A wolf in sheep's clothing

With apologies to the predominantly Scottish readership but there's some more news from Wales which I've found interesting (and, which has potential relevance to Scotland as well).  And it's this:  How much are the Tories about to royally shaft Labour?

I shall, perhaps, have to put that in a slightly more socially acceptable format should it ever grace the pages of an academic journal, but I felt the terminology apt.  Basically, I'm thinking about David Cameron's (and, to be fair, Nick Clegg's) plans to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and ensure constituencies of roughly equal numbers (75,000 voters).

The reason I'm interested?  The reduction of Welsh representation at Westminster by a QUARTER - or from 40 seats at present to 30 after the reduction.  In actual fact, Wales is, and has been for some time, over-represented at Westminster, so this would really be a simple bringing them into line with the rest of the UK in terms of representation.  As far as I understand, Scotland would be in line to lose 6 or 7 seats while Northern Ireland would lose 3 and the remainder would come from England.

Anyway, three knock-on effects (identified by John Osmond as "unintended consequences") resulting from the changes.  Firstly, the constituencies for the Welsh Assembly are tied to those for Westminster - meaning any reduction in seats for the House of Commons means a corresponding reduction in Cardiff Bay.  If nothing is done to change that then Wales would have an Assembly of just 50 members - 30 constituency and 20 regional list.  And given there are discussions at the moment to increase its powers (and the Richard Commission recommended in 2004 to increase members to 80) that might cause a re-think there.  

Secondly, they could de-couple the constituencies.  There is precedent here - Scotland's were tied too, but an amendment to the Scotland Act allowed us to maintain 73 Holyrood constituencies when we reduced the Westminster ones in 2005 to 59.  However, Welsh Tories aren't keen on the idea - the Welsh Assembly already suffers from a lack of electorate enthusiasm, and confusing the constituencies may make that apathy worse.  Which means that to maintain numbers, they could have an extra 10 list members, which would increase the proportionality of the system (and, one would think, the outcome of elections, the last of which was less proportional than the English local elections).

Thirdly, were the Assembly elected more by PR (with less reliance on FPTP) it would hurt Labour more, as they have benefited most from the only 1/3rd PR element - though, as I noted last week, their vote has been diminishing in Wales for the last decade.  Wales remains the last of the devolved administrations led by a Labour figure - with Carwyn Jones, as Welsh First Minister, the highest elected Labour official in the country.  It appears as though that position is under threat, as with diminishing vote numbers and a potential reduction in MPs, Labour's position as the dominant party in Wales is no longer guaranteed.  In short, the institution which they delivered in 1997 in  the expectation that they'd be governing - individually - for the subsequent two decades looks like it may end up as a further harbinger of doom for the party.

A final thought on that.  In 1997, the Conservatives opposed devolution.  Now, 13 years on, they've found ways to work with it and adapt the system to how it suits them after a damning defeat.  PR, a system which they are not fond of, has saved them electorally in Wales and, ironically, might be the system that secures their position and weakens Labour further.  Sea change indeed, and change that is fuelled by pragmatism on their part.  

A little pragmatism goes a long way - a lesson the Tories have learnt the hard way.  The question is - will Labour?

Read more...

Big Society, Little Britain

David Cameron got some points from me for his idea of a "Big Society".  His idea is very much in keeping with my view of what I guess is often described as "civic nationalism".  Leaving aside that the "nation" it encompasses is larger than I would like (being the UK and not just Scotland) I think the idea is bold and sensible, particularly in the times of financial difficulty which we currently find ourselves in. 

"Dave" wants society to help itself, to let communities run their own (non-vital) services and pull Britain back from the big (sprawling) government it has developed.  That to me is a laudable aim, particularly given that I have a "liberal" view of government as a "necessary evil" and that people shouldn't expect government to do everything for them.  If anything,  I don't think his Big Society goes far enough, but the idea is good, so as I say, points on that score.

But then he lost the points on arrival in the States when, in the words of the excellent Joan McAlpine, he "trashed" Scotland on the world stage by saying how wrong he felt the decision was to release Abdelbasset al-Megrahi, and clearly emphasised how he stood with the US against the Scottish Government on the issue.  Whether you believe the decision to be correct or not, the way in which David Cameron has blown his "respect agenda" for the devolved institutions shows a clear disregard for devolution. 

I expect he will announce a full UK-level inquiry into the decision in the coming days, further ignoring the fact that the decision was the Scottish Government's to make.  The fact that he was not PM at the time of the decision probably makes this easier for him - both in a partisan and bi-lateral, UK-US sense.  I made reference a few days ago to the UK (specifically Jack Straw, when he was Home Secretary) allowing General Pinochet to be released back to Chile on medical grounds, despite charges of torture and assasination against him.  I guess the difference in that case is that he was a) backed by former US President George H. W. Bush (and the fact that his military coup was supported by the US) and b) the decision was made by a UK minister.  I don't remember David Cameron (or indeed, anyone from the US Government) speaking out against that decision, and Pinochet lived 6 YEARS after his release.  The truth of the matter is that we would not be talking about this again had al-Megrahi not survived 11 months (and counting) after his release.  A sad state of affairs indeed that government ministers from both sides of the Atlantic are waiting for a terminally ill man to die.

So yes, the "Big Society" is a good idea.  But Dave, your perception of devolution is small and petty, and the respect for it is non-existent.  Must try harder old chap.

Read more...

Nat Gain?

Here's a thought for you: can you imagine Jim Murphy deciding that Labour don't quite cut it any more and standing for the SNP at the Scottish election next year?  No? No, probably not.  Perhaps he's not a good example to use for this.  What about previous Scottish Secretaries - Des Browne, Douglas Alexander, Alistair Darling, Helen Liddell, John Reid?  Any of those aspiring Nats do you you think?  No?

Why do I ask anyway?

Well, it seems that former Secretary of State for Wales (and, indeed, architect of Welsh devolution it would appear) Ron Davies HAS decided that.  Indeed, he decided that Labour weren't very good six years ago and joined Forward Wales, a now-disbanded left-of-centre Welsh regionalist party.  Well, he has now gone further, and after campaigning for Plaid at the UK election in May, he is now the only nominee for the party to contest the Caerphilly seat in the Assembly election next year.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  Of course the comparison with Scotland is crude, and doesn't work on any level.  Each of the living former Labour Scottish Secretaries are still active in Labour politics, have recently retired from the Commons or are in the Lords.  And none of them resigned from office in disgrace after a "moment of madness" on Clapham Common.  And I suppose the best comparison (in terms of the person who steered devolution on the Labour benches in Scotland) would be Donald Dewar, and he is no longer with us (and, perhaps, even less likely to join the SNP than any of the aforementioned Labourites were he still alive).

But what is interesting, particularly for folk like me with more than a passing interest in Welsh devolution is the fact that the guy who practically designed devolution in Wales now wants more.  And though that is a fairly common view among the Assembly politicians - they voted unanimously to move to a referendum on the topic - it is not exactly popular among current and former Welsh MPs.  The fact that Ron Davies is ready to stake his political future on it by standing for Plaid - in the seat he held as a Labour MP and AM from 1983 until 2003 - made me think a little harder about it.

On the other hand, relations between Labour and Plaid are much more amicable than those between the SNP and Labour.  They have to be, for the sake of the coalition.  And in spite of tensions here, former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish has readily offered his support to the SNP on issues where he agrees with them while Susan Deacon has recently taken on a role in the SNP Government advising on Children and Early Years education.  However, I would hazard that neither will be campaigning - or standing - for the party next year.

Of interest to electoral anoraks is if he wins.  He'd have represented the constituency for two different parties if he did so.  Betsan Powys points out that his former colleague in Forward Wales, John Marek could do the same, and represent 3 parties - he's just joined the Tories, having represented Wrexham for Labour between 1999 and 2003 and the John Marek Independent Party from 2003 to 2007.

Anyway, I'm not sure I can add much more to the analysis.  Just interesting stuff.

Read more...

A fixed term problem

A few days ago, I was discussing with Jeff & James the idea that the Tory-Lib Dem coalition (or indeed the Lib-Lab pact, as it could have been at the stage we were talking) might last only a year, and that the next election to the UK Parliament could end up being in May 2011, on the same day as the election to the Scottish Parliament - the first Thursday in May.

Both James and Jeff thought this would be a smart move by whoever was the larger party (if it had been Labour, all the better for them) for they would be able to squeeze the SNP in the Holyrood campaign by making them "irrelevant" to the UK election.  I argued that, given we've had to decouple Holyrood & Council elections because of difficulties interpreting where to put an X and where to put a number, AND ALSO that the boundaries were so different for Holyrood and Westminster elections (with the example of Edinburgh Central for Holyrood split 5 ways for Westminster) would make it near impossible, and that there was no way it could happen.

Well, while that might be the case in 2011 - assuming the Tory-LD government survives - I might not be that sure of my argument now.

The rules of the Scottish Parliament have stipulated from the very beginning that elections will take place on the first Thursday of May every four years from 1999.  That happened in 2003 and 2007, and will happen next year (2011).  It should also occur in 2015.

However, Dave & Nick's new happy band have decided that there will be 5-year fixed term parliaments for the House of Commons.  Given the election last week was on the first Thursday in May, the next election would be schedule for the first Thursday in May 2015.  The same day as the Scottish Parliament (and indeed, Welsh Assembly) election.

So, a problem on the horizon - and an example of how the new UK Government has already not taken into account the devolution dimension of UK politics.

Read more...

Questions answered: Questions remain

So, it looks will be a Tory-Lib Dem coalition.  David Cameron will be PM.  And Nick Clegg will be Deputy PM, while the Lib Dems have FIVE seats in the Cabinet and another FIFTEEN Ministerial jobs.  Still rumoured, but if so - that's some impressive negotiating by the Lib Dems.

But with the answer to one question (that is, who will be running the country, and the form of government it will take) several more arise.

One of the most prominent:  whither the nations of the UK?  For the first time since devolution was delivered no party that is in government at Westminster will be in power in any of the devolved institutions.  A CON-LD coalition at UK level is added to a LAB-PLAID deal in Cardiff Bay, an SNP minority administration at Holyrood and an all-party power-sharing deal at Stormont.  How will partisan clashes shape the future of devolution in the UK?  And will how will each nation react to what look like huge cuts from Westminster to their funding settlement?

This is particularly relevant for Wales, where the two parties in opposition in Cardiff - a distinct minority in the National Assembly - will now have an effective veto over Legislative Competence Orders from the NAW on devolving further powers, given that they are now the UK government.  This may bring forward the need for a referendum on extending devolution to Wales or it may scupper it entirely.

For Scotland, how will the (yet to be confirmed) appointment of Danny Alexander as Secretary of State impact on Holyrood-Westminster relations?  Previously we talked of the Tories taking the position from their sole Scottish MP David Mundell, but handing it to "Lord" McLetchie.  And it does appear that PM Cameron doesn't think Mundell was up to the job - either personally or due to the fact that the Tories only have one seat in Scotland.  But - here's the kicker - WHY would the Lib Dems accept the position, knowing how unpopular the Tories are in Scotland, and knowing that they will have to defend an unpopular Tory-led government?  Even stranger... why put Alistair Carmichael up for the Scottish "leader" debates then ignore him when you get the corresponding Cabinet seat?

Another, how much has each party compromised in their negotiations?  William Hague says it is "the bulk of the Tory manifesto and the best of the Lib Dem one".  But is it secure?  Can a party who supports more integration into the EU really back a party who is primarily sceptical about Europe?  Can a party who wants an amnesty on EU immigration stay quiet when the coalition puts a cap on these figures?  Can a party resolutely opposed to renewing Trident actually sit on its hands while its coalition partner votes through legislation on that subject?

There are plenty more questions, but this is long enough already.  Where do we go from here?  Time will tell... we will (apparently) have a fixed five year term to see how it pans out.

Read more...

A very Calman influence

I've been reading Final Report of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution. Well okay, the Executive Summary - I don't have the time to read 269 pages today.

It's an interesting read for those interested in Scotland's constitutional future - whatever that may be. Plenty has been written elsewhere about the content of the report, I just wanted to focus briefly on one aspect of it.

RECOMMENDATION 6.5: Section 31(1) of the Scotland Act should be amended to require any person introducing a Bill in the Parliament to make a statement that it is (in that person’s opinion) within the Parliament’s legislative competence.

So says the Calman Final Report. I guess that is their way of suggesting that a referendum on independence couldn't/ shouldn't be considered by the Scottish Parliament. And I guess that debate could go on for awhile - particularly given it is a legal decision.

I do find it funny to note that the person introducing a bill (which, in the case of an independence referendum bill would presumably be Mike Russell) merely has to say that they reckon it is within the Parliament's competence to debate it. They don't have to get any kind of legal opinion or anything.

I can't see Mike Russell having a problem saying "I think the Scottish Parliament has the competence to debate this referendum bill" - can you?

Read more...

The devolution cycle

Wee bit busy this afternoon but I wanted to point you in the direction of something.

BBC Scotland political reporter John Knox has been cycling around Scotland and asking people what they think of devolution. He's been recording his (and others') thoughts on the way and you can read them here.

Dead badgers aside, its a fun read and presents a fairly balanced view of devolution 10 years on.

I'm hoping Brian Taylor's documentary is as equally well done.

Read more...

Recommended reading

Having moved on from my literature review (finally!) and onto the first chapter of my Ph.D, I have a recommendation for those of you who have an interest in Scottish politics and devolution.

I'm currently reading The State of the Nations 2008 edited by Alan Trench, which provides an overview of devolved politics in the UK from 2007 until early 2008, recounting the challenges faced by respective governments in Scotland and Wales, their successes and failures and the every-growing turf-war between Westminster and the devolved legislatures. It's part of a series of books charting devolution from its first year (1999-2000) through several volumes (2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005) to the most updated volume.

It's well worth a look.

Read more...

Labour MP in understanding devolution shocker

Doing a little bit of research (yes, occasionally us tax-dodging students do) I came across the above book, co-authored by my local MP, Labour's Mark Lazarowicz.

I haven't had an opportunity to read it in detail, but, by all accounts, it is a fairly decent read and account of what the Scottish Parliament was set up to do... and how it works.

Two things I learned from it.

One: that Mark Lazarowicz knows how the Scottish Parliament works. This is something he may wish to share with his Labour colleagues who work there.

Two: that Mark Lazarowicz is very much in favour of the Scottish Parliament. This is something that he may wish to share with his Scottish Labour colleagues at Westminster.

One suspects that if he does not pass on this information, then the number of colleagues he has at each institution may decrease somewhat come the next elections...

Read more...

Devolution works

So, the Northern Irish Assembly is to follow the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in abolishing prescription charges - using the same phased reduction and full abolition scheme which is to be implemented in Scotland.

As the BBC rightly point out, this leaves England as the only country in the UK to retain the charges - though Gordon Brown announced plans at the Labour conference to abolish charges for cancer patients. Makes you wonder though doesn't it.

First the UK Government lumps top-up fees on students in England, then implements foundation hospitals... in England. And now, when everyone else has moved to abolish prescription charges, those in England still have to pay them.

Bet the Campaign for an English Parliament are making the most out of this...

Read more...

My Suffering Physique

After Jeff's perusal of old MSP photos, I came across this photo of the MSPs after swearing into the first session of the re-constituted Scottish Parliament in 1999. If you follow the link, it will take you to a larger version of the photo and you can pick out some well kent faces a bit better.

Some of the faces (Shona Robison, Nicola Sturgeon, Richard Lochhead - ministers all) look pretty young. Not that they look old now - they just look fairly young in 1999. It was 9 years ago after all. Indeed, Andy Kerr, Jamie McGrigor, even Jamie Stone - all look much younger.

But what struck me about it was not that it was 9 years ago. It was that some of the politicians that you'd perhaps describe as heavyweight now are, well, perhaps missing a bit of that heavy-ness in this photo. A little trimmer around the waistline.

I guess being an MSP isn't all that healthy for you.

Read more...