In December Yes campaign strategist Stephen Noon put forward his own view of Scottish Politics post Independence. The host newspaper for Stephen's thoughtful essay 'Scotland on Sunday' ran a companion piece headlined 'SNP could disband after Independence' that distorted his article and to quote Mr Noon probably had people 'spluttering into their porridge'. I include myself as a member of the spluttering classes. That was, though, before I read his words.
Stephen was using his essay to explore was the possibilities available for political realignment post a Yes vote in 2014. Using personal illustration he painted a picture of his ability to vote for other parties - he'd done this as a democrat living in England.
I expect Stephen has been asked what becomes of the SNP if there is a Yes vote in 2014. I've certainly been asked that by a whole range of people over the years since the SNP first formed the Scottish Government in 2007. Sure the SNP will change following the creation of an Independent Scotland. It's changed a lot in the years since I joined in 1986. For a start it's become electable right across the country. It's become credible and competent in government. It is also has the biggest membership of any Scottish party in recent times. For these reasons I would be extremely surprised if the SNP were to depart from the Scottish political scene. As a proven party of government if successful in winning the Yes vote it would seem inconceivable that the SNP wouldn't be returned as the government of a newly independent Scotland. Perhaps in coalition, perhaps not.
It's the other major parties that face the biggest challenge following a Yes vote. They and their leaders will have come off on the losing side in the referendum into which they'll have thrown their all in defence of the Union. They will be discredited their leaders vanquished. Their reinvention will need to be quick and ruthless. Politics is often the art of survival and reinvention plays a large part in that so it is a possibility that one or more of the established UK parties could reform as an attractive alternative government of an independent Scotland. All three of the 'British' parties have long and strong Scottish roots and history so the scope for the imaginative among them to rethink their party for a new Scottish politics is theirs to form.
Obviously on the radical wing of current Scottish politics the Scottish Greens have both a Parliamentary and Council presence that should position them well in a post independence Scotland. The SSP is still there and may revive. Both may gain from the growth of the Radical Independence Conference coalitions. In fact some green/socialist group of parties could play a progressive and significant role in an Independent Scotland. The Radical Independence Conference has potential to provide a forum for a broad left green platform around which this type of coalition could germinate.
It is what happens in the centre of the Scottish political field which will be equally interesting. Will the Tories take the Murdo Fraser line and disband to reform with a new name and new centre right mission? Will the Liberals drop the 'Democrats' addendum and bounce back as the mainstream party of localism? Will Labour in Scotland finally find its way again or will it succumb to factionalism and navel gazing for a generation? Will new parties form - two new centre or centre right parties already exist in the Scottish Democratic Alliance and the Scottish Progressives - to take advantage of the climate of change following the referendum?
Finally will the referendum campaign throw up new talent, new voices, new leadership and new ideas for an newly independent Scotland? All of these are possibilities. First though there's a referendum campaign to be fought.
Monday, 7 January 2013
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
The Day they Shrunk the Town Hall
I nearly spluttered over my porridge when I saw the headline on 'Scotland on Sunday' proclaiming 'Scottish Local Authorities Face the Axe'. Was this the latest wheeze of Johann Lamont's Cuts Commission? No there was a picture of Scotland's Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and quotes from a Q&A at the International Policing Conference which was held in Edinburgh last week.
Against the backdrop of the creation of a single Scottish Police Force and a question on whether with that in mind it was right to have 32 councils Mr MacAskill had said “The status quo is not tenable. It was not tenable in the police and it’s not going to be tenable in other forms of public life,” he did go on to say that "not everything has to be a single service."
To be fair others have raised this issue - most recently Reform Scotland proposed cutting the number of Councils to 19. However Kenny MacAskill is a senior Scottish Cabinet figure and therefore the statement carries more weight. Could this be the direction of travel of the Scottish Government? Would this be the SNP vision of local democracy in an Independent Scotland?
You could say calm down it was only an off the cuff answer made in front of police officers. On the other hand it could be interpreted as laying down a marker to local government across Scotland to reform or die. In the current climate of budget squeeze its much more likely to be the latter.
As I expected when I read the story there was a quick response from the Scottish Government saying it has "no plans to merge local authorities" however it was in favour of "closer service integration". That last bit is about shared services where progress has been glacial.
Local government had its last structural reform in the mid 1990s when Regional Councils where merged with District Councils to form the current unitary system. Many councils are only just emerging from the aftermath of that re-organisation so it is not something that there is generally a huge appetite for. It may also, to some extent, explain the lack of progress on sharing of services between councils. No one wants to give up overall control, power and budget. However there is also the elephant in the room - budget cuts. There are more deep cuts to come as local government budgets shrink while demands and costs grow.
Then there is the conundrum of the low turnout at local government elections. In some ways its a paradox - the level of government that actually delivers many of the services that we use in our daily life attracts paltry interest from voters when it comes to the ballot box.
Merging councils would undoubtedly make councils more remote from those they serve so it would seem unlikely that such a reconfiguration would solve the public engagement issue. The likelihood is that it would make matters worse. A bigger council would be much more likely to make decisions on a strategic level rather than a local level thereby lessening the ability of locals including local councillors to influence decisions in favour of localities.
So does it have to happen? Well, remember there are no plans. But its there and there should be room for debate on the issue. What does Scotland need in terms of local governance under a devolved Parliament? And what would it need in an Independent Scotland?
My friend Councillor Dave Berry put forward his ideas on his blog. Essentially a two tier structure of regions or city regions with lean burgh councils beneath. Not a bad stab at a thorny issue. The Jimmy Reid Foundation produced a report earlier this year which made a strong case that Scotland is operating the least democratic system of local governance in Europe. Commentator Lesley Riddoch has already responded to Kenny MacAskill's comments here. It is also timely that Mackay Hannah are holding a conference in April entitled 'Re-imagining Scottish Local Government: Councils and the Future of Scotland'.
I said in a post earlier this year that a debate should be had and I maintain that position. However that does not mean I'm in favour of centralising local power in larger councils. The debate I want to see is how do we democratise what we have? Do we need to make any changes to the current structure? How do we make the services provided more accountable to local people and how do we give local communities a stronger say in delivery of services and on the budget priorities in their area?
As a quick example take Edinburgh where I was a councillor for twelve years. Would I want to see that council made bigger? Answer - no. Would I want to see decisions being taken with more involvement of the communities of Edinburgh? Answer - yes. Edinburgh already has the structure in the Neighbourhood Partnerships but these are advisory and with relatively little budget to decide locally. However that could be changed giving the partnerships more clout and as the local community councils are involved as partners perhaps invigorating them (in all those years as a Leith councillor not one of the Leith Community Councils has had an election as they haven't had enough nominations to trigger one) by giving them a strong say in how budgets are spent in the local area. Leith Neighbourhood Partnership has already used participative methods to decide Community Grant spending. Edinburgh has also taken the recent step of opening out the Council's budget process though it is too early to tell how that will be received. These are small but significant steps in opening up the closed circuit of council processes to the public they serve. Could it go further and have something like Leith or Portobello burgh councils sitting beneath the overarching City Council with the former delivering the local services and the latter the strategic priorities of the City?
I think some debate on devolution of power and budget might deliver something that is responsive to communities and might just work. Perhaps its a spanner that local government needs and not the axe.
Against the backdrop of the creation of a single Scottish Police Force and a question on whether with that in mind it was right to have 32 councils Mr MacAskill had said “The status quo is not tenable. It was not tenable in the police and it’s not going to be tenable in other forms of public life,” he did go on to say that "not everything has to be a single service."
To be fair others have raised this issue - most recently Reform Scotland proposed cutting the number of Councils to 19. However Kenny MacAskill is a senior Scottish Cabinet figure and therefore the statement carries more weight. Could this be the direction of travel of the Scottish Government? Would this be the SNP vision of local democracy in an Independent Scotland?
You could say calm down it was only an off the cuff answer made in front of police officers. On the other hand it could be interpreted as laying down a marker to local government across Scotland to reform or die. In the current climate of budget squeeze its much more likely to be the latter.
As I expected when I read the story there was a quick response from the Scottish Government saying it has "no plans to merge local authorities" however it was in favour of "closer service integration". That last bit is about shared services where progress has been glacial.
Local government had its last structural reform in the mid 1990s when Regional Councils where merged with District Councils to form the current unitary system. Many councils are only just emerging from the aftermath of that re-organisation so it is not something that there is generally a huge appetite for. It may also, to some extent, explain the lack of progress on sharing of services between councils. No one wants to give up overall control, power and budget. However there is also the elephant in the room - budget cuts. There are more deep cuts to come as local government budgets shrink while demands and costs grow.
Then there is the conundrum of the low turnout at local government elections. In some ways its a paradox - the level of government that actually delivers many of the services that we use in our daily life attracts paltry interest from voters when it comes to the ballot box.
Merging councils would undoubtedly make councils more remote from those they serve so it would seem unlikely that such a reconfiguration would solve the public engagement issue. The likelihood is that it would make matters worse. A bigger council would be much more likely to make decisions on a strategic level rather than a local level thereby lessening the ability of locals including local councillors to influence decisions in favour of localities.
So does it have to happen? Well, remember there are no plans. But its there and there should be room for debate on the issue. What does Scotland need in terms of local governance under a devolved Parliament? And what would it need in an Independent Scotland?
My friend Councillor Dave Berry put forward his ideas on his blog. Essentially a two tier structure of regions or city regions with lean burgh councils beneath. Not a bad stab at a thorny issue. The Jimmy Reid Foundation produced a report earlier this year which made a strong case that Scotland is operating the least democratic system of local governance in Europe. Commentator Lesley Riddoch has already responded to Kenny MacAskill's comments here. It is also timely that Mackay Hannah are holding a conference in April entitled 'Re-imagining Scottish Local Government: Councils and the Future of Scotland'.
I said in a post earlier this year that a debate should be had and I maintain that position. However that does not mean I'm in favour of centralising local power in larger councils. The debate I want to see is how do we democratise what we have? Do we need to make any changes to the current structure? How do we make the services provided more accountable to local people and how do we give local communities a stronger say in delivery of services and on the budget priorities in their area?
As a quick example take Edinburgh where I was a councillor for twelve years. Would I want to see that council made bigger? Answer - no. Would I want to see decisions being taken with more involvement of the communities of Edinburgh? Answer - yes. Edinburgh already has the structure in the Neighbourhood Partnerships but these are advisory and with relatively little budget to decide locally. However that could be changed giving the partnerships more clout and as the local community councils are involved as partners perhaps invigorating them (in all those years as a Leith councillor not one of the Leith Community Councils has had an election as they haven't had enough nominations to trigger one) by giving them a strong say in how budgets are spent in the local area. Leith Neighbourhood Partnership has already used participative methods to decide Community Grant spending. Edinburgh has also taken the recent step of opening out the Council's budget process though it is too early to tell how that will be received. These are small but significant steps in opening up the closed circuit of council processes to the public they serve. Could it go further and have something like Leith or Portobello burgh councils sitting beneath the overarching City Council with the former delivering the local services and the latter the strategic priorities of the City?
I think some debate on devolution of power and budget might deliver something that is responsive to communities and might just work. Perhaps its a spanner that local government needs and not the axe.
Monday, 26 November 2012
A rebirth of Scottish Radicalism?
On the 24th November 2012 the inaugural 'Radical Independence Conference' was held in the Radisson Blu Hotel in Glasgow. It brought together various strands of radicalism from across Scotland with 800 people booking tickets for the event.
The campaign for Scottish Independence has been more or less the domain of the Scottish National Party. True the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Greens have occupied that territory too along with others like independent MSP Margo MacDonald. But by and large the monopoly on the independence franchise has been held securely by the SNP.
It seems though that the Independence referendum and the broad based Yes Scotland campaign has opened the door to new interpretations of the independence sang. The Greens re-examined their support for independence at their recent conference before swinging four-square behind the Yes campaign. They rightly saw the huge opportunity for a new and radical future for Scotland that independence offers. Others have followed suit and many roads led to Glasgow and the Radical Independence Conference on Saturday.
I arrived at Edinburgh's Waverley station to travel through by train and met up with the SSP's Colin Fox and a couple of his friends. We boarded the train where we met George Kerevan, Scotsman columnist and former International Marxist. George had written a pre-conference 'manifesto' which set out his stall with some radical suggestions for a future Scotland. It made for lively discussion on the way through on the economy, Scottish newspapers, Spanish politics and the Catalan elections. It set the scene for the day in a way. The only thing that was missing on the journey through was the youthfulness of many of the delegates that became apparent when we arrived.
Who was there? Well in some ways it was a case of who wasn't there. They ranged from veterans of the independence struggle to student campaigners through environmental campaigners, feminists, disability rights activists, housing campaigners, anti-racists, community activists, international socialists of all stripes and a cross section of the left green radical commentariat. Also present was an impressive range of international guests from campaigns in France, Greece, Quebec, the Basque country and Palestine.
Where does it go? Links have been made, barriers broken down, alliances and coalitions have been formed. All of these people from a very wide spectrum of 'radical Scotland' came together, they discussed, they listened, they exchanged views, debated ideas and they want to continue the dialogue and match it with action. It was quite a feat to get such a wide section of the radical left together in one place and that they are rallied around the hope for radical change offered by the Independence Referendum.
It was, I believe, significant not least in having gathered together such a large attendance of people looking for change and the chance to build a new Scotland steering a course away from business as usual and towards a Scotland that is greener, fairer, more democratic and egalitarian. It is also significant that Alex Salmond sent a message of support and that former SNP MSP Jean Urquhart gently stressed that the referendum conference would not be happening at all if it were not for the success of the SNP and the First Minister in getting us this far.
There has already been much written on the event and its aftermath had you can read more via these commentators,
Pat Kane
George Kevevan
Robin McAlpine
Colin Fox
Gregor Gall
Lesley Riddoch
National Collective
Aidan Kerr
Plaid Wrecsam
James Maxwell
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
We are the Parade!
Review of Sabrina Chap live at Elvis Shakespeare Leith Walk 17 November 2012
I am friends with second-hand record and book shop Elvis Shakespeare and last week I received a Facebook invite to one of their periodic free gigs. The shop has been running free shows for a while now - the first was Billy Childish and they have also seen local bands Blueflint, The Last Battle and the Stormy Seas play in their intimate space on a Saturday afternoon.
I hadn't heard of the act for this week an American singer called Sabrina Chap so checked her out her website and had a listen to music from her two albums Oompa! and We Are the Parade. I liked what I heard and decided I would pop in and see what she was like live.
Come Saturday afternoon I joined a small group of people to listen to Sabrina and despite a cold - the result, she said, of a thing they have in Glasgow called whisky. Accompanied by her electric piano, a plastic kazoo, foot stomping and even some audience participation she delighted us for over half an hour. The songs are a quirky jazzy vaudevillian mix with wry well observed lyrics. Opening with When I Grow Up, I'm Gonna Dance and working through a selection of songs from both albums plus one new song she entertained us punctuating the songs with humour filled stories stories from her life. She introduced We Are the Parade as a protest song but one that did not protest injustice instead celebrating equality and diversity.
All of a sudden it was over and time for some brief conversations and the selling of some cd's then off into the rest of Saturday afternoon. She said she'll be back in Edinburgh hopefully during the festival and in more of a cabaret setting. I'm making a note to be there.
Monday, 19 November 2012
Let your 'Yes' be YES!
Now that the Scottish Government have made clear their preferred referendum question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" there have been cries of 'foul' from the no campaign 'Better Together'.
Seemingly the use of the phrase 'do you agree' is a trick and voters will find it difficult to vote no in the referendum. I have to say I never knew it would be so easy to win the Independence Referendum! I am also surprised that people could fail to to understand such a straightforward question and accidentally vote 'Yes' when that is not their intention. According to head honcho of the 'Better Together' campaign Alastair Darling MP the SNP have rigged the referendum. Gosh are people that lacking in intelligence Alastair? Are people who don't want Scotland to be independent really going to vote 'Yes' when presented with the question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"
Obviously I am campaigning for a 'Yes' vote and a 'Yes' victory so it could be levelled at me that I would support the question as it is wouldn't I? Yes I would because I put more faith in the voters basic intelligence to know whether they agree or disagree with the question. It is simple and easily digested.
In way of contrast here's what the good voters of Quebec were presented with at their two referendums on Quebec sovereignty or independence.
1980 : "The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"
&
1995 : Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?.
These two questions are neither clear nor that easy to understand. Both require a background paper (I've provided a link to wikipedia for the bill and agreement from 1995). But it was the shorter of the two that came closest to winning. In 1980 the result was 59% No against 40% Yes and in 1995 Quebeckers ran the vote much closer 50.5% No to 49.4% Yes.
Whatever the final question is on Scottish Independence my 'Yes' will be 'Yes'.
Note: The Electoral Commission's consultation on the referendum question closes on 30 November. Details here.
Seemingly the use of the phrase 'do you agree' is a trick and voters will find it difficult to vote no in the referendum. I have to say I never knew it would be so easy to win the Independence Referendum! I am also surprised that people could fail to to understand such a straightforward question and accidentally vote 'Yes' when that is not their intention. According to head honcho of the 'Better Together' campaign Alastair Darling MP the SNP have rigged the referendum. Gosh are people that lacking in intelligence Alastair? Are people who don't want Scotland to be independent really going to vote 'Yes' when presented with the question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"
Obviously I am campaigning for a 'Yes' vote and a 'Yes' victory so it could be levelled at me that I would support the question as it is wouldn't I? Yes I would because I put more faith in the voters basic intelligence to know whether they agree or disagree with the question. It is simple and easily digested.
In way of contrast here's what the good voters of Quebec were presented with at their two referendums on Quebec sovereignty or independence.
1980 : "The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"
&
1995 : Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?.
These two questions are neither clear nor that easy to understand. Both require a background paper (I've provided a link to wikipedia for the bill and agreement from 1995). But it was the shorter of the two that came closest to winning. In 1980 the result was 59% No against 40% Yes and in 1995 Quebeckers ran the vote much closer 50.5% No to 49.4% Yes.
Whatever the final question is on Scottish Independence my 'Yes' will be 'Yes'.
Note: The Electoral Commission's consultation on the referendum question closes on 30 November. Details here.
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Borgen: a template for collegiate, consensual politics?
The latest issue of Total Politics has a couple of articles on television political dramas. The first covers the usual and very entertaining mix of 'The Thick of It', 'A Very British Coup' State of Play' Yes Minister' 'House of Cards' are mentioned and are of course very British examples of the genre. The second article is about the hit Danish political drama 'Borgen' that certainly had me tuning in regularly for its depiction of the challenges facing the newly elected Statsminister Birgitte Nyborg.
Oddly the article by Caroline Crampton suggests the reason for Borgen's success with British audiences was because it couldn't happen here. Crampton posits that it portrays a politics that is 'collegiate, consensual, egalitarian yet still passionate' and appeals because it is unusual to us. Maybe in England it is but in the asymmetrically devolved UK parliaments and assemblies with their proportional representation, coalitions power sharing and plurality of parties perhaps the narrative of Borgen is not such a distant concept.
Scotland has been governed since 1999 by two coalitions, one minority government and now a majority government. Its pr system has produced one rainbow parliament and the representation of women has been light years ahead of Westminster and currently both the Labour Party and the Tories are led by women with both parties now on to their second woman leader. Nicola Sturgeon the SNP's Deputy Leader and Deputy First Minister is surely in pole position to take on the top job when First Minister Alex Salmond steps down from the leadership of the SNP.
During the period that the SNP governed as a minority John Swinney's deft handling of the budget process and the managerial diplomacy of Bruce Crawford showed that a collegiate, consensual politics was achievable even if the main opposition party rarely wanted to play ball. Scotland also has pr in local government which has seen most councils run as coalitions again leading to negotiation over policies and pragmatic consensus emerging along with decision making structures to accommodate that.
In the other devolved nations we have seen coalitions in Wales and finally in Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood a leader that could just be the Birgitte Nyborg of the piece (she'll love me for that I'm sure!).
If there is one devolved legislature which is probably most deserving of a tv drama it would have to be the Northern Ireland Assembly. A power sharing agreement between Nationalist Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party must provide fascinating material for drama with the history of the struggles and the IRA background of many Sinn Fein MLAs. The sensitivities of negotiation and agreement in the NI Assembly is surely a different politics which must have some degree of the collegiate and consensual in its pragmatism. Though women play a less prominent role in NI politics there is a template from the Irish Republic with former Presidents Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.
Viewed from the London centric village of Westminster Borgen may well seem like an alien version of politics but perhaps what the fiction of Borgen portrayed is not that far removed from the newer and evolving politics of the devolved nations of these isles. Whether it is or not Borgen is must watch TV and I can't wait for the next series.
Update #1: Leanne Wood Leader of Plaid Cymru the Party of Wales launches a crowdsourcing initiative to build the next Plaid manifesto. Ms Wood said, “We need to open the 'source code' of the policy development process - because politicians do not have a monopoly on good ideas. The glass panes of the Senedd should not just be there to improve transparency - they should also allow ideas from outside in.
Oddly the article by Caroline Crampton suggests the reason for Borgen's success with British audiences was because it couldn't happen here. Crampton posits that it portrays a politics that is 'collegiate, consensual, egalitarian yet still passionate' and appeals because it is unusual to us. Maybe in England it is but in the asymmetrically devolved UK parliaments and assemblies with their proportional representation, coalitions power sharing and plurality of parties perhaps the narrative of Borgen is not such a distant concept.
Scotland has been governed since 1999 by two coalitions, one minority government and now a majority government. Its pr system has produced one rainbow parliament and the representation of women has been light years ahead of Westminster and currently both the Labour Party and the Tories are led by women with both parties now on to their second woman leader. Nicola Sturgeon the SNP's Deputy Leader and Deputy First Minister is surely in pole position to take on the top job when First Minister Alex Salmond steps down from the leadership of the SNP.
During the period that the SNP governed as a minority John Swinney's deft handling of the budget process and the managerial diplomacy of Bruce Crawford showed that a collegiate, consensual politics was achievable even if the main opposition party rarely wanted to play ball. Scotland also has pr in local government which has seen most councils run as coalitions again leading to negotiation over policies and pragmatic consensus emerging along with decision making structures to accommodate that.
In the other devolved nations we have seen coalitions in Wales and finally in Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood a leader that could just be the Birgitte Nyborg of the piece (she'll love me for that I'm sure!).
If there is one devolved legislature which is probably most deserving of a tv drama it would have to be the Northern Ireland Assembly. A power sharing agreement between Nationalist Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party must provide fascinating material for drama with the history of the struggles and the IRA background of many Sinn Fein MLAs. The sensitivities of negotiation and agreement in the NI Assembly is surely a different politics which must have some degree of the collegiate and consensual in its pragmatism. Though women play a less prominent role in NI politics there is a template from the Irish Republic with former Presidents Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.
Viewed from the London centric village of Westminster Borgen may well seem like an alien version of politics but perhaps what the fiction of Borgen portrayed is not that far removed from the newer and evolving politics of the devolved nations of these isles. Whether it is or not Borgen is must watch TV and I can't wait for the next series.
Update #1: Leanne Wood Leader of Plaid Cymru the Party of Wales launches a crowdsourcing initiative to build the next Plaid manifesto. Ms Wood said, “We need to open the 'source code' of the policy development process - because politicians do not have a monopoly on good ideas. The glass panes of the Senedd should not just be there to improve transparency - they should also allow ideas from outside in.
“I want the Party of Wales to lead by example and create the world's first wiki-manifesto, a manifesto created collaboratively by the people of Wales, for the people of Wales.
“This proposal will enable everyone to propose ideas, to debate and discuss. Those ideas will culminate in a special conference of party members and policy advocates where the product of our national creativity will be ratified as Plaid Cymru’s programme for the 2016 elections.”
This initiative again shows a creative collegiate approach to politics coming from a radical leader of a radical party. Perhaps it is Westminster that is over?
Update #2: News today (22/11/12) of the formation of a pro-independence Green/Independent grouping in the Scottish Parliament is perhaps an early indication of a collegiate realignment of Scottish Politics. This grouping will give its members a seat on the Parliamentary Bureau and therefore a say in the business of the parliament. Cynics will no doubt dismiss this move as self serving. However it is important as an indicator of what may become more common - alliances based on common cause that work to enhance influence. In the future there will be a realignment of Scottish Politics and this move could be one of the first pointers of how new alliances will be formed.
Update #2: News today (22/11/12) of the formation of a pro-independence Green/Independent grouping in the Scottish Parliament is perhaps an early indication of a collegiate realignment of Scottish Politics. This grouping will give its members a seat on the Parliamentary Bureau and therefore a say in the business of the parliament. Cynics will no doubt dismiss this move as self serving. However it is important as an indicator of what may become more common - alliances based on common cause that work to enhance influence. In the future there will be a realignment of Scottish Politics and this move could be one of the first pointers of how new alliances will be formed.
Monday, 24 September 2012
Shacking up. Canada and Britain to share Embassies in the Brian Rix farce 'Better Together'
News came today of a frankly peculiar arrangement between the Conservative governments of Canada and Britain that will see them sharing consular addresses in certain countries.
This arrangement to co-locate consular services is all in the name of cost-cutting a beloved credo of conservative governments everywhere. What's not to like? You share a building with either your past colonial master or with a former dependency that is...well dependent again. It's like the teenage offspring that can't quite leave home.
The two Governments - Stephen Harper's Conservatives in Canada and David Cameron's ConservativeLibDems in Britain have warm words on the issue. Both countries 'share values'. That's ok then but wait a minute what are those values? Well there's the Queen and err...saving money.
Diplomacy is an important thing and keeping your independence in that diplomacy is surely the key thing. Kind of hard to keep some of your dealings confidential if another states consular staff see who's coming and going. Like many things in the respective governments recent actions there's a element of farce about this proposal.
In the past Britain refused the Hong Kong Chinese with British passports the right to reside in the UK while Canada welcomed them and benefited from their entrepreneurial drive.
It may be that with ideological driven right wing conservative governments in respective countries that this arrangement might work (if you overlook the absurdity of the premise) but what happens if and when the respective governments are of a differing hue? An indication has been given by the NDP opposition in Canada. Their foreign affairs spokesman Paul Dewar said 'I think it has a lot to do with the fact that this government is cutting severely on diplomacy'. Dewar also said ' We [Canada] shouldn't be a pawn in their [Britain's] diplomatic game.' This last comment a reference to the a view held on both sides of the Atlantic that the move is part of Britian's response to the EU's expansion of it's own diplomatic corps.
All in all it's an odd development and one that so far has given little detail. Much has been made on both sides of broadening diplomatic reach without without detail of where these new joint missions will be set up. Canada just closed its office in Iran so that's one country that won't be on the list and arguably a country in need of diplomacy.
What next? Where's the next saving to be made? Here's one. Harper is so taken with this new arrangement of master and servant that he does away with Canada's Maple Leaf Flag in favour of a return to the old red duster of Canada complete with its Union Jack. What about this Cameron loses the Scottish Independence Referendum and asks Harper for a new Union of 'shared values' - Better Together anyone? Only joking or you read it here first.
This arrangement to co-locate consular services is all in the name of cost-cutting a beloved credo of conservative governments everywhere. What's not to like? You share a building with either your past colonial master or with a former dependency that is...well dependent again. It's like the teenage offspring that can't quite leave home.
The two Governments - Stephen Harper's Conservatives in Canada and David Cameron's ConservativeLibDems in Britain have warm words on the issue. Both countries 'share values'. That's ok then but wait a minute what are those values? Well there's the Queen and err...saving money.
Diplomacy is an important thing and keeping your independence in that diplomacy is surely the key thing. Kind of hard to keep some of your dealings confidential if another states consular staff see who's coming and going. Like many things in the respective governments recent actions there's a element of farce about this proposal.
In the past Britain refused the Hong Kong Chinese with British passports the right to reside in the UK while Canada welcomed them and benefited from their entrepreneurial drive.
It may be that with ideological driven right wing conservative governments in respective countries that this arrangement might work (if you overlook the absurdity of the premise) but what happens if and when the respective governments are of a differing hue? An indication has been given by the NDP opposition in Canada. Their foreign affairs spokesman Paul Dewar said 'I think it has a lot to do with the fact that this government is cutting severely on diplomacy'. Dewar also said ' We [Canada] shouldn't be a pawn in their [Britain's] diplomatic game.' This last comment a reference to the a view held on both sides of the Atlantic that the move is part of Britian's response to the EU's expansion of it's own diplomatic corps.
All in all it's an odd development and one that so far has given little detail. Much has been made on both sides of broadening diplomatic reach without without detail of where these new joint missions will be set up. Canada just closed its office in Iran so that's one country that won't be on the list and arguably a country in need of diplomacy.
What next? Where's the next saving to be made? Here's one. Harper is so taken with this new arrangement of master and servant that he does away with Canada's Maple Leaf Flag in favour of a return to the old red duster of Canada complete with its Union Jack. What about this Cameron loses the Scottish Independence Referendum and asks Harper for a new Union of 'shared values' - Better Together anyone? Only joking or you read it here first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)