says that a situation where the sport’s grandees are neutered means that people see a victory by a small team as less legitimate. People would probably believe if Brawn were fighting with the likes of Ferrari and McLaren rather than Red Bull.

It doesn’t bode well for Max Mosley’s future vision for F1, where Ferrari may not exist at all, in favour of smaller teams. Max Mosley’s friend, the man in the pub, wants to see the historic names battling for wins.

Personally, I find that sad. Privateer teams are every bit as important to the history of F1 as names like Ferrari. You only really have to go back fifteen years to see a period where practically every car was entered by a privateer, and Championship after Championship was won by a Williams or a Benetton or a (pre-Mercedes) McLaren.

But the public at large has become used to an F1 dominated by manufacturers. The sport faces a difficult transitional period if the public is supposed to take Max Mosley’s new F1 seriously.

4 comments

« Newer posts