Two Tories to stand in Perth

What delightful news (from a rare glimpse of an, immediate release, SNP press release):

The MP for Perth and North Perthshire, Pete Wishart, has today [Wednesday] seized on divisions within the Perthshire Conservatives after the dramatic entry of the former Conservative candidate, Douglas Taylor, into the race for the seat.

In addition, Perth SNP has been leaked a letter penned by Mr Taylor, written to a number of Conservative activists, which outlines his many grave concerns about the state of the current Tory party and its failure on key issues. He expressed concern at the fact that those allowed to be candidates for target Scottish seats were determined by a central committee that was made up exclusively of people from south of the border who did not have experience of Scottish politics. He stated that this adversely affected almost all of the experienced Scottish candidates.

Infighting, split vote, 'not what I signed up for', decisions taken down South. It has it all.

No wonder the Conservatives can't break through the 20% mark in Scotland.

GE2010 SeatWatch - Livingston

One of the most fiercely fought and topical Scottish contests in the upcoming General Election is without a doubt Livingston, with the added peculiar twist coming in the form of outgoing MP Jim Devine spending the date of the election, May 6th, in Southwark Crown Court facing charges of fraud.
 
The results from the 2005 General Election were:
 
Robin Cook (Labour) – 22,657 (51.1%)
Angela Constance MSP (SNP) – 9,560 (21.6%)
Charles Dundas (Lib Dems) – 6,832 (15.4%)
Alison Ross (Tory) – 4,499 (10.2%)
 
The results from the 2005 by-election (after the sad death of Robin Cook) were:
 
Jim Devine (Labour) – 12,319 (41.8%)
Angela Constance MSP (SNP) – 9,639 (32.7%)
Charles Dundas (Lib Dems) – 4,362 (14.8%)
Gordon Lindhurst (Tory) – 1,993 (6.8%)
 
The equivalent Scottish Parliament seat is held by Angela Constance.
 
2010 contestants: Lis Bardell (SNP), Graeme Morrice (Labour), Charles Dundas (Lib Dems), Alison Adamson-Ross (Conservatives), David Vass (Independent)
 
There is a huge difference between the General Election result and the by-election result and a key question comes down to whether this difference is due to a strong personal vote for the popular Robin Cook or due to typically erratic results at by-elections which may well ‘snap back’ to a larger majority when it is a national vote.
 
I’m going to sit on the fence and suggest it is a mixture of both but the third factor, the Jim Devine affair, is perhaps the most significant issue at play here.
 
The Labour MP, as most will know, has been barred from standing again for the party after faking invoices in order to top up his parliamentary expenses. Paul Hutcheon of the Sunday Herald well and truly got his man after some very impressive investigative journalism over a series of weeks. The fraud wasn’t, as far as I’m aware, for personal gain but it was highly unscrupulous behaviour and quite rightly has seen the man in the dock facing questions, not to mention seen the local area faced with negative headlines for the Labour party months on end, a Labour party they historically tend to return in this area.
 
The embarrassment for Labour doesn’t necessarily equate to a hit in the polls though, we need only look to Glasgow North East and Michael Martin finally getting dragged out of the Speaker role and lavish lifestyle that he enjoyed there to see that. Willie Bain (impressively already a Transport PPS) won by a handsomely increased majority. Could the same happen in Livingston?
 
Personally, I doubt it. For a start, this is on the very fringes of Labour’s Glasgow heartland and with the SNP running the local council, winning the Scottish Parliament seat and winning the equivalent seat in the European elections, one has to think that the local area is becoming pre-disposed to voting SNP and may not want to end that particular knack now. And what further evidence that it is time for a change when your MP for the past five years is in court when you are heading to the polls, particularly when nearby Labour MPs Eric Joyce and Michael Connarty have had serious questions asked of them in relation to Westminster claims in recent years.
 
Tactical voting will have been employed during the 2005 by-election and it’s fair to assume that those wishing to see Cameron installed at Number 10 may well lend their vote to the SNP for this contest. The Lib Dems, similarly, may see their vote split between SNP and Labour although one could argue that a fear of the Tories getting in could boost Labour’s fortunes more than the SNP’s in that particular regard.
 
Local factors include the axing of 500 jobs at Bausch and Lomb, although as ever in these constitutionally ambivalent days, it is difficult to know if the UK or Scottish Government will get the blame, if any blame is even justified.
 
There is a huge mountain to climb for the SNP if one looks at the General Election result and a relatively small final push if one looks at the by-election result. Robin Cook, with his clearly well-deserved reputation for honesty and integrity in politics, may make his successor’s ills all the more abhorrent to the local populace when comparisons are inevitably made and, mostly for that reason, I don’t see Labour getting enough of its vote out to have the edge here.
 
 
SNP TV prediction: SNP gain
 
 
 
Guest Posts:
 
Lis Bardell (SNP)

And sent him homewards, tae think again

Alex Salmond has given his valedictory address to Westminster as he prepares to end his 23 years as the MP for Banff & Buchan. I've not read or heard it but apparently the address was a criticism of Labour's stewardship of the economy and a request for a more significant fiscal stimulus to ensure a double-dip recession is avoided.

However, what appears to be making the headlines is Salmond's decision to accept the £65,000 resettlement package that retiring MPs are permitted to claim. I can't help but think it is a remarkable misjudgement from the First Minister. It doesn't look great that he's receiving his own personal fiscal stimulus while so many suffer, while bankers have bonuses frozen and senior civil servants' remuneration curtailed.

Much like the expenses scandal when Salmond claimed £400/month for food, one has to keep in mind that MPs of other parties will be claiming this same amount of money and are avoiding the glare of the media spotlight, but those same MPs are not the First Minister of Scotland and consequently do not all have the good fortune of guaranteed earnings for as long as they wish to receive them. (I daresay John Reid will do alright for himself at Celtic though)

A retiring MP may quite understandably not have the stomach to milk thousands out of lobbying firms in dubious circumstances and they may not have the experience to walk into a few directorships but what 'resettlement' does Alex Salmond require exactly? As First Minister and MSP for Gordon, he is hardly going to be filling out a job-seeker allowance form any time soon.

A spokesperson has quite reasonably pointed to the charitable trust that one-third of the Scottish Parliament MSP salary is donated to but at some point acting as a middle-man between public sector profligacy and local charities even has to be questioned. If charities need more money lets increase the official budgets and fund them through appropriate channels rather than lavish wealth on our representatives in order for them to pass it on to local community groups as they see fit.

Furthermore, this paying out of significant resettlement packages is a rule that is due to change in the near future, presumably because it is deemed inappropriate. For any MP to grab the cash just as the window closes looks a bit grubby, it is particularly galling for Salmond to do so with his three salaries while attacking Labour's sense of judgement.

'More Nats, less cuts' was the claim? It seems in this particular instance, 'Less Nats, more troughs' is more fitting.

Missing Persons

Sometimes I think life is very short and spiralling uncontrollably onwards but then I think of just how many potatoes I have left to peel before my time comes and it seems refreshingly interminable again, nestling back into my day and joyously immersing myself in the dreariness of it all.

Of course, the real disaster is not life going by too quickly but being suddenly cut short out of nowhere. So it must be particularly distressing when a family member, a colleague or a friend suddenly disappears with no notice given and no explanation.

Sadly that very event has occurred to a regular reader of this blog, his mate Martin Gordon has been missing for nearly a week now, ever since he headed out early to a shift at Cabaret Voltaire.

There's a myriad of reasons for what could have happened to this man, ranging from perfectly innocent to the worst possible. Here's hoping he finds his way back home amongst his family and friends (and potatoes) soon.

GE2010 SeatWatch - Aberdeen South

I had planned on starting my General Election 2010 Seatwatch series with Livingston to tie in with the expenses scandal, today’s case at Southwark Crown Court and SNP PPC Lis Bardell’s recent guest post but in light of the unfortunate news that Conservative candidate Mark Jones has had to pull out of Aberdeen South due to personal reasons, I will lift my gaze northwards and leave Livingston to next.

In 2005, the results for Aberdeen South were:

Anne Begg (Labour) – 15,272 (36.7%)
Vicki Harris (Lib Dem) – 13,924 (33.5%)
Stewart Whyte (Tory) – 7,134 (17.1%)
Maureen Watt (SNP) – 4,120 (9.9%)

The confirmed candidates for 2010 are Rhonda Reekie (Greens), Anne Begg (Labour), John Sleigh (Lib Dem) and Mark McDonald (SNP and ex-blogger). The replacement for Mark Jones has been announced as Amanda Harvie, an early champion of the controversial Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route and leading member of Reform Scotland.

The equivalent Scottish Parliament seat is held by Nicol Stephen (Lib Dems).

This has never been a happy hunting ground for the Nationalists and I think it’s fair to rule out a victory from fourth for Mark, despite being the Deputy Leader of the SNP Group on Aberdeen Council.

With would-be Tory voters having preumably an inferior choice on their hands given Mark Jones’ stepping down, there is a very real prospect of some significant tactical voting in this constituency with Tories backing Jon Sleigh to keep Labour out and contributing to a rare Lib Dem gain.

Local factors include the controversial Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route although it is unclear which party, other than perhaps the Greens, is most likely to reap the benefits in terms of votes. On a similar note, Martin Ford and Debra Storr recently defected from the Lib Dem group in this Council area so there could be a knock on effect there against the party. The strength of the SNP vote alone (which will surely increase substantially on 9.9% from 2005) may be enough to ensure that Labour will pull through the middle of the respective challenges by further pulling away at the Lib Dems.

However, I suspect Anne Begg may well lose votes as a simple result of having been the local representative for 13 years and an appetite for a change may be in the North East air. A lot rests on whether the Conservative voters will stick with Amanda or lend their vote to the Lib Dems. Realistically, with the only real prospect of finishing 3rd or 4th, I can only see this with shades of yellow.

SNP TV PREDICTION: - Lib Dem gain

Is it 1979 all over again?

Were Labour and The Conservatives to have their way, the election in Scotland would be a straight fight between the two parties. This would allow Labour to hoover up the majority of the available seats irrespective of whether they enjoyed a majority of the national vote and it would allow the Tories to pick up seven or eight seats, not a bad return under the circumstances.

To leverage this preferred situation, Labour members in particular are harking back to 1979 and suggesting that the SNP let the Tories in then and are in danger of doing so again now in 2010. As a strategy it is unconvincing but effective.

Back in the last Labour administration before Blair's, James Callaghan endured an ignominious fall from grace, failing to win a vote of confidence. This coming after not calling an election at the right time, a period of striking discontent and a perception of arrogance from the public. The following election saw Labour get hammered, the Lib Dems pick up 11 seats and the Tories hold onto power for 18 long, hard years.

Noone wants a repeat of those days but any objective assessment of 1979 would clearly conclude that, rather than 11 Scottish MPs in a UK Parliament, it was the British people that ushered the Tories into Westminster simultaneously consigning Scotland to considerable economic pain. The underlying reason for the defeat in Parliament and in the election, was Labour inadequacy and unpopularity so, fastforwarding to the present day, one can only assume that it is a glossing over of their shortcomings with that perpetuated myth of the SNP that propels them, otherwise they'd be happy to fight on their record.

The suggestion therefore that the SNP’s 11 MPs ‘brought down’ the Labour Government and let the Tories in is clearly palpable nonsense. And yet, much like the bizarre Tartan Tory tag, the myth lives on.

So, taking Labour’s philosophy to its logical conclusion, the notion that the SNP should stand aside to let Labour take its winnable seats, one would expect the Labour candidates to drop out of Angus, Moray and Perth where each SNP MP has a Tory PPC challenging from second place. Labour dropping out of the contest would no doubt guarantee the already highly likely chances of Mike Weir, Angus Robertson and Pete Wishart winning through. Still, you can’t be to careful with those nasty Tories waiting in the wings, can you Comrade?

But of course Labour wouldn’t do that, and nor should they. The public deserves as wide a choice as possible and to plead for votes not on merit but on 'we’re not quite as bad as the other lot who might form the Government' isn’t good enough.

The Labour group fell in 1979 because they didn’t have the support of the Parliament or the people. If the same happens in 2010, it would be churlish to start pointing the finger at other parties for one’s own failures.

As Patrick Harvie put it so neatly, 'Vote for us, because the only wasted vote is a vote for something you don't really believe in.'

Will a would-be-Chancellor make a break for it?

The three Shadow Chancellors are gearing up for tonight's debate on Channel 4 as I type, no doubt wrestling with their consciences and respective leaders over how revealing and detailed they should be in terms of what should be cut in the next parliamentary term.

I wonder though, given that all independent bodies from the IFS to the EU are stating that not enough is being done to cut the deficit and crucially not enough is currently being promised by any party, whether Darling, Osborne or Cable should gamble on the all-in strategy of announcing unrelenting, uncomparable and frankly unpalatable slashing of spending, and even some tax rises to boot.

I appreciate that the public votes for fiscal pain as much as turkeys vote for Christmas but we live in special times, unique even for this generation. Labour and Tory spending plans differ by less than 1%. Perhaps the rulebook has to be thrown out and someone has to make a sprint to the finish to give us a fully informed dividing line to work with.

Vince Cable is the most trusted of the three men on tonight's show per a recent poll and he could cement that status, and perhaps create an overwhelming public clamour for Vince to be Chancellor irrespective of who forms the minority Goverment (as it will surely be) if he is the one to law out the clearest path.

Watching two Shadow Chancellors stutter and splutter as a third provides a detailed four year plan for clearing the deficit rather than denting it is what I would call a result from this evening's proceedings.

New Statesman, Old Prejudices

Per James MacIntyre at New Statesman:

Talking of Salmond, I saw him give a rousing speech to his party's conference the other night while watching the BBC's parliament channel, as you do, and it was interesting to note his attacks on those Scots and Anglo-Scots who "settle down" in London. No-one has enjoyed "settling down" in London as much as Salmond over the decades. He also based his latest case for independence on the redundancy of the City and the markets. Would he have said that when he was working at the Royal Bank of Scotland, as he did throughout most of the 1980s?

What a poor piece of punditry on both of James' chosen points.

The precise wording of Salmond's speech relating to "Scots and Anglo-Scots" settling down was as follows:

"We remember Labour’s lobby fodder who voted shamefully for war in Iraq.Labour MPs who went to London to settle down."

There's a big difference between generically attacking Scots who move away from Scotland and attacking Labour MPs who go to London but neglect to represent their constituents back home once there. Salmond may have had to travel to London to fight his cause but given how regularly he is attacked for not being there and how warmly his retirement is lamented in Banff and Buchan, it's a bit much to suggest that he has 'settled down' in England's capital.

On the second point, this fixation that Alex Salmond once worked at RBS is bizarre, a fixation that is shared with Labour leader Iain Gray I hasten to add. As a seat of learning in Scotland it is amongst the very best, I can testify to that with first-hand experience. The fact that it was guided by a select few into desperately distressing waters is as much Salmond's fault as it is yours and mine. The negligence mostly stems from strategic decisions by the board and the Financial Services Authority which is indirectly answerable to the UK Government.

So yes, a former employee of a troubled bank, who happens to be the First Minister of Scotland, can still criticise the architects of its downfall without being hypocritical.

James MacIntyre is concerned that a Tory win at the General Election will speed up the breaking up of the United Kingdom. I would add misguided views of the political terrain in Scotland from London-centric journalists into the mix too.

Five reasons why the Conservatives' 'Vote for Me' posters are misguided

Five things strike me as misguided with the series of posters, including the one above, from M&C Saatchi on behalf of the Tories:

1. They are going up at 850 sites in England & Wales. Has Cameron finally given up on Scotland? How can he be treating us with "respect" if he's not trying to win more of our seats?


2. The punctuation is terrible! "I took billions from pensions vote for me" deserves a full stop. Can we trust this group with education on this evidence?


3. The posters have a big profile of Gordon Brown's smiling face and "Vote for Me" in a large font beside it. Many people driving past this poster will be left with a subconcious thought of putting an X beside Labour on the Tories' dime.


4. It's negative. Everything coming out of the Tory camp right now is negative and that's not going to be enough to reverse the slide in the party's polling figures. Cameron needs to start selling a positive agenda but if he won't do it with 850 'national' posters then when will he?


5. The majority of the poster is a blank canvas and there is a very good chance that voters will see more spoofs of the above than the genuine article. New Statesman is already quick out of the blocks. (Make thet Tom Freeman)
   
   

Scotland on Sunday poll - Labour 13% ahead?

The Scotland on Sunday has commissioned a YouGov poll with a considerable but not overwhelming sample size of 1,004.

The topline figures are:

Labour - 37%
SNP - 24%
Tory - 18%
Lib Dem - 14%

On the face of it, bad news for the SNP. However, this is a result that comes from YouGov who admirably admitted that they had their methodology wrong for party identification and earlier polls were incorrect (not that it's stopping publications from citing those same figures).

Has the polling company now got it just perfect? It's hard to the say but the results above are still significantly different to Ipsos-Mori's February poll which showed Labour on 34% and the SNP on 32%. That was from a sample size of 1,006 and a seemingly crucial difference being the weighting of certain to vote.

In the Ipsos-Mori poll of yesterday those certain to vote were pegged at 61%. The turnout in the 2005 election was 61.3%. Consequently, I know which of the polls I will be believing going forward.

Sadly we are not due another Ipsos-Mori poll until after the election.


In terms of Holyrood voting intentions, the results are as follows:

Constituency Vote:
Labour - 31% SNP - 34% Tory - 14% Lib Dem - 14%
Regional Vote:
Labour - 31% SNP - 30% Tory - 14% Lib Dem - 13%

Despite the same health warnings as the Westminster numbers, a few things fall out of this.

Firstly, the SNP vote is holding up firmest in the constituency vote which suggests that the constituency MPs are being looked upon the most favourably by voters. Good news for the Kenny MacAskills, Jim Mathers and Kenny Gibson who have relatively vulnerable majorities to support next year.

Secondly, the results have to be taken with a pinch of salt for the same reasons as why Cameron's double-digit poll lead has all but evaporated in recent months.

Labour were doing a fairly appalling job of running the country for a good while a couple of years ago and it was inevitable that, when polled, a voter would merely consider whether he/she thought the current administration were doing well. Arguably the same is happening for the SNP Government right now given there is a full year until the next election.

For Westminster, voters are now scrutinising what is on offer aside from Gordon Brown and are clearly finding David Cameron just as wanting, certainly within the margin of error. The same will happen for Iain Gray and his Shadow Cabinet who, I'm sorry, I just don't think are of the same standard as the current incumbents.

So Labour can enjoy their wafer-thin lead in Holyrood polls while they can but when you compare it to David Cameron's 17 point lead at the equivalent stage of the Westminster cycle, you've got to think that the SNP effectively has the 2011 election in the bag.

East Kilbride MP drawn into Lobbygate

The Times has exacerbated the cash-for-access scandal this morning with the news that two former Ministers, Richard Caborn and Adam Ingram, have offered themselves out for hire to commercial clients for up to £2,500 a day.

There seems to be mixed messages coming from Adam Ingram in particular as his solicitor is reported as saying that the former Armed Forces Minister considers it wrong for ex-Minsters to sell their contacts and influence but that doesn't tally with the following Times quotes:

When asked if he still had good contacts with civil servants from his time as a minister, he responded “oh yeah”. The reporter asked: “So you would be able to help us develop our relationship with the ministers and civil servants?” and Ingram replied: “I’d do that, I could work at that, yeah.”

Has Michael McCann's job of winning East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow for Labour just got a little bit harder?

I think there can be a level of public hypocrisy at play here though. Once the curtain has fallen on a career at Westminster there is an argument that the big, bad world of Capitalism is fair game for individuals to operate in and, yes, exploit as best they can. To go from being an MP to being a lobbyist is fine as long as the new generation of MPs have enough integrity and fairness to write laws that are for the public's good as a priority and not for private companies.

But it's not infeasible that the interests of private companies on many issues are the same as those of the public and it takes a bit of lobbying to spell out any detailed inefficiences in a proposed Bill (or what have you).

If corporate lobbying is what you believe in then stand up for it and argue in favour of it, don't, as Adam Ingram appears to have done, claim to be against selling access when you seem to have been caught red-handed offering your services.

UPDATE:

A bad day all round for West coast Labour actually:

Tommy McAvoy's links to Labour donor Wille Haughey come under the Sunday Times spotlight

More questions surrounding Steven Purcell, City Building and Labour donors at the Sunday Herald

The 3-way battle in Hornsey & Wood Green

Living in Hornsey & Wood Green, there is only so interested in the local contest that I can be given that my main focus is north of the border. However, a glossy A4 mini-booklet sent out by the Conservative candidate caught my eye (a booklet no doubt bankrolled by Lord Ashcroft which is why they could afford to leave twelve copies in a stairwell that only has six flats!)

The front page highlights the results of a poll for the constituency which shows that I and my fellow constituents are lucky enough to live in a 3-way marginal. The poll results, with a sample size of 27,000 (yes, 27,000) is as follows:

Lib Dems - 31.1%
Conservatives - 30.7%
Labour - 30%


The 2005 result was:

Lynne Featherstone (Lib Dems) - 43.3%
Barbara Roche (Labour) - 38.3%
Peter Forrest (Conservative) - 12.7%

So the Lib Dems are down by 28%, Labour are down 21.7% and the Tories are up 141%, according to the Tories poll.

At a national level, with crude application of the same movements, this would mean that the national share of the vote would be:

Tories - 77.8%
Labour - 27.9%
Lib Dems - 15.9%

So either there are some incredible local factors going on here in Horsney and Wood Green or the poll is a load of garbage. This is, after all, a council area that only got its single Tory councillor after a defection from Labour.

What the explanation could be is the Lib Dem squeeze and the fading away of the Iraq War protest vote. I had assumed that Lynne Featherstone would win through very easily here to be honest but if she doesn't it can only mean that many other Lib Dem seats will fall and Nick Clegg will have a very bad night indeed on May 6th.

UPDATE:

Ladbrokes odds -

Lib Dems - 1/8
Labour - 9/2
Tories - 100/1

Tommy enters GE2010 stage left

There wouldn't be an election in Scotland without Tommy Sheridan entering the contest at the eleventh hour and so it has proved for the upcoming General Election as the Solidarity leader will stand in Glasgow South West.

Tommy's candidature is part of the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition group (full list of candidates below) and sees eight fairly prominent union and Solidarity figures standing across the Central belt. Without being mean, I'd be surprised if any of them, Tommy included, finished higher than 5th but given that it would largely be Labour votes they would be taking, one can't fully rule out this contribution being a decisove factor in seats like Edinburgh East, Edinburgh North & Leith and Glasgow South.



Glasgow South West
Tommy Sheridan
Former MSP and co-convenor of Solidarity

Glasgow South
Brian Smith
Branch secretary of Glasgow City Unison (the largest Unison branch in Scotland).

Glasgow North
Angela McCormack
EIS convenor, Coatbridge College. A Socialist Workers Party member.

Glasgow North East
Graham Campbell
Anti-racist campaigner. Solidarity member.

Edinburgh East
Gary Clark
Assistant branch secretary, Scotland No.2 CWU.

Edinburgh North & Leith
Willie Black
Unite senior steward and regional committee member. A Socialist Workers Party member.

Dundee West
Jim McFarlane
Chair of Dundee City Unison branch.

Motherwell & Wishaw
Ray Gunnion
Lanarkshire Socialist Alliance.

Estate 4.0 - How the web was won and where it got us

Never before has so much been written about so many by so few.
 
That Churchillian line neatly sums up the swirling, roaring beast that is the political blogosphere and painting it as a battle, a War even, is not inappropriate. However, as highly charged and engaging as the blogosphere may be, it is a fight that goes on almost entirely distinct from day to day life. It has become something of a virtual reality, a coterie basking largely in political frivolity, a frothy rotary club with little quarter for charity.
 
There are 41 days to go until the next General Election, an election that was widely tipped to be the first contest to take place online but there is little evidence that #GE2010 (to give it its ‘Twitter’ term) is markedly different to those that have gone before. We have two of the most centralist party leaders in British modern history ensuring that this contest will be decided by Labour HQ vs Tory HQ. The real battlefield is shared by around 10 to 20 people, none of whom blog.
 
Let’s face it, blogging is enjoyable but irrelevant, self-indulgent but inconsequential. The vast majority of those that will traipse out to the ballot boxes on May 6th are living in blissful ignorance of what goes on in the new media world. Estate 4.0 has failed, or is at least failing.
 
A political blogger, even those in the top tier like Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes, no more shapes the political debate than a fans’ football forum shapes the line-up for their particular team. A fine example was this week’s minor fracas of which I only know the broad brush detail. Will Straw of Left Foot Forward posted up a blog post which apparently had significant inaccuracies and quickly pulled it down to the merriment of Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes. Three ‘top ten’ bloggers powering a tiny storm in a tinier teacup. Guido’s only other notable contribution is to have his labelling of the follicly-challenged Liam Byrne as ‘Baldemort’ picked up by David Cameron. Back of the net Staines.
 
Meanwhile life goes on. The planet burns and another few thousand lose their jobs but if it can’t be shoe-horned into a hash tag or witty headline then it doesn’t make the grade.
 
Although I’d personally love to see the man take a seat on Westminster’s green benches, it is rather telling that the country’s top political blogger has tried several times to win a Tory seat for himself at this coming election and has been rebuffed each time. It seems new media is old news for local party members. I daresay a wave of the Tory leader’s magic wand could have made the difference for Iain but David ‘too many Tweets makes a twat’ Cameron was evidently not swayed.
 
As for #KerryOut, #CashGordon, #ToryFail and the numerous trending topics on Twitter, they have barely made an imprint on the electorate’s collective conscience and have merely served to reinforce the political fault lines across partisan blogs with the negligible effect on the electorate being to harden political apathy.
 
PPCs certainly seem to be giving the online scene a body swerve with agents and candidates alike notably dropping their posting rate, no doubt in favour of knocking on doors and speaking to voters directly. I have no doubt that any contact with the candidates in the area that I currently live won’t be a vlog or YouTube video or Facebook group, it will be a knock on the door and five minute chat or a silent chewing over of views at a local hustings.
 
My (admittedly muted) clarion call for candidates to write a guest post for this blog (a blog which is averaging a not inconsiderable 1,000 unique hits a day I hasten to add) has returned only one such post so far from the 200 or so invitees. The experiment is ongoing so by all means send in an article if you are standing for election but my hypothesis that the yield will be low, that blogging has little to no effect on elections, looks likely to hold firm.
 
So why blog? Well, you have to fill your time doing something and if sport, cultural, work, social, culinary and other interests leave plenty of time left over as this world spins mercilessly onwards and you think (as I do) that TV is becoming a collective millstone around our necks then this is generally a positive, enjoyable hobby to have to fill the cracks of your day. Furthermore, if you’re going to have thoughts and opinions internally then why not share them publicly and have them challenged or agreed with on a wider scale? Good old-fashioned pub chat that’s demanding neither a wider audience nor acclaim, let alone trying to swing an election.
 
So let’s not kid ourselves that we’re seeing the first election that will be decided online. The internet political chatterati may fight them on Facebook, fight them on Twitter and fight them on blogs but to not take the fight to the doorstep and to not have your news and views picked up by the mainstream media means that you barely even qualify as a sideshow.
 
It was Fawkes wot won it? Not likely. The promised empire of an Estate 4.0 future is merely an empire of our addled minds.

Fisking Darling (a little bit)

Alistair Darling has given some relatively meaty answers to a few specifically Scottish questions in The Scotsman today. The Chancellor always to be relied upon for a straight answer, the responses are crying out for a straight fisking:

Capital Spending

"There is no spending to bring forward and I cannot allocate money beyond 2010/11. What we did last year was bring forward the spending from 2010/11 into 2009/10 and we made it clear to the Scottish Government they could do that,"

I'm clearly missing something but how can there be no money to bring forward if 2009 saw 2010/11 money paid out. Can't we just do the same and pay 2011/12 capital budgets into the 2010/11 budget. Or perhaps Darling means there is quite literally no money that can be used for this, even if it is a good idea in theory.

Scottish Futures Trust

"They (the Scottish Government] spent an extraordinarily long time in getting round to doing it, but if they reversed their decision to scrap PFI and replace it with the Scottish Futures Trust – which has produced precious little – they would be able to get the money to start building and worry less about money that hasn't been allocated yet."

At some point you have to move away from credit card finance with exorbitant private sector fees stretching out for decades. That the Scottish Government decided to do this just before we were hit with a recession is bad timing but SFT remains a more appropriate solution than PFI ever was. We could build schools and hospitals and feel good about job creation and shiny new buildings in the immediate short term but we, and our children, would be paying way over the odds for them.

Additional Forth Crossing

"We have endeavoured to be as helpful as we can and we all agree there is a need for a second bridge – but they have to find the money in their budget."

Fair enough, except for everyone agreeing on the need for a new bridge of course.


High Speed Rail

"You would expect them to be involved because transport is devolved and this is an important part of it. So I expect they will be involved in the funding as well."

Bit of a non-answer with little sense of urgency or enthusiasm. Transport is devolved to Scotland but there's little point in building a high speed rail link to Carlisle if the English track is only going to Birmingham. The UK Government has to take the lead on this, build the impetus. That said, there's little point in putting billions into replacing a fixable bridge when faster, cheaper rail should be the priority.


As much as it's nice to hear a Scottish angle on the UK budget, can we really expect George Osborne to give us anything different to the above. Darling branded the Tory Shadow Chancellor while promising worse cuts than Thatcher which is a fine way to mix one's messages.

Anne Moffat - Healthy, wealthy and wise

This really is quite tremendous mental gymnastics from Anne Moffat, the outgoing MP for East Lothian.

Anne has (on the face of it) been trying desperately to stay on as Westminster representative of the constituency, fighting the will of party members and the NEC throughout the selection controversy, not to mention calling Iain Gray “cowardly” for not uniting the party and, presumably, keeping her in place. The fight lasted years and, seven weeks shy of the election, she finally gave up the ghost.

Now that she is thoroughly out on her ear, Anne’s post-politics plans amount to claiming a £30,000 a year ill-health pension that is based upon, wait for it…., being unable to perform the duties of an MP! It really is quite something.

So now that Anne has accepted that the door is firmly closed on another five years of her representing the constituency she has decided that she didn’t have it in her to do the job after all and wants a big annual pension (and a £32k lump sum) to see her through her retirement, despite being a sprightly 51 years old. No wonder Labour has been fighting Osborne’s ‘We’re all in this together’ rhetoric. Some people are in it more than others.

As the SNP candidate for the constituency Andrew Sharp puts it: "It cannot be right that a parliamentarian should seek re-selection and re-election when they already have a deal in place for a £30,000-a-year pension on grounds of ill-health. They can't have it both ways," Well said that man. He really would make a great MP.

With the results of the budget still unfolding (including a revealingly poor interview with George Osborne on the Today programme), it is surely clear that immolating the exceedingly generous public sector pensions is part of the answer to clearing our deficit and improving our efficiency. It’s almost enough to justify getting the Tories in there who have the viciousness to see the necessary through, strikes or no strikes.

The sad thing is, I reckon most Labour members go into Politics for the right reasons but far too many seem to come out the other side with money and personal advancement on their minds. Tony Blair’s millions and property portfolio, Mandelson’s £50k watch, Michael Martin’s lavish Speaker lifestyle, Hoon/Byers/Hewitt renting themselves out to the highest bidder, numerous Labour MPs (many in Scotland) mired in the expenses scandal and the Glasgow Council donor irregularities all spring to mind immediately.

I’m not suggesting that you have to live like a pauper to prove your socialist credentials but it’s quite clear that too many in Politics are just milking the system for all it’s worth with their principles in shreds and Anne Moffat, on current evidence, is just the latest example in a very long line.

Incumbency Factor and the Facebook Generation

Labour has started to fill up its vacant seats with a new broom of new candidates which, with only six weeks to go till the election, one would think would be a good idea.
 
Pamela Nash has been selected to fight Airdrie & Shotts and Gemma Doyle has been selected to fight the West Dumbartonshire seat and, at 25 and 28 years old respectively, very much represent the next wave of party talent pushing through which is to be welcomed. I’m not sure if this phoney battle for the hearts and minds of the ‘Facebook generation’ is the best way to paint it but seeing a party’s young eating its old is pleasing, in the nicest possible way.
 
It’s worth pointing out that the SNP had an oddly timed press release on this very issue yesterday in the midst of Darling’s budget, claiming victory of the Facebook generation on the back of, em, several schools who had a mock poll. All very well but if you’re going to claim victory for the new media demographic you might not want to label Jim Murphy an “#epic fail” as that unwanted space would rather kindly trend the Scottish Secretary as “epic” which is probably not what was planned.
 
Back to Labour’s new candidates and, I’m not having too much of a go here, honest, but I do wonder if the other parties in the area might get a little bit of joy out of Gemma’s Twitter profile: “Location – London. Sometimes Dumbarton”. That old ‘local voice’ for the constituency argument could well start again. (I have noticed that the Twitter account is not only protected but has actually been deleted – so much for taking pride in new media)
 
In Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Englishman Tom Greatrex has been selected to defend Tommy McAvoy’s daunting 16,112 majority, winning the candidacy with an impressive share of the vote. Meanwhile in East Lothian it has been suggested that the eventual Labour candidate will be from outwith the region which I would imagine will only decrease Labour’s chances further of holding on in the face of the SNP charge.
 
With so many retiring MPs and so many massive majorities for the other parties to try to hammer away at in the next six weeks, it would be interesting to know what the incumbency factor is for these constituencies. On the face of it, the SNP and Lib Dems shouldn’t have much of a chance in Dumbartonshire and Rutherglen but have past victories been for the man rather than the party?
 
It is difficult to say and past examples give differing accounts.
 
When Michael Connarty took over the Labour candidacy in Linlithgow from Tam Dalyell, the majority increased rather than decreased, just as it did for Katy Clark when she took over representing Arran from Brian Wilson. However, in East Lothian, Anne Moffat has presided over the Labour majority dropping by half since she took over from John Home Robertson, an experience shared by the Lib Dem’s Alistair Carmichael in Orkney & Shetlands in 2001, although Alistair went on to extend his majority significantly, presumably once the electorate got to know him.
 
This isn’t just an issue for the many Scottish constituencies with Labour MPs stepping down. In Banff & Buchan, a loss for the new candidate replacing Alex Salmond would be an unthinkable disaster.
 
In Scotland we have gotten used to not many seats changing hands as the same faces hold on to the same seats. I am prepared for a disappointing night on May 6th to be honest but hopeful for great things as, for the first time in a long time, the expectation of which way the votes will go are very hard to predict.

What was the Banker Bonus Tax for?

One of the good news stories from yesterday's budget was the extra £billion that was gleaned from from those who helped cause the recession via the Bankers' Bonus Tax.

However, given that it was explained explicitly at the time that this tax was not a revenue raising move but a bid to disincentivise paying bonuses in favour of banks firming up their Balance Sheets, one can only assume on the face of it that that policy failed. A successful result surely would have been raising LESS money than was expected, not that Darling will be one to look a cool hundred million in the mouth.

Furthermore, to follow on from a comment in the last thread from Tris, possibly the biggest losers in this entire recession are the workers who were on the cusp of retirement but saw their share-based pensions wiped out in a flash.

I can't fathom how maddeningly distressing that must have been and rather than £1bn being taken from the richest bankers and passed on to first time buyers (which may merely reinflate the housing bubble), I wonder if some sort of pension reimbursement fund might not have been a wiser choice for some of the cash.

Overall though, for a make-or-break budget, it doesn't feel like much of a game-changer so far.

Is Darling's budget an attack on the poor?

I predicted in my last post that Alistair Darling would not touch income tax and so it has proved but I did not appreciate that if so literally done it could be so damaging for the poorest in the UK.
 
The lowest tax band for the financial year 2009/10 is £6,475 and will remain at £6,475 for 2010/11 so we all start paying tax on the 6,476th pound. Usually this figure increases in line with inflation (currently running at around 3%) which means that the rising cost of food, petrol, accommodation and so on is reflected in how much tax we pay but not this year. Basically this is a £1bn smash and grab on the poorest in society who are least able to absorb such decisions.
 
The lowest salaries are frozen or decreasing, tax bands remain constant and the cost of living is going up. It doesn’t really add up to progressive politics does it?
 
The Liberal Democrats wish to increase this tax band to £10,000 (costed or uncosted?) and Labour won’t even increase it in line with inflation. That’s a dividing line right there and you can be certain that Cameron will happily jump onboard if there are votes to be won in exploiting the issue.
 
I don’t know if it will ultimately be as big an issue as the 10p tax debacle but the timing of this ‘attack on the poor’ (as it could easily be characterised) is lamentable for Labour. It surely can’t be an oversight and Labour must surely have their arguments ready but if not, and if this issue takes on a life of its own in the Tory-supporting Sun and other media outlets, then Labour may be done for already.
 
Other headlines out of today’s budget are that there will be no stamp duty due for properties worth up to £250,000, paid for by an increase to 5% for ‘mansions’ above £1m.
 
Three things fall out of this:
 
1 – It leaves Vince Cable’s similar policy in tatters
2 – It is easily avoided by selling your home for £999,999 and adding on a price for ‘fixtures and fittings’ etc
3 – It is a dangerous reinflation of a housing bubble that got us into this recession mess in the first place. The mindset that house prices should steadily rise and we have an automatic right to own our own homes is dangerous. That said, taxing us so heavily for moving from rented to owned accommodation is no longer progressive so, on balance, Darling is just about on the right track here.
 
Duty on cider will increase by a whacking 10% above inflation. It’s no silver bullet to combat binge drinking of course; minimum pricing can be its wing man any day if you ask me. And apparently the Dartford Crossing is up for sale which I reckon we could buy for a few hundred million and transport up to Edinburgh to use instead of building the next Forth Crossing. (It’s probably just as clever an idea!)
 
Is it a good budget? Who knows, it takes days to pick through the hidden detail and the independent experts will let us know soon enough just how good it is.
 
No dumping of trident, no high speed rail for Scotland and potentially a £1bn attack on the poor. My vote for the SNP is now well and truly locked down.

Darling's third and final Budget

I always think it’s funny when a blogger tries to predict a Budget. Thousands of civil servant man-hours, numerous political ramifications and gigabytes of data are all thrown into the mix in advance of it, largely out of sight from the public. So to suggest a, b or c will happen before the event is a brave move.
 
Still, might as well have a crack hey?
 
The £12bn of ‘wriggle’ room due to less borrowing will go almost entirely into plugging the deficit. To spend that ‘extra’ money as opposed to using it to treat a rather nasty gash in our finances would be foolish and provide the Tories with the perfect weapon to paint Labour as continuing to be wasteful with our money.
 
The defence budget will be reduced slightly to howls of derision from the Tory benches. I would expect there are still reductions to be found in relation to Iraq given the withdrawal so the arguments could prove to be something of a phoney war.
 
There will be room to assist the local economies of manufacturing areas which have been decimated by the downturn be it through unemployment support, new skills or more apprenticeships. I daresay it’ll still be a drop in the ocean given the deep-seated problems that economically scarred towns and areas face. Investment will be pumped into renewables and green energy.
 
Tax evasion and perhaps even the famous non-dom status will be cracked down on vigorously. For the right reasons and for political purposes. Lord Ashcroft will not get a mention, not directly anyway.
 
Efficiency savings (easy to promise, trickier to deliver) will be one of the main headlines, advertising/marketing/consulting budgets will be slashed drastically and drinkers will be one of the groups of voters punished. Car users will be reprieved from an increase in petrol duty costs but Darling will fall short of delivering the fuel duty regulator allowing the SNP to criticise that the Budget doesn’t go far enough. Income tax will remain untouched but inheritance tax may be dabbled with, so too will National Insurance contributions.
 
High speed rail will get a mention, perhaps even a commitment to stretch it up to Scotland, financed, perhaps ironically, partly by selling off the Channel Tunnel link.
 
The FTSE100 will rise in response to the news, about 6% by the end of the day.
 
Whatever happens I have to admit I am expecting a solid, safe budget.
 
Alistair Darling has been Labour’s strongest card in the past year or so. Calmly and steadily guiding the economy towards improved health while impressively finding that difficult line between not spending too much which would exacerbate the deficit and not spending too little which would ensure the recession drags on. Whoever replaces Darling, be it Osborne or Balls, will do a lesser job.
 
While Brown flounders, Hoon and Hewitt backstab, Byers prepares to hire himself out, Purnell exits stage left, Johnson goes awol, Mandelson plots and pouts, Murphy goads and Smith apologises, Darling has almost single-handedly reversed Labour fortunes.
 
The fragile economy and Labour’s chances of electoral victory are now inextricably linked and sitting in the palm of the Chancellor’s hand.

East Lothian's search for a May queen

So Anne Moffat has finally been relieved of her duties by her own local party, rubberstamped by the NEC due to the MP's "incompetence". It seems the East Lothian politician's fingernails didn't have the same strength as Gordon Brown's when push came to shove. To compound Anne's misery, I am revoking the offer of a guest post. Harsh, I know.

Remarkably, this years long battle and procrastinated decision means that there is now a mere six weeks to find a Labour candidate, print off leaflets, introduce the PPC to the constituency and get them elected. Even with a large majority to defend, it will be tight.

According to the Guardian, the two early front-runners are not interested in standing though I would be surprised if the local party had campaigned so vigorously for Anne's removal without considering who would step into her shoes.

That said, the imposition of an All Women Shortlist may have surprised the East Lothian members so there may be more drama to come. Will they have to draft in candidates from elsewhere? Another UNITE member sent northwards? Should Ms Dugdale be expecting a call?

Another, albeit unlikely, consideration is Anne standing as an independent. Backed into a corner and not fancying the prospect of updating her CV, perhaps there will be little option but to try to split the Labour vote and somehow come through as the winner.

And will Iain Gray be feeling a bit less easy given that Anne's independent candidacy could come in 2011 rather than 2010. Fanciful speculation perhaps but there were some barbed comments reserved for the leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament:

"I wish Iain Gray had the strength to unite the Party, but I doubt it. My sympathy lies with the voters of East Lothian who now have only two choices... a bitter and divided Labour Party or the Tories".

So a bit of a mess in the East and who knows which way the petals will fall as the search for Labour's rose begins.

Lord Foulkes' worrying school of thought

You see them dotted around Edinburgh quite liberally. George Watson's College, Fettes College, George Heriot's, Stewart's Melville, St George's School for Girls and so on. Private schools invariably replete with kids in pristine uniforms carrying a hockey stick or a tuba behind them. Sometimes even both.

They are a tremendous advert for the city's education standards and the mere, trifling detail of their not being in the public sector shouldn't be a concern.

A namesake of half the schools above, Lord George Foulkes, wants to end their private status by effectively nationalising these schools, these bastions of learning that a privileged many and a lucky few get to attend.

The inverted snobbery of the call is disappointing and, rather than being annoyed and envious at the impressive record of these schools, we should be grateful to them for reducing the costs of state education while providing us with many of the future leaders of tomorrow. I'm sure I won't have to remind too many readers that Tony Blair attended Fettes, though the levels of gratitude amongst you may vary.

The Lord is worried about the "imbalance in the city's schools". Why? More than 20% going to fee-paying schools means that less than 80% are a cost to the state. It's surely easier to increase standards with a fixed budget if you have 4,000 pupils to educate rather than 5,000.

Furthermore, the indirect suggestion that it is wrong to aim as high as one possibly can deeply troubles me, particularly as it is skills, entrepreneurship and talent that will give Edinburgh and Scotland a global edge. If parents can afford to pay for a better education for their kids than the state can provide then good luck to them.

I do understand that Lord Foulkes' laudable aim is to improve social mobility that has gone backwards in the past 13 years but that should involve driving standards up, not dragging them down. It's up to the rest of us to meet the high standard that is being set by Fettes and Heriot's and make it a more difficult choice between state or private than it currently is for those who can afford the fees.

Jim Murphy's split loyalties

Jim Murphy, while speaking out against George Osborne's emergency budget, has let slip the suggestion that he'd rather see the Scottish budget cut immediately after the Tories get into power:

Per The Scotsman:

Mr Murphy said: "(Mr Osborne] now seems to be saying that the only part of the UK that will be safe from Tory cuts will be Scotland. That seems bizarre, confused and shows his inexperience and why he is a risk. The guy doesn't know what he is doing.

I don't think it's bizarre at all and would politely remind the Secretary of State just whose corner he is fighting.

The negotiations for the Scottish Parliament's 2010/11 budget has just recently ended with a few hairy moments but mostly consensual agreement. What would be "anarchy" (to use another of Jim's words) would be a Tory Government asking MSPs to try again but with one less billion in the mix.

George Osborne is respecting the fact that the budget was agreed in good faith by almost all parties and looking forwards for the best way ahead. Whether this means double-pain for Scotland next year we can only guess but Murphy is wildly off track here in calling for cuts sooner rather than later.

Fuel if you think it's over

I haven’t owned a car for five long bike-riding, pavement-pounding, thigh-building years as getting around in Edinburgh and, now, London is much easier, greener and cheaper by public transport, bike or foot than it is in your own four wheels so the expected raising of duty on petrol prices will largely pass me by unnoticed. Not having a family or a job that requires more flexible transport, I am aware that not everyone has the same luxury of a choice on the matter as I do.
 
I had always assumed that the price of petrol had dipped back below the £1 mark for good so I was alarmed recently to learn that prices are back up to around the £1.15 mark with the majority of this charge related to tax. Not only that but prices are set to increase by another 2.5p per litre on April 1st, perhaps more after Wednesday’s budget, although Darling is widely tipped to forestall public anger by freezing the duty.
 
No wonder Governments (either side of the border) are so keen to build more and more roads (and bridges). This lucrative cash cow needs fresh grazing ground every now and again after all.
 
That cash cow will no doubt be milked drier in the next parliamentary term as Alastair Darling or George Osborne (or Vince Cable) increases the price of fuel to try to pay down the deficit. While environmental taxes are to be encouraged, this one has been pushed too far. Furthermore, given the longer distances to drive to work or to the shops or to school in rural parts of Scotland compared to anywhere else in the country, it surely makes sense that petrol is cheaper in these areas to redress the balance. Being penalised for where you live is surely unfair, particularly when petrol in these areas is already more expensive due to the increased transport costs to get it there in the first place.
 
So the news that the SNP will be ‘champions’ of fairer fuel prices will hopefully be welcomed by the local communities that have been hit hardest by the rising fuel prices, rises that have been the biggest in Europe according to the AA. It is only fair to note that Lindsay Hoyle is leading a similar campaign amongst Labour backbenchers, although his focus is somewhat bizarrely on the petrol companies that charge only a minority of the overall cost and barely make a profit rather than the Government who levies the majority and makes a killing. Lindsay has also betrayed a shocking misunderstanding, wilful or not, of how currency movements drive petrol prices, as Tim Worstall wonderfully makes clear in a recent Guardian article.
 
Stepping back from the whole affair and looking at it from a perfectly valid Scottish viewpoint, it is quite bizarre that we pump thousands of barrels of oil out of our seas and not only have proportionally little to show for it financially but we end up paying over the odds to pump it back into our cars due to the extra distances we have to drive to get from A to B.
 
It would be easier to take if one appealing alternative to driving, high speed rail, was reaching us up in Scotland but alas that is not part of the current plans and, so far, will only make it to Birmingham.
 
Fiscal autonomy (including oil revenues), a truly national high-speed rail network and fairer fuel prices all add up to an integrated set of reasons to vote SNP in May if you ask me.

Cameron to fake it till he makes it

The most important personality trait in Politics is sincerity – once you can fake that, you’ve made it.
 
The above mantra is showing in abundance in the Tory camp right now. The tightening poll figures are giving Cameron the willies and he’s decided that he needs to act by getting the old trusted soapbox out and standing where John Major did in 1992. The well-planned rolling up of the sleeves and earnest face-to-face discussions with factory workers, teachers and nurses is well and truly on the way. There is something fundamentally flawed in trying extra hard to be seen as sincere though.
 
I don’t want to sound too harsh on Cameron for adopting this approach as it is precisely what politicians and leaders of political parties should be doing. Furthermore, if a person has to overcome their instincts to achieve this then they shouldn’t necessarily be disparaged rather than congratulated, despite significant temptation.
 
That said, I just can’t help but think that this approach to the election compounds the concerns that I have with David Cameron in particular. The say anything, do anything and placate anyone approach just to squeeze himself through that Number 10 door. We’re less than seven weeks shy of the election and I still don’t know what the man is truly for or against other than being for winning and against losing. More worryingly, I don’t have a strong belief in how he will act over the next four years if he is the British Prime Minister as I don’t have a feel for the man’s true character, which is remarkable given he has been Leader of the Opposition since 2005.
 
What will be cut in the first year of his term? What is the strategy for Afghanistan? What are his plans for Scotland’s constitutional settlement? Three big question marks and still the man tries to grin and charm his way over the finish line with his big message being ‘we can’t have five more years of Brown’. It doesn’t exactly make your toes tremble with inspiration does it?
 
Perhaps the key reason that the Tories have decided that this up close and personal approach will work best for them is because it would work so terribly poorly for Labour and we are free to draw that comparison in our minds. Can you imagine Gordon Brown on the stump, huffing and puffing at the impertinent questions that the public dared ask him? I am sure he would be able to roll his sleeves up to convey the workmanlike performance but the actual uncontrolled, unscripted, un-New-Labour Q&A part would be disastrous.
 
Forget Tweedledee and Tweedledum, we have to choose between Beauty and the Beast at these stump rallies. The heir to Blair conducting his well-rehearsed and well-preened performances or the clunking fists trying to control that bellowing rage that lurks within. It’s a tale as old as time that needs a new ending.
 
The reason personality plays such a major role in this particular election campaign is because there is so little to choose from between the two parties. Will the Tories cut less than Labour? Probably not significantly. Will the Tories have a different Afghanistan strategy? I daresay both parties will follow the Army’s lead as is appropriate given the situation. And will the Tories devolve more power to Scotland? No more so than Labour will and certainly with no more inclination.
 
What are we really choosing between? Who looks the least insincere on TV? Not for me. The suggestion that the upcoming election is a two-horse race practically makes it a one-horse race. We’re voting for the same party, just under different colours. I daresay a quality paper like the Guardian or Financial Times will pull together a list of dividing lines between red and blue but it will be scant on detail if neither party’s list of policies both grows and diverges between now and then. And as for the battle for sincerity; Stephen Byers, Lord Ashcroft, Glasgow Council, William Hague, Jim Devine and Lord Mandelson et al have done each of the parties in on that score, certainly beyond a short-term reprieve.
 
The really big choices that lie ahead for Scotland are the extension of high speed rail north of the border, whether we hold on to Trident or not and to what extent fiscal autonomy should be adopted for our nation.
 
No amount of soapboxing, grinning to the camera or rolling up of the sleeves will gloss over the fact that Beauty or the Beast have the wrong answers for Scotland on each of these three issues and my only hope is that, rather than television programmes picking the winners, it is the most persuasive, convincing and sincere candidates on the doorsteps in local constituencies who win the day.

Nicola Sturgeon and the Culture of Secrecy

I didn't get a chance to see it but apparently Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon brought the house down with her Conference closing speech challenging Glasgow Labour's "culture of secrecy" and "fear of transparency".

With that and the "murky corridors" and "political cloud", it all seemed a bit Harry Potter. I guess magic is what it may take for the SNP to prise the city from Labour's steely grip, even after the downfall of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

With even the Scotsman agreeing in today's Editorial that 'business as usual' is not an option and more dealings between Council and party donors coming under the spotlight, this is one wound that the Health Secretary is well within her right to open up as much as she can.

No magic wand will make Labour's problems disappear and an independent enquiry is now clearly overdue.

Alex Salmond's Conference Speech

I daresay the SNP leader's speech will lack a certain something when merely read in black and white as opposed to received with the usual bombast and rhetorical style from Alex Salmond that we all know so well. I will certainly laugh for effect less while reading it than Salmond will have when delivering it.

The opening tribute to former party leader Billy Wolfe was appropriately placed at the top of the speech, though I'm not sure if "Billy Wolfe was a good man - too good to be a politician" will have gone down too well amongst the 59 PPCs in the audience aspiring to get into Westminster in May.

The section embodied by the line "The wrong cuts at the wrong time - that is their foolish agenda" doesn't sit too easily with me. We need to reduce spending, we need to cut the considerable flab from the public sector and it is in Scotland that that sector is at its most wobbly. Any leader who doesn't face up to these realities is surely at least partly guilty of a dereliction of duty.

As posturing for fiscal autonomy I have no doubt that fierce opposition to a reduction in Holyrood's block grant will be effective but it may not be enough to force Cameron's hand to act and that's when problems can begin.

If the Barnett formula is merely tinkered with rather than abolished then the SNP will have to change tack very quickly. Cuts, as the EU has pointed out clearly this past week, are already overdue. It would be foolish for Salmond to be seen to be last to face up to that reality.

But, despite all of that, there is little doubt it's a vote-winner in the short term. The SNP must surely be an attractive option if voting for them is believed equivalent to maximising our budget.

The speech moved on to Trident and I really can't tire of hearing Salmond saying the extent of the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem disagreement "is whether to have three new submarines or four". I'm very surprised that no other party has joined the SNP in its policy of no nuclear weapons. But their loss is our gain.

The theme of local champions was pushed next, hammered home even. The SNP not trying to win Labour or Tory seats but the people's seats. It's an appealing message and hopefully was well received by watching floating voters but at the end of the day the SNP are contesting constituencies in the same manner as other parties. Calling them the people's seats doesn't change much.

The policy meat of the speech is excellent news. The delivery of wind and wave power projects, quangos cut by 25%, Goverment marketing cut by half, the Council Tax freeze, saving £300m more than the estimated £500m and a hold on minister salaries. Common sense but still contrasts favourably to the UK Government.

The extra £15m for an extra 4,000 college places was the standout announcement. Good news of course but I daresay the problem of teenagers not getting to go with their first choice courses will continue largely unabated.

All in all, standard but welcome fare. Green, anti-nuclear and sensible.

More Nats Means Less Cuts though. I just wonder if I personally would have sat on my hands during the applause for that one.

SNP Conference weekend kicks off

Up in Aviemore, the SNP's champion PPCs and members are gathering this evening for the weekend Conference. Sadly I'm down in London and missing out this time but still looking forward to catching Salmond's speech on Saturday (3pm) and keeping tabs on goings on via Twitter (at #snpconf).

One little tidbit of information that I've heard through the grapevine is that Labour and the Tories are pushing a line that the SNP high heid yins have cancelled the Bloggers Breakfast, presumably suggesting that recent 'Cybernat' stories in the press have caused the move (still don't know if it's a press release or just a rumour).

And, well, given that I organised last year's event ('event' being far too strong a word), I would like to think that I would have received an invite to this 'cancelled' one. Either I've fallen pretty far out the loop or the story is proper cobblers.

Anyway, that's just a bit of fun, hope the weekend's a cracker.

Barrett's Homes

From the BBC:

Four Lib Dem MPs will have been told to apologise and repay money after breaching Commons rules over payments relating to second homes allowances.

They accepted one-off cash payments from the owners of an apartment block close to Parliament in return for agreeing to pay higher rent levels.

Richard Younger-Ross John Barrett, Sandra Gidley and Paul Holmes will pay back about £16,500 in total before tax.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg praised the four for alerting the authorities.


It’s quite incredible that Nick Clegg praises the offending four, one of which is the outgoing Edinburgh West MP John Barrett, just because they ‘fessed up to this arrangement. While Clegg is correct that any MPs from any other parties should be scrutinised over such deals, I wouldn’t be so quick to hand out slaps on the back. I know the Lib Dem leader wants to position himself as the white knight in this expenses scandal but sometimes you have to just take some bad news on the chin.

If you have a second home and you are offered upfront cash in exchange for higher rents, rents that are paid for by the public purse, then surely it’s a no-brainer that you either refuse or pay the lump sum in full to the Treasury. You certainly don’t pocket it.

John Barrett received a whopping £11,234 in this deal. What the heck is going on there? Was this money included in his income tax returns? If not, what was he planning on doing with it? If so, did he really see it as personal income? And why is he only saying back half of the 11 grand? If the Lib Dems are as honourable as they are trying to make out, shouldn't John be saying back the full welly?

The expenses scandal uncovered some really dodgy dealings and, for me, this one is right up there with the worst of them.

Guzzling cash through Barrett’s homes? It all sounds a little Wimpy to me…

Denis Thatcher didn't have to put up with this nonsense

The recent debate over the contribution from the partner of a party leader to a General Election campaign has been fascinating. I have to admit, I don’t yet know which side of the debate I fall down on. There is something a bit low-brow and tabloid with the way certain partners have talked of their spouse’s messiness or romance levels but at the same time a partner shouldn’t have to just sit at home and twiddle their thumbs for four weeks while their other half is gallivanting from Weymouth to Wick.

Well, David Cameron won’t make it beyond Carlisle but you get my point.

I have deliberately not specified genders in the above but, let’s be honest, we’re talking about wives here. We have to drop down to the Greens on the sliding scale of parties with political clout or go back to Margaret Thatcher before we have a female leader of a party. A corollary of their shared sex and unavoidable involvement with the election campaign is that Mrs Brown, Mrs Cameron and Mrs Clegg will have to run the often demeaning gauntlet of media scrutiny for the next seven weeks. This, of course, is not a new phenomenon but the phenomenon is undoubtedly evolving.

I bet Michelle Obama turned up to the cookie-baking contest amongst Presidential candidates’ wives with teeth well and truly gritted behind that forced smile. Michelle will have known that she had to go along and play her part to aid her husband’s electoral chances but at the same time grudgingly accepted that it was an arcane tradition that should be scrapped alongside Miss World contests. How has society contrived to force intelligent, successful women to operate in such narrow parameters?

In saying that, I’ve been impressed with Sarah Brown’s relatively recent first steps into public life. There should be nothing fundamentally wrong with a Prime Minister’s partner having an unofficial public role as long as (1) they genuinely want it and (2) they can actually make a significant contribution, two criteria that I get the impression Sarah meets with room to spare. You don’t win the most followers on Twitter without going out and gunning for them.

Fundamentally however, I think it is dangerous for politicians’ partners, particularly wives in these not-as-equal-as-we-all-should-be days, to be merely seen as part of the package, a bolt-on to the man who shapes the laws and wears the trousers. It was refreshing therefore to see Cherie Blair QC have her name in the paper on many occasions in business wholly unrelated to her husband’s line of work. Not that making headlines is the be all and end all in terms of proving that you lead an independent life, but ‘the Blairs’ are perhaps the dividing line between how political marriages used to be and how they could and should be going forward.

Policies and the personalities of those who are actually standing for public office should always be paramount, but there’s no reason why a positive public profile shouldn’t be opt-in, or opt-out if so desired, for any party leader’s wife or husband.

Lib Dems coming out of the Shadows

The General Election looks unlikely to deliver the result of one party winning an outright majority and, for all that the Lib Dems are rebuffing Tory overtures right now, a blue and orange coalition looks the most likely result come May 6th.

I use the term 'coalition' in its loosest sense as any such deal could be anything from a case by case discussion as the parliamentary term progresses to a formal shoulder to shoulder agreement through thick and thin.

A considerable slice of that sliding scale could involve Cabinet positions and I noted with wallet-loosening interest recently that Ladbrokes had Nick Clegg for next Home Secretary at 20\1. Is Chris Grayling really that much of a shoo-in?

The other Cabinet seat that I could envisage the Lib Dems keen to take would be Secretary of State for Scotland. 12 of their MPs hail from north of the border and, despite falling poll ratings, it's not inconceivable that 12 shall remain after the election. At least.

Will Cameron decide it is best to share the problem of constitutional wrangling? He certainly won't have a more able person for the job than Charlie Kennedy or Michael Moore would represent. David Mundell is widely suggested to not even be in the running, any new Scottish MPs would be too inexperienced and the rather fanciful notion of Lord McLetchie taking the role smacks of desperation.

For David Cameron and his SNP headache, perhaps a problem shared is a problem solved.

Is Hague's position approaching untenability?

The Lord Ashcroft affair is rumbling on (what do you mean quite nicely?) as the election date draws nearer.

It strikes me that both the Tories and Labour have a funding-related crisis on their hands with Unite for the former and the non-dom Lord for the latter.

For Labour, it is largely an internal party issue. There is nothing illegal about being funded by unions after all. However, the public can’t help but be affected by the increasingly possible scenario that many members of the Unite union do not want their own party to win the next election and are staffing up the safe seats with many of their own in time for a lurch to the left in Opposition. A price worth paying to get rid of Gordon Brown perhaps.

For the Tories, the questions over Ashcroft drag on and currently dominate the BBC News website with William Hague under the spotlight. We already know that Hague was aware of Ashcroft’s non-dom tax status months before this whole issue broke a few weeks ago but there is now a suggestion that the Shadow Foreign Secretary knew more than he is currently letting on far earlier. Per The Guardian:

The papers published today suggest that Hague – at that time Tory leader – was kept informed about the negotiations in 2000 over Ashcroft's tax status, though he insisted today that he had not been asked about the tax element "as far as anyone involved can recollect".

If William Hague knew that Lord Ashcroft was a non-dom after having brokered, or even while brokering, the deal that clearly stated that Ashcroft must be a full UK resident in exchange for entry into the House of Lords, and has kept that knowledge with him the whole time, then he should resign. It doesn’t matter how genial the man is or how effective he would be as a Cabinet Minister, this is a question of integrity that, if found wanting, is too fundamental to sweep under the carpet.

Hague has tried to divert attention away from the key question by apologising for the non-issue of his saying that Ashcroft would pay tens of millions because the amount may only be millions. It’s not the size of the tax receipts that are in question but the timing of them.

Hague to go? It’d be a sad sight to see but if this issue unfolds as I reckon it will, Hague’s position will be untenable.

Live and let fly

With chants of 'Sean Connery, Sean Connery' childishly, parochially and bizarrely ringing in his ears, Angus Robertson rose at PMQs yesterday to ask his question. The query of whether one of Downing St's staffers "took part in a conference call in July 2008 to discuss the suitability of Steven Purcell?" was met with a reply of 'I'll look into it from the PM'.

Now the really big question - Does anyone really care?

If some Labour colleagues knew of Purcell's woes back then, is it a cover up or merely a show of support that they didn't act on it? Is that even the angle Angus is aiming for?

Maybe it's my short attention span, maybe it's my strong compassionate streak or maybe I'm old-fashioned and just like elections to be about policies, but my level of interest in this red thread is all but extinguished and just think Steven Purcell should be allowed to bow out as gracefully as he can on a personal level.

So I would kindly suggest that the SNP group heed Tom Harris' warning and really soul-search to decide if they are "exploiting a tragic case" as the Glasgow South MP put it in The Herald. I don't think they are, but they'd pay a painful price if the public decided otherwise.

At a council level, the calls from John Mason for an investigation is firmer territory. Yousuf suggested recently that we shouldn't have an investigation because we don't know what the answers are yet. That's not generally the order in which these things happen. Answers follow investigations, not precede them.

There are enough allegations to justify some sort of review at least but until the authorities or auditors pick up the ball that the SNP is clearly desperate to hand off, the risks of this story continually being in the press sit more with the SNP than with Labour.

A heavy crossing to bear

That the billion pounds project to build the additional Forth crossing will involve years of disruption probably doesn't constitute 'news' in many people's minds, certainly not surprising news, but the prospect of traffic being disrupted for over three years due to a single junction should at least make Ministers reconsider their options. Patrick Harvie leads that very charge in the Scotsman today.

I do appreciate that Scotland can't afford to get this decision wrong, that to be without a direct road link between Edinburgh, Fife and beyond is not an option, but the repairing or replacing of the existing cables in the existing bridge is, for me, by far the more attractive solution. Until there is a clear list of reasons as to why this option cannot be adopted I will remain implacably opposed to spending billions on something we may not need, a plan B even.

Murdo Fraser for the Tories says that the congestion for this junction will be lighter than the congestion in the event of the existing Forth Road bridge being closed for repairs. This suggests the wrong option is being selected over the right one in deference to how many drivers may be inconvenienced in a relatively short space of time. Not good enough if you ask me.

One final thought before I step down from this well worn soapbox and no doubt get sent off to join the Greens from commenters again. There is a real risk that these 3 bridges standing so close together could become something of a national embarrassment. Scotland has a proud engineering pedigree but if asked by a visitor why we need two road bridges over one short space of water, the answer of 'we couldn't fix the first one' would sound a bit daft to me.

GE2010 - Scotland's Top 5 Local Issues

Regular readers will know that I like few things more than to take a recent Scottish poll, apply the national swing to each constituency and ‘predict’ the results that come out the other side. There are of course numerous problems with this approach with the chief one being the unpredictable variable of ‘local factors’, an Achilles heel that I have no doubt cursed more often than Beckham will have cursed his own these past few days. (Too soon? For the record, I’m devastated Becks is out the World Cup)
 
Anyway, rather than skirt around these elephants in the Electoral Calculus room, I thought I would consider what the top five local factors in Scotland actually are as I start to warm up for the General Election campaign proper.
 
It was difficult to pull out only five so I won’t try to rank them and will instead list them arbitrarily but feel free to add your own and/or rubbish any of mine:
 
 
Borders Rail Link – As someone who in a past life had to regularly commute to Galashiels from the North side of Edinburgh I would politely suggest that this project has been long overdue. I don’t know if it was the Labour/Lib Dem coalition that got the ball rolling on this one or if it was the current SNP Government but I would imagine that an appreciative Borders community would reward whoever deserved it with an upswing in votes.
 
The train will eventually snake through the Labour and Lib Dem constituencies of David Hamilton’s Midlothian and Michael Moore’s Roxburgh, Berwickshire and Selkirk. With the latter, an area that is largely Tory vs Lib Dem, tactial voting considerations may well outweigh any polling impact as a result of a train line which, to be fair, is already in the bag and consequently may not be uppermost in the minds of those going to the polls.
 
CalMac Ferries – The question of whether the ferry operator should operate crossings on a Sunday around the islands on the West coast has been a huge issue for the more religious communities in Angus MacNeil’s SNP constituency of Western Isles and Alan Reid’s Lib Dem constituency of Argyll & Bute.
 
I fancy both men to enjoy a significant incumbency factor to be honest and be returned to Westminster but there is no doubt what the number one issue will be in this part of Scotland.
 
The East Lothian Question (a tremendous pun, shamelessly ‘borrowed’ from Stephen Glenn) – Anne Moffat’s many woes have meant that Labour go into this contest in clear disarray. Some crises are imagined by the opposition, some are bona fide. This one ticks the latter box. With 7 weeks to go we are still unsure whether Anne will be the candidate or not and that alone, despite a considerable majority to defend, is enough to tentatively suggest that one of the other parties will prise this seat from Labour’s grasp.
 
Trams – I had lost track (pardon the pun) of the flailing tram project until I read a startling article in the Scotsman explaining that even the most ardent of supporters of the transport project could be losing faith in it (I know one person who won’t, come what may). I understood from it that after years of disruption and some businesses even closing down on the street, the route may not even extend to Leith Walk initially due to a lack of money.
 
The question of who will bear the brunt of any impact in the election itself is a fascinating one. The Greens, Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems were all in favour of the project but it was the SNP and Lib Dem council who were tasked with delivering it. That’s a double-whammy of bad news for the yellow camp but if I was a disgruntled voter who wished to protest about the trams, I wouldn’t know where to cast my vote. (For the record, I’ve come full circle. I regret the ballooning expense but I’m a tram convert and think they’ll be great in the end)
 
Edinburgh North & Leith is a seat that will clearly be impacted by this and it is little wonder that SNP PPC Calum Cashley has been continuing his anti-tram stance so resolutely. In a seat where all four (or even five) main parties will have good reason to be confident of a good result, the ramifications of ‘trams’ as an issue could well be crucial.
 
Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route – A project that apparently makes the Edinburgh trams look like plain sailing. First announced in 2003, the construction has not yet begun with approval given (again) in late 2009. Those who live along the route have voiced some fierce criticism of it and Aberdeen North’s Frank Doran, Aberdeen South’s Anne Begg and Aberdeenshire West’s Robert Brown could potentially face electoral trouble as a result of the heavy delays stretching back into the last administration, albeit in Holyrood and not at Westminster. Anne Begg, with a majority of only 1,348 is the most vulnerable from unexpected voting behaviour though at the same time of course may ultimately be the beneficiary.
 
 
So, that’s my five cents worth and with cuts vs spending and Cameron vs Brown as the overriding national narratives, it’s probably well worth keeping the above local factors (and no doubt more beside) in mind as May 6th approaches.

Comment Moderation - Always Wear Sunscreen

I returned home from a two day break in Spain yesterday with two lessonss rather painfully learned. One, even if it is March, apply sunscreen when the Andalusian sun is shining overhead. And two, don't try to keep your blog going when you have neither the time, inclination nor battery power to do a proper job of it.

Yesterday morning I posted a quick piece and then headed for the beach, blissfully unaware that an anonymous someone had made an idiotic threat to a named journalist in the unmoderated comments section a short while later.

The perfectly understandably perplexed and furious journalist promptly phoned me but my assurances that not just the comment but the entire post had been removed and comment moderation was now on did little to mollify. It was made plain to me that the police may be involved and I'd be written about next weekend on this. Lovely.

Sadly, it doesn't end there. By a remarkable coincidence (or perhaps not), a comment appeared on Will's blog last night with the following:

'I take it we all now know it was Jeff Breslin of SNP Tactical Voting who identified Mark MacLachlan?'

'Someone' clearly wants to shake the branches of that particular episode so I shall indulge them with a largely unknown (and rather trifling) back story.

On a weekday before the 'Cheese' story broke I was asked by a friend who Montague Burton really was. Not knowing much beyond Mark's name so unaware of the trouble his job could and would cause if it made the papers, I obliged.

The wrong thing to do in retrospect? I still don't think so. Mark's attendance at a recent blogger gathering was enough to make me think his identity was reasonably common knowledge. Even when the story broke I figured you don't get to say certain things without impunity. And anyway, I invariably hit matters with a clean bat. Ask me a question and you get a straight answer.

Which is the approach I adopted yesterday with this particular journalist on the phone after the threat from an anonymous commenter that thankfully wasn't followed through on.

Will it be enough to keep my name out the Sunday papers? Have I avoided having to stare down both barrels? We will see but I hope so.

Take it from me, Sun burn can be nasty.

Debate Overload

The news this morning that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are in the process of convincing the BBC to air debates on the constitutional future of the United Kingdom means that there could potentially be three leader debates, one Scottish-only debate and one constitution debate. At this rate there will soon be more prime-time hustings than crossings over the River Forth.

That said, it seems a fairly fair solution to the imbalance with the original plan and tactically astute too. It's not often the SNP gets to communicate its arguments for independence to so many and so directly and, as there is little chance that Cameron or Brown would want to show up for such a debate against Salmond, it will seem the Nationalists have the upper hand in terms of arguments. The other main parties should take the proposal seriously, due to the above and due to the UK's internal arrangements and Barnett formula needing addressed soon.

Labour will be in a difficult position as they are promising radical changes for devolved Scotland but not wanting to engage at election time on the topic. And the less said of the ill-fated Calman commission the better I fear.

Debate after debate on television screens may sound interminable to many but the SNP, with legal action as its only realistic alternative option, has been reasonable in pushing for one more in order to fight for a fair deal.

And of the five, it is the one that I would be watching with most interest so how that fits in with the Charter it may be interesting to check.

If come May 7th support for independence is up, a weak Tory Government is installed and even only a modest improvement in SNP MPs is realised, I reckon that'd be a good job, well done from Salmond.

Trains not Trident

I daresay there might be even better things to spend a spare tens of billions of pounds on but if the Government wants to giftwrap an election slogan for the SNP, with an alliterative bow on top, then it's only fair that it should be scooped up gratefully and hammered home.

So it is very pleasing indeed to see Glasgow Central candidate Osama Saeed pick up this square ball and run with it.

The dumping of Trident is now a common sense decision given the vast sums involved and the only discernible benefit being an otherwise futile jobs creation scheme and a seat on the UN Security Council.
It's not a good enough value for money of course and the economic and environmental benefits of a high speed rail link speak for themselves.

It will be interesting watching Labour campaign on 1mile of GARL track while defending a 'UK' line that stops only as far north as Sheffield.

Has feminism lost its direction?

There are elements of the modern-day Suffragette movement that have become simply insufferable. The vast majority of women out there certainly seem blissfully unaware of an ongoing cause.

Jumping in front of the King's Horse has been replaced with settling down in front of the Queen Vic, stuffing the bra is preferable to burning it and the issue of dowdy ankle length skirts has been raised, raised and raised again to the point where it's now a cat's whisker short of the belt buckle.

Jordan would approve. Emmeline Pankhurst, I suspect, would not.

Tangible argument of 'we want the vote' has been replaced with intangible whimsy, highlighted on International Women's Day (I forget which day it was specifically) with nonsense after nonsense on Twitter summed up for me with this multiple RT'd gem: “I married below me, all women do”. Brilliant, high fives and high-pitched squeals all round.

An advert on our screens, one of many of its ilk, is another case in point. An oven cleaner product billed as 'so simple, even a man could use it', the central hook is clear – Make the hapless husband the butt of the joke, make the bitter female viewer laugh and sell your product. The clear irony that it is women that still buy oven cleaner is patently lost on the fleetingly feminist target market who fall for it.

When one of the apparently most pressing feminist issues left is banning airbrushing, rather than focussing on talking impressionable young women from taking their clothes off be it ultimately photo-shopped or not, a wrong turn has been taken somewhere along the way.

Or, perhaps, the race has been run and a rather aimless victory lap is being wearyingly and vacuously indulged. Is this all that is left to iron out and dust off from the in equality?

Without specific policies and campaigns, holding a placard for 'Gender Equality Now' is just as woolly as holding one for 'Democracy Today Please'. What do those pushing feminism and pushing for equality specifically want? Aside from inadvertently aiding Harriet 'Lehman Sisters' Harman's charge for Labour leader of course.

Despite all of the above, I have to admit I am a feminist, I believe in full equality for men and women. But, much like being a democrat, I find that living in the UK means that there isn't much left to wish in order to be a satisfied one.

Recently it was International Women's Day but perhaps a pregnant pause is required to consider what relevance it has any more, if any. Or, if we are the dominant sex (as these campaigns would have us believe) then maybe we need to embark on a period of soul-searching, much like the dominant partner in the UK, England, has begun recently.


Or maybe I'm just an oaf. This is becoming something of an annual tradition after all.