Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander has resigned. A few initial thoughts:
- I wonder if Labour will learn that the absence of internal party competition is not the same as unity. The contrast between the coverage in today's newspapers of the Labour Party in the UK and the Democrats in the US could not be more stark. On one side (east of the Atlantic) there is a centre left party which 'elected' two leaders (Brown and Alexander) without anyone standing against them. The result? Political disaster with the wrong people appointed and a legacy of resentment and opposition within the party. On the other side (west of the Atlantic) there was a 17 month, hard fought fight for leadership of the Democratic Party. The result? The winner is about 10 points ahead in the polls. Clinton is campaigning for Obama and the vast majority of her supporters have swung behind him. Labour's experience in the early 1980s appears to have left Labour with the impression that looking united on the evening news is more important that having proper internal debate. That needs to change is Labour is going to survive and prosper, north or south of the border.
- Only time will tell, but it will be interesting to see if Wendy's sudden change in policy on an early independence referendum played any role in today's events. Was Brown's previously rock solid support for Wendy undermined by her policy on a referendum and her apparent failure to consult him on it? (STOP PRESS: The BBC has just reported that Wendy resigned despite Brown's urging her to stay.) It will also be interesting to see what happens to the early referendum policy under the next leader.
- The SNP's handling of this situation, the main aim of which appeared to be to destabilise Wendy Alexander and Scottish Labour, has been executed with textbook efficiency. I wonder, however, if now might be time to tone it down. There have been moments when individual backbench nats have looked shrill and bullying. It is important that this does not infect the general perception of the party. We are not there yet but it could happen.
- Finally, I have no idea what Wendy Alexander's plans are but if she wants to make a come back to front line politics, she would have been better to use today for endless mea culpas rather than attacking her opponents. That would have started to repair her image and made anyone who attacked her look mean and small minded. Her tone today was not the first tactical mis-step of her leadership. But it was her last.
Saturday, 28 June 2008
Thursday, 26 June 2008
The real data losers... the investigation
Further to Monday's post: the formal investigation into HMRC's loss of discs containing the personal and bank details of half the nation's population was published yesterday. The cause (as foreshadowed on Monday) was "poor communication between management and junior staff, and low morale at the HMRC". And the response? George Osborne, as normal, missed the point. He used it as an opportunity to punish Alistair Darling but failed to address the real issues (public sector management, etc.) and how his party would seek to solve those problems.
Depressing. If someone could offer a convincing case that they could make government work, they could get on. That person certainly isn't George Osborne.
P.S. On an entirely separate matter, there has just been a great report on Channel 4 News about a new feature length documentary called Man On Wire, which is premiering at the Edinburgh Film Festival tonight. It looks like a fascinating film - and reminded me of a time when the Twin Towers were a symbol of hope not a reminder of terror.
Depressing. If someone could offer a convincing case that they could make government work, they could get on. That person certainly isn't George Osborne.
P.S. On an entirely separate matter, there has just been a great report on Channel 4 News about a new feature length documentary called Man On Wire, which is premiering at the Edinburgh Film Festival tonight. It looks like a fascinating film - and reminded me of a time when the Twin Towers were a symbol of hope not a reminder of terror.
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
One itch could change the world
I know that an 8 page article on itching doesn't sound worth reading but this is genuinely fascinating. That the humble itch could herald the development of a whole new discipline in medicine is worth noting. And the experience of M... who knew you could scratch that hard?
P.S. There is a podcast discussion which accompanies the article. You can find it here.
P.S. There is a podcast discussion which accompanies the article. You can find it here.
Ships and the future of the UK
The debate surrounding the prospects for Scotland's ship building industry in an independent Scotland is (as with so much of our politics) predicable enough: unionists say it will be decimated; nationalists say it will diversify and prosper. Both sides are unconvincing.
The unionist argument fails to factor in the strategic changes that are going to take place in these islands whatever constitutional changes happen (or don't) in the coming decades. At present the UK is the second biggest defence spender on the planet. This is not sustainable, or desirable. Unfortunately our legacy as a world power commits the UK to this level of defence spending but this won't continue indefinitely. Our structural position in the international order will change beyond recognition in the coming half century (including, for example, loss of the permanent seat on the UN Security Council and changes in the UK's role in NATO). When this happens the UK won't be ordering world class aircraft carriers and, arguably, will be able to give up its nuclear deterrent. At that point the impact on what remains of the ship building industry will be dramatic.
The nationalist argument is equally flawed. As a matter of pure fact, an independent Scotland would not be used to build sensitive English defence equipment (and arguments about EU rules on tendering are irrelevant - there are national security exceptions). And nor would a Scottish defence force need (or want) the amount of equipment ordered by UK forces. Diversification would make up some of the lost business but not all of it.
It is a shame that nationalists rely on these arguments rather than seeking to develop a narrative that fits in with the wider strategic choices that the UK is going to have to make in the next few decades. There is a strong case for saying a British isles of several nation-states would be better prepared to deal with the strategic threats (and the domestic political issues) of the twentieth-first century rather than a single British state. Instead they rely on an argument that nothing too much will change other than some constitutional details.
If the nats are going to win this argument, they are going to have to develop their arguments. I'll blog some more on what a convincing nationalist argument could look like in the coming weeks.
The unionist argument fails to factor in the strategic changes that are going to take place in these islands whatever constitutional changes happen (or don't) in the coming decades. At present the UK is the second biggest defence spender on the planet. This is not sustainable, or desirable. Unfortunately our legacy as a world power commits the UK to this level of defence spending but this won't continue indefinitely. Our structural position in the international order will change beyond recognition in the coming half century (including, for example, loss of the permanent seat on the UN Security Council and changes in the UK's role in NATO). When this happens the UK won't be ordering world class aircraft carriers and, arguably, will be able to give up its nuclear deterrent. At that point the impact on what remains of the ship building industry will be dramatic.
The nationalist argument is equally flawed. As a matter of pure fact, an independent Scotland would not be used to build sensitive English defence equipment (and arguments about EU rules on tendering are irrelevant - there are national security exceptions). And nor would a Scottish defence force need (or want) the amount of equipment ordered by UK forces. Diversification would make up some of the lost business but not all of it.
It is a shame that nationalists rely on these arguments rather than seeking to develop a narrative that fits in with the wider strategic choices that the UK is going to have to make in the next few decades. There is a strong case for saying a British isles of several nation-states would be better prepared to deal with the strategic threats (and the domestic political issues) of the twentieth-first century rather than a single British state. Instead they rely on an argument that nothing too much will change other than some constitutional details.
If the nats are going to win this argument, they are going to have to develop their arguments. I'll blog some more on what a convincing nationalist argument could look like in the coming weeks.
Monday, 23 June 2008
The real data losers
There's been another loss of personal data in the public sector, this time by the Scottish Ambulance Service. The politics of this are entirely predicable: the opposition parties will express outrage, blame the government and, if they are having a good day, call for a minister or two to resign. We've seen this happen fairly often recently.
Now I understand the idea of ministerial responsibility but it is absurd to hold a minister responsible for a practical error by an official. Hold them accountable for policy, but for the minutiae of implementation? Be fair.
I've worked in the Civil Service and the problem is not ministerial control but the quality of leadership and management by senior officials. It is, with some honourable exceptions, dreadful. These kind of things will continue to happen until public sector management is dragged up to acceptable professional standards .
So perhaps opposition politicians should stop their histrionics and start thinking about how they can hold senior officials accountable for their managerial failings.
Now I understand the idea of ministerial responsibility but it is absurd to hold a minister responsible for a practical error by an official. Hold them accountable for policy, but for the minutiae of implementation? Be fair.
I've worked in the Civil Service and the problem is not ministerial control but the quality of leadership and management by senior officials. It is, with some honourable exceptions, dreadful. These kind of things will continue to happen until public sector management is dragged up to acceptable professional standards .
So perhaps opposition politicians should stop their histrionics and start thinking about how they can hold senior officials accountable for their managerial failings.
The politics of privacy
Another postscript on Davis/privacy/etc.: this was the BBC's lead story this morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)