Stick that in your pitch-fork and smoke it!

Last week saw a remarkable British by-election where the Liberal Democrats over turned a 23,000 majority and their previous near death experience to win a spectacular victory in Richmond Park.

The dominant issue was Brexit and the continuing fall out from Britain’s EU Referendum and a summer of political trauma.  The Liberal Democrats remain Britain’s most consistently pro EU political party and have campaigned passionately in support of the EU both before and after the referendum.  They are currently campaigning for parliament to scrutinise the Brexit proposition as it emerges and for there to be a second referendum to ratify any deal on the grounds that the terms of what Brexit meant were never specified in the original referendum.

This has been challenged as controversial and potentially undemocratic by leading political inquisitors such as Andrew Neil and the pitchfork wielding Julia Hartley-Brewer.
  
Are the peasants revolting? Is it the alt-right establishment twitching in defence of a tyranny of the majority?  Is it simply that parliament was silent on how Brexit would proceed should we vote to leave, either in terms of process or vision?

I think the issue about a second vote is therefore about having a vote on any future Brexit deal. There are so many moving parts to consider.  This is not just be about single market or not - or even whether we have access to the single market in some form.  How much do we pay in; what control can we exert over immigration; what level of political control do we exercise over our national destiny; what other areas of inter-European co-operation are we to participate in going forward and on what terms?  It is about all these things and more and we are only at the beginning.

My current preference would be to find, after exploring the Brexit options, that being part of the EU on the sort of terms we already had was the best deal and that we therefore exercise the option of staying.  Failing that, I’d like us to establish as close a cooperative and connected relationship with rest of Europe as possible. Whatever we do I’d like to do it with our eyes open.

Whatever we decide, it has to be done democratically since we have had a referendum.  We voted to leave and we are proceeding with that. For there to be any deviation from that or significant qualification after seeing the options, there needs to be a democratic process.

The problem the Leavers have, in my opinion, is that this was always a referendum to deal with an issue that has split the Conservative Party for a generation. It's not really been done with any vision about where we are trying to get to, let alone any detailed proposition behind it. And then the leaders of Leave seemed to step back and run away when they won. Now that’s a bit of a school-boy error from them.

In fact, we are seeing this right now in the Supreme Court.  The legislation around creating the referendum was poor and was silent on too much.

The referendum means we have decided to leave and that has to be delivered now. And this has to be delivered through parliamentary processes with proper scrutiny. Politics does not stop with a referendum and certainly not one where the population is so evenly split.

What Richmond Park does is to remind us is there are significant numbers of Remain minded people and some of their concerns need taken account of as we move forward to our new foreign policy. It is important to avoid a tyranny of the majority.

It also gives voice to a significant liberal - progressive section of our electorate - a section feeling under-represented with the void in the centre and centre-left of British politics.  This is a section of our people that look to politics that is open, tolerant and united.  A section that looks to a very long tradition of British liberalism that we need now more than ever.

Stick that in your pitch-fork and smoke it.

Let's bring down our whole rotten political system

While I'm interested in any Scottish solutions with regards to stopping an EU Brexit I think they are a distraction from the priority.  The Scottish dimension is not really about Europe it is about Independence.  For the Scottish Government see everything - absolutely everything - through the prism of Independence. For me the priority is for Britain to remain within or as close we can to the EU; and to be clear, for me, the EU has always been far more than just a free trade area.

There can't be a Second Referendum on the EU.  That would be undemocratic and we cannot call for one when we rightly call out Scot Nats for demanding Indyref2 barely two years after the first - and a clear decision to boot.

But referenda are not the only way. They are not even particularly good at deciding very technical issues like on the EU. And they are so final if the change option wins. This makes them inflexible and somewhat undemocratic in that sense. As a result of last week's EU referendum we have handed a blank cheque to I'm not entirely sure who, to do I'm not entirely sure what.

When we voted we had no idea what Leave would look like. There was no white paper, no model, no roadmap - nothing. And this is without addressing the apparent fact that two of the central claims of the winning Leave campaign appear to be ones that there was no intention, or knowingly no possibility, of delivering. That is to say paying '£350m a week into NHS' and ending free movement of people. This is also without addressing that some (not all) Leave voters were voting on misconceptions as evidenced by attitude surveys during the campaign.

I want us to stay in the EU or salvage the best we can out of our broken relationship with Europe and vote on it in the traditional way via a general election. That's perfectly democratic. Now this requires real Labour to have the balls to stand up for that. It also requires pro EU Conservatives to stop trying to hold power for power's sake. The pro EU ones are meant to be in the majority in parliament. This may all require pro EU candidates and groups to cooperate in a one-off pro-EU coupon election.

But failing all this I want the Labour Party to be strong again - they need to jettison their foolish People's Popular Front sect of malevolents and romantics. In the Conservatives I want to see the Brexiters and thinly veiled anti-Europeans (such as May) defeated and something constructive regarding Europe emerge. Most of all I feel we need outward looking British liberalism to start doing well across all the parties again.

Crucially, I want to see the Liberal Democrats, who have taken a far heavier electoral toll than they ever deserved, returning to strength.  We desperately need them in our political mix with a loud and vibrant voice.

These are turbulent times in British politics and all this may not be possible.  The stable of contenders for the Conservative leadership does not fill me with hope. Our continuing creaking democracy based on an 18th century system never designed for party politics let alone the multiple and changing choices we have today continues to depress me.  Not least when it begins to threaten our stability with embedded tribal loyalties and exaggerated regional differences with their ludicrous over representations.  This is an unresponsive democracy whose senses to real opinion are dulled, especially when they deliver absolute majorities on not much more than a third of the vote and on tiny shifts in support.

But there is many a twist and turn in the road ahead before we are done with these turbulent times.  Whatever happens I do not want to see a return to our political system as we have known it.  The realignment of the 1980s did not quite come off.  This time the fault lines of opinion have truly shifted.

This time I want to see real realignment and with it an end to our whole rotten political system.

That went well!

Well, that went well!

The local elections were an unmitigated disaster for the LibDems in Edinburgh, where I live!

I scribed most of my thoughts on a comment on the Better Nation website, so I thought I would lay them out on my own blog.

We all knew this was coming a year ago. Things were always going to get worse for us before they get better and fighting locals as the lead party what with the Trams, some big budget challenges and LibDem group’s ‘talent’ for self promotion was likely to lead to another pasting.

Well, we got that, but it was slightly worse than I expected. I had hoped for 7 and feared for 4 – we got 3!

Interestingly, I don’t think the liberal (small l) vote has disappeared. In large part, it has gone Green and to the National Party of Scotland.

Places like Meadows, Fountainbridge and Stockbridge have always had an inbuilt liberal block. People who are in touch with their inner tank-top and eat vegetables. Since we have blotted our copy book it has helped the Greens get 6 councillors and some big wins.

The Nats are the opposition to Labour – there to give scrutiny and an alternative way to do things. I think Labour need that. As such they carry the responsibility of representing many who are cautious about how a Labour administration will perform.

So in a non tribal sense I don’t despair for our city.

I’ve been a Liberal for a long time and I’ve met in both taxis and in large halls. I had always felt things to be ok because the ‘market’ demand for a centre party was there. A pragmatic party with a perfect mix of individualism and collectivism, strong on the environment and civil liberties and positive about Europe and the need for effective devolution within the UK (Federalism even).

I’m a bit more worried this time – in Scotland at least. I saw the Greens come through in the late 80s but they faded. Today they are much more coherent, rounded and a mature proposition. I think they have potentially more staying power as we look jaded and yesterday’s party.

There has always been a strong place for a non socialist alternative to the Conservative party – that is in a nutshell what the LibDems were in the 20th century. The Nats and the LibDems (Alliance in the 80s) have ebbed and flowed around this one over the last 40 years – over time and over different regions of Scotland.  Well currently the Nats have well and truly blocked us out of that one. It doesn’t help that we have blotted our left of centre copy-book with the coalition and everything that that involves during an era of global financial crisis.

The point is there isn’t really an opening there as the Nats are currently much more than just a nationalist party or the party of Independence.

So where does that leave us – in Edinburgh terms.

Well, I think we need to go back to our areas and form Focus action groups and get on with some of the things we do best – community action. We need to stay engaged and involved. I think in Edinburgh a core of activists and members will remain in the parts of the city where we have been strong.

For us in a lot of ways politics was re-booted 12 months ago. So we now put this behind us and move on.  This means we can start to hold the big groups on the council to account. Including the Nats and the Greens as they represent the interests of liberal minded voters (amongst others of course).

We can free of being in administration during a difficult period promote our ideas for the city and constructive criticisms of what goes on.

I actually believe the LIbDems have done a lot of good across Edinburgh in recent years. The LibDem councillors increased nursery places and care for older people and started building houses again. They also increased recycling, and importantly sorted out the financial mess the city faced after the previous administration. (Leaving aside the costs associated with the Tram project).

In the manifesto the group put together they developed a lot of detailed and valuable thinking of where the city should go next and what the priorities are.

The point is that stump politicking or internet trolling aside there is some good thinking there to continue to contribute albeit as a depleted group and to continue to think and develop ideas is a key thing we should continue to do proudly.

I don’t know what is to come in the years ahead. The Nats may decline if they loose the referendum in 2014. They may face pressures and fissures between those who see independence as building a new socialist Utopia in Scotland and those who see themselves as an effective disciplined centre left alternative to Labour. Who knows.

The point is we have re-booted the computer and the LibDems should get out there and campaign in this city.

What are the Liberal Democrats for?

Earlier this week I had the opportunity to meet with Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, for a bloggers' interview.  So it was that Andrew Page, Nicola Prigg, Douglas Mclennan and I spent an evening discussing everything from the constitution to youth unemployment.

The LibDems have been through a torrid time over the last couple of years in Scotland.  Being aligned with the Tories in government brought the party to the brink of oblivion at the Scottish elections last year.  Being the junior partner in a government dealing with the global financial crisis and an enormous structural deficit has drawn the LibDems to be associated with unpopular NHS reform, draconian changes to the assessment o disability benefits and tertiary education tuition fees.

The question many people ask is that it is all very well having the ministerial cars but what difference have the LibDems made?  What is the point of the Liberal Democrats?

I asked Willie Rennie what he thought the LibDems are for.

He picked out four things

• Opportunity
• Community
• Internationalism
• Sustainability

 He argued these are four key values all based around the individual.  By way of example he expanded on this by describing how he believes public services can be made more responsive to people.

This is clearly a passion of Willie's and a topic he has given a lot of thought and devoted much reading towards.  I was worried for a moment that we might start to exchange some lame platitudes on this subject but as Willie expanded on his thinking I was pleasantly surprised that there was some real substance as to how we might make public services more effective and there was some real depth to Willie's thinking.

For Willie Rennie making public services more responsive to people is about moving control away from the centre of our providers of various public services and empowering staff.  They know what to do and are well trained.

It is why the Liberal Democrats remain opposed to a single Scottish police force!

Willie is extremely interested in developing some of the latest thinking on the provision of effective public services.  He sees it as a partnership between the consumers and providers of services.  This is getting at the fundamentals.

He went on and gave some examples of what he meant.  We take too bureaucratic, too controlling an approach seeking safety first - we don't innovate enough in this segment of the economy.  He told the story of a housing department in a central Scottish local authority - authority that was top rated regarding achievement of service targets but near the bottom regarding public satisfaction..

"Somebody fills in a form wrong, no one at the desk takes initiative and comments - they just let it go.  It goes to the office and they send it back.  And so it goes on to and fro until the matter is solved 6 weeks later.  But the council feels they have done well which is completely different to the perception of the service consumer!  The council was focussing on its processes not its outcomes.  The form was passed to the department, the form was processed, queries were answered - all within the set SLAs (service level agreements).  They didn't fix the problem but they processed the form in the right timescale."  

A focus on outcomes and allowing frontline staff to make sure the form was right before they sent it for processing would have improved this story. It is also about encouraging and embracing community capacity and voluntary action.

It is also about the need to change attitudes councils to the independent/voluntary sectors, particularly the perception that if the council doesn't directly offer a service it isn't good enough.

I was struck by Willie Rennie's charisma as well as his ability to commuicate.  He has a twinkle in his eye.  As he spoke about how society can work better he looked forward to how Scotland can be better in 50 years time.  It is a liberal vision based on communities and giving opportunities to the individual to improve all our lives.

I will visit some more of what I discussed with Willie Rennie and share some of my thoughts over two or three subsequent blogposts

 

LibDems - be clear who you are or die!

Recently, in the days after party conference season, some LibDem bloggers asked who are we as a party.  For these are turbulent times.  The global economy is stagnating, Europe is in crisis and Scotland's place in the UK is being questioned.

There is no doubt the last 18 months have been a disaster for the LibDems.  But we are in government and in Scotland have a job to do in opposition but also have a job to define our place and our role in Scottish politics.

At this turbulent time we need to define who we are.  The electorate are confused and I think we are suffering an identity crisis at times.  Defining this is crucial in our journey back. 

It seems to me the LibDems established themselves as a non socialist alternative to the Conservative party over a period of 50-60 years. This places us slightly left of centre. The last couple of years, and Clegg’s leadership in particular, have driven a coach and horses through this positioning and the result is some confusion as to who we are – both internally and externally.

However, I think the detailed polling figures over the years highlight that the debate can move on. It is not sufficient to plough the same furrow of being Labour lite – penny on the pound of income tax for education and so on – indefinitely.

Indeed, under Charles Kennedy we positioned ourselves as in some ways to the left of Labour.

Then came the Orange Book.  As I understand it the Orange Book was all about trying to find a new way moving forward – it was never a credo of the ‘right wing’ of the party and economic liberals.  Styling it like that was to mis-understand the book.

The dangers of this period of coalition government are becoming clear.  On the one hand Cameron and the Conservatives love bombing the LibDems to oblivion, while on the other, the danger of burning our bridges with social democrats, and anyone with left of centre instincts.

What are the LibDems to do?  The need to win over one nation Conservatives for ourselves leaving the Tories to neo Cons and ‘Little Englanders’ has been highlighted. At the same time, there is also the need to win those on the left with our core appeal to the non socialist left of centre. And our appeal to liberals of course.

As I have argued in a number of posts, I think the starting point is to decide who we are. It has been highlighted that while many ‘feel’ they share our values there is real confusion as to who we are. If we decide who we are, from this work we can discern a range of broad and detailed policy themes, as well as a narrative and an analysis of our society and economy.

After this is clear we can work on the positioning and the political strategy.

However, what is clear is that we must be clear of who we are and what we are for – because right now there is some confusion and it has the potential to kill us.

We do so from being centre left or progressive

We don't think private enterprise is necessarily bad.

We are neither socialist nor neo-con nor nationalist


In fact we think a strong economy underpins everything, but we are not neo-cons or libertarians.  So we believe in intervention and public services free at the point of delivery to provide true equality of opportunity and to equalise the odds.

This is tough if you have to cut to rebuild the economy - as we do, now more than ever.

What we have been able to do is targetted interventions and increases in public spending to equalise the odds and to solve the problems that need solved.

• The protection of the NHS
• Working as a party to stand against the draconian work capability assessments for Employment and Support Allowance.
• Increasing pensions by over £5 a week (Labour managed 75p), implementing automatic pension rights for workers - often for the first time in smaller companies and having in Steve Webb the best Pensions Minister in a generation.
• A more targetted approach of the pupil premium making education more accessible to more disadvantaged kids
• More pre school education - a vital stage
• I would still dearly like us to find a way to reduce or eliminate tuition fees for tertiary education - and this remains our stance in Scotland where we originally delivered it.
• More apprentices than under Labour
• Income tax that helps the low paid 
• Pushing back on removing employment rights in larger firms
• Support and resourcing for developing renewable energy
• Development of the Green Bank

Perhaps most of all, when faced with no clear winner after the last General Election we were prepared to take responsibility and form a government and do the difficult things that probably need to be done in a very changed world economy.  Indeed in Vince cable we had a minister who was prepared to understand the magnitude of the problem and tell the truth about the difficulties we face.

Above all we are an adult party prepared to do what is practical and seek evidence based solutions rather than retreat to tired tribal positions - or to lack courage to do what needs to be done.  It is not student politics!

What should the LibDems do next? What does the data tell us?

The last year has been terrible for the LibDems.  Their brand, based on realignment of the left and carefully constructed for over half a century, has had a coach and horses driven through it.  Their poll ratings are disastrous – even accounting for a recent turnaround from absolute rock bottom.  They have a mountain to climb to save seats with a less than favourable economic backdrop, and the result of going into coalition has exceeded even the most miserable of worst case scenarios.

Perhaps worst of all there has been a complete loss of trust, pulling the rug of credibility from under them and seeming to undermine everything they say or do to try to make it better!

What should the Liberal Democrats do - the data says... ?

Evidence based solutions is something of a buzz phrase these days for everything from scientific study, to corporate strategising.  In this regard therefore Lord Ashcroft’s polling of marginal Conservative constituencies is extremely interesting. (As was his analysis in December of the LibDem vote).  A number of blogs have covered the results in detail.  See Mark Pack, UKpolling report, Solutions Focused Politics and Solutions Focused Politics again.

These results tell us the following:

• 41% of voters in LibDem target seats say they share their values (it’s even 33% in other seats).  This is a very high number – more than the other parties in LibDem target seats. 42% also felt the LibDems were on the side of ordinary voters (more than for any other party albeit just ahead of Labour)

• Only 32% say the LibDems are clear about what they stand for, in their target seats.   It is 28% in other seats.  These numbers are lower than for the other parties.

• A derisory 24% say the LibDems will do what they say, the number falls to 21% in non target seats.  The other parties have low numbers on this category too – but more than the LibDems.

Also, looking at LibDem targets, on a whole host of issues the LibDems could only struggle into the teens for those who think they would do the best dealing with the given issue - except for the environment where they score highly.

What issues are considered important remains very similar across Tory, Labour and LibDem held seats.  Education, the Environment and dealing with the deficit come up slightly more important in LibDem areas than other seats.  Crime and Immigration come out as slightly less important than the norm in LibDem areas.

So what should the LibDems do?

In order to recover the Liberal Democrats need to be much better at defining precisely who they are and what they want to do, and communicating that effectively.

Everything comes from that.  General ideas of fairness will not do.  General ideas of listening to the public and then working to deliver their needs sounds laudable but ultimately is more confusing; that is casework which is very important but should not be mixed up with a political credo.  It is very important for the Liberal Democrats to get this right as this is at the heart of their problems.

Secondly, there is a need for delivery.  A number of substantive things need delivered that make a difference to men and women's lives.  Civil liberties and constitutional reform are important but they should be treated as a ring fenced area.  The key issues are the ones that make life better.  If the LibDems succeed in implementing good policy in these areas - and being perceived as having delivered - then that outweighs things they have not done - such as on tuition fees in England and Wales and in failing to prevent a rise in VAT.  This is the only route back to credibility and re-establishing trust.

Delivery needs to come with it some sort of vision, an analysis of where they find themselves, some sort of story or narrative of what is wrong and how this can be put right.  This ties the two key ingredients of core principles and doing what they say together.

This, if they can begin to deliver, could pay dividends as there is a pool of potential belief in the Liberal Democrats out there as shown by the numbers of people who still feel they share their values or they are basically on their side.

Other interesting things we have learned

• We have also learned from Lord Ashcroft that a significant number of voters seriously considered voting LibDem in 2010 but decided not to.

• The main reason for deciding not to was because they felt the LibDems could have no influence and were a wasted vote. 

• Two thirds of these people think the LibDems are making an important contribution to government.

• Nearly all LibDem voters felt Labour seriously lost their way in government.  The poor showing of Labour in Scotland - once a General Election against the Tories was removed from the equation - and difficult poll ratings for Ed Milliband, suggest that while Labour may be doing reasonably well in the face of the government's austerity plans they have not yet sealed the deal for themselves with the British public. 

• Many 2010 LibDem voters will not decide for some time how they will vote for a General election and do not rule out going back to the LibDems.

• The polling in Conservative/LibDem marginals at least is consistent with between election polling in previous electoral cycles 

What does this all mean?

In Conservative held seats at least, there is a pool of voters who have considered supporting the LibDems before, believe they share their values and think they are making a contribution in government whereas before they felt they were a wasted vote.  If the LibDems can develop a coherent narrative as to who they are and if they start to be seen to deliver worthwhile things, some of these people will vote for them.

When you consider the LibDems are not that far behind in Conservative marginals, and certainly no worse than in previous electoral cycles, there is hope behind their low polling numbers - the data tells us so.

We have been here before 

Because we have been here before.  After the successes of 1974 and assorted by-election victories the Liberals fell back towards the end of the 70s and the big parties were eager to write them off.  I remember listening to Clive Jenkins, the crusty old trade unionist, on the radio on some local election night late in the 1970s, saying the Liberals results were patchy - which meant bad.  This, he argued was a good thing because they were a distraction from the real political argument.

After the Alliance ended and the Owenite SDP rump refused to join the merged party, poll ratings collapsed to lower than they are now and the 1989 Euro elections were a disaster.  Again commentators were very quick to write off the LibDems.

Their opponents are so condescending but fail to understand the resilience and depth of their position.

I felt then, in the late 1980s that the LibDems would be alright because there was a 'market' demand to vote for a decent centrist party.  This time I have not been so sure.  The trust and credibility thing feels ominous to me - and the damage feels particularly severe in Scotland where an Alex Salmond lead SNP are resurgent and occupy the centre ground.  However, this data tells me there is still a market demand as there was before.  It may be that some of the cities of northern England where we had made inroads against Labour are lost for at least this electoral cycle.  Scotland may also be more of a challenge for a period.

Nevertheless, even in Scotland, there is hope and the Ashcroft data shows that there is potential for LibDem growth if they can get their core values right, deliver something substantive in government and communicate it effectively.

The data says there is hope!

Are the Conservatives Eloi or Morlocks?

It’s not really a question I’ve ever asked myself before to be honest. But, do you remember the HG Wells novel ‘The Time Machine’ – or perhaps you have seen the rather good film version of it?

Well, if you haven’t or you can’t remember the plot ...

Wells’ Time Traveller journeys far into the future where he meets the Eloi, childlike adults who live in futuristic yet slowly deteriorating buildings, doing no work and lacking any curiosity or discipline. He also encounters the Morlocks who are ape like troglodytes who live underground amongst the machinery and industry that makes the above-ground ‘paradise’ possible. More sinister the Traveller learns the Morlock feed on the Eloi.

They are two tribes into which man has evolved. They now fulfil an almost ritualistic role based on something that happened in the nuclear wars of the dim and distant past but is now forgotten. They have both lost the intelligence and character of Man at its peak.

So it is with the Conservatives in Scotland sometimes I think. They are evil and socially unacceptable, this is a given. To support them in an election is not allowed. The need to marginalise them is paramount and the first rule of Scottish politics is to vote tactically to ensure they achieve no representation. To ally yourself with them in any way attracts instant vilification and ensures the perpetrator is too cast out into darkness. So the Scottish Liberal Democrats have discovered over the last year.

We have maybe forgotten precisely why this is the case – or if we remember we soon will have forgotten.

At this point in time the Conservatives in Scotland have just kicked off their leadership campaign. At the time of writing it looks like a close contest between Ruth Davidson and Murdo Fraser. Ruth was meant to be the young fresh faced, counter intuitive Tory who would modernise them. She has been slightly outflanked by Murdo who has proposed that they become independent of the party down south, change their name and embrace a more hard core version of devolution than ever before.

Kenny Farquharson writes very interestingly about this in Scotland on Sunday today where he suggests if the Tories vote for Ruth or one of the others, then Scotland will be Independent by 2016. If they vote for Murdo, Scotland will remain part of the UK. I have no idea if he is right or wrong.

The Conservatives clearly need to change their brand and their perception in Scotland. I also think they need to do something so that more Scots can relate to them and vice versa – you only have to look at a gaggle of Tories on Newsnicht to see what I mean. This is partly image and partly their policies and outlook on life – both need to change. However, to be a hated tribe for memories buried deep in folk memory is not healthy.

Firstly, there is a place for the case to be made for low taxes and small government, for a socially conservative vision of society and family, and for respect and value in some of our institutions. They will also argue for certain right wing economic theories or perhaps the case against Europe.

I have never been a Conservative and don’t expect to ever be one, but these are all legitimate positions and in a healthy and effective democracy someone needs to argue the case for these ideas.

Secondly, in a political system based on pluralism as ours is in Scotland much more so than in England, we need to be tolerant and understanding of the politics of coalition. It is a reality in council chambers up and down the land, it is more than likely as the outcome of a Holyrood election, and even at Westminster our current electoral system is more likely to bring about coalitions than before. This means that the Conservatives may need to play their role in one and we need political debate that is more adult and less tribal as a consequence.

Interestingly, there was almost a command and supply relationship between the SNP and the Conservatives after 2007. But this was a relationship that dared not speak its name. It’s time to allow the Conservatives out of the closet.

Finally, I have noticed that some Nationalists argue they want to defeat poverty and bring about social justice in the modern Scotland - but the only way this can be done is in an Independent Scotland. How can this be so? The reason it can be so is that England keeps on imposing alien Conservative regimes on Scotland who are against such left of centre agendas. Indeed, making sure we do not have a Conservative regime enforced on us period, is a key driver for having Independence.

This strikes me as most unhealthy reasoning. There is absolutely no reason why we should not achieve these laudable aims as part of the UK. This reasoning is getting dangerously close to a basic anti-English sentiment which never lies far beneath the surface with some nationalists. This reasoning also exposes that everything the nationalists argue must be seen through the prism of achieving Independence. This is their raison d’etre. Everything is capable of being manipulated to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK so the Scots turn to Independence.

Now, perhaps more than at any other time, political conditions are near perfect for Nationalists. A different party in charge north and south of the border; a party that they can present as universally bad as well as alien; and they are in alliance with the LibDems off and gain enough votes to match or even overhaul Labour.

This alliance is nothing of course to do with two parties taking responsibility to form a government when none was chosen, and taking responsibility to deal with the unprecedented set of circumstances in front of them! This of course makes no serious or reasonable attempt to understand the things the LibDems bring to government and the things they may temper in the Tories.

No, the arguments are tribal, and the Tories have to play the role of an exiled tribe like the Eloi and the Morlocks.

This is all good politics – just as long as voters realise that this is what is going on. However, it is bad for reasoned debate or any serious attempt to get to grips with our problems and work out solutions in a dangerous and difficult world.

s

Total LibDemmery - new life through blogging

Well this week Total Politics finish announcing their Blog awards for 2011. Scottish blogging amongst the LibDems has come out of it looking remarkably healthy. I counted 19 Scottish LibDem blogs with a variety of styles in the top 100.

There is no doubt it has been a really tough year to be a Scottish Libdem. If we are to weather the current storm we need to rejuvenate intellectually. Never mind anyone else, a crucial part of this is that we need to start with defining who we are and what we believe. Then we need to communicate that. We must be clear of this and rebuild on that basis.

This is perhaps more than any other time since the 1920s a time of political realignment. Political voting blocs have been breaking down for a while now and the voters are more volatile than ever. Gone are the old certainties. This is true throughout the United Kingdom but even more so in Scotland.

These shifting sands threaten to create a new landscape – one in which a party can take new form and new strength; or one in which it can get eroded away.

This is therefore time for rebirth and we must define who we are and what we are about from first principles and blogging is a crucial part of that.

And these blogs come in all shapes and sizes. Some are about activism, some about ideas and some are just ordinary people making comments and observations on life. All play a part in rebirth and in being a living and thriving movement.

If the embers burn strong, the fire can catch light again and connect with the people who think as we think.

Total Politics - Total Libdemmery

So what of the Scottish blogging scene for the LibDems? First a word of thanks.

I was absolutely thrilled to be in both the Top 25 LibDem Blogs and the Top 25 Scottish Blogs for The View to the Hills and I am one of the Top 35 LibDem Bloggers.

I had hoped to get a rating since starting to blog in April this year. I wanted this to help establish my blog and my blogging escapades. However, I have been slightly embarrassed but dead chuffed to come in as 21st best political blog in Scotland and the 23rd best LibDem blog in the UK.

Thank you so much to everyone who voted for me - it means a lot! :)

As I said, depending on how you count them there are 19 Scottish bloggers in the top 100 LibDem blogs. They are a disparate bunch with contrasting but complementary styles.

Caron has the top LibDem blog after the successful group LibDem blog, LibDem Voice. She is one of the most outstanding bloggers of British political blogging today from across the political spectrum. She writes with honesty and with passion and of real life experiences. She is also an articulate advocate of her causes and a voice for the party in Scotland. Most of all her voice is one of real character and feeling.

The legendary Andrew Reeves comes in at 4th place.

Stephen Glenn is another blogging legend and aficionado of the Tour de France. He's moved to Northern Ireland but he is still a card carrying Scottish LibDem so he counts. Stephen comes in at 5th position.

Andrew Page comes in at 7 with the excellent A Scottish Liberal. This is a very different type of blog to Caron's. Andrew is an excellent writer and analyst about a broad range of policy and philosophical topics. It is great to see him recognised as such across Scotland and throughout the UK. And he speaks Gaelic.

Fraser Macpherson comes in at 9 with his long running masterclass in running a councillor’s blog.

Dan Falchikov comes in at 15 - a London Scot and, as Caron says, as much a Scot as Jeff Breslin. He runs a classic columnist style blog, regular and espousing rich opinions. With his father active in Edinburgh he is in a way Scottish LibDem royalty.

Caron also claims the learned and Cicero - another quite excellent writer - because he is Scottish. He comes in at 19.

Then there are the councillors David May, Sanjay Samani, and Paul Edie. There is also the brilliantly named Climbing Russell's Mountain by Councillor Keith Legg, although it is more than a councillor's blog.

There is Wild Women,an excellent group blog for Scottsh Women. Liberal Youth Scotland is the group blog for a vibrant youth movement.

Blogging regularly from the West coast is Nic Prigg,and newcomer Gordon Anderson with Social Liberal in the Pursuit of Fairness; and in the East is An Independence Minded Liberal by Douglas McLellan. Douglas is a far more talented writer and commentator than he realises and I wish he could write more often. I'm also think he should have kept the brilliant title Midlothian Liberal which was his brand and an excellent and distinctive one at that.

James Taylor's Liberal Thought, and Alex Cole-Hamilton's Liberal Landslide, are both quality blogs by two people who really should blog more often.  James Taylor in particular provides a multi-page blog and a fusion of business, innovation, and the arts as well as politics.

These represent the ideas and values of a living party. My sincerest hope is that they continue to feed the party and it begins to grow strong and find its place again in the scottish political environment.

s

Myth busting with Michael Moore

Michael Moore, the Secretary State for Scotland, was in the news last week for making an important speech on the future for Devolution in Scotland.

In the speech he highlighted the UK Government’s Scotland Bill and what he believed it could mean for Scotland, and he set out to show it as an alternative to Independence in the range of options Scotland now has.

As such he set out a rebuttal to nationalism and made the case to consider alternatives studied by Calman and being offered through the Scotland Bill.

Central to his argument was that there will need to be proper scrutiny of any referendum proposals put forward by the Holyrood administration.

He noted, as many of us will have observed, that the SNP thus far have been shy about fleshing out precisely what they mean by independence.

He challenged this by posing 6 questions that need answered in order to understand and then assess the viability of the independence options.

This much readers of this blog will probably be fully aware of.

There is something of myth developing in some quarters that this was a slightly tired and lame attack on independence.  I don’t think it was that at all, and to see it like that was to miss the point being made.

This seemed to me to be a totally reasonable speech and totally reasonable and pertinent questions.

The First Minister’s spokesman called the speech embarrassing and confused.  Many of the polemicists and iconoclasts amongst the cyber nats chose to follow what is very much the house narrative about Michael Moore - whatever he says.  Indeed they are invariably somewhat churlish if not just plain nasty about him.

Such is the business of politics.

Some of the press reaction surprised me.

Iain MacWhirter speaking on “Newsnicht” last Thursday said debate has moved on and the UK government was trying to create fear that Scotland can’t survive as an independent country – that our financial services industry will somehow fail in this set-up.

This was not how I read what was being said at all.

I think it is absolutely right to question Salmond and the nationalist agenda.  We need clarity from the SNP as to where they are taking us, especially as they are now saying things about the links they will maintain with the UK.

We need to move the debate forward ahead of any referendum.

Where I thought MacWhirter was uncharacteristically wrong was that this is not saying 'Scotland cannot survive, so don’t go there or your head will drop off'.  Rather, it is asking for the detail to be put on the table so we can have a detailed debate about all the options and decide where we are going.

This is important.  The SNP won big but it was not a mandate for independence.  They have earned the right to put a referendum and proposals for constitutional change to us.

These are big questions and hitherto most Scots have been against independence. This is a question that involves us all and involves all the options – not just what the national party of Scotland wants.

I also noticed some rather patronising swatting away of these 6 questions saying they had been answered in 2009 in the white paper “Your Scotland, Your Choice”

No they hadn’t!!  At least not in any detail!

If we are to have a referendum we need to discuss precisely these issues in some detail and the practicalities of implementing what is proposed. 

The point is not scaremongering – the debate has indeed moved on.  The point is considering the pros and cons of independence and the other options available, and then the Scottish people deciding on the constitutional direction we want to go in.

Some of these questions will have a perfectly good answer, others will not, but they are important.

Isabel Fraser on 'Newsnicht' seemed to think that issues about finance and the cost of independence had been settled and the debate on that had moved on too.  I don’t think anything has been settled.  As far as costs or financial regulations are concerned we continue to see different arguments being made, quite rationally, with different facts being used.  These issues need debated.   

Two other myths I would like to bust

First that Michael Moore is somehow confused.

Michael Moore is an extremely straightforward and reasonable politician and a first rate constituency MP.

As a minister he is highly intelligent and pays attention to detail.  His is a forensic mind suited to the legislative process and the hard yards of detailed policy implementation.

In fact he forms a highly effective double-act with the Scottish Lib Dem leader, Willie Rennie who is more the performing combative politician in the bear-pit.

The second myth is that Michael Moore is some sort of foreign interloper.

It’s his job as Secretary of State.  As such he is in a pivotal position between the national government and the Scottish administration.  And he is an extremely proud Scotsman representing us in the Westminster arena, just as there are proud Scotsman working in the Holyrood context.

The SNP inevitably try to drive a wedge between Michael Moore at Westminster and Scotland.   

Some of the nationalist writers, set firm in their fantasyland where no one is allowed to fall out of line with the national party, like to present him as some sort of last viceroy.

Wrong again!!  He is a Scot and he is performing a Scottish role in national government in our parliament – at the UK level – it’s not the empire!

But then the Nationalists seem to believe they are on the side of the angels in an evolving utopia under their own Laird Protector Alex.

At best this is a little delusional, at worst it is driven by a latent anti English sentiment.

As Jim Wallace said in the Times this Saturday, this is unimpressive rhetoric, “that somehow of all the countries in the rest of the world that have experienced economic difficulty, Scotland would be the one that doesn’t have to engage in deficit reduction and is only doing so because it’s being foisted upon us by Westminster.”

Nick Clegg - grace and resilience under presssure

The Cleggster visited Edinburgh yesterday and I was lucky enough to get a chance to hear him speak.

He started by saying that it has been a tough time for the LibDems since entering coalition government with the Conservatives.  And it has been tough nowhere more than Scotland.

With this in mind it was interesting to see what Clegg had to say and what reception he got from Scottish LibDems.

He got a laugh when he pointed out that the universally inoffensive party has become universally offensive.

Nick said he had often asked himself, "could I have done something different, should I have done something different?"

He concluded no! He pointed out that there were parts of Britain where there was an intense and profound enmity towards the Conservative Party and the LibDem business arrangement with them in this parliament was a real turn-off to voters.  This was true in Scotland but also in wales and may parts of northern England.

The same would be true in reverse with any alliance with the Labour party.  The real tribal hatred of Labour and socialism was deeply ingrained across large swathes of the south of England and parts of the midlands.

Peacetime coalition was a really mind blowing concept for many in our highly polarised political system.

And the LibDems face bile daily from certain newspapers who used to ignore or patronise the LibDems. "We’ve messed up the mental map of both the Guardian and the Daily Mail," he said.

The subtext for the hour Clegg spoke and took questions soon developed.  It was firstly the need to show grace and resilience under pressure; and secondly the need to connect with the day to to day concerns of men and women and not get carried away by political hobby horses.


It was important to remember that everything the LibDems will achieve has to be in coalition with others with just 8% of the MPs in the House of Commons.  "After all we did not win the General Election."  There has to be compromise and pragmatism to get things done.  But Nick has always been an advocate of working with others and pluralism to achieve benefits for the people.

There were some who ranted seeing every compromise as a betrayal but this was not realistic and was often tribal posturing by those stuck in that polarised model of the political process.


Nick argued passionately it was about having a focus on what difference we make to peoples' lives.

The coalition and the cuts

He also reminded the audience that the coalition was formed in the midst of an economic emergency.  We had to start to deal with the deficit because if, as a country, we could not remain masters of our own destiny then very quickly we would have found ourselves subject to enormous uncontrollable international forces that could threaten to destroy our economy.

That was why it was so important to start the programme for government by dealing with the deficit.

There was an argument going around that there was an agenda of public sector cuts being promoted by a right wing ideological faction in government.

He reminded us that the alternative Labour plan involved £14bn of cuts, compared with the coalition plan of £16bn!!  And that the proposed spending cuts would take public sector spending down to 41% of GDP and this was still 5% more than when Tony Blair took over as PM!

On the economic question Nick Clegg was at his most impressive when talking about what he saw as the complete collapse of the way we have been running the UK economy since the mid 1980s.  As an idealised view of financial services relying on city as an engine of growth; complete with very high levels of both government and private debt.

This created an illusion of prosperity.  There is a need now, he argues, to develop a new vision for what the new economy looks like based on green sustainable industries and producing goods and services for which there is a demand.

Rebuilding trust

Someone pointed out to Nick that "we’ve lost the trust of the people" and asked, "how can we rebuild that trust?"

Clegg was very realistic in his answer

1. We can't reconstruct trust overnight

2. We need to explain why we have done what we have done

3. We need to explain what we are trying to do for long term benefit of society and the economy.

4.  We need to deliver on the four priorities the LibDems set at the General Election in 2010.

5.  In this way people can understand the overall purpose of what we are trying to do.


What did he feel the LibDems had delivered in government?

Nick showed confidence and self belief and a wide grasp of his brief.

Firstly, in terms of the four key LibDem priorities he picked out what was being delivered on:

• Fair taxes that put money back in your pocket. - the raising of the tax threshold to benefit the lower paid
• A fair chance for every child. - which in England and Wales has meant targeted resources to nursery education and the pupil premium
• A fair future, creating jobs by making Britain greener. - this has seen enormous progress, the 'Green Deal' which is intended to revolutionise the energy efficiency of British properties and the commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 30%, and our input into the Cancun conference. 
• A fair deal for you from politicians - the agenda of reform including the House of Lords and role of MPs. 

Secondly, look out for how the Green agenda develops and we take tax reform forward and some important developments to take banking reform forward.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly to Nick Clegg I felt, he picked out three key achievements

• We have 1/4 million more apprenticeships than under Labour - thanks to Vince Cable
• We have restored the earnings link with pensions thanks to Steve Webb
• We have started to reform the income tax threshold.

Indeed Nick picked out Steve Webb, the pensions minister, as an expert in the field who has been winning praise from all sides for what he is doing with pensions!

On Scotland

Nick was effusive in his praise for Willie Rennie, the Scottish LibDem leader.

As well as praising his energy he noted Willie was a brilliant example of the graceful resilience he called for.

Nick said the thing that Willie was doing particularly well in this regard was not to rant, or to be negative but to keep asking questions of the Nationalist administration at Holyrood.  Question how things will work, how they will be implemented, how much they will cost and where the money will come from?

Already there was a sense that when Alex Salmond climbed down from wrapping himself in the Saltire and engaged in the detail of substantive questions that made a difference to men and women there were gaps.  Particularly, in this term there is a need to move the focus away from constitutional questions that delight political obsessives and towards what it will mean for ordinary men and women of Scotland.

A note of optimism

Nick struck a note of optimism towards the end of his talk.

Membership has begun to rise again, albeit slowly.  The LibDems were beginning to win local by-elections again in some parts of the country.  The opinion polls are seeing a slight uplift.

More people are saying quietly on the doorstep that the LibDems are doing the right thing.  Not always of course - there is hostility in a way the LibDems have not been used to but there is an improvement in the air.

The significance of this was that Nick felt some LibDems have been left shell shocked by a tough year but it was time to get back on the front foot.  There would be challenges but there were more open ears than perhaps many realised - to someone who communicates what they are doing and why with grace and resilience.

Why Edinburgh City Council has an extremely effective administration

Just one final reflection on the council by-election in Edinburgh last week and I think this is important.  The idea that the LibDem led council is a bad administration is a total myth and bears no relation to an examination of the facts.

Over the weekend I have talked with a number of people close to council affairs.  Since 2007 the LibDems have in fact run the city extremely well but what they have failed to do is be political and have at times lacked an eye to the politics of some of the situations the city council has faced. 

Just to pick a few key points

The LibDem have put the council back on a firm financial footing after replacing a disastrous Labour regime last time who left the municipal finances in a parlous state!

This council administration has been enormously successful with its housing policies.  They have started the first council house building for decades, have improved the conditions of the existing housing stock and homelessness is falling.

They have transformed care for the elderly and the vulnerable for the better.

They have also increased recycling massively – by close to 50% and its getting better all the time.

In addition there has been some real added value capital investments bringing a variety of  deliverables to enhance communities across the city - in terms of education, leisure and community facilities.

And there has been more progress in terms of education, economic development, and council administration.  No doubt I will get the chance to write more about some of these over the next few weeks.

No doubt there are other factors the council's opponents will wish to throw into the pot to form parts of a heated debate between now and next May.  But the fact remains that far from being unsuccessful this has been an extremely effective and  positive administration for Edinburgh that has achieved a lot and made enormous progress across the board.