I should preface this post by saying that it has nothing to do with Labour’s inability to pick a candidate for the forth-coming by-election, although I do suspect that their lost weekend didn’t actually ‘feel’ as bad as mine.

I think it’s probably fair to say that my lost weekend started some 16 - 24 hours in advance of Labours - on Thursday night - although in both cases, mine and theirs, it involved participants who were either naive, unable to take part or simply unwilling to take part.

In my case, I should have listened to the dull nagging at the back of mind yittering about mixing ‘the grape’ and ‘the grain’ as I headed out with a bottle of red and a bottle of scotch.  It was a naivety that was to rule me out of much of the weekend’s ‘entertainments’ … which is interesting in itself, because it was a degree of naivety that had George Ryan firmly in place as the candidate for Glasgow East, only for him to fail to arrive at the selection meeting. 

So for George “I was cleared of benefits fraud” Ryan and myself Friday was a bit of a non-event … we both hid in-doors and for my part I concentrated on pleasant thoughts as far removed from the toilet bowl as possible, with only limited success I might add. 

Saturday saw events come and go for me.  Again, as with Friday, the mrs took the kids away while I slowly recupirated, I’m never an enthusiatic participant in outings and ’stuff’, although at least by saturday I had progressed from ’a very unable’ to ‘ a very unwilling’ participant.  A stand point which was by-and-large respected, or at least understood, albeit massively broadcast amongst family and freinds.  Curiously, a situation not entirely unlike potential Labour candidates for the Glasgow East by-election, Frank McAveety and Stephen Purcell, amongst others … unwilling to take part, but at least understandable as to why that might be.

By Sunday I was practically fixed, not quite, but almost.  Just as I was reflecting on what I had missed over the weekend thus far, a trip to the beach, the shops, a visit to the in-laws; I imagine that someone else, Margaret Curran perhaps, was also pondering what her party was missing over the weekend, some candidate led campaigning perhaps?  So Margaret Curran is currently the ‘best bet’ to be Labour Candidate, but let’s face it, who knows.

Anyway, my weekend ended up with a trip to a local photography exhibition featuring a number of pictures taken for a competition to raise funds for the local ‘library’.  I had entered a few pictures myself, and whilst one of my entries was ‘highly commended’, I didn’t win … which given the quality of the top three, I’m inclined to say that the competition was rigged*, clearly my pictures were superior in EVERY way …

… I wonder how the Glasgow East by-election will play out on July 24th, I wonder if Margaret Curran (or whoever) will cry foul with the latest Labour war-cry:

“it was the Nats that done it”

* Actually, that’s probably unfair … in fact, that is unfair,
the winning pictures were very good.

Apparently somebody has resigned, I think it might have been that Nicola Stephanie that headed up the Scottish wing of the Lib Dems.  Seriously though, has Nicol Stephens not been the most ethereal of all political leaders during his three year reign as the Lib Dems Scottish supremo.

It was only in the final year of his leadership that I actually discovered that he is a he and this his name is Nicol and not Nicola!  Of course this is easily explained away as  he and his party was largely subsumed by the Labour monolith during their years in coalition government when Nicol was officially second in command at Holyrood.

Following their fall from power and their decision to avoid power at all costs with the motto, “opposition for opposition’s sake”, Stephens headed up the fourth party in Holyrood … strange then that he should now tender his resignation on the grounds that he must put his family first, strange given that his portfolio of responsibility must be somewhat lighter than it was while he was sharing a bed with Labour.

It’s highly laudable that he should resign to give over more of his time to his family and it’s a fine example to set.  But then I can’t help sensing that their is a whiff of sleaze about this somewhere, a tale untold perhaps, a scandal in waiting … Nicol, Nicol, Nicol, what have you been up to … or is it Nicola?  Enquiring minds want to know!

Actually, if he has resigned for genuinely family orientated reasons then I would wish him all the best in placing his priorities in the right place, some things are more important than work, and sometimes the job and the responsibilities just aren’t worth the rewards … or the costs.

As a by-election looms large on the East side of Glasgow following the resignation of David MarshallI think it’s worthwhile examining just how the people living in the area have been served by Labour.  Remember Labour have held the seat, and it’s pre-boundary change equivilents, since at least 1979 so thay’ve had a good deal of time to make some serious improvements.

Labour on Transport:

Living in East glasgow isn’t easy.  Most of the jobs are low paid and, to be honest, there aren’t actually that many jobs there anymore anyway as most industries are either going, gone or long gone.  If you want to work you need to travel outwith the area in a lot of cases (not all, but alot).  This can mean travelling from one side of the city to the other which isn’t an easy prospect unless yo live at one end of a train line and work at another.

Public tranpsort can be convoluted and disconnected leaving you stranded in undesireable areas, or having to walk miles to get to your destination.  The alterantive is running an expensive car.

Labour’s answer to this has been to maintain percentage of fuel duty at the same level as it would have been when the price of a barrel of oil was $88, of course oil isn’t $88 a barrel anymore … was it ever!  How far can the low paid travel in their cars now anyway?

We might have expected this ‘green tax’ to be ring-fenced for public transport plans and infrastructure … apparently not, so no ’special funding’ there then to help out the hard pressed commuter.

Of course it could be that the new car tax tax rates will provide some more ring fencing for public transport … but I wouldn’t count on it.  What does seem fairly certain is that the new car tax levels will be applied retrospectivally to car manufactured since 2001.

Guess what? that cheap second hand motor you picked up for the work run isn’t looking so cheap anymore is it … but don’t think for a moment there’s going to be a nice big shiney new tram to take you to work.  Not unless you want to move to a specific, and over priced, area of Edninburgh where an expensive and pointless tram will take you somewhere … thanks to Labour’s holyrood wing this time.

Labour on low pay:

Glasgow East is the most impoverished area in Britain, low employment levels supported by low levels of pay.  Labour, using their Westminster clout could easily tackle such issues with progressive taxation and revenues policy, yet instead they abolish the 10p tax rate for income.

Then they get ‘found out’ and the 5.3million people on low incomes effected are ‘unhappy’

Then they put together a ‘rescue package’ which leaves 1.06 million people worse off.

Then instead of reversing the original action they thrash about for a bit coming up with more ways in which to make tax and taxation more convoluted.

Labour on employment:

Labour aren’t the party of the Left they once were.  They are in the pocket of big business and have distanced themselves from the unions.  The only work anyone is likely to be able to get is low paid, low skilled, with no prospect of advancement, probably in the food industry or possibly hospitality … that’s if you don’t just end up in hospital.

Labour on health:

Men in Shettleston die younger than anywhere else in the country. At 63, life expectancy is 14 years less than the national average and comparable with Iraq and some countries in the Third World.

.
.
.

A lot of people are on benefits, living from week to week, relying on convenience foods and eating out of the chippy. Give people jobs and the ability to be masters of their own destinies and they will make healthy decisions about their lives.

Guardian.co.uk

Another in the front line is Mary McGregor, an undertaker’s assistant on Shettleston Road. ‘Recently there have been young people who suffered sudden, unexplained deaths,’ she said. ‘But east-enders are east-enders, they take everything in their stride. Maybe that’s part of the problem. They just accept it.’

Guardian.co.uk

Maybe it’s time to stop accepting it.

Every-time I hear this song, Street Spirit (fade out), from the inimitable Radiohead I get the feeling there’s a storm coming …

… is there a storm coming?

Ever since Alexander’s disgraceful dodgy donations came to light she has been squirming (even as she resigns) about in a vain attempt to lay the blame at the feet of everyone else.  Anyone remember Charlie Gordon?  This ‘poor’ chap attempted to act as Alexander’s fall-guy on this and, being a Labour MSP, failed to even achieve this.

More recently we have had Douglas Alexander, her brother, and Tom Harrisattempting to smear the SNP with Wendy’s indiscretion.  As if it was the SNP who forced her seek donations just shy of the disclosure level, seek and accept a donation from a tax exile, fail to seek advice from the standards clerk within an appropriate time frame, and ultimately fail to disclose donations until some 60 days after they were banked and some thirty days after the time limit for disclosing such donations.

What the Labour party seem to have failed to realise is that, if it is the duty of the opposition to hold government to account in not only the policies they pursue and the choices they make, but also in their general conduct, then it is also to be expected that the party of government (and others) must hold the opposition to account in the arguments they make in relation to ‘opposing’ government but also in relation to such conduct as may bring the parliament into disrepute.

If the SNP have done anything then it has been to ruthlessly pursue an opposition who, in her own admission, broke the law and parliamentary rules.  To attempt to counter-smear the SNP and cry foul once they have effectively been found guilty by their peers and the fiscal (1) only goes to demonstrate the level to which Labour have fallen.  Labour, arrogant to the last.

Maybe a leadership contest which is likely to some real competition for Labours top job in Scotland will revitalise the rather lack-luster policy, however, this post isn’t about the leadership contest and their is a far more interesting post here than I could attempt to match at the moment.

Anyway, unless there should be a momentous Wendy related event in the near future, I do solemnly swear to leave the puir wee lassie alone with the shattered remnants of her political career in her hands and no more refer to her or publish unflattering pictures.

 Wendy’s career - RIP

(1) remember they decided it was not in the public interest to press charges, she wasn’t cleared of anything.

The upcoming by-election in Glasgow East, being triggered thanks to the poor health of the serving member (David Marshall MP), is a different matter to those recently fought in Crewe and Nantwich and Henley.  This is an extremely strong seat held in a Labour heartland of at least 50 years and where there is no great love for ‘those Tory bastards‘.  Currently it’s held with a massive 60.7% of the popular vote and covers some of the poorest and most deprived areas in the UK.  Essentially it’s one of those constituencies where the saying, “you could pin a red rosette on a monkey and it’d win”, is probably fairly apt.

It should be an interesting fight to watch as the SNP square up to make further in-roads into Labour territory … make no mistake, this is going to be a Labour-SNP head-to-head, all other applicants may as well stay at home.

During the Scottish parliamentary election last year Labour held the two Holyrood equivalents (Glasgow Shettleston and Glasgow Bailliston) with either a reduced majority or no change at all.  Meanwhile the SNP made double figure percentage gains in each constituency and have consistently outperformed Labour in every way since the election.

This by-election may well be a nail in the coffin of Gordon Brown, if his party can’t convincingly hold this seat in his own ‘Scottish backyard’, then he may well find himself in a tricky position.  I’d suspect that a narrow victory would allow him to scrape through … a defeat though would be devastating.  I doubt we’ll see an SNP victory (although we can hope) but I do expect we’ll see that majority take a severe kicking.

This by-election aside, Gordon Brown must be sick to death with these things what with the pummelling his party took in Crewe and Nantwich back in April, which saw his party lose an otherwise strong seat that had been held with a 48.8% share of the vote.  This Majority was effectively reversed by the Tories at the recent by-election and they now hold it with a 49.5% share of the vote.

That was followed by the more recent Henley by-election, triggered by Boris Johnson’s ascension to Mayor of London, which saw the Tories (not unsurprisingly) hold their seat with an increased majority (from a 53.5% to a 56.9% share of the vote).  Meanwhile Labour’s share of the vote fell from 14.7% (2005) to 3.1%.  This meant they lost their deposit and that they came fifth behind the widely despised ‘bastarding BNP’ … that’s a pretty poor showing.

For some of us it’s been long overdue but she’s finally done the right thing and resigned.  Remarkable as it is that it should be questions over fund-raising for her leadership contest in which she was the only candidate, effectively her own ego was her undoing.

Here’s her resignation speech:

She could have assumed the role with a quiet confidence that no-one opposed her, that she was leader by virtue of her over-whelming wealth of experience and power of personality, yet instead she succumbed to ‘hustings’ at which she was the only participant, she allowed herself to be placed on a pedastole.  She should have known, in Scotland, we’re only too happy to smack you back down if you get ahead of yourself.

It seems likely to me that Wendy would have been forced to resign relatively quickly anyway, given her complete failure to coherently lead her party in any meaningful way.  The last year (in fact it’s been less than that) has been a number of gaffs and failures to perform, the fact that Alex Salmond is a political heavyweight in these parts didn’t help her cause any either.

But who to replace her with?  The real might of the UK parties really reside in Westminster and many of their devolved counterparts are something of a backstreet freak-show by comparison … which is saying something given some of the assorted freaks we’ve had to endure from Westminster, David Mellor anyone?!!

Labour Scotland is in a bit of bother, there isn’t exactly a ready supply of obvious talent, many of the possibles have already been tainted by their role in the previous Labour administration and some of the disasters presided over in the preceding decade … where will they turn?  I don’t have a clue.  But while you ponder that question why not remind yourself of what Wendy did to get us to this point in the first place:

Whoever replaces the forlorn lass that wis Windy we can only hope that they provide some sort of opposition that is so important to the effective running of government.

A long overdue punishment for her failure to appropriately disclose donations to her election non-campaign looks to be in the offing following the recommendation by the Holyrood standards committee that she be suspended for a day.

However, as the Scottish Parliament has now been suspended for the summer recess the matter must be further drawn out until September when parliament will be given the opportunity to vote on the matter.

There has been a lot of hoo-ha over this case as Alexander did seek advice, was seemingly given advice , before later being given contradictory advice.  The thinking seems to be that she had been in breach of the rules in advance of seeking advice in the first instance and that she had therefore flouted the rules and possibly only then sought advice at the point at which she realised that there may have been a cock-up - that, however, is merely supposition on my part.

Irritatingly one of the numpties involved in the non-campaign, David Whitton MSP, has been reported as saying:

“The result of this ballot didn’t actually mean anything - whether it’s one day, a week, a year - it doesn’t really matter.”

The ballot actually does mean something.  It means the Leader of the opposition faces the very real possibility of being suspended from parliament, which is hardly a great thing for any senior politicians prospects, nevermind that of the supposed leader of a party.

Still, I guess we’re all just going to have to wait and find out what happens to the clown in question.  I’m guessing that whatever happens she’ll be left speechless.

I have questioned Ms Harman’s intellect previously, most notably here and here.  Now, following the introduction of her Equalities Bill, it has been confirmed that she is a bit dim.

The main headline grabber from the bill has been that

employers should be able to choose a women over a man of equal ability - or vice versa.

This is actually something that also extends to ethnic minorities and I would assume any other minority type group.  However, is it something that really needs to be enshrined in a new bill and will it be helpful?

The simple answer is ‘no’.

The one helpful thing that this bill will do is place all the equalities legislation in one place rather than across a whole raft of bills and regulations which employers must currently sift through.  I think the course that Ms Harman has chosen is actually a very dangerous one from an equal opportunities point-of-view.

It strikes me that this new ‘rule’ will provide a carte blanche for unethical and discriminatory employers to refuse employment to one or more groups of people, something that existing legislation aggressively acts to prevent.  It is an undoing of a key principle.  That principle being that you DON’T discriminate on grounds of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion … it’s just something that you DON’T DO.

Stating that such a rule would only apply to equal candidates is a nonsense, it’s for an employer to show this and a canny employer can show pretty much whatever they wish within the confines of their erstwhile entirely legislatively compliant recruitment and selection policies and procedures.

The other thing this Bill attempts to tackle is age discrimnation in the provision of products and services … I wonder if we can all expect to get a free bus pass then?  Perhaps benefits restricted by age will become available to all?  Maybe they’ll liberalise the age restrictions on the sale of tobacco and alcohol?  Provisional driving licences from birth? 

No. 

I didn’t think so.

Maybe, this last part is just aimed at winning more support from the elderly … our fastest growing demographic.  Maybe I’m being too cynical.

Holyrood’s standards committee has finally ruled on Alexander’s failure to disclose donations made to her leadership ‘campaign’.

People, in general, in Scotland cannot have failed to be aware of Ms Alexander’s indiscretions in raising funds for a leadership campaign where she was the only candidate.  That she deliberately sought donations of just under the threshold for declaration gives ample warning of her devious machinations, and of course, we should not forget that she also accepted donations from an individual who is actually forbidden from donating as he doesn’t reside within the UK.

The Standards committee decided five votes to two that Alexander had broken the rules by failing to disclose the donations.  The vote itself is remarkable given that Alexander latterly admitted herself that she had broken the rules … presumably the two votes in suggesting that Alexander didn’t break the rules were made by a couple of Holyrood’s (or perhaps Alexander’s) less than trained chimps.

Personally, I’m rather irked by Alexander’s insistence that she was told by ‘clerks to the standards committee’ that she did not need to declare the donations … I would have assumed that a senior politician would have been aware of the legal implications of accepting donations from non-resident individuals.  I certainly was.

Related Links:

BBC NEWS - Alexander ‘broke holyrood rules’
attack of the [wendy alexander] clones
labour party: law-makers law-breakers

PS.  regular readers may believe that I have some sort of vendetta against this women.  I don’t.  I just think she’s a bloody disgrace.