For full report (PDF) please click here..

The three main UK party leaders: Brown, Cameron and Clegg have finally agreed to live televised debates.  Like the X-Factor auditions over summer, politics will be touring the country.  Well, England anyway.

The debates have been a long time coming.  David Cameron has been calling for them since 2007.  However, the negotiation for final agreement on them has been a long and drawn out one.  All parties involved finally settled on a 78-point agreement (no audience applause, equality of the ticket allocation to supporters, “I want the same airtime as him” and so on). 

It is also becoming evident that the debates could go a long way to winning – or losing – the election.  Everyday new poll results are released and everyday it seems that the outcome of the election is becoming less and less clear.  These numbers can only be to the dismay of the Conservatives and to the encouragement (and unyielding joy) of Gordon Brown who after umpteen failed coups, countless attacks over his stewardship of the country and his character still retains an outside chance of continuing as PM. 

However, it is not all bad news for the Conservatives.  Cameron is arguably the most effective orator of the three and with his long-time advocacy of TV debates must be feeling confident going in.  Gordon Brown should also be looking forward to these debates in order to build on the goodwill garnered from the Piers Morgan interview and to dispel the allegations of him being bully (frankly, I think we’d all lose the rag a bit if we were in his shoes).  However, he never looks the most comfortable on camera so his prep team have some work to do. Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats could be the biggest beneficiaries, though. 

For so long the election has been depicted as a straight choice between Labour and the Conservatives. The debates though provide a level playing field and with Vince Cable due to debate against Alistair Darling and George Osborne, the Liberal Democrats have the chance to emerge as the voices of reason come Polling Day.  It won’t be enough to win, but could give them great sway should the result be a hung parliament. 

Obviously news of the debates was not greeted with joy everywhere.  The SNP, along with the likes of Plaid Cymru in Wales and UKIP are unhappy that they have been excluded from the big debate.  Instead, the SNP will be debating with the leaders of the Scottish parties. One could argue that they have every right to feel aggrieved.  Brown, Cameron and Clegg are the leaders of their parties, not Gray, Goldie and Scott.  The former should be speaking to the whole of the UK but the format they have chosen – for a separate Scottish debate – could be interpreted as only speaking to England. 

On the other hand, the SNP could use this to their advantage arguing that a ‘them and us’ argument is being articulated at Westminster however unintentionally it has come about.  It surely makes the argument for a referendum on extended powers and, potentially, independence easier to make. For this General Election at least, they will have to live with the situation as it is.

In the run-up to the debates expect to hear a lot of ‘reconnecting with the people’ and ‘rebuilding trust in politics and politicians’.  All fantastic buzzwords for them to use but it will take a lot more than four and a half hours of TV to build the bridges that have been burned in recent times. Nonetheless, I think it’s exciting times and something to look forward to.  If the right questions are asked and three different, competing views of the country and its future are presented we could be in for a treat.

For full report (PDF) please click here.

By saying “sorry”, Sturgeon must have gone against every political instinct in her body; because politicians, it seems, are hardwired never to apologise. But the sheer uniqueness of this approach, mixing a good dose of humility with a lot of contrition and that magic ‘s’ word, is not what makes the speech so noteworthy.

Nor is it because it has effectively saved (and possibly renewed) the career of one of Holyrood’s highest fliers and a good bet to be a future FM.

It will be remembered because it might, just might, herald a changing attitude to politics in Holyrood, moving it away the overly-partisan sniping that has so often characterised  political debate in Scotland.

And while the Scottish Tories must take the credit for starting and sticking to this culture of constructive opposition as opposed to partisan hostility, perhaps yesterday will represent the moment when that attitude caught-on.

Overly optimistic? Perhaps. But I would use the very next debate in the Chamber as evidence that this is not as utopian as it might first seem.

The Scottish Government’s debate on its new obesity strategy was a strange affair; consensual, (mostly) good natured, and with almost no party politicking.

Minister for Public Health Shona Robison accepted the Lib Dems’ amendment almost immediately, and despite the fact that the Labour amendment sought to hold the SNP to account for its manifesto pledge on two hours of PE a week, the usual Nat-Lab fault line was noticeable mostly by its absence.

Ms Robison noted the efforts of the previous administration and, in between the jocular anecdotes and one-liners flying about the benches, much praise and support could be heard. Only two notes of discord arose.

From Lib Dem Mike Rumbles, who while annoyed by one ‘silly’ point included in the strategy (the idea of government controlling portion sizes) was almost apologetic in breaking the new espirit de corps, falling over himself to make sure everyone knew it was just this one issue which he felt spoiled what was otherwise a very good document.

And Tory, Jackson Carlaw, who although he ripped into the strategy as containing far too much understanding and compassion, delivered his attack with such panache and humour that the debate was the better for it – even the Minister was forced to smile.

And as Frank McAveety shuddered in trepidation at the thought of any debate surrounding the merits or otherwise of pies (his words), the debate ended on the note with which the Cabinet Secretary had begun with her statement.

Now, roll on FMQs…

To read the full news release, please click here.

For full report (PDF) please click here.

The document has been met with a chorus of 32 collective groans. Yes, councils say, we know: it’s bad and we need to expect to have to make more efficiency savings in the future.

But there’s a growing realisation that “efficiency savings” or any other attempt to rearrange what is there to make something leaner and meaner is not going to be enough.

Scary fact number one. In the coming four years the cost of just trying to claw back the national overspend for the UK Government is going to mean some 12 per cent less will be available to be spent on the public sector. That’s 12 per cent less for Scotland and thus 12 per cent less for local councils.

Scary fact two. The changing demographic suggests that if we use the current model to delivery local council services – nothing changed from today – we’re going to have to find 8 per cent more money to do it four years from now. That’s almost entirely because more people will need more help and support from their councils in their older age.

Scary fact three. If you add the first two scary facts together you have an even scarier one: somehow councils are going to have to find 20 per cent more money, somehow, if they are to carry on doing what they are doing now.

The shared services agenda all seemed an interesting idea in the past. Initiatives that allowed savings in back-office functions, for instance, to allow the reallocation of money to the front line were lauded. Several even became reality and councils are cooperating in the delivery of some things. But we still have 32 councils and most of what they do is by them directly for their own population. That interesting idea’s day has come (actually it has probably been).

To make the sort of savings we are talking about is perhaps about cuts instead of “efficiencies”, in which case nothing that isn’t a legal obligation is safe. Some sacred cows should start feeling a wee bit apprehensive.

There’s a fourth scary fact. Council leaders are bracing themselves for the possibility that the books could be reopened DURING this financial year. If a new UK Government wants to, it could decide that it needs to get tough on public spending immediately. A chunk would then come off the block grant to Scotland and, unless the Scottish Government has some wee miracle up its sleeve to cushion the blow, local councils would have to revisit their budgets immediately rather than holding fire until the few months up until the end of February.

This could be a long hot summer for politicians at Holyrood and in Scotland’s “town halls”.

The political ramifications of all this are already intriguing and will get steadily more febrile. Here’s just one: if he plays it right, all this may mean that Alex Salmond’s referendum proposals may do rather better than currently predicted on the basis that a lot more Scottish users of public services may begin to think anything is better than what they are facing under the current arrangements.

All the parties’ communication experts are identifying the social networking frontiers as a key battleground. We’ve already had the Gordon Brown You-tube experience and the Cameronians are partial to some twittering, in the Scottish Parliament the Lib Dems lead the way on facebook usage behind the one man show that Patrick Harvie MSP, and political parties’ members can blog to their hearts content.  Social networking sites provide opportunities for politicians / aspiring politicians to rally their supporters: provide them with information, let them know about forthcoming fundraising events or leafleting in their area, or ensure that they are fully aware that X opponent said Y this week. However the question is whether politicians and parties can use these sites to make the breakthrough and crack the non-political public, those who only really think about politics in the run-up to a general election or during a scandal. The belief appears to be that the e-audience may be easier, more receptive than those using traditional media outputs but I would suggest that the parties have their work cut out – yes, social media can be open but it can also be very closed and those not wishing to hear the same messages that emanate from their tv and radio may retreat further into their own spaces away from the political noise. 

That said this could be where this election may actually bring some merit – discussions of values, policies and vision have largely remained dormant in this election, with the mainstream media focusing on party sound bites and drawing attention to policy slip-ups. It is perhaps in the social media arena where genuine discussion can take place, discussion away from identifiable party sites and forums but instances where genuine dialogue springs forth from interested voters. Since the last election we have had the recession, the realisation of climate change has dawned on the world, the UK parliament has been rocked by scandal – any future government will have less money to play with and big questions to tackle (education, health spending, caring for those in older age) in addition to the global backdrop. If these are not enough to provide a catalyst to mobilise discussion and prompt citizens to fulfil their civic duty then the age of mass democracy is undoubtedly entering a period of crisis.

Social networking sites fulfil a range of functions for their aficionados: I can see what my friends are talking about / interested in, I can see who likes which band / book / film, I can also see which causes / issues / groups my friends have joined. A friend joining / becoming a fan of a political party is probably not a stimulus alone for me, though what does interest me is that they have taken the step. What other people (and by people I mean those non-politicised) are saying about policy and issues that affect my life are reassuring. I may not agree with their points but at least they care enough to have thought about the issue and developed a point of view. 

The social networking focus for the political parties in this year’s election hangs on the fact that these sites can provide a function in terms of tactical voting but social media has a far more valuable role to play this year. Social media can creating the spaces for genuine, non-party instigated public discussions, which, if they do spring forth would place 2010 in the history books. 

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

Doing what an opposition party does when presented with such an opportunity, Labour have gone on the offensive in a bid to discredit the Deputy First Minister.  Throughout calls for her resignation, Ms Sturgeon was always referred to as the Deputy First Minister or Cabinet Secretary.  It was never mentioned by opposition parties that she was acting in her role as an MSP on behalf of a constituent.  Whatever mistakes have been made by Ms Sturgeon throughout this story, no accusations have been made suggesting her performance in either of the aforementioned roles is inadequate.  When launching a staunch defence of his Deputy, Alex Salmond listed MPs who have acted in a similar manner.  Based on this, it has to be suggested that, had this been a backbench MSP (from any party) then neither the media nor the opposition parties would have been interested in the matter. 

It could be argued the story was owed to Ms Sturgeon’s elevated position.  This leads us into the second question of whether or not we should differentiate between when a cabinet member is acting in their ministerial role and when they are acting as a constituency MSP?  Based on my assumption that we wouldn’t have noticed this story had it been a backbench MSP, it seems that, for ministers, we do not separate the two.  In their constituency an MSP represents tens of thousands of people.  In a cabinet position they are responsible for a portfolio that affects the whole country not only the constituency that elected them.  Whether they like it or not the actions of those at the top of the political ladder are held to a higher standard than a backbench MSP. 

Career progression is something that should be earned and therefore enjoyed but politicians of all people should know that the bigger they are the harder they fall.

For now, it appears as though Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing Nicola Sturgeon MSP has weathered the storm and only time will tell if there has been any lasting damage inflicted by this event.  Rightly or wrongly, she acted on behalf of a constituent. After all isn’t that what she’s supposed to do? And if a Minister cannot represent their constituents as well as they would wish to precisely because they are a minister, does that not raise a whole lot of other questions about whether constituents have to accept a lower level of service if their MSP is also a minister.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

Justifiable outrage or cynical politicking depending on your point of view; it is a subject that has proved thorny for some major Labour MSPs in the past, and so it is entirely understandable why they might ‘scent blood’ on this one.

Leaving the cut and thrust of Holyrood’s rancorous party politics to one side for the moment, an important issue lies at the heart of this row; how should we fund politics in Scotland/UK?

If we take the premise that we have a party system and that it needs money to function as a starting point, the next question must therefore be where should this money come from?

Self-funding, as happens now, will inevitably lead to allegations or implications of bought influence and of shady or grubby dealings. It is almost inevitable that all parties who take in any kind of serious cash from donors will run into problems of one kind or another.

The Labour Party is influenced fairly heavily by the Unions who have always been major funders. Likewise, the Conservatives’ relationships with big business are well known.

The SNP is slightly different in that it relies less on such institutional funding and more on the support of its members – which could perhaps leave it more susceptible to the ‘scandal’ in question.

But what is the alternative? In the wake of the expenses scandal and the general public dissatisfaction with our elected officials, I suspect that the idea of taxpayer money going to fund parties would cause near revolution.

Yet that would seem to be the obvious way to remove any questions of influence from our party politics system; not an easy dilemma for a disgruntled and weary public.

And said weariness is only likely to increase as long as parties continue to throw mud at each other over a practice that they all engage in, which serves only to feed a perception of impropriety.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]