Posterous theme by Cory Watilo

It’s going to be tough – so lets be Radical! (Part 1)

In May the voters of Scotland, fearing a Tory majority in Westminster, increased the share of the vote for the Labour Party across the nation with a number of constituencies giving the Labour candidate over 50% of the vote. The Lib Dem vote at 19% in Scotland hardly set the heather on fire at a national level and the lack of increase in the number of seats won in 2005 (and the loss of Dunfermline and West Fife) was a disappointing result. Scotland rejected the Tories comprehensively in May this year with only one MP being returned and a share of the vote that at 17% compares badly with England at 40% and even 26% in Wales. Furthermore, it is clear that voters clearly differentiate their Holyrood & Westminster votes for the SNP. They were the second largest party in Holyrood in 1999 and 2004 and the largest by one in 2007 attracting around 32% of the vote. This far exceeds the 20% they got in May at the General Election. The election performance of the Scottish Lib Dems has been constant at around 13% of the vote every election since 1999. What all this rudimentary examination of election statistics demonstrates is that next year’s election will be the toughest for the Scottish Liberal Democrats since devolution and will be for one simple reason - the Westminster Coalition with the Tories. The catcall of ‘Vote Lib Dem, Get Tory’ will be heard at every hustings (and will be on every SNP and Labour Leaflet). By the time the election takes place the impact of budget cuts will be clearer and the message being drummed into each voter by SNP and Labour activists will be that they will be the only ones to protect the voters from the evil cut making Coalition Government in Westminster. Of course, this is a lie. Despite the delusions of grandeur suffered by Alex Salmond, he is not the master of all he surveys. The vast majority of what the Scottish Government spends comes from Westminster via the Barnett Formula. Whatever cuts happen in England will happen in Scotland as well. And that is just public spending. Changes to benefits, entitlements and VAT are also solely within the remit of Westminster so Labour in Scotland cannot help people somehow change the impact of the Emergency Budget. Due to the inevitability of the lies, the Scottish Liberal Democrats need to offer the people of Scotland something different and, frankly, something positive. For too long, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, as well as the other parties in Scotland, have been defining themselves as being ‘against’ many things rather then something positive and new for Scotland. We can start by highlighting what we have achieved in government. Even a simple reading of the Coalition Agreement shows the range and depth of the influence that the Liberal Democrats have had in Government – reducing taxes on the lowest earners, increased civil liberties and banking reform. It goes further than just a programme for Government through. As Malc blogged over at Better Nation, the Lib Dems hold the position of Secretary of State for Scotland and can use that position to demonstrate something that neither the SNP nor Labour can offer the people of Scotland – real power and influence in Westminster. Recent events have shown that in practice as Tavish Scott has been able to arrange an additional meeting with the Defence Secretary regarding the construction of two air craft carriers in Scotland. But that influence and obvious power is, unfortunately, not enough. The SNP and Labour will be ‘against’ Westminster (read Lib Dem & Tory) cuts which will be a powerful narrative so we must instead offer an idea for Scotland that is so different from what has gone before that the message is so much more far-reaching and game changing that any comparison with the offering from other parties will seem pedestrian and lacking in aspiration. We need to be Radical. Coming Soon - It’s going to be tough – so let’s be Radical! (Part 2)

You are wrong Mr Harris

Tom Harris has launched another attack on the Coalition for doing things in a way that does not approve of. This is not a mere policy disagreement (after all, Mr Harris is one of the most tribal Scottish politicians who disagrees with a lot of members of his party). No, this is a very real case of doing things not as Mr Harris (and Labour) has done things in the past, but his palpable anger at things not being done the way he thinks they should. He confesses to this anger by proudly stating he is one of those House of Commons Shouters that makes the Salmon Seals in the Scottish Parliament seem like the embodiment of civilised debating technique. He even makes an unwelcome reference to his own backside (talking out of perhaps......). His complaint this time is that since the Coalition Agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories was agreed after the election, it is not a valid document from which to launch a programme for Government and the associated legislation that the Government brings forward.  Mr Harris clearly believes that pre-election manifestos are the only programme that a Government can put forward. This is a remarkable position to take and does not stand up to even the most rudimentary examination. Firstly, it should be pointed out that Scotland was governed between 1999 and 2007 by a Coalition that had an agreement. That Coalition was led by the Labour Party. I don't recall Mr Harris standing for Labour in 2001 denouncing the Coalition and being a MP elected to end this evil devolution idea that offered stable two-party Government. If Mr Harris is so utterly sincere in his dislike of Coalition Governments due to the development of Coalition Agreements then he should have the courage of his convictions and stand as a candidate on that topic - follow David Davis who resigned and stood again on the issue of Civil Liberties. Make a stand Mr Harris and seek re-election as an anti-coalition Candidate. Doing it at the elections for Holyrood next year would give a clear mandate for him to oppose a Labour led coalition (if that were an option available after the election). If the UK had a tradition of parties only ever governing and legislating on their manifesto contents then I could see his point. If every MP (remember for Westminster its MPs who are elected, not Parties) tried as hard as they could to deliver the manifesto that they stood on after winning their election then he may have a further point. However, Mr Harris is firmly of the opinion that manifestos are only valid if the party wins power, not the candidate. So, when the next General Election occurs and a voter asks Mr Harris how hard he worked to get that manifesto delivered he is happy to say he ditched on May 7th (give or take a few days for the Coalition to reach its agreement). If Mr Harris does not need his manifesto then why do either the Liberal Democrats or the Tories? After all, according to Harrisian logic, they didnt win either. The electorate did not grant sole power to any one party or empower any one manifesto. Who should the Queen have asked to form a stable Government? Secondly, between 1997 and 2010, the Labour Government brought forward many pieces of legislation and enacted various policy ideas that were not in their Manifestos. Just four days after being elected into Government in 1997 Labour granted the Bank of England its independence. Where was the manifesto commitment for that? Where was the democratic mandate for that Mr Harris? What about tuition fees? What about removing the 10p tax rate and increasing the taxes of the lowest earners? Which manifesto will I find that in? Which Labour Manifesto can I read about the ID Card legislation? Why is it that only Labour is allowed to enact for things that were not in their manifesto? Thirdly, lets address Mr Harris' belief in the strange power of the Coalition Agreement. He lambasted the Cabinet Office Minister Mark Harper for stating that the Tories were voting for this legislation even where their Manifesto offered a different version and that the Coalition Agreement had suppressed the Tory manifesto. Here is can be seen that Mr Harris is very wrong. There is nothing stopping a voter asking a Tory MP about this and the Tory MP stating that he felt that it was best to agree to an alternative in return for getting agreement for other parts of the Manifesto. It is then up to that MP and that voter to agree or disagree that the deviations from the manifesto were worth it. The manifesto is still the primary MP/Voter accountability document - despite Mr Harris' indecent haste in dropping his manifesto. This same conversation will be the same for every Lib Dem MP (only Charles Kennedy MP can state he abstained from ditching parts of the Lib Dem Manifesto). That is the key to Coalition Agreements. They are an amalgamation of manifesto commitments and party policy positions. Each MP in the Coalition Parties will have to go back to their voters and persuade them that the Coalition Agreement, with its manifesto gains and manifesto loses, was worth it. That is the democratic process Mr Harris.