European Parliament Elections - June 4 2009
Context
During April and May 2009 the Centre for Scottish Public Policy (CSPP), the European Movement and the Hansard Society embarked on an educational project around Scotland that was motivated by the lack of coverage and predicted low electoral turnout in the European Parliament elections taking place on the 4th June 2009.
Extending from Aberdeen to Melrose, it raised awareness of what the European Parliament (EP) does and the impending elections, while giving you the unique opportunity to hear from and scrutinise prospective and existing MEPs.
What follows is a brief overview of the six parties that were involved: their manifestos and their candidates.
Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party
Struan Stevenson and John Purvis CBE are the current MEPs though the latter has recently retired. Mr. Stevenson is number one on the list. The others are: Belinda Don, Helen Gardner, Donald MacDonald, Gerald Michaluk and PJ Lewis. All Conservative MEPs have agreed to leave the main centre-right grouping in the EP, the European People’s Party (EPP), after the election and form a new group.
The manifesto’s clarion call is a ‘vote for change’. A key aspect of this change is rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, the ‘only major party supporting a referendum on the constitution’. In rejecting further ‘central control from Brussels’, they will ‘not take Britain into the euro’ and ‘return social and employment legislation to British national control’. The latter point was emphasised by Mr Stevenson MEP at our hustings in relation to the Working Times Directive.
Like the vast majority of parties they proclaim that ‘tackling climate change is a central priority for the EU’ while also stating the need to reform the Common Fisheries Policy. Click here for their election broadcast.
In regards to their achievements (see manifesto p6-9), they include: introducing the EU Small Business Act; ‘secured early agreement’ in the EP to cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2020; introduced the ‘most far reaching rules on transparency on MEPs expenses of any UK political parry’; and dismantled trade barriers between the EU and the U.S. by taking a ‘leading role in the Transatlantic Economic Council’.
Scottish Green Party
Presently the Greens have no MEPs. Elaine Morrison is number one on the list and is joined by: Chas Booth; Kirsten Robb; Alastair Whitelaw; Ruth Dawkins; and Peter McColl. They are members of the European Green Party, the fifth largest group in the EP with 43 MEPs.
Under the banner of ‘let’s reclaim our economy [and our] communities’, the manifesto asserts that now is the time to ‘choose a new sort of politics’. This means delivering on ‘high-skilled, well paid green jobs to develop the infrastructure of the future’ and create a ‘green new deal for Europe’.
Like other parties the economic turbulence has largely framed their manifesto and thus they call for a new sustainable economic model. This will include: EU & global ‘regulation of big banks’; create a ‘European living wage’; keeping ‘public services public’; and Introduce ‘corporate transparency requirements similar to Freedom of Information laws’.
The Greens also put a considerable amount of attention on ‘a responsible EU’, centred on the notion of implementing ‘fair trade rules’ in a new era of fairer globalisation, one that strengthens the voice ‘developing countries’ in global governance.
Lastly, and heavily emphasised by Ms Morrison at our event, was the need to ‘reclaim our environment’. No ‘longer can governments chase the dream of everlasting economic growth’. To combat climate change they will: ensure that strongest deal is made at Copenhagen summit; campaign for ‘laws requiring EU companies to account for all of their carbon pollution’; and protect local fisheries ban GM crops.
Scottish Labour
David Martin and Catherine Stihler are the current MEPs. Mary Lockhart, Paul McAleavey, Kirsty Connell and Nasim Khan complete the list. They are part of the European Socialist group (PES) which has 214 MEPs in the EP. Click here for their election broadcast.
The manifesto is driven by the ‘pledge to fight for jobs’ and create a ‘better future’. Like other parties the narrative focused extensively on the financial crisis and the action needed ‘to create jobs and build a stronger, fairer and safer country’. In this light ‘our membership of the EU is more important than ever’.
There was a strong emphasis on the cross-border problems Scotland faces (climate change, global recession, terrorism etc) and the need for coordinated action, a theme echoed by David Martin at our events. ‘There are no Scotland only solutions’. Indeed, the manifesto highlighted the importance of tackling climate change and ‘building a low carbon society’. Mr Martin stated that the 2020 targets (see manifesto p13-14) were the most significant achievement in the EP’.
In addition they outlined their ‘strong’ legislative record in the Parliament (and domestically) which have ‘achieved practical results’. These include: the EU Social Chapter (guaranteed Scottish people the right to take 5 weeks paid holiday, more maternity leave etc); leading the European recovery plan to tackle the economic crisis; and introduced a ‘European Arrest Warrant’ making it more difficult for criminals to avoid arrest by moving between EU countries.
Scottish Liberal Democrats
Elspeth Attwooll is the current MEP though she has recently retired. The number one on the list is George Lyon who featured prominently in our events. Euan Robson, Robert Aldridge, Patsy Kenton, Douglas Herbison and Clive Sneddon complete the list. They are members of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) in the EP with 99 members.
To the Lib Dems this election is a litmus test for Scotland. Either we choose to ‘work together for a safer, stronger world’ or face the big issues in ‘isolation’. ‘Britain should lead in Europe to tackle the big issues’ that pay no respect to borders.
The thrust of the manifesto is to demonstrate that ‘we are stronger together, poorer apart’. Economic globalisation necessitates that ‘we work together with European countries to promote jobs and growth in the current recession. Through cooperation the Lib Dems will: strengthen the economy sustainably by providing ‘more jobs & opportunities for businesses’; fight climate change; and tackle international crime and terrorism while upholding our civil liberties’. Mr Lyon stated that these were the ‘key priorities’ (see manifesto p7-9).
Their track record over the last five years includes: supporting the European Arrest Warrant, what Mr Lyon described as the ‘biggest achievement of the EP in the last five years’; consumer protection and increased competition in aviation and telecommunications whilst backing the ‘EU Health Card’ (see p12); and promoted a better ‘life-work balance’ by ‘extending maternity leave’.
Scottish National Party
Ian Hudghton and Alyn Smith are the current MEPs. Aileen McLeod, Drew Hendry, Duncan Ross and Gordon Archer complete the list. They are members of the Greens/Free Alliance group in the EP with 43 members. Click here for their election broadcast.
While the Conservatives and UKIP wish to preserve and promote British sovereignty, the SNP want to alter it with Scotland becoming an independent nation state and fully-fledged member of the European Union – a ‘stronger voice for Scotland in Europe’. This independence narrative is central to this manifesto as is the focus on economic recovery, job creation and renewable energy.
A key maxim for the SNP in these elections is building on the ‘achievements of the Scottish Government’. This translates into numerous ‘pledges’ (see manifesto p2): ‘protecting Scottish jobs’; ‘opportunities for education and skills’; and ‘standing up for rural communities’. Leading the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy are also key areas.
Both Mr Smith and Mr Hudgton at out events stressed their records in the last session of the EP. A key achievement to both was the ‘ambitious targets’ set out in the ‘climate change package’. Another was the ‘success in the CAP Health Check Process’, to name but a few.
UK Independence Scotland Party
Currently UKIP Scotland (from here on in “UKIP”) has no MEPs in Scotland although they have nine members in the EP. Peter Adams is number one on the list and is joined by Paul Henke, Donald Mackay, Peter Nielson, Michael Arthur and Paul Wiffen.
The raison d’être of UKIP is straight-forward: withdraw Britain from the European Union and replace our membership with a ‘genuine free trade agreement similar to those enjoyed by Switzerland and Norway’. Peter Adams made it clear that UKIP rejects political union but not economic union as was the case in the European Economic Community (EEC).
UKIP, however, are not a single-issue party as their campaign promises illustrates. An area of particular importance is immigration where they affirm that they are the only party that have consistently ‘voted against the open-door immigration policy’. We must ‘take control of our national borders and impose our own immigration rules’. Another key area is agriculture and fisheries where ‘European policies have been an ecological disaster’.
Peter Adams made it clear that UKIP are the ‘real independents’ in this election who are committed to uncovering the stream of ‘lies’ surrounding the European project and dedicated to delivering a ‘free democratic, independent Britain’.
Click here for all party election broadcasts for these elections.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
A Radical Distribution of Power?
As the democratic crisis continues the political class have been reacting -some better than others. Undeniably, the Conservative leader David Cameron is top of the class, if such a thing is possible. Cameron, more than any other Westminster leader, has seized the agenda and consistently pushed the policy boundaries, displaying a ‘steely mixture of ruthlessness and opportunism’.
Yesterday’s speech at the Open University marked Cameron’s apogee where he set out his plans to reform the UK political system. Pointing out that the Tory scrutiny panel for MPs expenses was merely the beginning, he proposed that: the number of MPS should be cut; parliamentary terms fixed at four years; permit more free votes in the House; introduce a ‘right of initiative nationally’ where, with enough signatures, people can get their proposals debates in Parliament; and introduce further subsidiarity:
From the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities. From Brussels to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy.
Generally it has been very well received with commentators praising its analytical precision and its ability to outline a narrative that chimes with the growing discontent. Certainly, Cameron’s ability to address both the short term and long term political problems is to be applauded. Indeed, he is accurate in arguing that the fundamental cause of this crisis is:
…the result of people's slow but sure realisation that they have very little control over the world around them.
Despite these reformist proclamations there is a deep tension permeating Cameron’s speech and it is this tension that strikes at the heart of his progressive Conservative philosophy. It is the need to rock the boat, but not too much; to tread carefully and cautiously, to usher in change but maintain order; introduce reforms but maintain tradition. It will be said that this is a problem for all politicians irrespective of their ideological compass. This is true but for Cameron the problem is far more entrenched as he looks to appease both the progressives and the traditionalists.
Listening to his speech the ideological friction between traditional and progressive Conservatism was audible. A ‘radical redistribution of power’ is urgently needed but electoral reform is off the table. Our politics are broken but so too is our society. Indeed to Cameron the two are inextricably linked in a causal relationship. There is mass ‘social breakdown’ (‘record violent crime, record teenage pregnancy’) because of the ‘leeching of power and control away from the individual and the community into the hands of the elite’. Put another way, centralising, power hungry political elites = a broken society.
David Cameron’s response, indeed all Westminster leaders, to the current political crisis regardless of the incisive oratory ultimately fail. They fail and thus lack authenticity because they are reacting. Would they have delivered ‘radical’ plans to reform our politics had the Telegraph not received details of MPs expenses?
Notwithstanding this, Cameron’s contribution is welcome and deservedly leads in the reformist sprint. Britain is on the precipice of significant democratic alteration. It remains to be seen whether progressive Conservatism is the model to deliver a new politics.
I doubt that it is. The larger question emanating from this crisis as the political class engage in an ‘I’m more transparent and progressive than you’ competition is whether or not they can be trusted to undertake a fundamental redesign of our democracy.
In all the reviews, speeches and commissions currently operating there is a vital component missing. Yes, people are the elephant in the room. A representative democratic solution to this crisis will not suffice. What we need now is a citizen-centred approach to deliver deep constitutional renewal.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Briefing Note – Pilots for Directly Elected Health Boards SNP Spring Conference 2009
What
NHS health boards have responsibility for the management of local health services and around £8bn of public money. Currently board members are unelected which has led many to decry its ‘democratic deficits’: that is, a health service delivery system which lacks accountability and substantial public engagement.
The willingness to reform health boards is nothing new, however. In 2006 Labour MSP Bill Butler introduced a Members’ Bill on this same issue which subsequently fell at stage one, with 55 for and 64 against.
Reigniting their original support for this measure, the SNP successfully acted on a 2007 manifesto promise to ‘introduce direct elections to health boards’ and provide ‘accountable healthcare’.
The bill to pilot these elections recently passed stage three (see below) and means that:
o The constitution of the health boards now includes ‘elected members’ and for the first time ‘sets out on a statutory basis’ the membership of local councillors on Health Boards. Together these members ‘must amount to more than half the total number of members’.
o They will be two pilot areas which have yet to be selected.
o An independent evaluator, which will be in place before the elections, will assess the effectiveness of these pilots.
o Specifically looking at: the level of public participation in the elections, levels of engagement with patients and other stakeholders, and the cost of holding the election and ‘estimated cost of holding future… elections’.
o A roll-out will only take place if the above has been satisfied and if the order has been laid before and approved by the Scottish Parliament.
o The voting age would be extended to sixteen year olds for these elections which will take place every four years via STV. The ballot will take the form of an all-postal ballot.
The Bill (as passed) can be accessed here.
When
• On 25 June 2008 the Executive Bill was introduced by Nicola Sturgeon MSP
• The Bill passed stage one on 15 January 2009 in which the Health and Sport Committee was the lead committee.
• Following amendments the Bill passed stage two on 4 February 2009.
• After a debate the Bill passed stage three on 12 March 2009.
Why
As a party and Government the SNP are committed to the democratisation of health boards. The following statement by Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon MSP aptly summarises their motivation:
…there is a real democratic deficit in the operation of our health boards… The bill's clear objective, therefore, is to allow the public voice to be heard and listened to at the heart of the decision-making process… We believe that democracy is a good thing and that opening up NHS boards to the public through elections will deliver better decision making and, ultimately, even better services than those we already enjoy.
This move is part of a wider narrative, as outlined by the ‘Better Health, Better Care’ report, to create a ‘mutual health service in which ownership and decision making are shared’ with the public and staff.
Notwithstanding the genuine motivation to democratise health service delivery, the successful completion of this manifesto promise is excellent ammunition for both the party and the Government in a time when they are being criticised by opposition for not fulfilling other manifesto promises – for e.g. classroom sizes.
Barry McCulloch, CSPP Policy Officer
NHS health boards have responsibility for the management of local health services and around £8bn of public money. Currently board members are unelected which has led many to decry its ‘democratic deficits’: that is, a health service delivery system which lacks accountability and substantial public engagement.
The willingness to reform health boards is nothing new, however. In 2006 Labour MSP Bill Butler introduced a Members’ Bill on this same issue which subsequently fell at stage one, with 55 for and 64 against.
Reigniting their original support for this measure, the SNP successfully acted on a 2007 manifesto promise to ‘introduce direct elections to health boards’ and provide ‘accountable healthcare’.
The bill to pilot these elections recently passed stage three (see below) and means that:
o The constitution of the health boards now includes ‘elected members’ and for the first time ‘sets out on a statutory basis’ the membership of local councillors on Health Boards. Together these members ‘must amount to more than half the total number of members’.
o They will be two pilot areas which have yet to be selected.
o An independent evaluator, which will be in place before the elections, will assess the effectiveness of these pilots.
o Specifically looking at: the level of public participation in the elections, levels of engagement with patients and other stakeholders, and the cost of holding the election and ‘estimated cost of holding future… elections’.
o A roll-out will only take place if the above has been satisfied and if the order has been laid before and approved by the Scottish Parliament.
o The voting age would be extended to sixteen year olds for these elections which will take place every four years via STV. The ballot will take the form of an all-postal ballot.
The Bill (as passed) can be accessed here.
When
• On 25 June 2008 the Executive Bill was introduced by Nicola Sturgeon MSP
• The Bill passed stage one on 15 January 2009 in which the Health and Sport Committee was the lead committee.
• Following amendments the Bill passed stage two on 4 February 2009.
• After a debate the Bill passed stage three on 12 March 2009.
Why
As a party and Government the SNP are committed to the democratisation of health boards. The following statement by Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon MSP aptly summarises their motivation:
…there is a real democratic deficit in the operation of our health boards… The bill's clear objective, therefore, is to allow the public voice to be heard and listened to at the heart of the decision-making process… We believe that democracy is a good thing and that opening up NHS boards to the public through elections will deliver better decision making and, ultimately, even better services than those we already enjoy.
This move is part of a wider narrative, as outlined by the ‘Better Health, Better Care’ report, to create a ‘mutual health service in which ownership and decision making are shared’ with the public and staff.
Notwithstanding the genuine motivation to democratise health service delivery, the successful completion of this manifesto promise is excellent ammunition for both the party and the Government in a time when they are being criticised by opposition for not fulfilling other manifesto promises – for e.g. classroom sizes.
Barry McCulloch, CSPP Policy Officer
Dragons Den on Transport Projects: Review of Event at Scottish Labour Conference
The scene was set: West Coast vs. East Coast; Subway vs. Tram; Flexi-Parks vs. political capital. The Centre’s first foray into a dragon’s den format began and the premise was simple: under the stewardship of Bob Wylie (SPT) each transport project would battle it out to win not only the votes of the dragons, but more importantly the support of the audience.
Political Capital
Tension was in the air. Even Ross Martin from the Centre for Scottish Public Policy looked nervous, a feat due in large part to the implicit alpha male aggression exhibited by the Labour dragons. Thankfully Ross was up first. With the aplomb which only a retired politician can display he pitched for ‘political capital’. What? Yes, that was the reaction of the Dragons too – well, until they heard these words:
Be brave: kill the plans for a new Forth crossing and release capital [£3 billion] to make other projects feasible.
This caught everyone’s attention. Ross quickly threw himself into outlining what other projects he had in mind. They included completing the motorway project, electrifying the Railway network and, wait for it, reintroducing tolls on the bridge and congestion charges for Edinburgh. Someone from the East coast Labour delegation nearly choked on their sandwich.
But this was not his real purpose. Rather, he was throwing the dragons and guests a ‘curveball’. His point of contention was conceptual; ideational even. Ross lamented the lack of ‘sensible discussion’ in Scottish transport policy, describing it as ‘backward’. The penny began to drop. Ross was pitching for a more mature, cross-party and integrated approach to transport.
Ross sat down, his anxiety no doubt exacerbated by the realisation that his proposals were going to be attacked by the dragons. Questions flew at him from all angles: on how he would re-cable the bridge and the effect this would have on traffic, to how we help the local economy and how he expected politicians to change their mind. As the dragons smelt blood Bob Wylie intervened like a good chair should, saving Ross from further questioning.
Flexi-Parks
Gavin Scott from the Freight Transport Association (FTA) was next up calling for Flexi-Parks. Initially there was some confusion over what exactly a flexi-park was. The dragons looked perplexed. But Gavin soon made his case clear: make part of ‘park and ride facilities’ open to HGVs and ‘squeeze some volume out of these assets’ by spending on facilities, ground surfaces, CCTV and showers.
This practical solution clearly resonated with both the dragons and audience, and if they weren’t supportive already their ears pricked at the mention of charging the drivers to use the facilities. To further validate his case Gavin fired stats at everyone; people had to duck – the cost of doing this is £50 per square metre, 10% more of simply producing spaces in car parks.
Gavin was clearly a man with a plan. His proposal was simple, quickly implementable and cost effective. Yet the dragons were not as wooed as they appeared to be. One dragon admitted that the proposal was ‘superficially attractive’ yet worried about the effect it would have on peek traffic flows and on the surrounding environment. Gavin replied that a solution could be found by combing the flexi-park with consolidation centres and directing the HGVs to leave before traffic increased.
Another dragon pointed out that HGV drivers don’t always use the designated facilities, a point Gavin addressed by stating that drivers must be provided with an attractive alternative. Other queries were voiced but it was clear that this was a proposal that the dragons liked. The audience whispered that the pitch was going to be difficult to outdo.
Tram Line 3
Certainly no one told Councillor Andrew Burns who launched into a proposal for a tram line three for Edinburgh. His recent council experiences with the you know what had clearly provided him with the bravery and confidence to take on the flexi-parks – nor was he put by the gasps of surprise that escaped from the audience.
With tongue firmly in cheek, Cllr Burns described investing in tram line three to the south east of Edinburgh as a ‘straight-forward task’ that would cost somewhere in the region of £280m. As the audience and dragons were about to query his description of the project as straight-forward, he pre-emptively struck by offering the dragons a 9% stake in the company if they backed the proposal.
Sensing a change of sentiments was in the wind he outlined the necessity of the tram project by:
1) Painting a picture of Edinburgh in 2025 and thus stressing the demographic changes the city will face (e.g. 11% growth in population and 30% increase in car usage).
2) Outlining what the tram line will consist of (e.g. link it from St Andrews square down to Cameron toll and from Edinburgh bio port to the QMU) and the economic impact it would have on the Edinburgh city region.
3) Stressing the environmental benefits and impact it would have on the city’s air quality.
Cllr Burns pitch was well executed but in many ways it didn’t matter – he had already secured the support of the dragons with the promise of a 9% stake in the company. One dragon, however, was unconvinced and displayed all the ethical valour of Ghandi:
Rather than invest money into the tram company I would rather invest it in RBS. Its better ran and better funded.
In response Cllr Burns explained that Tie had not received the support of the council from day one. As others lined up to quiz the Cllr, it was clear that the carrot was not as enticing as he thought it would be. The Labour dragons asked how, given the shambles of tram line one, he could expect them to fund the project and why they should invest in this transport project and not other possibilities like trolley buses. Cllr Burns stressed again that it was partly down to political leadership and that trams have more capacity than many other transport possibilities. Lastly, he emphasised that they were a proven way to entice people to use public transport.
Subway Modernisation
Bob Wylie moved things along; not that he was in any motivated to hear his own organisations’ pitch which was presented by the Chair of SPT, Councillor Alastair Watson (click here for some footage). Cllr Watson called on the dragons to ‘invest in a proven track record’: that is, the 113 years old subway system in Glasgow city centre.
Against the backdrop of silent East coast Labour animosity, Cllr Watson informed the dragons that it had been thirty years since the subway’s last modernisation and clearly investment was required if Glasgow was to have a ‘metro system fit for the 21st century’. In case they weren’t already on board, the Labour dragons from Glasgow were enticed by the promise that such investment would ‘give Glasgow its true stage as a global competitor’:
The question is how many cities in Europe would give their eye teeth for infrastructure such as we have in Glasgow and not invest in it.
The pitch was well received which, of course, had nothing to do with the imposing stature of Bob Wylie and Cllr Watson. The latter’s emphasis on the effect it would have on Glasgow clearly resonated with the dragons as did the fact that the metro’s frequency could increase substantially – a service would arrive every one and a half minutes culminating in 17.5m passengers using it annually. The pitch went out on a high:
Our pitch is visionary [and is] right for the 21st century and right for Scotland.
Despite some of the dragons voicing their support the project - ‘maybe it’s time to look again at the subway’ and ‘we need to invest in what is an important of the economy and transport network’ – others raised serious questions: how do you fund it; what funding mechanism would you use; could you extend the tram system to the East of Glasgow; and is it really needed. Cllr Watson paid particular attention to the last question and assured them that there is a ‘great desire for more availability’.
Results: The Dragons Scorecards
One thing was clear: it was going to be close, excluding the pitch from Ross Martin. Predictably the dragons made everyone wait - longer even than Chris Tarrant - which exacerbated the already nervous participants. Suddenly it became unbearably warm until the chair was informed that the results were in.
Everyone knew the result before it was announced because of the large smile painting Bob Wylie’s face. This show of emotion, however, was shelved and Bob returned as the professional, impartial chair - well, sort of. Yet just as SPT were about to bask in the sunshine of success, the public had their say.
Tyranny of the Majority
Bringing a whole new meaning to Alexis de Tocqueville’s infamous phrase the public vote, as it always does, threw a spanner in the works. There was a new victor. Coming from third and against all odds - the event was held amidst damaging headlines for the tram project - tram line three was triumphant gaining an extra twelve votes from the public. Even Cllr Burns was surprised.
With calls for recounts and opposition voices growing ever more vociferous it was like a scene from the US Presidential elections in 2000. Bob Wylie reluctantly concluded that SPT had been ‘edged out by a large Edinburgh delegation’, whilst Gavin Scott looked pleased with a seven point leap and a bottle of whisky which someone from FTA had won in a prize draw. Meanwhile, Ross Martin asked himself whether or not it was a wise idea to describe transport policy as backward given it was led for eight years with a Lib/Lab coalition.
Undeniably the event was a success. Matching humour with serious debate, it showcased numerous transport projects which could get Scotland to work and confirmed that the Centre for Scottish Public Policy is the place to go for innovative fringe events. Naturally, this event could not have happened without the kind support of our sponsors: SPT; Tie; FTA; and Mott MacDonald. We greatly appreciate their backing.
Future Events
In the coming months the Centre will be busy organising a range of events: from a debate on elected health boards featuring the Health Secretary at the SNP conference to hustings events (ran in conjunction with the Hansard Society and the European Movement) for the European elections in June; not to mention another transport dragons den at the Conservative conference, a debate on Transport Options for Edinburgh at the STUC conference and our annual Edinburgh city region event in July.
Keep an eye out for more details in the near future.
Barry McCulloch, CSPP Policy Officer
Political Capital
Tension was in the air. Even Ross Martin from the Centre for Scottish Public Policy looked nervous, a feat due in large part to the implicit alpha male aggression exhibited by the Labour dragons. Thankfully Ross was up first. With the aplomb which only a retired politician can display he pitched for ‘political capital’. What? Yes, that was the reaction of the Dragons too – well, until they heard these words:
Be brave: kill the plans for a new Forth crossing and release capital [£3 billion] to make other projects feasible.
This caught everyone’s attention. Ross quickly threw himself into outlining what other projects he had in mind. They included completing the motorway project, electrifying the Railway network and, wait for it, reintroducing tolls on the bridge and congestion charges for Edinburgh. Someone from the East coast Labour delegation nearly choked on their sandwich.
But this was not his real purpose. Rather, he was throwing the dragons and guests a ‘curveball’. His point of contention was conceptual; ideational even. Ross lamented the lack of ‘sensible discussion’ in Scottish transport policy, describing it as ‘backward’. The penny began to drop. Ross was pitching for a more mature, cross-party and integrated approach to transport.
Ross sat down, his anxiety no doubt exacerbated by the realisation that his proposals were going to be attacked by the dragons. Questions flew at him from all angles: on how he would re-cable the bridge and the effect this would have on traffic, to how we help the local economy and how he expected politicians to change their mind. As the dragons smelt blood Bob Wylie intervened like a good chair should, saving Ross from further questioning.
Flexi-Parks
Gavin Scott from the Freight Transport Association (FTA) was next up calling for Flexi-Parks. Initially there was some confusion over what exactly a flexi-park was. The dragons looked perplexed. But Gavin soon made his case clear: make part of ‘park and ride facilities’ open to HGVs and ‘squeeze some volume out of these assets’ by spending on facilities, ground surfaces, CCTV and showers.
This practical solution clearly resonated with both the dragons and audience, and if they weren’t supportive already their ears pricked at the mention of charging the drivers to use the facilities. To further validate his case Gavin fired stats at everyone; people had to duck – the cost of doing this is £50 per square metre, 10% more of simply producing spaces in car parks.
Gavin was clearly a man with a plan. His proposal was simple, quickly implementable and cost effective. Yet the dragons were not as wooed as they appeared to be. One dragon admitted that the proposal was ‘superficially attractive’ yet worried about the effect it would have on peek traffic flows and on the surrounding environment. Gavin replied that a solution could be found by combing the flexi-park with consolidation centres and directing the HGVs to leave before traffic increased.
Another dragon pointed out that HGV drivers don’t always use the designated facilities, a point Gavin addressed by stating that drivers must be provided with an attractive alternative. Other queries were voiced but it was clear that this was a proposal that the dragons liked. The audience whispered that the pitch was going to be difficult to outdo.
Tram Line 3
Certainly no one told Councillor Andrew Burns who launched into a proposal for a tram line three for Edinburgh. His recent council experiences with the you know what had clearly provided him with the bravery and confidence to take on the flexi-parks – nor was he put by the gasps of surprise that escaped from the audience.
With tongue firmly in cheek, Cllr Burns described investing in tram line three to the south east of Edinburgh as a ‘straight-forward task’ that would cost somewhere in the region of £280m. As the audience and dragons were about to query his description of the project as straight-forward, he pre-emptively struck by offering the dragons a 9% stake in the company if they backed the proposal.
Sensing a change of sentiments was in the wind he outlined the necessity of the tram project by:
1) Painting a picture of Edinburgh in 2025 and thus stressing the demographic changes the city will face (e.g. 11% growth in population and 30% increase in car usage).
2) Outlining what the tram line will consist of (e.g. link it from St Andrews square down to Cameron toll and from Edinburgh bio port to the QMU) and the economic impact it would have on the Edinburgh city region.
3) Stressing the environmental benefits and impact it would have on the city’s air quality.
Cllr Burns pitch was well executed but in many ways it didn’t matter – he had already secured the support of the dragons with the promise of a 9% stake in the company. One dragon, however, was unconvinced and displayed all the ethical valour of Ghandi:
Rather than invest money into the tram company I would rather invest it in RBS. Its better ran and better funded.
In response Cllr Burns explained that Tie had not received the support of the council from day one. As others lined up to quiz the Cllr, it was clear that the carrot was not as enticing as he thought it would be. The Labour dragons asked how, given the shambles of tram line one, he could expect them to fund the project and why they should invest in this transport project and not other possibilities like trolley buses. Cllr Burns stressed again that it was partly down to political leadership and that trams have more capacity than many other transport possibilities. Lastly, he emphasised that they were a proven way to entice people to use public transport.
Subway Modernisation
Bob Wylie moved things along; not that he was in any motivated to hear his own organisations’ pitch which was presented by the Chair of SPT, Councillor Alastair Watson (click here for some footage). Cllr Watson called on the dragons to ‘invest in a proven track record’: that is, the 113 years old subway system in Glasgow city centre.
Against the backdrop of silent East coast Labour animosity, Cllr Watson informed the dragons that it had been thirty years since the subway’s last modernisation and clearly investment was required if Glasgow was to have a ‘metro system fit for the 21st century’. In case they weren’t already on board, the Labour dragons from Glasgow were enticed by the promise that such investment would ‘give Glasgow its true stage as a global competitor’:
The question is how many cities in Europe would give their eye teeth for infrastructure such as we have in Glasgow and not invest in it.
The pitch was well received which, of course, had nothing to do with the imposing stature of Bob Wylie and Cllr Watson. The latter’s emphasis on the effect it would have on Glasgow clearly resonated with the dragons as did the fact that the metro’s frequency could increase substantially – a service would arrive every one and a half minutes culminating in 17.5m passengers using it annually. The pitch went out on a high:
Our pitch is visionary [and is] right for the 21st century and right for Scotland.
Despite some of the dragons voicing their support the project - ‘maybe it’s time to look again at the subway’ and ‘we need to invest in what is an important of the economy and transport network’ – others raised serious questions: how do you fund it; what funding mechanism would you use; could you extend the tram system to the East of Glasgow; and is it really needed. Cllr Watson paid particular attention to the last question and assured them that there is a ‘great desire for more availability’.
Results: The Dragons Scorecards
One thing was clear: it was going to be close, excluding the pitch from Ross Martin. Predictably the dragons made everyone wait - longer even than Chris Tarrant - which exacerbated the already nervous participants. Suddenly it became unbearably warm until the chair was informed that the results were in.
Everyone knew the result before it was announced because of the large smile painting Bob Wylie’s face. This show of emotion, however, was shelved and Bob returned as the professional, impartial chair - well, sort of. Yet just as SPT were about to bask in the sunshine of success, the public had their say.
Tyranny of the Majority
Bringing a whole new meaning to Alexis de Tocqueville’s infamous phrase the public vote, as it always does, threw a spanner in the works. There was a new victor. Coming from third and against all odds - the event was held amidst damaging headlines for the tram project - tram line three was triumphant gaining an extra twelve votes from the public. Even Cllr Burns was surprised.
With calls for recounts and opposition voices growing ever more vociferous it was like a scene from the US Presidential elections in 2000. Bob Wylie reluctantly concluded that SPT had been ‘edged out by a large Edinburgh delegation’, whilst Gavin Scott looked pleased with a seven point leap and a bottle of whisky which someone from FTA had won in a prize draw. Meanwhile, Ross Martin asked himself whether or not it was a wise idea to describe transport policy as backward given it was led for eight years with a Lib/Lab coalition.
Undeniably the event was a success. Matching humour with serious debate, it showcased numerous transport projects which could get Scotland to work and confirmed that the Centre for Scottish Public Policy is the place to go for innovative fringe events. Naturally, this event could not have happened without the kind support of our sponsors: SPT; Tie; FTA; and Mott MacDonald. We greatly appreciate their backing.
Future Events
In the coming months the Centre will be busy organising a range of events: from a debate on elected health boards featuring the Health Secretary at the SNP conference to hustings events (ran in conjunction with the Hansard Society and the European Movement) for the European elections in June; not to mention another transport dragons den at the Conservative conference, a debate on Transport Options for Edinburgh at the STUC conference and our annual Edinburgh city region event in July.
Keep an eye out for more details in the near future.
Barry McCulloch, CSPP Policy Officer
Green Labour? Review of Event
INTRODUCTION
The CSPP (“the Centre”) held a discussion on Energy and the Environment at this year’s Scottish Labour Party Conference, with the kind support and sponsorship of RSPB Scotland and Eaga. The focus of the discussion was “green jobs”: what they are, why they are important, and how their creation can be promoted through policy.
The discussion incorporated voices from politics, business and the non-profit sector: all important players in the green jobs agenda. It was thorough and thoughtful, and the details of it are described in this report.
The Centre views the discussion as just the first chapter in an important conversation about green jobs. Newspapers, periodicals and bookshelves are these days replete with references to “green agendas” and the “green economy”. But there is a paucity of discussion about what exactly these terms mean, how they can be realised, and how realising them will change the nature of Scotland’s economy and environment. The Centre will continue contributing to this important conversation at forthcoming political conferences.
Details of our event at the SNP Spring Conference can be accessed here.
OVERVIEW
What follows is an overview of the event. It covers the main points made by the individual speakers and the content of the ‘Question & Answer’ Session.
SPEAKERS
Chair of the discussion, Sarah Boyack MSP (Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment), framed the discussion in the form of a question: What do we need to do to implement a green jobs agenda?
She urged that “now” is the “ideal time” to ask this question. She also stressed the importance of making sure that in answering it we be careful to make only the right investments.
Graham Downie (of NESTA) focused on the need for innovation. His central argument linked the green agenda and the recession: a key component of an innovative economic strategy will be the green sector.
He discussed the Finnish experience of “growth based industrial strategy”. In the early 1990’s the Finnish economy endured a deep recession. An important component of their response was the creation of a “technological ten year plan”. Graham recommended that the UK follow the same approach.
He also stressed the importance of getting more “bang for your buck”. He identified three important variables in attaining that goal: (1) The regulatory system (the correct balance between competition, rewarding innovation and entrepreneurship is vital if we are to encourage and nurture an “innovative culture”); (2) Access to capital for new sectors (risk capital is needed to invest in green sector’ which is why NESTA promotes a Government-funded £1bn venture capital fund; and (3) “Intelligent government/public service provision” (NESTA’s preferred approach is to “start with something small” and then “scale it up”.
Graham concluded by recommending that a “policy framework for the future” be developed. It should pay attention to the three ideas identified.
Anne McColl (of RSPB) focused her contribution on Scotland’s obligation to—and self-interest—investing in its natural assets. “Investment” means supporting (financially and rhetorically) a great many different projects: wetlands restoration, damn repair, changes in approaches to farming; and many others (for more details, see here).
She discussed past regeneration strategies—both successful and unsuccessful—and shared her insight (based on these experiences) that “decision makers will go for win-win situations”.
Her view is that currently there are plenty of policy ideas, but a shortage of delivery. Two things are therefore required: funding and political leadership. Anne pointed out that there are lots of policies being successfully implemented elsewhere (from Norway to Spain to Wales) but not in Scotland.
Anne also related her discussion to the problem to poverty. She ended with a direct message to Sarah Boyack MSP and the Scottish Labour Party: “When you write up your manifesto we don’t need new legislation. We need buy in to support Scotland’s poorest communities”.
Ross Armstrong (of Eaga) was optimistic about the scope for new jobs that our environmental problems present. He imagines that we could be about to witness a “social, economic and technical revolution” which could be a source of “exponential growth”.
In his view, a core element of this revolution is domestic insulation and renewable sources of energy (“renewables”). As regards conventional insulation, he believes that the “potential for increased skilling and jobs” is still very significant. He acknowledged that so far “a lot has been done but” but stressed that there is “plenty more” (i.e. more jobs and investment) to do. With regards to renewables, he believes it is now “time to deliver”. Again he pointed to the importance of retraining and re-skilling.
He emphasised that these are not merely questions about the “physical improvement of home”. The “behavioural” component is also essential. He believes that investing in re-skilling and restraining will begin to effect the “cultural change” that is much needed if we are to make serious progress in protecting our environment.
Ross ended by noting the dual nature of our environmental problems: they present both a massive challenge and a massive opportunity for growth.
SB concluded the opening remarks, praising them as “relevant, crisp and succinct”.
She also assured the audience that there is “no question mark after the term “Green Labour”, and offered the party’s manifesto for the last Holyrood elections as proof (This was in response to the title of the event: “Green Labour? Innovating to Compete”)
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
Is there a simple solution that we (the CSPP) can get into the Scottish budget next year? Also, why did the Green party’s proposal fail in the budget negotiations and can there be a Scottish consensus established?
SB: Energy efficiency is ‘high on the agenda in Labour and across the party’. Everyone signed up to my bill on this and on microgeneration. This is part of Labour’s fifteen point plan to combat the recession. The “political will is there” and it “will happen”. All that we need now is to “roll it out”. The Scottish Government presently has in place “too incremental a programme”.
There are great ideas out there. Why are they not happening? What are, in your experience, the “barriers to sustainable development”? And what can be done to remove these barriers?
GD: The Finnish comparison is of interest. Can Scotland consider it in the current environment? And what can be done to emulate this approach? They managed the risk very well and picked what industry they thought would grow. Risk management is very important in this strategy. The culture in relation to public services is quite risk averse in Scotland and is undoubtedly a barrier to sustainable development (e.g. Scotland missed the boat in making the most of wind energy). Yet the potential is still there and must be fully exploited.
AM: Technical problems and money are the perennial problems: “There are a lot of well able and high profile pots of money to access but can’t get to it”. A good example of this is the Climate Challenge Fund. The RSPB finds it very difficult to access these forms of income. Another barrier is the “knowledge base” of the decision-makers. There are “great ideas in policy” but no follow through in the case of many local authorities. This is partly due to the heavy workload they have.
RA: One of the biggest barriers to sustainable development is the lack of “political boldness”. But sustainable development is a “long-term game” and in 10-15 years the impact will be evident.
From the Centre’s perspective, the government needs to get the following right: (1) the need for local diversity and true decentralisation and (2) programmes need to be implemented at the service user’s point of view.
RA: There is “some political momentum for true localism: so called double devolution”. We need to give it a change to succeed. And on the end-user point, the important thing is working with industry. The Government must listen to these views and implement them.
GD: The best way to do things is “from the bottom”, where there is a lack of political attention. We need to “keep politicians out of the picture” for as long as possible. Also there is a lack of transparency in Government spending.
AM: To truly encourage green growth we need to avoid a “one size fits all” policy. Yet “confidence doesn’t exist to foster the unknown; the innovative solutions. This is new but not nasty. This is the biggest challenge”.
There is no point in “re-inventing the wheel”. We have not learned from the best practise out there. “Until we’re past that point we won’t get anywhere”.
SB: ‘Knowledge is key’.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
SB concluded by asking “How do you make this kind of event a big meeting at a conference and get it into the mainstream”? The CSPP must keep this issue on the agenda and should keep it going in a steering group.
Ross Martin (of CSPP) responded by stating that the CSPP has an energy and environment programme which is led by a steering group. The CSPP will be in touch and will ensure that this very important issue is kept on the agenda.
Paul Hughes, CSPP Research Associate
The CSPP (“the Centre”) held a discussion on Energy and the Environment at this year’s Scottish Labour Party Conference, with the kind support and sponsorship of RSPB Scotland and Eaga. The focus of the discussion was “green jobs”: what they are, why they are important, and how their creation can be promoted through policy.
The discussion incorporated voices from politics, business and the non-profit sector: all important players in the green jobs agenda. It was thorough and thoughtful, and the details of it are described in this report.
The Centre views the discussion as just the first chapter in an important conversation about green jobs. Newspapers, periodicals and bookshelves are these days replete with references to “green agendas” and the “green economy”. But there is a paucity of discussion about what exactly these terms mean, how they can be realised, and how realising them will change the nature of Scotland’s economy and environment. The Centre will continue contributing to this important conversation at forthcoming political conferences.
Details of our event at the SNP Spring Conference can be accessed here.
OVERVIEW
What follows is an overview of the event. It covers the main points made by the individual speakers and the content of the ‘Question & Answer’ Session.
SPEAKERS
Chair of the discussion, Sarah Boyack MSP (Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment), framed the discussion in the form of a question: What do we need to do to implement a green jobs agenda?
She urged that “now” is the “ideal time” to ask this question. She also stressed the importance of making sure that in answering it we be careful to make only the right investments.
Graham Downie (of NESTA) focused on the need for innovation. His central argument linked the green agenda and the recession: a key component of an innovative economic strategy will be the green sector.
He discussed the Finnish experience of “growth based industrial strategy”. In the early 1990’s the Finnish economy endured a deep recession. An important component of their response was the creation of a “technological ten year plan”. Graham recommended that the UK follow the same approach.
He also stressed the importance of getting more “bang for your buck”. He identified three important variables in attaining that goal: (1) The regulatory system (the correct balance between competition, rewarding innovation and entrepreneurship is vital if we are to encourage and nurture an “innovative culture”); (2) Access to capital for new sectors (risk capital is needed to invest in green sector’ which is why NESTA promotes a Government-funded £1bn venture capital fund; and (3) “Intelligent government/public service provision” (NESTA’s preferred approach is to “start with something small” and then “scale it up”.
Graham concluded by recommending that a “policy framework for the future” be developed. It should pay attention to the three ideas identified.
Anne McColl (of RSPB) focused her contribution on Scotland’s obligation to—and self-interest—investing in its natural assets. “Investment” means supporting (financially and rhetorically) a great many different projects: wetlands restoration, damn repair, changes in approaches to farming; and many others (for more details, see here).
She discussed past regeneration strategies—both successful and unsuccessful—and shared her insight (based on these experiences) that “decision makers will go for win-win situations”.
Her view is that currently there are plenty of policy ideas, but a shortage of delivery. Two things are therefore required: funding and political leadership. Anne pointed out that there are lots of policies being successfully implemented elsewhere (from Norway to Spain to Wales) but not in Scotland.
Anne also related her discussion to the problem to poverty. She ended with a direct message to Sarah Boyack MSP and the Scottish Labour Party: “When you write up your manifesto we don’t need new legislation. We need buy in to support Scotland’s poorest communities”.
Ross Armstrong (of Eaga) was optimistic about the scope for new jobs that our environmental problems present. He imagines that we could be about to witness a “social, economic and technical revolution” which could be a source of “exponential growth”.
In his view, a core element of this revolution is domestic insulation and renewable sources of energy (“renewables”). As regards conventional insulation, he believes that the “potential for increased skilling and jobs” is still very significant. He acknowledged that so far “a lot has been done but” but stressed that there is “plenty more” (i.e. more jobs and investment) to do. With regards to renewables, he believes it is now “time to deliver”. Again he pointed to the importance of retraining and re-skilling.
He emphasised that these are not merely questions about the “physical improvement of home”. The “behavioural” component is also essential. He believes that investing in re-skilling and restraining will begin to effect the “cultural change” that is much needed if we are to make serious progress in protecting our environment.
Ross ended by noting the dual nature of our environmental problems: they present both a massive challenge and a massive opportunity for growth.
SB concluded the opening remarks, praising them as “relevant, crisp and succinct”.
She also assured the audience that there is “no question mark after the term “Green Labour”, and offered the party’s manifesto for the last Holyrood elections as proof (This was in response to the title of the event: “Green Labour? Innovating to Compete”)
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
Is there a simple solution that we (the CSPP) can get into the Scottish budget next year? Also, why did the Green party’s proposal fail in the budget negotiations and can there be a Scottish consensus established?
SB: Energy efficiency is ‘high on the agenda in Labour and across the party’. Everyone signed up to my bill on this and on microgeneration. This is part of Labour’s fifteen point plan to combat the recession. The “political will is there” and it “will happen”. All that we need now is to “roll it out”. The Scottish Government presently has in place “too incremental a programme”.
There are great ideas out there. Why are they not happening? What are, in your experience, the “barriers to sustainable development”? And what can be done to remove these barriers?
GD: The Finnish comparison is of interest. Can Scotland consider it in the current environment? And what can be done to emulate this approach? They managed the risk very well and picked what industry they thought would grow. Risk management is very important in this strategy. The culture in relation to public services is quite risk averse in Scotland and is undoubtedly a barrier to sustainable development (e.g. Scotland missed the boat in making the most of wind energy). Yet the potential is still there and must be fully exploited.
AM: Technical problems and money are the perennial problems: “There are a lot of well able and high profile pots of money to access but can’t get to it”. A good example of this is the Climate Challenge Fund. The RSPB finds it very difficult to access these forms of income. Another barrier is the “knowledge base” of the decision-makers. There are “great ideas in policy” but no follow through in the case of many local authorities. This is partly due to the heavy workload they have.
RA: One of the biggest barriers to sustainable development is the lack of “political boldness”. But sustainable development is a “long-term game” and in 10-15 years the impact will be evident.
From the Centre’s perspective, the government needs to get the following right: (1) the need for local diversity and true decentralisation and (2) programmes need to be implemented at the service user’s point of view.
RA: There is “some political momentum for true localism: so called double devolution”. We need to give it a change to succeed. And on the end-user point, the important thing is working with industry. The Government must listen to these views and implement them.
GD: The best way to do things is “from the bottom”, where there is a lack of political attention. We need to “keep politicians out of the picture” for as long as possible. Also there is a lack of transparency in Government spending.
AM: To truly encourage green growth we need to avoid a “one size fits all” policy. Yet “confidence doesn’t exist to foster the unknown; the innovative solutions. This is new but not nasty. This is the biggest challenge”.
There is no point in “re-inventing the wheel”. We have not learned from the best practise out there. “Until we’re past that point we won’t get anywhere”.
SB: ‘Knowledge is key’.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
SB concluded by asking “How do you make this kind of event a big meeting at a conference and get it into the mainstream”? The CSPP must keep this issue on the agenda and should keep it going in a steering group.
Ross Martin (of CSPP) responded by stating that the CSPP has an energy and environment programme which is led by a steering group. The CSPP will be in touch and will ensure that this very important issue is kept on the agenda.
Paul Hughes, CSPP Research Associate
'Is it Time to Adopt the Euro'? Review of event
INTRODUCTION
The CSPP (“the Centre”) held a discussion on the Euro at this year’s Scottish Labour Party Conference. It was a stimulating and productive session, the details of which are described in this report.
The event was the latest development in our European programme and precedes a range of hustings events (in cooperation with the European Movement and the Hansard Society) that are due to take place in advance of the European Parliament elections in June ’09. The first of which will take place in Edinburgh on the 21 April, an informative session aimed to outline why the European Parliament matters and why people should vote.
Details of other events will be posted in due course.
THE ROLE OF THE EUROPE EVENTS
The European Union (“the EU”) has a profound impact upon the lives of Scottish people. Yet interest in what the EU is and does, is startlingly low. Recent polling confirms this fact: turnout in the 2009 elections is expected to be around 30%.
There is a thus a clear need for more engagement with the EU. The Centre’s Europe Events are designed to assist in meeting this need, in three ways. First, the events provide a forum for politicians to explore questions about the EU from a Scottish perspective: a perspective that very directly relates to the concerns and interests of the Scottish public. Second, they enable a range of Scottish voices (beyond just politicians) to participate in the conversation on the EU: voices with fresh perspectives and ideas. Third, it is hoped that they will contribute to raising awareness—and so to kick-starting discussion—about Europe among the wider Scottish public.
The events of the past year only make the case for engagement more urgent. The financial crisis has revealed starkly how interconnected the lives of European (indeed all) citizens are.
The EU will therefore naturally be expected to play a major role in shaping the future. It is crucial that the conversation about how it ought to do this is as full and as thorough as possible.
OVERVIEW
What follows is an overview of the event. It covers the main points made by the individual speakers, and the content of the ‘Question & Answer Session’.
SPEAKERS
David Martin MEP began by discussing the topic of British entry into the Euro. He queried whether the “five economic tests [imposed by the UK Treasury] are still appropriate today”. He pointed out that Labour are “in principle” in favour of the Euro if these conditions are met, but stressed that now is “not the time to join”. The economic crisis makes membership “more urgent” but “not immediate”.
He stressed that support of the Eurozone is important: because European solidarity helps marginal countries (like Ireland); and non-membership makes countries less stable (consider Iceland).
He argued that more needs to be done to publicise the issue of the Euro at home. The lack of attention presently paid to the question arises from “a combination of Labour apathy and Conservative antipathy”.
On the topic of banking reform, he stressed that constructing a secure banking infrastructure will be “easier to achieve in Europe”.
Peter Jones focused his remarks upon the question of British entry into the Euro. Like David Martine MEP he believes that “now is not the time” to join.
He argued that the Euro still has “a lot to prove”. On the one hand, it has been the source of a lot of stability in the Eurozone. Yet on the other, the economic crisis presents big questions, among them: (1) Whether Ireland can pay its debts (the markets are worried about this); and (2) Whether the enormous pressures in Eastern Europe will lead to severe consequences (he pointed, in this regard, to the fact that several banks (particularly in Austria), lent large sums to countries like Hungary. There is, he argued, a “worrying historical indicator” in that the depression of the 1930’s depression was “kicked off” by the collapse, in 1931, of the Austrian bank Credit Anstalt)
He stressed that the seriousness of the current economic crisis should not be underestimated: these are “perilous times”. He raised the possibility that a crisis in the EU—more probable in light of increasing social unrest (consider e.g. Greece, Italy, and others)—could bring down the Euro.
Looking forward, he suggested that if the Euro does survive, and so it proves itself to be adept at coping, then a renewed debate on entry into the Euro should begin.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
With Labour going into the European elections, what campaigning line should we take to assuage voters’ fear of the economic crisis?
David Martin MEP: We need to inform the voters’ that European economies are currently acting together to set “new rules for financial banking”. Recently, United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on the European Parliament to do just this (See an excerpt here).
If Greece breaks, what would happen?
David Martin MEP: There is no real debate in the Eurozone about Greece leaving the Euro. It would be “disastrous’ for them as they would be “crucified by the markets”.
Peter Jones: There is no signal that countries are considering leaving Euro but these are “extreme times” in which things can happen very quickly. Logic tells us that countries are ‘better together than apart’ but logic and rationality “fall out of the window in such times”.
What would be the best outcome of the G20?
Peter Jones: What we need now is international institutions to enforce a renewed “transnational framework”. How a reformed global financial architecture will look is “up in the air” but the EU can point to the European Central Bank (ECB).
What can the Centre for Scottish Public Policy do to promote UK entry to the Euro?
David Martin MEP: Get people talking about the issue again “exactly like we are doing today”. Have a discussion “within and out with the party”.
Peter Jones: Be the vehicle to “campaign for Euros to be accepted in shops in Scotland”. Now is exactly the time for this due to the currency rates.
Paul Hughes, CSPP Research Associate
The CSPP (“the Centre”) held a discussion on the Euro at this year’s Scottish Labour Party Conference. It was a stimulating and productive session, the details of which are described in this report.
The event was the latest development in our European programme and precedes a range of hustings events (in cooperation with the European Movement and the Hansard Society) that are due to take place in advance of the European Parliament elections in June ’09. The first of which will take place in Edinburgh on the 21 April, an informative session aimed to outline why the European Parliament matters and why people should vote.
Details of other events will be posted in due course.
THE ROLE OF THE EUROPE EVENTS
The European Union (“the EU”) has a profound impact upon the lives of Scottish people. Yet interest in what the EU is and does, is startlingly low. Recent polling confirms this fact: turnout in the 2009 elections is expected to be around 30%.
There is a thus a clear need for more engagement with the EU. The Centre’s Europe Events are designed to assist in meeting this need, in three ways. First, the events provide a forum for politicians to explore questions about the EU from a Scottish perspective: a perspective that very directly relates to the concerns and interests of the Scottish public. Second, they enable a range of Scottish voices (beyond just politicians) to participate in the conversation on the EU: voices with fresh perspectives and ideas. Third, it is hoped that they will contribute to raising awareness—and so to kick-starting discussion—about Europe among the wider Scottish public.
The events of the past year only make the case for engagement more urgent. The financial crisis has revealed starkly how interconnected the lives of European (indeed all) citizens are.
The EU will therefore naturally be expected to play a major role in shaping the future. It is crucial that the conversation about how it ought to do this is as full and as thorough as possible.
OVERVIEW
What follows is an overview of the event. It covers the main points made by the individual speakers, and the content of the ‘Question & Answer Session’.
SPEAKERS
David Martin MEP began by discussing the topic of British entry into the Euro. He queried whether the “five economic tests [imposed by the UK Treasury] are still appropriate today”. He pointed out that Labour are “in principle” in favour of the Euro if these conditions are met, but stressed that now is “not the time to join”. The economic crisis makes membership “more urgent” but “not immediate”.
He stressed that support of the Eurozone is important: because European solidarity helps marginal countries (like Ireland); and non-membership makes countries less stable (consider Iceland).
He argued that more needs to be done to publicise the issue of the Euro at home. The lack of attention presently paid to the question arises from “a combination of Labour apathy and Conservative antipathy”.
On the topic of banking reform, he stressed that constructing a secure banking infrastructure will be “easier to achieve in Europe”.
Peter Jones focused his remarks upon the question of British entry into the Euro. Like David Martine MEP he believes that “now is not the time” to join.
He argued that the Euro still has “a lot to prove”. On the one hand, it has been the source of a lot of stability in the Eurozone. Yet on the other, the economic crisis presents big questions, among them: (1) Whether Ireland can pay its debts (the markets are worried about this); and (2) Whether the enormous pressures in Eastern Europe will lead to severe consequences (he pointed, in this regard, to the fact that several banks (particularly in Austria), lent large sums to countries like Hungary. There is, he argued, a “worrying historical indicator” in that the depression of the 1930’s depression was “kicked off” by the collapse, in 1931, of the Austrian bank Credit Anstalt)
He stressed that the seriousness of the current economic crisis should not be underestimated: these are “perilous times”. He raised the possibility that a crisis in the EU—more probable in light of increasing social unrest (consider e.g. Greece, Italy, and others)—could bring down the Euro.
Looking forward, he suggested that if the Euro does survive, and so it proves itself to be adept at coping, then a renewed debate on entry into the Euro should begin.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
With Labour going into the European elections, what campaigning line should we take to assuage voters’ fear of the economic crisis?
David Martin MEP: We need to inform the voters’ that European economies are currently acting together to set “new rules for financial banking”. Recently, United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on the European Parliament to do just this (See an excerpt here).
If Greece breaks, what would happen?
David Martin MEP: There is no real debate in the Eurozone about Greece leaving the Euro. It would be “disastrous’ for them as they would be “crucified by the markets”.
Peter Jones: There is no signal that countries are considering leaving Euro but these are “extreme times” in which things can happen very quickly. Logic tells us that countries are ‘better together than apart’ but logic and rationality “fall out of the window in such times”.
What would be the best outcome of the G20?
Peter Jones: What we need now is international institutions to enforce a renewed “transnational framework”. How a reformed global financial architecture will look is “up in the air” but the EU can point to the European Central Bank (ECB).
What can the Centre for Scottish Public Policy do to promote UK entry to the Euro?
David Martin MEP: Get people talking about the issue again “exactly like we are doing today”. Have a discussion “within and out with the party”.
Peter Jones: Be the vehicle to “campaign for Euros to be accepted in shops in Scotland”. Now is exactly the time for this due to the currency rates.
Paul Hughes, CSPP Research Associate
Thursday, 26 March 2009
The ‘Death’ of Newspapers: a Three Way Debate
On Wednesday of last week, The Seattle Post – Intelligencer, a 145 year-old daily newspaper quit printing. The paper is now a daily on-line news source focusing on local news, issues and events with a much reduced staff.
The
Some newspapers will certainly survive, but many cities and towns across the nation have lost their print media outlets. The surviving outlets have severely reduced staff and coverage. Many papers are becoming “rip and read” outlets, meaning they are filling their pages with Associated Press (AP), Reuters, NY Times and other outlet wire stories.
The Los Angeles Times’ media correspondent, Jim Rainey, wrote a great column last week (March 20, 2009) titled, “Newspaper cuts open door to more political trickery.” You can read it here.
Jim Rainey’s article is interesting and it shows how the loss of print media coverage in political campaigns can provide some political consultants opportunities to manipulate coverage to their advantage with the loss of trained reporters, or just because there is minimal possible coverage. The political consultants interviewed also point out it is a double-edged sword and can also hurt a campaign, as much as it can help it.
As a political practitioner, I can see some advantage to being able to push stories or create other avenues of messaging – if you have the financial resources to do it.
On the other hand, I also see now what the loss of professional coverage can do for a candidate lacking resources to get positions or initiatives out. Emaciated newsrooms allow many issues and accusations to go unchallenged. It also prevents new initiatives and positions to get coverage - all of which could be a significant factor for the outcome of an election.
The article by Jim Rainey cites a study by
I do not think the loss of coverage is a good thing in any way, shape or form. The growth of blogging and Internet news sources is a great source of some equity for people to recoup some of the power of traditional media outlets and their influence in political campaigns and elections.
The lack of professional standards, commitment to journalistic ethics, and ability to get stories right makes this shift away from traditional media frightening and a tragic loss not just in politics.
It is hard to see how this will change in the future and the ridiculous popular phrase seems appropriate when thinking about the death of professional journalism – “It is what it is….”
Chuck Dalldorf
…and not only in the States! The threatened demise of local newspapers through the BBC’s intended local network was enough to send tails spinning at
The recognition of the importance of local print media to local communities around the country is partly a reflection of their political role: at elections they provide sustained coverage of candidate’s, their messages and their mess-ups. In between the cyclical political bun-fights local papers play a key role in supporting community cohesiveness with political campaigns on topics as wide as saving the local football club to recognising the symbolic importance of local landmarks threatened with removal or demolition.
Use of the emerging technologies is fine – isn’t it appropriate for politicians to be able to “twitter”?! – but there is something reassuring about the weekly search for the local gossip in the court column!
The third critical aspect of the local newspaper is to regularly hold local politicians to account as well as illuminate the populace on the antics of those politicians that are elected to far off places - such as
Of course, recent trends in
Ross Martin
The death of traditional media is unwelcome news for many reasons. Chief among them is the loss of jobs in these turbulent economic times – it’s the last thing local economies need at the moment.
Yet, does it sound the death knell for democracy by removing an effective check and balance as Ross pointed out? Open the door to the manipulation of political coverage as Chuck testifies? Or even result in a ‘tragic loss’?
I’m not sure.
Both Ross and Chuck, while not oblivious to the effectiveness of new media, present a somewhat rose-tinted view of traditional media. Aren’t newspapers already subject to manipulation by political consultants? Yes. Is the death of professional journalism a bad thing? Yes, but it died a long time ago (they are some exceptions). Do newspapers provide an objective analysis/coverage of elections that is reliable? No – check out Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky. Do they support community cohesiveness? If they do they’re a whisper in a wind. Do they hold politicians to account? Hardly – the bottom line is sales; not ethics.
The growth of new media has its dangers. They exclude scores of people who as yet remain technophobic and most blogs and forums lack rigor. But isn’t this part of their charm? Remember they don’t exactly bill themselves as the bastions of objectivity.
Isn’t it time, rather than clutch longingly for a lost friend, to look to the future, seize the opportunities and frame the discussion? Isn’t it time, in other words and with tongue firmly in cheek, to call for a Universal Declaration of Blogging Ethics?
In tandem with a grass-roots campaign, Barack Obama has from day one recognized that the future is in new media. His integrated e-campaign left few western (and others) homes untouched. In the guise of Organizing for
Instead of the death of traditional media we should be focusing on the birth of a new kind of politics.
Barry McCulloch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)