North to Leith

RBS Board

2009-12-03T10:33:00.002Z

The RBS Board have threatened to resign if they aren`t allowed to pay out £1.5bn in bonuses...

Er...bye then!

It may be a bit of a simplistic view but seeing as you lads seem to have a spare £1.5bn then why not pay some of that money (you know, the stuff that came from the taxpayers) back to the Government.

Remind me, how much do you lads owe us?

Dear Secretary of State

2009-12-02T20:05:00.004Z

The Release Florence and Precious Mhango campaign has fired out the text of an email that the News of the World's Scottish Political Editor Euan McColm sent to Jim Murphy about the pair who are still in detention in Yarls Wood.

---

Dear Secretary of State,

How are you? I hope you and your family are all doing well and looking forward to Christmas.

I think you’ll remember we met this summer, out in Arden, the tough Glasgow scheme where you grew up. I was struck by how you described the way your upbringing had shaped your politics.

You spoke about your desire to make life better for some of society’s most disadvantaged people. And you know what? I believed – and still do - that you were sincere.

You told me how spending your teens in South Africa, where your black playmates were victims of the disgusting Apartheid regime, had further concentrated your mind.

I found your words eloquent and compelling.

And it’s with this in mind that I’m writing to you about Precious Mhango.

You may have heard about this 10-year-old girl. She was born in Malawi, into poverty, and at the age of three was brought to the UK by her parents.

She and her mum, Florence, came to the UK with her dad and Precious soon set about making new pals, first in England.

But life was still tough. Precious and Florence moved to the Cranhill area of Glasgow in December 2006, to get away from her dad, who had started mistreating them.

It was – you can imagine – a very traumatic time for a wee girl. But the great news is that Precious soon started to flourish. She’s a model pupil at St Maria Goretti Primary and a keen churchgoer. And she speaks with a Scottish accent.

But that counted for nothing last week when Precious and Florence were taken from their home in Scotland and sent to the Yarls Wood detention centre near London to await deportation.

The terrified pair were on a plane awaiting the return to Malawi when, at the last minute, QC Paul Chen, took up their case. He’s now fighting for their right to stay.
You may be interested to learn that Precious’s dad has already been given leave to remain in the UK – effectively, by breaking free from him, they have sacrificed their chance of a life here.

Do you know that the Home Office actually told Florence that since her ex-husband lives here, she and Precious would be at no risk of him in Malawi?

That seems terribly wrong to me. Are we really welcoming the right person?
You and I discussed Scottishness when we me last met. You argued that being Scottish was not about politics. You said that both you and First Minister Alex Salmond were equally patriotic Scots and I happily accepted that.

You said that Scottishness was about playing a part in the life of our great country and, again, I found that difficult to disagree with.

Well, Mr Murphy, I want to argue that Precious Mhango is a real Scot. She’s been playing a part in our country. She’s a success at school in a part of Glasgow often written off. She is, I think, the sort of person who good people got into politics to help.

If Precious is sent back to Malawi, her estranged father’s family will have a claim on her. There are genuine fears that, before long, she could fall victim to the barbaric practice of female circumcision. Although this is rare, Precious’s in-laws are said to believe in it.

I know, Secretary of State, that this is a difficult issue. The Government is right to be tightening up immigration procedures. This action must not only prevent bogus asylum claims, it must also make the procedure more efficient and humane for those seeking refuge.

I wonder if you might consider, on behalf of Scotland, raising this issue with your colleague, immigration minister Phil Woolas?

Surely we must know that deporting this little Scottish girl is the right thing to do before we do it?

I’d contend that being sent to Malawi will be as traumatic for Precious as it would for any other 10 year-old-child living in Cranhill.

SNP MSP Anne McLaughlin has been fighting for Precious and Florence. She’s a new MSP, but Anne has already started to build cross party support for this mother and daughter.

And the good people of Cranhill – the same sort of folk as the good people of Arden about whom you spoke so warmly – are rallying round, donating to legal funds and lobbying hard.

These people can only do so much. Your political career has taken you to the top. You know the system – and you have real power. I don’t expect you to abuse that power – but please think about using it.

Jim, this is not about politics. It’s not about policy. It’s about doing the right thing.
From one dad to another, I hope you can help.

With best wishes

Euan

PS-I have copied this email to readers of the News of the World.

---
You may be interested to know that there is a campaign fund for Precious and Florence (to pay for the legal fees of fighting their case).

The details for donations are...

Account: CRANHILL WORLD CAFE
Sort code: 83 21 27
Account number: 10015466
Royal Bank of Scotland
1304 Duke Street
Glasgow G31 5PZ

Surprise!

2009-11-30T17:26:00.004Z

The Telegraph's own Benedict Brogan has highlighted a piece of speculation from Morgan Stanley that will make for unhappy reading in HM Treasury.

Morgan Stanley predicts a number of 'surprises' for the world's economy, including;

"Surprise #3: UK becomes the first of the G10 to have a major fiscal crisis as elections lead to a hung parliament.

UK fiscal crisis exacerbated by political gridlock. The poor state of government finances is one of the key risks we see in the medium-term. Therefore, one tail risk and potential surprise is that a government bond and FX crisis materializes already in 2010.

One candidate for such a scenario is the UK where the upcoming elections could provide a catalyst, particularly if they result in a hung parliament. Such an outcome would likely lead to either a coalition or minority government where the ability to govern effectively will depend on the main party's ability to forge a consensus view to drive through necessary change.

In the run-up to the election growing fears over a hung parliament would likely weigh on both the currency and gilt yields as it would represent something of a leap into the unknown (given that the last hung parliament in the UK happened in 1974) and would increase the probability that some of the rating agencies remove the UK's AAA status."

This argument seems to be that a hung parliament would lead to the collapse of the economy. So if it looks like a hung parliament is in the office look forward to the smaller parties dusting off their wishlists...you want a stable Government Mr Cameron/Brown...then you have to deliver policy X for us.

The SNP, Lib Dems (and maybe even a few Green MPs) could have considerably more clout after the election than people might think.

Gordon can`t win

2009-11-30T14:33:00.003Z

I`m going to do the strangest of things and come to the defence of Gordon Brown...believe me I`m no happier about this than you are.

Brown, as PM, gave into the pressure that was growing for a number of years for an inquiry to be held into the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war. When he first mooted this in the summer it was his intention that the inquiry be held in private. It quickly became obvious that this was an untenable position and minds were changed so that the inquiry would be held in public.

Now it seems that some of Brown’s own ministers are complaining about the impact that the inquiry will have on their parties electoral fortunes at the Westminster election.

Some are these Labour Ministers are briefing that the inquiry is opening a can of worms and will only grow in the public consciousness – I would agree. Revelations have already been made at the inquiry and the Indy has reported that “There were calls for the immediate publication of the legal advice on the invasion, after new claims that Lord Goldsmith, when he was Attorney General, told Mr Blair eight months before the conflict that it was illegal under international law to depose Saddam Hussein. His July 2002 letter is believed to have been submitted to the Chilcot inquiry, and both Mr Blair and Lord Goldsmith are likely to be asked about it.

Such revelations, the Labour Ministers suppose, will hurt them and help the anti-war parties. This may be the case but there is something deeper that these Labour Ministers should consider – holding the inquiry was the right thing to do.

So while I may consider Brown to be generally pretty useless and a lame duck Prime Minister he was right to hold the inquiry (however reluctant he was for it to go ahead in public). As Gloria Stein once said ‘the truth will set you free, but first it’ll piss you off’.

Alcohol

2009-11-29T22:00:00.002Z

I watched Question Time on the BBC with some interest as it was broadcast from our very own ‘Edinburgh’.

While Jo Swinson may have been bumped from the panel for a living breathing stereotypical Daily Mail columnist the other contributors defended their own particular flags (with the exception of Charlie Falconer getting a bit of a shoo-ing from the audience over the Iraq inquiry) fairly well.

As Nicola Sturgeon was on the panel the question of minimum alcohol pricing came up and she set out the stall for the policy. I was a wee bit surprised to see the panel arrive a general agreement that, yes, this was the sort of thing that should be done. Although, in fairness to Falconer he did rather suggest that since she couldn`t say for definite what the outcome of the policy would be in all circumstances that it shouldn`t go ahead...without realising this would stop any piece of public policy...perhaps that’s what he was suggesting!

The picture in the Scottish Parliament is quite different where the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and Labour have all come out against the policy to a greater or lesser extent. It had looked for some time that Labour were on the verge of supporting minimum pricing only for Iain Gray to kick it into the long grass by promising a Labour Alcohol Commission.

I think that this action shows where the influence is on Gray from within the Labour group. Baker and Baillie are vehemently against and are, to my mind, among the more reactionary anti-SNP elements within Labour – opposition for its own sake. Whereas I understand that the likes of Chisholm and past Justice Minister Jamieson are sympathetic to the proposal. Chisholm has gone do far as to respond to a query from the Royal College of Physicians about minimum pricing; stating that "I believe that a range of measures must be taken to combat the serious problems caused by alcohol in Scotland...I believe that price is a key element and I am persuaded by the arguments in favour of minimum pricing."

Chisholm and Jamieson are among those on the Labour benches I would consider to be straight up social democrats with a bit of principle behind them. When I think of generally decent sorts and social democrats within Labour there is another who springs to mind – Susan Deacon.

Deacon (like Chisholm) is a past Labour Health Minister, left the parliament in 2007 and has come out in support of minimum pricing saying on the Politics Show today that it was the "the right way to go". She also said that "I think, frankly, the Labour Party in Scotland has ended up in the wrong place for the wrong reasons on this issue."

So that’s two former Labour Health Ministers, Willie Bain of the Lib Dems, BMA Scotland, the Licensed Trade Association...and a few others besides backing minimum pricing.

Iain Gray should maybe consider who to set his political compass by – the social democrats or the attack dogs...

Love is...

2009-11-28T20:44:00.000Z

Love is...not a party political issue. As such I'd like to draw your attention to a post from the Lib Dems own Caron on 'equal marriage'.

What is equal marriage? Its the fairly simple idea that marriage is something that should be open to two individuals. That all. And yes I do mean between two chaps, or two chapesses ,or a chap and a chapess.

Currently marriage is only open to a union of a chap and a chapess. If either of the other potential combos wants to form a legal union they have to get a civil partnership. Now don't get me wrong, I welcome civil partnerships as an innovation, I just don't see why we would segregate between the different combinations of two people wanting to get together.

Marriage simply being a legal union between any two people who chose to enter into it has already been recognised in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa and Norway.

I`m not for one minute suggesting that the various religions out there be compelled to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies against their will. But I do think that marriage as a legal union between two people should be open to same-sex couples. If any particular religion wants to open its religious marriage ceremonies (as the Quakers have) to same-sex couples then that is their business, but the state should make them available.

Going out with a eco-friendly bang?

2009-11-26T10:29:00.000Z

Jeff over at SNPTV posted recently on the news that Robin Harper MSP is going to contest the seat of Edinburgh East in the upcoming Westminster elections. In response I left something of an Über comment which I’ve rehashed here as a post.

With Robin Harper entering the fray in Edinburgh East the obvious question is who does this damage more? Labour or SNP? Looking at the makeup of Edinburgh East I`d tend to think that the most damage done will actually be to the Lib Dems. LDs had a good showing in the seat in 2005 but have evaporated since.

But between the two real contenders for the seat I think that it’s the SNP, as in North and Leith, that will benefit from the Greens being on the ballot. Consider the sort of coverage the seat will get in the press - Robin Harper, George Kerevan and Shelia Gilmore...who do you think the journos will cover? I think they'll cover the colourful politico (Robin) and one of their own (George).

In truth Robin doesn't stand a chance, but I suspect he's more than aware of that. The Green aim here has definitely got to be long term. This longer term electoral strategy is to their credit and they have organised very sensibly since 1999.

Compare them with the SSP. The SSP stood in most all (if not all) seats and lost deposits galore as they rocked in shock that the masses hadn`t swung behind them. It locked in activists in areas that they were doomed from the start and was a massive drain on financial resources.

The Greens, by contrast, initially only stood on the list...assessed where they were doing well...stood a few candidates in their best areas in 2005...and built the base. They have sought to cement their base through utilising councillors etc. Build and consolidate. For me they are now the textbook example of how a small party should organise for national elections.

My own theory on Robin standing for Westminster is that this is his retirement plan - one last push for the party.

Stand in Edinburgh East...raise the profile and the vote...stand down from the Scottish Parliament in the run into the election to show he's 'serious' about his prospects...and allow the next Green on the Lothians list a year to raise their profile as an MSP as they run into the 2011 election hunting for an improved performance and 2 MSPs on the list.

This time next year I expect we’ll see that the two Green MSPs in the Scottish parliament are Patrick Harvie and Mark Ballard.

The Ring

2009-11-25T19:53:00.007Z

And lo, there is fresh round of naval gazing within the Scottish political blogosphere on the future of blogging and the like.

Jeff at SNPTV has considered if Scottish blogging is dying...
Chris at Leaves on the Line is bored of the Midnight Cowboys...
Calum at, well, himself prefers a straight up rammy of ideas..
And Will of J Arthur McNumpty is considering things upon his blog’s 4th birthday.

I`m sure what you’ve all been hanging on tenterhooks for the NtL take on the State of the Blognation.

First up the Wardog(...debacle?...shenanigans?) hoopla. Wardog was a self-avowed nationalistic blogger but was not actually an SNP member. His blog was a vessel for some furious anger and made a number of unsubstantiated claims about some Labour politicos.

A few members of the Scottish Press Corp (Holyrood Division) read his blog and scented a tale. Wardog was open on his blog about his identity and the journos only had to make a few cursory google searches and hey presto they had some column inches filled. One of the details they discovered was that Wardog was a part-time lecturer for RGU and so they made the call to the Uni high heid yins. Wardog decided that life was too short to have such press attention on his blog and hung up his keyboard.

Who are the villains of this piece?

Those nasty bad journos? I don`t think so (jeezo defending hacks for the second time...) as they were, after all, doing their job. Now I understand that people may not like what that job entails but it is what it is. A few folk have screamed that the affair has been an attack on freedom of speech and that it was all a Labour organised plot as all of these hacks are Labour and unionist nudge nudge wink wink. Eh, no they are not. If Labour did hold such sway with the Scottish Press Corp don’t you think their coverage over the last 12 months should have been a lot better? If the Scottish Press are their friends...then who need friends! Time to put away the tin foil hats. (Rather than rerun my past arguments on Journos see here) Does the SNP get a hard time in the press...yes I think it does, but that is much more to do with the editorial line as set by the editors and owners of those organs and not their hired hands.

Wardog was free (and indeed is free) to say what he liked on his blog. Just as the press were free to report it. The confusion that some are making is the difference between freedom of speech and freedom from consequence. The minute that any of us starts a political blog, and begins to give our views in a manner that can be read by all and sundry, we have entered into the ring. And if you are in the ring and start to throw a few punches yourself you can`t be too surprised if a few punches come your way every now and again – be that in the form of comments on the blogs or, as in this case, in the press.

Just because it’s a blog doesn`t mean that the laws of defamation doesn`t apply. Publish and be damned I say. There have been a few concerned that Wardog used bad sweary words (‘jings’, I would even go so far as to say ‘crivens’). I`m not really fussed about that to be honest. If that is the style you want to go in for then gaun yersel, but it ain`t for me. Don`t get me wrong, in daily life I cuss away with the best of them but if I`m on the blog and trying to make a point...then retreating to swearing just seems a bit too limp to do the job. So please be assured that this blog will remain a ‘family show’.

Is this a problem for the SNP? I don`t think so to be honest. I don`t see how the party, or indeed any party, can be held responsible for the outpourings of a random punter – and a punter who is not even a member of that party. Party MSPs, MPs, Councillors, Candidates....if this lot starts to talk nonsense on their blogs then I would argue that then this would indeed be something that reflects on the party.

For example, if Richard Thomson was to start spouting unpleasantries and fabricated stories on his blog then I would argue that this would be a problem for the party, whereas if Will Patterson was to do the same I would argue it isn`t a problem for the party. The difference being that Will is a private citizen and Richard is a representative of the party as a parliamentary candidate. I`m pleased to say that knowing both of these fine fellows that neither are likely to embarrass themselves or the party anytime soon.

The NtL take in short...

Swearing is not, in and of itself, a bad thing but making up stories and engaging in defamation is. Scottish journos are not, on the whole, in the pocket of any political party. Some are indeed members of political parties...and some of the parties they are members of might surprise you.

And the President isn't...

2009-11-19T17:42:00.000Z

Blair - Ruled out by many.

Balkende - Ruled out himself.

Sounds like Van Rompuy has the gig.

Stands Belgium where it did?

I never thought I would see the day...

2009-11-13T01:53:00.003Z

I never thought I would see the day when I would be pleased to see a Conservative candidate do well...well come third anyway.

Update:
Well at least the LibDem is now free from the torture of appearing on television. But I suspect its not the last we will see from Ruth Davidson of the Tories.

Some Postal Facts

2009-11-12T18:50:00.006Z

Regular readers will know I`ve made a couple of posts on the, as yet unsubstantiated, comments/reports/posts that there had been a huge spike in the number of postal vote applications in days leading up to the cut-off point.

Well I have had it confirmed that in the final days that postal votes could be applied for that there were in fact around 1100 that were applied for.

Figures are Approx*

360 – 26/10/09

320 – 27/10/09

410 – 28/10/09

So of the 1800 total increase in the number of postal votes for this by-election 1100 were made in the dying days and that the overwhelming majority of that 1100 increase can be attributed by applications being handed in by Labour.

After a couple of days of postal ballot opening the rejection rates were running at 13%. I explored in a previous post the reason that postals get refused (have a wee look). There are 6000 postal votes in total...so at a 50% turnout there could be well over 300 postal ballots rejected if the rate of rejection was consistent across all the days the postals were being opened.

I think it could be time that the postal and proxy vote system was reassessed to ensure that a) people who may not be able to get the polls can still vote in a secure manner; and b) that people can have confidence that there is no scope for vote tampering in the electoral system.

One of the questions that would have to arise in such a reassessment is should political parties be permitted to being part of the delivery of recruitment of postal votes? I don`t have the answer as there may well be benefits to having politicos trying to drum up postals.

But if the system is flawed we must reform the system.

According to Jeff over at SNP Tactical Voting's live blog we can expect a 2am result.

Let the train take the strain?

2009-11-08T11:01:00.000Z

Reports this morning that the Labour UK Government has been rumbled in it's plans to axe the Glasgow to London train.

If the Glasgow to London train is axed...how will Wille Bain be able to commute to his work at South Bank University...

Postal Problems?

2009-11-06T18:42:00.000Z

Voting is already underway in Glasgow North East through postal votes. According to reports there has been a substanial increase in voter registration - including a massive increase in the number of postal ballots that have been requested.

There are over 6000 postal voters in GNE (including 600 delivered by Labour just hours before the deadline). There is no indication yet of the turnout of postal voters that is expected but word from Springburn is that at least 13% of the postal ballots received so far have been rejected.

13% strikes me as being a huge number of rejected ballots. Even during the chaos of the Scottish Parliament's electronic count the total rejected ballot was (from memory) a bit over 4% nationwide.

I suppose the question is why are so many postal ballots being rejected? For a postal ballot to be accepted it must arrive in the supplied envelope accompanied by a signed declaration which is within a second envelope. These steps are in place to try and make the vote more secure.

No declaration included - rejected ballot.
No signature - rejected ballot.
Signed declaration not in separate envelope - rejected ballot.
False signature - rejected ballot.

The signature is checked against the signature that was given in the postal vote application.

So why is over 1/8th of postal ballots getting rejected in Glasgow North East. At that level can it just be misunderstandings from the voters or is there more to it?

When Chris is more likely than David

2009-11-03T12:09:00.003Z

So I said that Milliband was not even the most likely Enlgishman to get the post of High Rep of the EU; Milliband's cards have already been marked by Poland over a stramash which centres on his comments about a Polish MEP in the same Euro grouping of Conservative MEPs.

If the High Rep was to come from England then there is another who would have a better chance – Chris Patten. Go on cast you mind back. You remember Chris Patten, tory chap who manned the last post in the empire.

Patten is a past EU commissioner for external affairs and was pipped by Barrosso in getting the post and President of the Commission as he lacked support from Germany and the French lobby were dead against him.

But times have changed and Patten offers a very interesting proposition. The Poles are now a diplomatic force to be reckoned with in the EU and Patten is talking their language in advocating being tough of Gazprom. Couple that with Sarkozy and Merkel needs to get the UK more onside with the EU. They can read the signs as well as anyone and know that Brown is finished as Prime Minister and the liklihood is that they will have to deal with Cameron as UK PM...and he has moved the Conservatives to a more and more antagonistic position towards the EU.

In Patten they would have a figure who is himself a Tory but is clearly pro-Europe. As well as offering a face to the world it would be a signal to PM Cameron to play nice with the boys and girls on the continent.

Some may think that Brown would seek to block a Tory getting the post, but consider the knots that Cameron may be tied in if one of his own was advocating the pro-EU line on the world stage. Brown would get to play the role of being Prime Ministerial an above party politics by endorsing the apparent appointment of an 'enemy'.

Does Patten stand a chance? Only if the UK negotiators play offended at the knock-back of Blair for President and will instead settle for Patten as High Rep. Only then would that appointment even start to become feasible.

Who are the runners for the post of High Rep? Well that'll have to be a post for another day...

No Tone in Europe

2009-11-02T19:40:00.001Z

So Tony Blair, like the old firm has been so often, is out of Europe before Christmas. You may recall that I have posted at some (painful) length that he stood no chance and so his people are backtracking and insisting that he was never really after the gig.

Which in a manner of speaking is true. The job that Blair was being touted for, that of President of Europe, simply did not (and does not) exist.

Who will get the job of President of the European Council? Again, I've blethered on at some length about the various runners and riders contending for the position (have a read if you've got the stam ina). Jan Peter Balkenende, the current PM of Holland, is the front-running 'compromise' candidate.

There is a second position on the go, 'High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy', which the press crudely refer to as the 'EU Foreign Minister'.

Rumour would have it that the Blair bid may have all be a sideshow to try and get Milliband into the position of High Rep. But I think he's snookered; I don't even think he's the most likley Englishman to stand a chance at the job...

Who was that nice young doctor?

2009-10-30T18:06:00.002Z

The wee story from Glasgow North East that Labour delivered some 600 postal vote applications at the last minute has attracted a few more comments on blogs carrying the tale.

Over at the blog of the dapper Dundonian Calum Cashely a chappie using the moniker of ‘redcliffe62’ left a comment saying:
“we need to know who the 600 added are and if they have been incentivised to vote labour or this has been done on the last day of their own volition. 600 in one day? it is a rort. but who arranged it. PERHAPS it is linked to 2 old folks homes visited, and the ballots are PERHAPS filled out for them? by those nice labour chappies who promised i can get a bigger pension and they were not cutting disability pensions, it must be the nasty SNP who are doing that.....”

So a fresh accusation (from another anonymous source, hmmm) that Labour bods in Glasgow North East have been working the nursing homes. I`m sure there is no suggestion that these residents won`t actually ever seen these ballots.

If there is any truth in these various anon comments that Labour are trying to play fast and loose with the postal voting system...wouldn`t it be just typical of Labour’s lack of competence recently that they would try to do this with postal votes in the midst of a postal strike.

The trouble with all of this, though, is that the comments are anonymous and could come from anywhere. Hopefully a solid source will be in a position to confirm or deny these figures and end the specualtion. What is the truth in this? Answers on a postcard please.

The Postman only rings...over 600 times.

2009-10-30T01:05:00.002Z

While having a wee look at Political Betting latest contribution to the 'EU president' debate (I know, I know...I should really stop) I spotted a couple of very interesting comments about matters a lot closer to home.

Someone with the moniker of 'Rob Roy' posted that “Rumours up here of “interesting” news from Glasgow North East, especially given the Glenrothes lost register.  Official figures show 4000 extra voters have been added to the electoral register in last month. Postal vote registrations are up almost 50% since campaign started, including 1200 in last 4 weeks. 600 postal votes supposedly delivered by Labour at last minute.  Even seasoned by-election campaigners are amazed by these numbers.

In my formative years I spent a fair bit of time in the constituency (oh, to see the flats in Pinkston Drive on a summer's day...) so I take a bit of interest in the old place.

Said 'Rob Roy' can apparently back up his statement with a a few numbers. RR says that the new electoral register was published today and there were “86 corrections, 385 deleted, and 4027 added. Total postal vote has gone up from 4200 to c6100, with 1200 extra in last month.” According to RR this represents a little under a 7% increase in register voters.

Rumbles like this (Labour 'delivering' 600 votes the day before registration closes!) can't help but bring the memory of the problems with the Glenrothes register and Labour postal vote stuffing scandals of a few years ago.

Time will tell if these accusations from Rob Roy come to anything or, if like so many wee snippets you see if the forums of PB etc, that there isn't much to it. Do I buy it? I think its a lot more likely than Blair becoming 'EU President!' (oh, there I go again...)

Update:
I think he who leaves on the line scooped me!

“And the Fianna Fáil MP enters the Commons...”

2009-10-29T17:34:00.008Z

Stands the SDLP where it did? Slugger O’Toole asks the interesting question ‘why is the point of the SDLP’.

The future of the SDLP has come up as they are currently on the hunt for a new leader and none of the opinions available seem to be that appealing. The SDLP were the voice of moderate nationalism in Northern Ireland during the many dark years of the ‘troubles’. Despite being among the principal architects of the Northern Irish devolution settlement it is Sinn Fein (SF), and not the SDLP, that has reaped the electoral benefits.

The SDLP has a problem, it is withering on the vine. All of us involved in politics should remember that political parties can die. So what should the SDLP do? Accept that the game is up, roll over and accept it? No, I don`t think so. What they do need is a radical change in how they are seen and how they operate.

The perennial answer to this problem is for the SDLP to merge with Fianna Fáil (FF). The idea being that the nationalist and republican communities in the North would respond to a moderate republican all-Ireland party and turn their backs on SF. In terms of policy there is a degree of sense as both the SDLP and FF are broadly socially conservative and are rooted in working class catholic communities. The prospect of a merger was first seriously mooted a couple of years ago after there was some talk of FF beginning to organise and campaign in Northern Ireland. FF never really took this plan forward but has said it may yet do this in future. A couple of years ago FF was still a fairly popular government in Ireland and would have been seen to lend some strength where the SDLP was weak. FF does bill themselves after all as ‘The Republican Party’.

It is technically possible that the SDLP Could become part of FF, with FF then bringing some of its renowned organisational abilities to bear. That could lead to FF MPs being elected to the Commons. FF has already taken the step of registering themselves with the UK electoral commission as a Northern Irish political party.

But times have changed and FF is not the popular force that it once was. How would an FF government in Dublin deal with Northern Irish MLAs? How would the unionist political forces view the Irish party of Government flexing its muscles as an all-Ireland party? The only answer to this question that springs to mind is ‘unhappy bunnies’.

Would it be advantageous for the SDLP to effectively merge with the British Labour party in the manner the UUP has done with the Conservatives...obviously not. You can`t be taken seriously as an Irish nationalist movement while inveigling yourself with a British party which is Unionist.

For mergers there is another option that may be the answer for the party - merging the SDLP with the Irish Labour party (IL). IL are the third force in Irish politics behind FF and Fine Gael (FG) and in their modern incarnation are the product of a merger with Democratic Left (DL) some years ago. Current Labour leader Eammon Gilmore was himself a DL TD. Like FF, IL have stepped back from organising in Northern Ireland and have broadly left it to their sister party, the SDLP.

Curiously the stumbling block to these two Labour parties coming together is that do have significant differences politically. IL has never really had the working class community roots of Labour parties elsewhere. IL could be considered to me a much more ‘intelligencia’ based party and are generally social liberal in outlook.

There could, though, be real benefits for IL in becoming an all-Ireland party as it may provide in-roads into traditional FF communities in Ireland.

The likelihood of the SDLP merging with either IL or FF is very slight and as such they might not have much of a future at all.

EU Council President: Runners and Riders

2009-10-28T15:21:00.007Z

Strap in because this is a very long post...

In my last post I said if you were lucky I’d tell you who I think will, and who I think should, get the job as President of the European Council. Well you lucky things here it is...

From all the speculation as to who might get the post there are 22 riders who are considered contenders.

Who?	F/I	Position	Nation
Bertie Ahern	Former	PM	Ireland
Jose-Maria Aznar	Former	PM	Spain
Tony Blair	Former	PM	UK
Jan Peter Balkenende	Incumbent	PM	Holland
Manuel Barroso	Incumbent	President	EU
Carl Bildt	Incumbent	Foreign Minister	Sweden
Dora Bakoyannis	Former	Minister	Greece
Francois Fillon	Incumbent	PM	Franch
Felipe Gonzalez	Former	PM	Spain
Tarja Halonen	Incumbent	President	Finland
Jean-Claude Juncker	Incumbent	PM	Luxembourg
Václav Klaus	Incumbent	President	Czech Rep
Aleksander Kwasniewski	Former	President	Polish
Paavo Lipponen	Former	PM	Finland
Angela Merkel	Incumbent	Chancellor	Germany
Ursula Plassnik	Former	Minister	Austria
Anders Fogh Rasmussen	Former	PM	Denmark
Herman Van Rompuy	Incumbent	PM	Belgium
Olli Rehn	Incumbent	Commissioner	Finland
Mary Robinson	Former	President	Ireland
Wolfgang Schüssel	Former	Chancellor	Austria

Some are former holders of senior political office in their own countries – and some are still in harness in those posts.

Of this bunch my own choice would be Mary Robinson, former Irish President and former UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. Sadly, Robinson has ruled herself out of the job and will be focussing on here ongoing good works. I`m still hoping that she can be persuaded to allow her name to go forward and she would be an excellent representative of the EU and is a respected figure.

The list above is fairly male heavy, so which other women could have a shot other than Robinson? Angela Merkel has been talked about but the chances of her leaving the post of Chancellor of Germany is zilch. Tarja Halonen, the Finnish President, is well regarded for her work in human rights but, again, I can`t see her leaving the post which she fought so hard to get.

Ursula Plassnik may be in with a chance as the acceptable face of Wolfgang Schüssel. However, she has knocked back chances to have a higher profile role in the council in the past. There is another problem for Plassnik getting the job – she stands at well over 6ft tall...can you image Sarkozy voting for a another woman to tower over him at photocalls?

For my money the woman who has the best shot at the post is former Greek foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis. Bakoyannis comes from a centre-right background, has wide experience in international affairs (including as a chair of OSCE). The appointment of Bakoyannis would, however, be seen to stymie any chance of Turkey joining the EU in the short term.

Of the chaps...

Bertie Ahern...nope...not after the tribunals back in Ireland. Aznar and Gonzalez...I don`t see there being much chance for a Spanish candidate while there is already a Portuguese President of the Commission – I suspect that would be viewed as making matters a little Iberian heavy.

Barroso? Nope. While it is theoretically possible that the President of the Commission and the President of the Council can be one and the same person...no one in the EU is that daft to try it. Václav Klaus doesn`t have much chance if the Czech’s are seeing as the ones holding up the Lisbon treaty being completely ratified. Olli Rehn is a sitting commissioner and has hinted he is interested in the job, but he has no cheering section (not even from the Finns) and its expected that he will try and return to domestic politics when his term is up.

Begian PM Herman Van Rompuy would be seen a safe pair of hands and something of an elder statesman...but it took them so long to settle a government in Belgium under Van Rompuy that I believe that no-one would want to rock that particular boat – although it is thought that Van Rompuy isn`t necessarily that happy in the post which has gone from short-term care-taker to something much longer term. Paavo Lipponen is out the game as Poland have already complained about his ties to Russian gas giant Gazprom. Francois Fillon, French Prime Minister, would be blocked as some of the smaller countries in the EU think that the President must not come from one of the big countries. Also Fillons close ties to Sarkozy would been seen as a problem.

Wolfgang Schüssel didn`t make himself many friends in Europe when he went into coalition with Jorg Haider during his time in office. Also while Schüssel may be from the small country of Austria he is still viewed as being Merkel’s ally. Aleksander Kwasniewski, former Polsih President, would be viewed by some as being the best option from ‘new’ Europe. He does have form in area of promoting tolerance and reconciliation, but he is of the centre left at a time when the centre right is in the ascendency in the EU.

Blair...war in Iraq...UK is not in the Eurozone...would seek to make it a powerful role...from a big country. I don`t see Blair standing any real chance. EU positions have serious form in the favourite not getting the job.

Carl Bildt, Foreign Minister of Sweden, and Jean-Claude Juncker, PM of Luxembourg, are in many ways similar characters. Generally well regarded as safe pairs of hands, no real enemies and come from small EU nations. Of the two Juncker is thought to covet the role as has been tipped as being the ‘safe and boring’ option. Bildt is a past PM of Sweden and has taken an active role in Balkan affairs for the the past 20 years or so. But, like the UK, Sweden is outside of the Eurozone and doesn`t look like joining anytime soon.

Jan Peter Balkenende, Dutch PM, is a Christian democrat and something of a mild mannered diplomat. He’s headed up the Dutch government for some time and would be seen as a more forward thinking appointment than Juncker. The question would be...does he want the job?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the past Prime Minister of Denmark and would have been a good bet for the post 12 months ago, but he has recently become the Secretary General of NATO and I doubt he’d leave that post after only a few months.

So where does that leave us?

I think that the current favourite for the post is Jan Peter Balkenende. He may not set the heather alight, but we have to remember that there are a great number of forces who do not want a ‘big character’ President and are instead looking for a efficient chairman. Balkenende fits that bill with a level of credibility that far outweighs the likes of Wolfgang Schüssel or Jean-Claude Juncker.

The fall-back should Balkenende say no would probably be Herman Van Rompuy; although he looks like a man who is looking forward to retirement.

As a wild-card they could do far worse than Dora Bakoyannis as the President, with the likes of Carl Bildt as the High Represenative.

In summary... I`d like Mary Robinson but I suspect we’ll get Jan Peter Balkenende.

Mr./ Г-н./pan./Heer./Hr./Arvoisa./M./Herr./K./An tUasal./Sig./Is-Sur./G. President

2009-10-23T15:14:00.003+01:00

There has been a little bit of rumblings it the paper over the notion that there is going to be a ‘President of Europe’. Since I`m a helpful sort I thought I’d try and clear a few things up for you.

First off, there is no single post called ‘President of Europe’. There are in fact three President posts in the EU.

President of the European Parliament.
President of the European Commission.
President of the European Council.

The European Parliament is the legislature of the EU and the President of the Parliament is the Chair of the Parliament in a role similar to that of Speaker or Presiding Officer. The post is filled by an MEP following an election by MEPS and is the official representative of the Parliament to the outside world. The current incumbent is Polish MEP Jerzy Buzek.

The European Commission is the executive of the EU and the President of the Commission is the Chair of the executive in a role similar to that of a Prime Minister or Head of Government. To get the post you must first be nominated by a member of the European Council, then elected by the Council by qualified majority voting, and then approved or vetoed by a vote of the European Parliament. The role of President of the European Commission is effectively the most powerful single position within the EU. The current incumbent is former Portuguese Prime Minister José Manuel Barroso.

The European Council is the highest political body in the EU and the Council as a whole has a role similar to that of a Head of State. The council is made of the heads of state or government of each of the member states. Currently the ‘President in Office’ is a member of the Commission whose state currently holds the Presidency – which rotates round the member states, changing every 6 months. The changes in the Lisbon Treaty means that there will be a President of the European Council who is elected by the council but who is not a member of it. The President is the chair of the Council.

In effect this role of President of the European Council would be similar to a symbolic and titular head of state. The post is meant to come into being at the start of next year but the delays in the Czechs ratifying the Lisbon Treaty may well hold this up.

Much of the development of the European project over the past 60 years has sat between 2 opposing schools of thought – those seeking to expand the borders of Europe by increasing membership and those seeking to increase the deepen level of integration between states.

Very roughly the notion goes that the EU cannot seek to deepen integration while it is expanding membership...and it can`t expand if there is ongoing deepening of integration.

In keeping with this there are now two very different visions of what the President of the European Council should do. The more expansionist position is that the President should be a figure who works to bring harmony within the EU and be a bit of a peace negotiator. The deepenist (apols) position would be that they want a President who will ‘lead’ the EU and be a high-profile international figure.

The personality of the incumbent will have a huge factor on defining what the role is as the Lisbon treaty is not actually that clear as to whether the President of the Council has any real power at all. My own prediction is that we won`t get the high profile President who seeks to speak for the entire EU, given the current mood music I believe it much more likely that we will see that conciliatory figure in post. As such I don`t think Blair stands a chance as he would be clearly preferred by those seeking a high-profile appointment.

If you are very lucky I may expand later on who I think will and who should get the gig.

Seat Projections – a joyfully fruitless exercise

2009-10-21T16:43:00.003+01:00

Regular readers will know I have something of a habit of saying that trying to work out how many seats a party will win based on polling is a bit of a fruitless exercise. But ill informed idle speculation is what blogs are for...

So here is number 6 in the ‘Just a bit of fun’ series.

According to politicalbetting.com there have been 13 UK wide polls in the last 14 days. If we were to take a rough average of the results its would indicate...

42% Conservative
28% Labour
18% LibDem
12% Other

650 MP berths to fill...

Northern Ireland
There are 18 MPs to be allocated here and there does seem to have been a few shifts in politics there to speculate on seats changing hands. So my projection as things stand would be –

5 – SF
5 – DUP
4 – Ulster Conservative
2 – Traditional Unionist Voice
2 – SDLP

Leaving 632 berths.

Wales
40 Welsh MPs. Based on the aggregated poll and some polling data from Welsh subsamples I`d put that as -

13 - Labour
10 – PC
9 - Conservative
7 - LD
1 - Indy

Leaving 592 berths.

Scotland
Has 59 MPs. Again based on the aggregated poll and other recent Scottish specific data -

23 – SNP
22 – Labour
8 – LD
6 – Conservative

Leaving 533 berths to fill.

England
Again, based on the aggregated poll I would project that England would be roughly made up of –

310 – Conservative
181 – Labour
34 – Lib Dem
2 – Indy
1 – Speaker

So overall that would give –

329 - Conservative
216 - Labour
49 - Lib Dem
33 - SNP/PC
5 - SF
5 - DUP
3 - Ind
2 - TUV
2 – SDLP
1 – Speaker

So we would have a Conservative Government of 329 and an opposition of 320. Take out SF and 3 deputy speakers (assuming 2 Labour and 1 Conservative) would amount to 328 Conservatives to 313 opposition.

A working majority of just 15.

If this was to be how things played out I suspect we’d be getting another election within a year or two from Cameron trying to beef up his majority.

A right old Carter-Ruck

2009-10-13T10:01:00.000+01:00

Freedom of speech is something we take, largely, for granted. It's why the likes of me can post so infrequently to this blog.

Freedom of the press is of course related to this. There are times where even I accept that it in the public interest not to have something published. But I believe that these occassions are rare and are more than adequately covered by the voluntary D notice system - which almost exclusivley relates to national security issues.

Additionally there are times where individuals are entitled to a level of privacy and life free from harrassment -so privacy laws restricting the intrusion of Paps would be something I'd probably support.

Beyond that i say publish and be damned (or praised).

There are times when efforts are made to gag the press from reporting certain things. The latest case that has gathered attention is that of notorious (or should that be noted?) media lawyers Carter-Ruck gagging the Guardian from reporting proceedings in the House of Commons.

What makes this case so batchy is that the proceedings of the Bouse of Commons are public record!

I saw this gagging order reported on various blogs so I've followed their advice and had a look at the order paper.

Only one question mentions Carter-Ruck and that's...

"Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura."

I simply don't know if this is the one they didn't want reported but since the order book is on public record I'm happy to reproduce it.

I would urge anyone out there with a blog to do a wee posting on this as we're on very dodgy ground if private interests can prevent the proceedings of parliament being reported.

There are folk out there who are far better informed than me who have speculated ad to why Carter-Ruck have tried to gag the reporting of the parliamentary question - see Guido for example - http://order-order.com/2009/10/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament/

60% Plus

2009-10-03T13:13:00.002+01:00

Posting has been light for months as I`ve been back in the old country. Said old country is having the votes of the Lisbon treaty referendum counted.

Its fairly clear that its going to be a Yes and it could be lining up to be 60% plus for the yes camp. The tallies are being reported that all constitiuencies bar one, up in Donegal, have voted yes.

I suspect watching the Conservatives reaction to this is going to make for some entertainment. Can Cameron contain the different factions? Interesting times...

Erskine a question

2009-07-21T20:52:00.000+01:00

I will confess that I'm far more at home with the rules of the Scottish Parliament than I am with the procedures of the Commons. Now I read Erskine May as much as the next man (so long as the next man isn't Sir Patrick Cormac) but I'm still a wee bit hazy on much of it's procedures.

Had it been Paul Martin that resigned as an MSP, rather than his father as an MP, then things would be very different.

The first big difference is it is for the Presiding Officer, and not a political party, to determine the date of the election. That election must be held within 3 months of the Presiding Officer being made aware of a vacancy for a constituency seat.

In the 10 years of the Scottish Parliament by elections have generally been held within 4-5 weeks of the vacancy occuring.

Martin Snr stood down on June 21st - had it been Junior the liklihood is that the election would have been either last Thursday or this week. The latest the poll could be held would be September 17th.

Had the vacancy arisen within 3 months of a general election then there would be no by election.

The earliest we will actually get the Glasgow North East poll will be in November! I was curious if there was anyone out there with a better handle of Erskine May who could tell me if there is any time limit on when Labour can call the by election as I am under the impression that there isn't.

If that was the case is there any chance that Labour will put off the by-election for so long that they could claim that it would be too close to the general election to call it?

The question has shifted from WHEN will the people of Glasgow North East get their by election to WILL they get one at all?

Labour is in the writ...

2009-07-21T16:12:00.003+01:00

Firstly, I`d like to apologise for the headline...it was a moment of weakness. Today was the last day that the writ to hold the Glasgow North-East by-election could be moved before the Commons goes into recess.

The convention was that it was for the party who held the seat to move the writ for the by-election – Michael Martin was a Labour MP before he became speaker so it fell to Labour to move the writ.

However, any MP can move the writ. It became clear that Labour was not going to move a writ in this session...so Stewart Hosie of the SNP has started to move the writ. Labour has gone daft over it.

Labour are trying to argue that to move the writ now would me a by-election on the 13th of August and the schools go back on the 17th - so some people might not be there to vote - except, if the writ is moved today then the by-election would be held on the 20th of August. Labour seem to have forgotten the Glasgow East by-election last summer and the Norwich election this summer!

Labour are running scared and are trying to gear the date of the election wring out of it the maximum advantage to their party with no consideration given to the constituency which is currently no represented by an MP.

It looks like Labour will use their numbers the Commons to frustrate the holding of the by-election for political purposes...but I do hope not.