davidsberry

After 20 years at the coalface, I find I am fed up with politics. A veteran of fifteen campaigns, three successful personal elections, two decades of various party offices and sixteen years representing my home town all piles up and renders this grizzled grognard fatigued. But my energy is high as ever and is probably more potent than ever; long experiences better directs its focus, as opposed to spraying invective all over the place. And tilting at windmills of smug bureaucracy still engages me as much as it ever did.

But the ‘higher’ levels of politics (no, I don’t really see them that way either) have slowly declined into an example of squalid, self-serving opportunism. I once thought I had escaped that, left it behind in the volatile egos of Silicon Valley and the corporate lawyers, management consultants and $250/hr therapists who feed off them. We are, it appears, all living in a village more global than I had bargained for.

This realisation began last week as I witnessed yet another stylised Punch-and-Judy Show masquerading as Prime Minister’s Questions and—despite spending the next two days in the detached idyll that is St Andrews, with the poetic creativity of the StAnza festival, floods of energetic students and an Oktoberfest-in-March oompah band—I was brought low by Labour’s one-day conference. More specifically, by the speech made there by one Davie Hamilton soon-to-be-ex-MP.

Despite the furore he caused in social media, what he said wasn’t so terrible. But his tone, a knuckle-dragging tirade that was as evilly aggressive as it was passionately authentic, made my heart sink. And when more balanced members who should know better like my own MSP Iain Gray, Edinburgh South CLP Chair Duncan Hothersall and high-hied-yin Jim Murphy all praised him, I felt ashamed to be associated with the hale clamjamfrey.

All this is not new. Half a century ago, media in general and interviewers in particular were deferential to a fault. Some politicians took advantage of this but, generally, the calling was seen as public service for which standards must be kept high. But the last politician who got it wrong and fell on his sword in acknowledgement was Lord Carrington for underestimating Argentinian aggression. That was 33 years ago—ancient history now.

Examine the front benches either side at Westminster. Within the phalanx of lawyers and never-had-a-real-job politicians two motivations flow effortlessly without regard to policy or creed: 1) Survival and; 2) Power. Though there are doubtless principled MPs lurking in the backbench wilderness, the proliferation of ministers and their shadows to almost 200 has inbred a mentality that exhibits all the rentaquote characteristics of automatons.

I’ve lost count of the Politics Today or PMQs or Newsnights or Marr Shows or (sad to say) FMQs to which I have paid serious attention. But I now come to wonder why I bothered. Recently, none have added to the sum of my—let alone human—knowledge. And it almost doesn’t matter who’s in the firing line. This weekend, Philip Hammond batted as Foreign Secretary just as stolidly as he had previously as Defence Secretary; Angela Eagle, rolled out yet again as Shadow Energy Secretary, was again a safe pair of hands. Both were more than competent and—to the recently landed Martian—apparently informative and sincere.

But it is what the Germans call an “Affentheater” the illusion of theatre because primates are going though human motions that could be relating a story. From the remotest constituency office all the way to the dispatch box, Punch and Judy ply their trade using sound bites as clubs and societal shorthand for meaning. Were it all a symposium on quantum physics, it could be left to Scrödinger’s illuminati to pass judgement on performance and underlying ability in that esoteric field.

But this is about life. This is much too important to abandon to a self-serving priesthood of insiders who spend PMQs baying for blood while their gladiators on both front benches circle each other to give it to them than to enlighten the general public watching. Those with the partisan interest of a well thumbed membership card may rejoice when their lions rip unwary Christians to shreds. But, despite repeated admonishments from the Speaker, there seems alternative to testosterone-induced chest-butting and the baffled alienation of the 60-odd million Britons who are turned off by it all.

And so, at whichever party rally the next Davie Hamilton rabble-rouses with over-abrasive invective at unbelievers, real debate will continue to ossify, policy will derive from ever-shorter-term tactical advantage and politicians will be winnowed down to a sly few who know the right people, spout the right sound bite and never, ever expose themselves as a hostage to fortune by making any real, accountable commitments.

So, please forgive this squirming disillusionment with those who pull down $65k a year, finger our billions and deploy nuclear warheads, yet put nursery kids to shame on maturity. Should real debate break out or an idea benefitting society (as opposed to its administrators) before May 7th, I may find motivation to pay attention again. But meantime, I think I’ll abandon party politics and go highbrow by following darts or mud wrestling.

After decades of political invulnerability come rain, shine or socialism, Jim Murphy has been scurrying about trying to prop up the Scottish Labour edifice. From a high point of the ‘feeble fifty’ in the 1980s, the shedding of support, Labour Clubs, activists and even members over the next two decades seemed to make little difference to solid Labour majorities across the Central Belt that were counted with shovels.

Then came the surprise result of 2007. Any stimulation from the shock of losing control of Scotland eased and faded when 2010’s General Election seemed to put Labour back in the driving seat with 41 out of 59 MPs and dismayed the SNP with only six of the rest. A sigh of relief bred a sense of comfort that carried them to last September when the ‘No’ win was bigger than predicted. A disinterred Gordon Brown and ‘The Vow’ was credited with turning the corner.

But since then, a succession of wheels have come off with alarming frequency. And, despite the choice of a heavyweight spinmeister as leader, even Hydra Jim has too few heads to plug all the holes in the dyke. Polls have consistently rung alarm bells but, until now, there was no way to predict where the shift was concentrated—if at all. Given that major Labour heartlands had voted ‘Yes’, answering this became the $64,000 question.

Now Lord Ashcroft’s Polling has made a start. And disconcerting reading it is too for Murphy et al who claim they’ll hold all 41. Willie Bain looks like the last man standing. Here is the introduction to Ashcroft’s startling analysis of just those heartland seats Labour was so shocked to lose in the last SP elections—yet has done precious little to recover. If this is accurate, it will make that earlier gubbing seem nirvana by comparison.

(excerpt begins)

Reblog of John Plunkett’s review in The Guardian, January 29th 2015, of Michael Cockerel’s documentary of the same name to be broadcast on BBC2 on February 3rd.

There is precious little in Michael Cockerell’s documentary about the House of Commons to encourage Russell Brand, should he watch it, to cast his vote after all.

Cockerell portrays a “mother of all parliaments” in which MPs vote against their instincts to avoid ending up in their whips’ black books, and where Tory MPs use a precious opportunity at Prime Minister’s Questions to ask a question emailed to them by Conservative high command.

Granted unprecedented access, the cameras on the floor of the Commons make the bear pit of PMQs feel louder and more raucous than it does from the bird’s-eye view we see on the news. Up close and personal, they look almost human.

“The behaviour in there is just disgusting, really embarrassingly juvenile, screaming,” is the verdict of Labour MP Sarah Champion, who is still adjusting to her surroundings three years after taking office. “The fact it’s men in their 50s and 60s doing it – it’s just distasteful.”

But while much of Cockerell’s film focuses on Champion and another of the newcomers, Tory MP Charlotte Leslie, as they attempt to get to grips with the “bewildering codes and customs” of Westminster (including, until recently, free snuff for all members), it’s the big beasts we want to hear from.

Neither David Cameron nor Ed Miliband display the sort of enthusiasm for PMQs that you might hope – or expect – to see.

“Once you’re in it, you forget about the nerves and it’s ‘Try and do the best you can,’” says Miliband. “The anticipation, I find, is worse than the reality.”

“There isn’t a Wednesday that you don’t feel total fear and trepidation about what is about to happen,” adds Cameron. No wonder he’s not keen on the TV debates.

George Osborne also appears, but he isn’t interviewed in this first episode. Maybe it’s just the music, but there’s something about the chancellor’s pre-budget prep talk – “We’ve got a good budget, we’re going to go out there and sell it” – that feels like a scene out of The Apprentice.

Cockerell, who has previously cast his all-seeing eye over Whitehall and Tony Blair’s 10 years in power, has more affection for the building than the people who work in it.

But the palace of Westminster is falling apart, including the famous tower that houses Big Ben, and requires repairs that could run into millions of pounds. It’s not just the facade that’s crumbling.

Most people agree that whatever Gordon Brown’s virtues or failings, his memorable contribution to political debate since 2010 was his impassioned plea for the union just before September’s referendum. The Huffington Post described the result as “a personal triumph for the former Labour prime minister, whose thundering eve-of polling day rallying cry was praised as the speech of his life.”

Lost in the hubbub was the fact that he had neither the authority nor the position to make some of the statements he did. Coupled with last-minute pledges for improved devolution from the union from the three big UK parties, the echoes of Alec Douglas Home’s similar promise from 1979 did not prevent significant numbers of switherers taking it at face value and decide to vote ‘no’.

But, unlike 1979, this Damascene conversion by both UK government and opposition did find expression in the Smith Commission which engaged the five Holyrood parties in debate as to what shape that devolution should take. The promise came from Westminster to convert the Commission’s findings (based on over 18,000 submissions from the public and more than 400 from civic groups) into concrete proposals before Burns Day. As Cameron said on September 19th:

“To those in Scotland sceptical of the constitutional promises made, let me say this we have delivered on devolution under this Government, and we will do so again in the next Parliament. The three pro-union parties have made commitments, clear commitments, on further powers for the Scottish Parliament.”

On Thursday 22nd, they delivered. Cameron made his first foray into Scotland for months to make the announcement on the heels of FMQs yesterday. (When Willie Rennie posed his stock opening question of when the First Minister would next meet the Prime Minister, Nicola stood up and, consulting her watch, shot back “In an hour”.)

So the Prime Minister comes to Edinburgh, and announces what he calls a “great day for Scotland, and a great day for the United Kingdom too.” and went on to promise “if I am your Prime Minister after 7 May, you will get in full these measures set out in this document, in a bill in the first Queen’s Speech of a government I lead.” There indeed many substantive measures and an incomplete list includes:

• The Scottish Parliament will have all powers in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland
• Scottish budget to benefit in full from policy decisions by the Scottish Government that increase revenues or reduce expenditure, and bear the full costs of policy decisions that reduce revenues or increase expenditure.
• Scottish income tax revenues will be retained by the Scottish Government to be spent in Scotland rather than these taxes being pooled and redistributed by the UK.
• Scotland’s fiscal framework should receive additional borrowing powers to ensure budgetary stability and provide safeguards to smooth Scottish public spending.
• The power to charge tax on air passengers leaving Scottish airports and on the commercial exploitation of aggregate in Scotland will be devolved.
• Scottish Ministers will be given the power to make alternative payment arrangements in relation to Universal Credit.
• Benefits for carers, disabled people and those who are ill: Attendance Allowance, Carer’s Allowance, Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Personal Independence Payment (PIP), Industrial Injuries Disablement Allowance and Severe Disablement Allowance will be devolved.
• Discretionary Housing Payments and benefits which currently comprise the Regulated Social Fund: Cold Weather Payment, Funeral Payment, Sure Start Maternity Grant and Winter Fuel Payment will be devolved.

That may seem a pretty meaty chunk of responsibility and even the SNP agrees that this represents real progress, having been party to the Smith discussions. However, there has been no outbreak of harmony following the announcement. This revolves around a phrase used to which the SNP object and are regarding as a form of veto.

The phrase is “Whitehall ministers would have to be consulted and give his or her agreement” even though it goes on to say “…such agreement not to be reasonably withheld”. Danny Alexander the Treasury Chief Secretary maintains this means: “No ifs, no buts; there is no veto. If they can pay for it, a Scottish government can do what it wants with the new benefit powers it is getting.”

So, is the Scottish Government girning unjustifiably? Certainly the practical effect of all this is for considerable powers to devolve to Holyrood and the SNP at least can be exoected to seize the opportunities this offers to beat a different path for Scotland—as they have done since 2007 but Labour was leery of doing 1999-2007.

But they do have a point. As a last resort, Westminsier could intervene if it chose. There is a “no detriment” rule – which implies no decision made by a devolved government should actually put Scotland at a financial advantage, or vice versa. The interpretation when “agreement may not be reasonably withheld” looks like a bonanza for QCs, should it ever come to that.

But the SNP is being partisan and more than a little disingenuous. The Constitutional Commission has argued that the present setup at Holyrood does not and cannot embody the sovereign rights of the Scottish people as it stands—independence or no. Were all power to be transferred from Westminster to Holyrood, there would be inadequate checks and balances—no second chamber; no presidential office; no separation of justice.

For all its flaws, the American constitution was originally crafted and frequently defended as the arbiter when executive and legislative elements are at loggerheads. In the absence of such checks, it seems sensible to retain such options at Westminster. But that begs the question of the supportiveness (or otherwise) of a given UK Government for whoever happened to be in power in Scotland.

Some seasoned and knowledgeable commentators, such as Joyce McMillan in Friday’s Hootsmon regard the proposals as something of a mess. Others like Tom Peterkin in the same issue see this as merely the first step to resolving the West Lothian Question and implementing Cameron’s quid-pro-quo of EVEL (English votes for English laws).

But what is NOT being talked about is the apparent failure of Westminster in general and Cameron’s government in particular to read the mood of the Scottish people and what it is likely to take to take the steam out of their present lively bolshyness. Conservative Central Office clearly doesn’t ‘get’ Scotland, having just issued this poster:

Alex Massie in the New Statesman thinks the Tories are working for the SNP

As he sees it, “it frames the election as a battle between Scotland and England in which the latter is menaced by the former. It pits the two largest parts of the Union against one another.” And here, he puts his finger on the problem Westminster seems to have.

As Joyce McMillan puts it “the British establishment seems unable to get beyond the idea that the Scottish Yes campaign represented some kind of explosion of rash and unthinking patriotic sentiment.” The Queen’s admonishment to “think very carefully” and Jim Murphy’s frantic attempts to belatedly wrap Scottish Labour in a saltire also seem to derive from the same thinking.

After centuries of regarding “England” and “Britain” as interchangeable, the UK establishment sees Scotland as a kind of frostbitten surly Midlands whose occasional strops require some raw constitutional meat to be thrown to them to stay onside.

But here in Caledonia, sterrrn and wild, the whole thing is not about constitutional change. What Scots are fired up about—and this includes significant numbers of those who voted ‘no’—is to protect social justice, to support public services, to secure and develop a more cohesive society against an economic consensus at Westminster that appears alien to most.

So King Cameron can sit with his eyes fixed on the horizon of another term in government while minions scoop up shovelfuls of “An Enduring Settlement” to keep back the waves. But the floodgates are creaking in Scotland, the tide of dissatisfaction not yet at full flood.