Our policy wrap up event is only five days ago. Come the 29 September in Edinburgh we'll be hosting a cross-party consultation event to provide ideas for our cross-party manifesto for the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary election.
If you haven't signed up to attend (register/join here) here are details of the programme to wet your appetite.
Date: Wednesday 29 September
Time: 0900 - 1430
Where: Storytelling Theatre & Book Trust, Edinburgh.
WELCOME SPEECH Lesley Sutherland, Chair, CSPP 1010 – 1020 SC THEATRE
DRAGONS DEN ON SCOTLAND'S TRANSPORT CHOICES 1030 – 1130 SC THEATRE
Hosted by transport expert, Professor Iain Docherty, presenters face the ‘dragons’, debating the relative merits of extending the Edinburgh Tram, Building (or not) the new Forth Bridge or starting work on a High Speed Rail link to London and onto mainland Europe.
The Presenters
- Extending the Tram System - Jim Harkins, Managing Director, Light Rail UK & Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group
- High Speed Rail Link - Jim Steer, Founder-Director, Greengauge 21 & Founder and Non Executive Director, Steer Davies Gleave
- Ban the new Forth Bridge - Lawrence Marshall, Chair, The Forthright Alliance
The Dragons
- Professor Jan Bebbington, Sustainable Development Commission's Vice-Chair (Scotland) & Member of external advisory group to First Group
- Mike Connolly, Head of Public Affairs, TIE Ltd
- Bill Jamieson, Executive Editor, The Scotsman
- Scott McIntosh, Senior Consultant in Light Rail, Mott MacDonald
WHOSE TOWN IS IT ANYWAY? 1030-1130 BOOK TRUST
Leading expert on retail, Leigh Sparks, is Professor of Retail Studies at the Institute for Retail Studies, University of Stirling. Leigh will quiz our town experts as they battle it out to illustrate innovative, effective and economical interventions to protect, grow and support our towns. Visit our town exhibition in the SC Court area too.
Team 1 –Scott Davidson, Lead, Planning & Regeneration, Halcrow, Ian Davison Porter, Project Director, Business Improvement Districts Scotland, Mhairi Donaghy, Associate Director, EKOS.
Team 2 – Ian Lindley, Director, Planning & Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council representing The South of Scotland Alliance, Stuart Mackinnon, Public Affairs, FSB Scotland, Diane Wehrle, Marketing Director, Springboard.
HAVE DIRECT ELECTIONS GOT THE "X" FACTOR? 1300-1400 SC THEATRE
Both the Holyrood and Westminster Governments have different ideas on how democracy can be renewed and how improved accountability and transparency is delivered. Our respected panellists will put three initiatives - health boards, elected mayors and police commissioners - under the microscope to establish if further democratisation is really the answer.
Panel
- Professor John Curtice, University of Strathclyde & Deputy Director, Centre for Research into Elections & Social Trends
- Professor Richard Kerley, Professor of Management and Vice Principal (Commercialisation and Internationalisation), Queen Margaret University
Presenters
- Health Boards: Keith Geddes, Policy Director, Pagoda PR & formerly President of CoSLA and Leader of the City of Edinburgh Council
- Tom Halpin, Chief Executive, Sacro & formerly Deputy Chief Constable of Lothian & Borders Police and Head of CID Operations, Strathclyde Police
- Aidan Rave, Director, Interim Management and north of England, Pinnacle PSG and a former Deputy Mayor of Doncaster
GREEN QUESTION TIME 1300-1400 BOOK TRUST
Grant "Dimbleby" Thoms is joined by experts from business, environmental and advocacy organisations when Green Question Time comes to you live from the BIG Event Edinburgh. Questions also accepted via all the usual social networking sites. We suspect discussions will continue ‘off air’ when we throw these questions into the melting pot:
Does anyone really care about climate change?
How do we deliver our environmental commitments in an era of decreasing public expenditure?
How do we protect Scotland's natural resources in these difficult economic times? Who pays for greening the Scottish economy (selectivism vs universalism) and how do we fund our low carbon aspirations?
Can sustainable development really lead to economic recovery? What is your vision for a low carbon Scottish economy?
What should be the priorities in the energy and environment agenda for a new Scottish Parliament?
Green jobs: myth or reality? What is the value of our natural heritage to the Scottish economy?
Should the climate change agenda be immune to budgetary pressures?
Are Local Authorities doing enough to combat climate change?
Why is transport policy so disconnected from the climate change agenda?
How do we improve Scotland's poor sustainable transport infrastructure?......
Panel
- Cllr Grant Thoms (Host).
- Rob Edwards, Environmental Journalist.
- Colin Howden, Director, Transform Scotland.
- Norman Kerr, Director, Energy Action Scotland.
- Duncan McLaren, Chief Executive, Friends of the Earth
CLOSING SPEECH Ross Martin, Policy Director, CSPP 1410 – 1430 SC THEATRE
Running throughout the day...
TOWN CENTRES EXHIBITION 0930 - 1430 SC COURT
Town centre regeneration models, initiatives and services. Featuring Business Improvement Districts Scotland, Town Centres & Local High Streets Learning Network, Town Centre Regeneration Fund projects, South of Scotland Alliance and Springboard, a leading provider of automated customer counting services, delivering solutions across the entire range of customer generating environments: high streets, shopping centres, retail parks, conference, leisure and entertainment venues, transport interchanges.
“IF I WERE FIRST MINISTER...” SPEAKERS’ CORNER (0900-1000, 1130-1300) BOOK TRUST GARDEN
Forget Hyde Park – this is where it’s at! Fresh thinking on the kind of Scotland we want to live in. Have a go!
ADOPT AN INTERN – SPEED INTERVIEWING BOOTH (0900-1000, 1130-1300) SC COURT
We have 10 highly motivated graduates for you to meet. Our aim? To help these talented young people to network with Scotland's movers and shakers.
CAFE OPEN FOR PURCHASE OF LIGHT REFRESHMENTS & SNACKS THROUGHOUT THE DAY
Friday, 24 September 2010
Monday, 20 September 2010
Room at the Top for Strong Leadership
Article published by Ross Martin (Policy Director) in the Scotsman 8/9/2010.
“More than a quarter of Scotland's population live in them. Two in every three jobs are created by them. A third of research and development is carried out in and around them, and half of our gross value added is produced by them. They are the engines of our economy; they are Scotland's cities.
Our cities are the beating heart of the Scottish Government's drive towards sustainable economic growth and they will remain so regardless of the outcome of next year's election or the political composition of the incoming administration.
And yet who leads Scotland's cities? Do we have a single political personality to match the gung-ho dynamism of New York's former leader Rudolph Giuliani, the bold character of a Boris Johnson or the direct political purpose of a "Red Ken"? These city leaders make a real difference when they combine their own character with real political power. Sadly, our city councillors simply don't have that political power to impose themselves and their programmes in the same way that these leaders of real world cities do.
Setting aside political preference, no-one can argue against the fact that Giuliani made safe the streets of New York with his get-tough policy of Zero Tolerance to crime, or that he made New Yorkers feel safer with his dynamic leadership after 9/11.
Equally, it is impossible to argue against the fact that Johnson took on the Home Office and removed the UK's most senior police chief and so prepared the ground for the policy of directly elected police commissioners. And what of Ken Livingstone, the left-wing leader who introduced the UK's first example of demand management in a period of rapid growth, the congestion charge? This was made possible, without the central government interference that killed off his cheap fares on the Underground, because he was a directly elected mayor with a mandate.
Compare and contrast the success of "Red Ken" pushing through that change, of much greater magnitude and impact than that attempted in Edinburgh, with the democratic debacle that the capital's council oversaw. London's congestion charge has become an integral part of the transport system, helping pay for much need infrastructure upgrades.
What price that firm leadership and policy for Edinburgh to fund the trams or for Glasgow to pay for the much needed upgrade of the subway or for Aberdeen to pay for a by-pass?
Our city leaderships have had to resort to other ways of seeking support for such transport projects that will drive economic growth, for example Edinburgh's then leader being unable to even secure the support of his own colleagues and seeking refuge in a referendum doomed to failure before the ballot had even begun. Have our other cities fared any better?
In Aberdeen, this lack of political power has frustrated any real effort to tackle the structural budget deficit the city council inherited from day one. Created on 1 April, 1996, a cruel joke indeed, Aberdeen City Council required extraordinarily strong leadership denied it by the then, and still current political system of an unmanageably large number of councillors. Ironically, but not surprisingly, the one person who has made a difference has now been appointed by Edinburgh.
Chief executive Sue Bruce was enabled to introduce significant change in Aberdeen only after external intervention following the near financial collapse of the city council, using previously unavailable centralised power invested in her position with the tacit support of the elected leadership. She will make a big difference to Edinburgh, bringing a fresh approach and direction but I fear the democratic difficulties that bedevil our councils will still put the brakes on reform of public services in the capital.
In Dundee, the only politician the public is likely to recognise is one who doesn't even represent the city, once seen impersonating a cat on reality TV. Even though the City Chambers and Caird Hall resemble the Kremlin, the city council simply does not have the power that would make a real difference to the City of Discovery.
And what of Glasgow? OK, we can accept that Steven Purcell was seen as a mayor and treated as one but the sometimes shabby internal political compromises had to engineer to appease the unworkably large number of councillors has left a sorry legacy that threatens to dilute the democratic power of his successor, not strengthen it.
The conclusion from these examples is obvious: our cities deserve stronger leadership, as they strive to find positive routes out of economic crisis. They need to have the political power that enables world cities to tackle crises without the need to go cap in hand to national government. Not that our national politicians, either MSPs or MPs have a great record of supporting their cities, other than a few notable exceptions - such as Margo MacDonald's success in securing a capital city supplement for Edinburgh.
It is impossible to point to a single occasion when our MSPs or MPs have set aside tribal party division and worked together for the city's greater good. Why can't they grasp the opportunity that the tight political arithmetic of the Scottish Parliament presents them by organising to form strong, powerful and influential city caucuses that can make the case for projects in their own cities? Secure the budget, make the improvements and then argue about who was responsible, rather than arguing about what benefits can be achieved as the cities stand still.
For example, in Edinburgh wouldn't it just be capital to see all of the city's MSPs working together on an agreed investment plan to improve transport infrastructure, rather than simply contributing to the many, disparate voices that dominate that debate? Each of the other core cities would also benefit from such collective action, and would be strengthened immeasurably by the election of a mayor to act as both lead voice and focus, regardless of party interest.
Led by an elected mayor, Edinburgh could also tackle the difficulties described by Bill Jamieson in his analysis of an over-reliance on the financial services sector, which itself is a neat mirror image of Scotland's over-reliance on the public sector. Both of these problems require the same action - diversification, to move from reliance to resilience. However, the political system our cities suffer does not encourage nor enable the type of diversity of thought or action that a directly elected mayor, working with committed national politicians, can bring.
As each of the city councils seeks to make its contribution to the drive back towards sustainable growth while implementing real cuts in public service costs, they must all shrink their workforce, by an average of 1,000 people. A powerful and imaginative mayor could provide the drive and determination to not only ensure swift action but more importantly, to use that change as an opportunity to turn around Scotland's embarrassingly low birth and growth rate for small and medium-sized enterprises, while at the same time reducing our over-reliance on the public sector, with a workforce planning programme that could spin out small companies and social enterprises from the councils in a manner similar to that done by our universities.
The time for Scotland's cities to join the rest of the world and elect mayors has arrived, along with the opportunity for our MSPs and MPs to take a leaf from the UK coalition government's book, set aside their party differences and fuel these engines of our economy”.
“More than a quarter of Scotland's population live in them. Two in every three jobs are created by them. A third of research and development is carried out in and around them, and half of our gross value added is produced by them. They are the engines of our economy; they are Scotland's cities.
Our cities are the beating heart of the Scottish Government's drive towards sustainable economic growth and they will remain so regardless of the outcome of next year's election or the political composition of the incoming administration.
And yet who leads Scotland's cities? Do we have a single political personality to match the gung-ho dynamism of New York's former leader Rudolph Giuliani, the bold character of a Boris Johnson or the direct political purpose of a "Red Ken"? These city leaders make a real difference when they combine their own character with real political power. Sadly, our city councillors simply don't have that political power to impose themselves and their programmes in the same way that these leaders of real world cities do.
Setting aside political preference, no-one can argue against the fact that Giuliani made safe the streets of New York with his get-tough policy of Zero Tolerance to crime, or that he made New Yorkers feel safer with his dynamic leadership after 9/11.
Equally, it is impossible to argue against the fact that Johnson took on the Home Office and removed the UK's most senior police chief and so prepared the ground for the policy of directly elected police commissioners. And what of Ken Livingstone, the left-wing leader who introduced the UK's first example of demand management in a period of rapid growth, the congestion charge? This was made possible, without the central government interference that killed off his cheap fares on the Underground, because he was a directly elected mayor with a mandate.
Compare and contrast the success of "Red Ken" pushing through that change, of much greater magnitude and impact than that attempted in Edinburgh, with the democratic debacle that the capital's council oversaw. London's congestion charge has become an integral part of the transport system, helping pay for much need infrastructure upgrades.
What price that firm leadership and policy for Edinburgh to fund the trams or for Glasgow to pay for the much needed upgrade of the subway or for Aberdeen to pay for a by-pass?
Our city leaderships have had to resort to other ways of seeking support for such transport projects that will drive economic growth, for example Edinburgh's then leader being unable to even secure the support of his own colleagues and seeking refuge in a referendum doomed to failure before the ballot had even begun. Have our other cities fared any better?
In Aberdeen, this lack of political power has frustrated any real effort to tackle the structural budget deficit the city council inherited from day one. Created on 1 April, 1996, a cruel joke indeed, Aberdeen City Council required extraordinarily strong leadership denied it by the then, and still current political system of an unmanageably large number of councillors. Ironically, but not surprisingly, the one person who has made a difference has now been appointed by Edinburgh.
Chief executive Sue Bruce was enabled to introduce significant change in Aberdeen only after external intervention following the near financial collapse of the city council, using previously unavailable centralised power invested in her position with the tacit support of the elected leadership. She will make a big difference to Edinburgh, bringing a fresh approach and direction but I fear the democratic difficulties that bedevil our councils will still put the brakes on reform of public services in the capital.
In Dundee, the only politician the public is likely to recognise is one who doesn't even represent the city, once seen impersonating a cat on reality TV. Even though the City Chambers and Caird Hall resemble the Kremlin, the city council simply does not have the power that would make a real difference to the City of Discovery.
And what of Glasgow? OK, we can accept that Steven Purcell was seen as a mayor and treated as one but the sometimes shabby internal political compromises had to engineer to appease the unworkably large number of councillors has left a sorry legacy that threatens to dilute the democratic power of his successor, not strengthen it.
The conclusion from these examples is obvious: our cities deserve stronger leadership, as they strive to find positive routes out of economic crisis. They need to have the political power that enables world cities to tackle crises without the need to go cap in hand to national government. Not that our national politicians, either MSPs or MPs have a great record of supporting their cities, other than a few notable exceptions - such as Margo MacDonald's success in securing a capital city supplement for Edinburgh.
It is impossible to point to a single occasion when our MSPs or MPs have set aside tribal party division and worked together for the city's greater good. Why can't they grasp the opportunity that the tight political arithmetic of the Scottish Parliament presents them by organising to form strong, powerful and influential city caucuses that can make the case for projects in their own cities? Secure the budget, make the improvements and then argue about who was responsible, rather than arguing about what benefits can be achieved as the cities stand still.
For example, in Edinburgh wouldn't it just be capital to see all of the city's MSPs working together on an agreed investment plan to improve transport infrastructure, rather than simply contributing to the many, disparate voices that dominate that debate? Each of the other core cities would also benefit from such collective action, and would be strengthened immeasurably by the election of a mayor to act as both lead voice and focus, regardless of party interest.
Led by an elected mayor, Edinburgh could also tackle the difficulties described by Bill Jamieson in his analysis of an over-reliance on the financial services sector, which itself is a neat mirror image of Scotland's over-reliance on the public sector. Both of these problems require the same action - diversification, to move from reliance to resilience. However, the political system our cities suffer does not encourage nor enable the type of diversity of thought or action that a directly elected mayor, working with committed national politicians, can bring.
As each of the city councils seeks to make its contribution to the drive back towards sustainable growth while implementing real cuts in public service costs, they must all shrink their workforce, by an average of 1,000 people. A powerful and imaginative mayor could provide the drive and determination to not only ensure swift action but more importantly, to use that change as an opportunity to turn around Scotland's embarrassingly low birth and growth rate for small and medium-sized enterprises, while at the same time reducing our over-reliance on the public sector, with a workforce planning programme that could spin out small companies and social enterprises from the councils in a manner similar to that done by our universities.
The time for Scotland's cities to join the rest of the world and elect mayors has arrived, along with the opportunity for our MSPs and MPs to take a leaf from the UK coalition government's book, set aside their party differences and fuel these engines of our economy”.
Monday, 9 August 2010
Independent Budget Review
Of course, it is very unlikely that you missed the publication of the IBR but if you did the following will bring you up to speed.
The panel provided a number of recommendations that include:
Recommendations include:
- subjecting all services to scrutiny and comparative prioritisation, without an overridingpresumption of protection for any of the major services;
• discontinuing the current council tax freeze, which does not appear sustainable in the projected economic environment;
• ensuring that future annual efficiency targets across the public sector are no less than 2 per cent per annum;
• further reducing the number of public bodies;
• applying a two-year pay freeze, from 2011-12, as the first essential step to constrain growth in the public sector pay bill;
• immediately implementing a recruitment freeze across the public sector, with exceptions only granted for essential staff posts;
• managing a fall in public sector employment of between approximately 5.7 per cent and 10 per cent by 2014-15, as far as possible through natural wastage;
• reviewing the NHS Distinction Awards scheme, as part of the Fair Pay Review;
• engaging with the Independent Public Services Pension Commission to review public
sector pensions, recognising that changes to current public sector pension arrangements are essential and almost certainly unavoidable;
• undertaking immediate work to review whether all free or subsidised universal services should be retained in their current form, including reviewing eligibility criteria for concessionary travel and free NHS eye examinations, reviewing future arrangements for free personal and nursing care and considering the suspension of the final stage in the planned reduction in prescription charges;
• whether to maintain the current funding arrangements for higher education in Scotland or to implement a scheme similar to that in England, such as tuition fees, or other arrangements such as graduate contributions, taking into account the outcome of the Browne Review;
• revising and building on the role of the Scottish Futures Trust;
• exploring options for changing the status of Scottish Water, possibly to that of a public interest company, which could permit the release of significant capital to the Scottish Government for other projects; and
• developing a longer term strategic view of the future shape and nature of public services.
What do you think of the IBR?
The panel provided a number of recommendations that include:
Recommendations include:
- subjecting all services to scrutiny and comparative prioritisation, without an overridingpresumption of protection for any of the major services;
• discontinuing the current council tax freeze, which does not appear sustainable in the projected economic environment;
• ensuring that future annual efficiency targets across the public sector are no less than 2 per cent per annum;
• further reducing the number of public bodies;
• applying a two-year pay freeze, from 2011-12, as the first essential step to constrain growth in the public sector pay bill;
• immediately implementing a recruitment freeze across the public sector, with exceptions only granted for essential staff posts;
• managing a fall in public sector employment of between approximately 5.7 per cent and 10 per cent by 2014-15, as far as possible through natural wastage;
• reviewing the NHS Distinction Awards scheme, as part of the Fair Pay Review;
• engaging with the Independent Public Services Pension Commission to review public
sector pensions, recognising that changes to current public sector pension arrangements are essential and almost certainly unavoidable;
• undertaking immediate work to review whether all free or subsidised universal services should be retained in their current form, including reviewing eligibility criteria for concessionary travel and free NHS eye examinations, reviewing future arrangements for free personal and nursing care and considering the suspension of the final stage in the planned reduction in prescription charges;
• whether to maintain the current funding arrangements for higher education in Scotland or to implement a scheme similar to that in England, such as tuition fees, or other arrangements such as graduate contributions, taking into account the outcome of the Browne Review;
• revising and building on the role of the Scottish Futures Trust;
• exploring options for changing the status of Scottish Water, possibly to that of a public interest company, which could permit the release of significant capital to the Scottish Government for other projects; and
• developing a longer term strategic view of the future shape and nature of public services.
What do you think of the IBR?
Monday, 12 April 2010
The End of "New Politics" (Again)
Admittedly the last post was rather downbeat. To explain, I had just realised that there was no point in casting my vote. My democratic spirit was at an all time low as I planned an escape route from Lanarkshire while revelling in my pre-election apathy.
However, today is different. For one, its stopped raining. And for another, Gordon Brown delivered his speech on new politics. I'm sure there's a causal relationship between the two.
“It is time to see an end to the old politics” began Brown, not realising that by definition this means that Labour must lose the election given that they've been in power since 1997.
The Brown narrative was clear enough: connect the economy, climate change and social policy with democratic renewal. We will not “master [these] big challenges... unless the legitimacy of our democracy is fully restored”.
It's a tenuous link – remember the British take on revolt is gesticulating unprompted on Question Time – but let's stick with it.
A vote for Labour will guarantee the “most comprehensive programme of constitutional reform in this country for a century”. Reform includes:
- Ban MPs from working for lobbying companies.
- Introduce a US-style recall system to allow voters to remove their MPs if they are guilty of financial misconduct and parliament fails to act.
- The electorate will be given a new right to petition the House of Commons to trigger debates on “issues of significant public concern”.
- “Charting a course to a written constitution”.
- Give the Parliament a “free vote” on reducing the voting age to 16.
- Introducing fixed term Parliaments.
- Referendum on changing the electoral system and reforming the House of Lords.
- The abolition of the term “new politics” under the 2006 Terrorism Act.
Undoubtedly Labour has a decent track record on constitutional reform having delivered devolution and beginning reform of the House of Lords. Nevertheless, these recent attempts to renew our democracy represent opportunism more than ideals - a progressive fag paper between Labour and the Tories, and perhaps an attempt to sway some Lib Dem voters too.
Why should the British electorate trust Labour to deliver on constitutional reform when thus far they have failed to do so? After three terms haven't they missed countless opportunities to create a “new politics”?
Either Labour strategists are banking on voter amnesia or they fancy their chances in a toe-to-toe brawl on democratic renewal with the Conservatives. And why wouldn't they? For all the localising mantra of Cameron and Co – as Brown pointed out – they have successfully blocked attempts by the UK Government to reform our democratic structures.
Perhaps the most important, if unspoken, point of Brown's speech is to more closely align Labour with the Lib Dems in the potential event of a hung parliament. Certainly, this wouldn't be the first ideological nod and a wink in this campaign. Already we have saw Vince Cable and the Chancellor agree on many issues in the “Ask the Chancellors” debate, signing as they were off the same philosophical hymn sheet.
Oh and I was joking about abolishing the term new politics, unfortunately.
Barry McCulloch
Policy Manager
However, today is different. For one, its stopped raining. And for another, Gordon Brown delivered his speech on new politics. I'm sure there's a causal relationship between the two.
“It is time to see an end to the old politics” began Brown, not realising that by definition this means that Labour must lose the election given that they've been in power since 1997.
The Brown narrative was clear enough: connect the economy, climate change and social policy with democratic renewal. We will not “master [these] big challenges... unless the legitimacy of our democracy is fully restored”.
It's a tenuous link – remember the British take on revolt is gesticulating unprompted on Question Time – but let's stick with it.
A vote for Labour will guarantee the “most comprehensive programme of constitutional reform in this country for a century”. Reform includes:
- Ban MPs from working for lobbying companies.
- Introduce a US-style recall system to allow voters to remove their MPs if they are guilty of financial misconduct and parliament fails to act.
- The electorate will be given a new right to petition the House of Commons to trigger debates on “issues of significant public concern”.
- “Charting a course to a written constitution”.
- Give the Parliament a “free vote” on reducing the voting age to 16.
- Introducing fixed term Parliaments.
- Referendum on changing the electoral system and reforming the House of Lords.
- The abolition of the term “new politics” under the 2006 Terrorism Act.
Undoubtedly Labour has a decent track record on constitutional reform having delivered devolution and beginning reform of the House of Lords. Nevertheless, these recent attempts to renew our democracy represent opportunism more than ideals - a progressive fag paper between Labour and the Tories, and perhaps an attempt to sway some Lib Dem voters too.
Why should the British electorate trust Labour to deliver on constitutional reform when thus far they have failed to do so? After three terms haven't they missed countless opportunities to create a “new politics”?
Either Labour strategists are banking on voter amnesia or they fancy their chances in a toe-to-toe brawl on democratic renewal with the Conservatives. And why wouldn't they? For all the localising mantra of Cameron and Co – as Brown pointed out – they have successfully blocked attempts by the UK Government to reform our democratic structures.
Perhaps the most important, if unspoken, point of Brown's speech is to more closely align Labour with the Lib Dems in the potential event of a hung parliament. Certainly, this wouldn't be the first ideological nod and a wink in this campaign. Already we have saw Vince Cable and the Chancellor agree on many issues in the “Ask the Chancellors” debate, signing as they were off the same philosophical hymn sheet.
Oh and I was joking about abolishing the term new politics, unfortunately.
Barry McCulloch
Policy Manager
Thursday, 8 April 2010
The Election of a "Safe Parliament"
The show-piece of our demoralised democracy has been announced. That's right, 6 May will witness the UK General Election and as ever it will be outshone by TV soaps, with many of us prioritising a social life over watching a blow-by-blow account on the Beeb (BBC).
Of course, for many rationality isn't part of the decision-making process – we are already bitten by the political bug – and we will follow the ensuing political theatre with relish, popcorn, TV dinners and sardonic wit.
The first few days of the campaign haven't disappointed: photo op's with “constituents” who looked far too happy to see a politician on their doorstep; countless kissed babies; chapped handshakes; and industrial visits with porcelain white hard hats.
In reality it has all been a bit of an anti-climax as everyone already knew that the 6 May would be the chosen date and thus had been on an election footing. The first day was like any other as the SNP still maintained, with a straight face, that there “challenging” target was 20 seats against a chorus of “more nats, less cuts”. Indeed, even the Tories were at it with David “taxi” McLetchie claiming that the “Cameron effect” in Scotland would amount to 11 seats.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems were bathing in the electoral spotlight and avoiding whenever possible to go into details of what their terms and conditions would be to become a coalition partner in a minority government. And lastly, Labour continued its negative strategy splendidly. “If you don't vote for us, the Tories will get in”. A rather redundant soundbite in Scotland it has to be said.
Yet the real story of the first few days came from the desks of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS); not the campaign trail. According to the ERS “25 million safe seat voters will not see a contest” with 383 MPs “elected for life”. Indeed, in large parts of the country the winner could be announced today. In Scotland, for example, only 23 constituencies are swing seats with more than 60% of seats safe. ERS Chief Exec Ken Ritchie said:
“These winners will take their seats in Britain’s Safe Parliament. Voters will never be able to boot these MPs out under our present system. They form a class of MPs that are, quite simply, elected for life... 2010 offers a tale of two elections – and two electorates. One that matters, and one that doesn’t. And for over 25 Million of us, who just happen to live in safe seats, this contest is already over”.
British Democracy in action: you gotta love it.
Barry McCulloch
Policy Manager
Of course, for many rationality isn't part of the decision-making process – we are already bitten by the political bug – and we will follow the ensuing political theatre with relish, popcorn, TV dinners and sardonic wit.
The first few days of the campaign haven't disappointed: photo op's with “constituents” who looked far too happy to see a politician on their doorstep; countless kissed babies; chapped handshakes; and industrial visits with porcelain white hard hats.
In reality it has all been a bit of an anti-climax as everyone already knew that the 6 May would be the chosen date and thus had been on an election footing. The first day was like any other as the SNP still maintained, with a straight face, that there “challenging” target was 20 seats against a chorus of “more nats, less cuts”. Indeed, even the Tories were at it with David “taxi” McLetchie claiming that the “Cameron effect” in Scotland would amount to 11 seats.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems were bathing in the electoral spotlight and avoiding whenever possible to go into details of what their terms and conditions would be to become a coalition partner in a minority government. And lastly, Labour continued its negative strategy splendidly. “If you don't vote for us, the Tories will get in”. A rather redundant soundbite in Scotland it has to be said.
Yet the real story of the first few days came from the desks of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS); not the campaign trail. According to the ERS “25 million safe seat voters will not see a contest” with 383 MPs “elected for life”. Indeed, in large parts of the country the winner could be announced today. In Scotland, for example, only 23 constituencies are swing seats with more than 60% of seats safe. ERS Chief Exec Ken Ritchie said:
“These winners will take their seats in Britain’s Safe Parliament. Voters will never be able to boot these MPs out under our present system. They form a class of MPs that are, quite simply, elected for life... 2010 offers a tale of two elections – and two electorates. One that matters, and one that doesn’t. And for over 25 Million of us, who just happen to live in safe seats, this contest is already over”.
British Democracy in action: you gotta love it.
Barry McCulloch
Policy Manager
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Fair Access and the Importance of Opportunity: A Case for Quality Internships
The General Election looms on the horizon. The party machinery is being oiled; sound bites are being tested; party coffers raided. Important issues like job creation and climate change - to name but a few - should be at the heart of this election campaign, but of course they won’t. Which makes issues like the one we bring up today all the more pressing.
Nobody can doubt that fairness is a key characteristic of a developed democratic society. In the Scottish context, fairness is high on the governmental agenda. The Panel of Fair Access to the Professions, a body set up to make recommendations on how fairness of access to professional skills should be promoted, does not stray from this norm either.
The Final Report of the Panel of Fair Access to the Professions identifies a problem in the UK’s present, and a danger in the UK’s future. Firstly, that ‘opportunity… is unevenly distributed’, with very few things being done about this, and secondly, that people who are not properly skilled could end up ‘stranded economically and divorced… socially’. It stresses, therefore, the importance of providing more learning opportunities to young people, and supporting them properly in today’s changing professional environment.
The report, drafted by a panel of high-profile specialists from a wide range of professions, asserts that the UK Government needs to make sure that the young people of today are given equal opportunities to social mobility. Special attention is given, among other factors (e.g. education) to internships, a sector that has many solutions to offer, and many problems to surpass.
Why internships?
Internships are recognised as ‘an essential part of the career ladder in many professions’ and an ‘important access point for entry to a career’. Professions are considered ‘central to the UK’s future’; a future where economic advantage will lie ‘increasingly in knowledge-based services’. The connection is easy to make. Internships, a proven ‘access point to professions’ and a decisive factor in graduates’ career decision-making process can help reverse the trend of professions becoming ‘more… socially exclusive over time’.
There is potential, but it is not being exploited.
There are significant inequalities in relevant opportunities for individuals, brought about by a number of factors (socio-economic, geographic, etc.) Internships are often unpaid, which means that taking them up may be costly; and the cost, which may vary, deters people who cannot afford to work for free in order to get the experience. As a result, ‘professions draw their interns from a limited pool of talent’. People are missing out on opportunities for professional development, organizations are missing talented individuals, and the consequences for social mobility are negative.
The quality of internships varies as well. Some are ‘very poorly run’, with interns used as a ‘low-cost way to cover positions’ and others are ‘run to a very high standard’. In short, a number of the already limited amount of people being trained receives training unlikely to lead to a ‘highly developmental internship experience’.
The proposed solution by the Milburn Commission consists of three main proposals: (1) a fairer, more transparent system for internships, (2) a national Kitemark that will recognise best practice, and the (3) removal of financial barriers to internships. By presenting case studies to prove the feasibility of said proposals, the Panel emphasizes strongly on the cooperation that will need to be forged among concerned actors (Government, professions, unions etc.) so that higher-quality training will be made available to more people.
The aim of the Report is ‘change’, and the Panel is very clear in stating that this change ‘has got to be made’. The proposal is out there, and it is up to actors to turn it into action.
How relevant is an (essentially) English Report to Scotland?
According to recent research conducted in Scotland, social mobility has suffered, as ‘the margin for improvements for children is more limited’ and ‘opportunities for upward movement have been declining’. Combined with the effects of the economic crisis in the job market and the increasing unemployment of graduates, the need to implement measures in Scotland, such as the ones proposed by the Report, becomes only more pressing.
The realization of this situation, and the intention of the Centre for Scottish Public Policy to partake and contribute to this nationwide initiative, is the primary reason behind its desire to create an internship programme that will hopefully be fully funded (by the Scottish Government), and accessible to all*. In cooperation with the Scottish Government, as intended and proposed by the Panel, the CSPP offers to formulate and manage a programme that will bring graduates in contact with participating organizations. By promoting internships and offering a graduate wage, the CSPP will create new opportunities for a wide range of organizations and graduates alike. The former will be able to tap into a wider pool of talent that can suit their needs better, and the latter will be given the opportunity to get that crucial first step in the job market, without being deterred by the cost. In order to ensure that the programme is closely aligned with the Scottish Government’s strategic policy objectives, a contact point will hopefully be established.
The benefits of such a program are obvious. Scottish graduates could greatly improve their employability, Scottish businesses could benefit highly from the work of talented professional people, and the Government could enhance its own efforts to improve and strengthen its economic recovery. New opportunities could be created for everyone.
Change is possible, but it ‘has got to be made’. Identifying a problem only makes the imperativeness of solving it even greater; such is the case of fair access to professions. Since we have established that we need to work together as organizations, it is only natural that we should examine how such cooperation could take place, and try to make it reality as soon as possible.
There are many steps that need to be taken towards the goal of a better future where everyone will be able to participate and contribute. Extensive cooperation and fairer access to professional development may not be the only answers to the problem, but they are indispensable parts of its solution. Indeed we, alongside numerous other organisations, are already working together to put relevant and paid internships to Scotland’s struggling graduates.
For further information contact Barry McCulloch, CSPP Policy Manager.
*This programme has already began, without Scottish Government funding.
Nikolaos Bizas,
Research Associate
Friday, 8 January 2010
A modern Greek tragedy
In 2008, Greek political and banking circles were pleasantly surprised to find the country ‘somehow shielded’ from the crisis ‘experienced all over the world’. Many believed that the structure of the Greek economy (which did not rely heavily on exports) and the modus operandi of Greek banks provided them with relative safety against a crisis that claimed scores of jobs in other countries. Financial ratings companies warned of increased national debt and economic slowdown, but kept the faith nevertheless.
In late 2009, the picture in Greece was a completely different one. Optimism gave way to anxiety, as international credit rating agencies cut Greece’s credit rating, downgrading Greek government bonds and the country’s perceived ability to borrow and pay back debt. The ruling Socialist government announced a much bigger budget deficit than the one originally expected, and shares in Greek banks were reported to have suffered significant losses.
Many countries have faced financial crisis in recent years; what makes the Greek case a special one is the fact that it is a member of the Euro zone. Its membership is the reason that Greece cannot devalue its currency, and therefore employ a traditional method of boosting competitiveness in times of crisis. As the Euro zone comprises of many members, not all of them as competitive as Germany or France, it is interesting to see how Greece plans, and hopefully manages to deals with its problems.
So far, the Greek government’s plan can be summed up in four words: raise taxes, cut spending.
In reference to the first part of this simple scheme, the Greek ministry of finance recently published a meticulous report of all taxes in Greece, in which it is specifically stated that throughout 2010 there will be significant changes in the way that work and capital will be taxed, and that tax exemptions will be reconsidered. Members of the ministry have also announced a number of measures that will soon take place, as promised in the report. Taxes will be raised for cigarettes and alcohol; the age of retirement will become the same for men and women; and increases in salaries over €2,000 will be frozen (according to the government aim of a more just distribution of income). According to the revised Stability Program 2010-2013, the government plans to clamp down on individuals who fail to declare their full income, or pay their proper due to the state. Over a million (roughly a tenth of total Greek population) entrepreneurs are to be checked for tax evasion during this ‘tax-safari’, as the Greek press has described it. Like their counterparts in the UK, Greek bankers are also to be taxed heavily.
The cuts announced are equally as massive. Plans have been announced for a hiring freeze in the public sector for 2010, and limited hiring of permanent civil servants from 2011 onwards, effectively shrinking one of Greece’s traditionally largest employers. Short term-employment contracts are to be reduced by one third and social security expenditures are to suffer yet undisclosed cuts. Ministries’ operating costs and Greece’s traditionally strong defence budget will also be affected by the spending cuts.
In the event that revenues and expenditures miss the desired target, the Government is considering a backup plan, that will include further increase in value-added tax (VAT) and property taxes, the abolition of preferential treatment of certain professions, and the increase of fuel levies, while cutting state ministries’ budgets at the same time.
Early on in December, the Greek government additionally sold €2.9 billion of floating-rate notes to banks, in an attempt to cut what is considered the ‘European Union’s largest budget deficit’. Loans to cover various expenditures have also been announced, and Greece plans to issue about 40 percent of its 2010 debt early on in the year. Greek banks are to be the biggest purchaser of Greek sovereign debt.
Outsider views on the crisis, and the procedure taken to tackle it, vary. Certain economists have questioned the savings announced, and others have not made up their mind yet about whether the EU should help Greece or not. German economic analysts have stressed that despite the economic hardship and unrest (which coincided with riots against an infamous case of police brutality), Greece is going to make it, thus alleviating fears about the Euro zone’s future. The IMF sound quite reassuring too.
To be frank, Greece has no option but to make it. The European Central Bank has been very explicit about reducing budget deficits fast, and, besides, much more is at stake than disappointing the ECB. What Greece is risking, as Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou has repeatedly said, is losing its credibility vis-à-vis investors and partners. "Our credibility deficit is more important than the deficit in our public finances," told Papaconstantinou to parliament, and he is right; for credibility can push investments and cooperation, and help get Greece out of the deficit pit it’s found itself in. After all, no country can develop and prosper on its own. Even the greatest of superpowers need partners.
Analysts, officials and organizations all seem to agree on Greece’s economic recuperation; it may take long, it may be tough, but eventually it will come. What has not been examined, however, is the impact of this massive reform plan on the Greek society, and its large public sector. Greece is a country with a traditionally high number of civil servants, which have so far struggled to provide satisfactory services to the Greek public. Contrarily to the private sector, which is loosely regulated and monitored and where workers’ rights have been increasingly violated over the last years, the public sector in Greece is considered a stable and trustworthy employer, where the rights of workers are safeguarded and where unions are rife.
With the coming measures, however, the public sector undergoes drastic changes. Existing personnel will have to manage with less funding, and eventually less workforce, and retirement age is equalised upwards for men and women. Given the fact that, as it is, the Greek public sector is already not considered to meet its duties towards the Greek public effectively, a reduction in money and manpower could mean further deterioration of provided services, unless it is accompanied by measures that will improve efficiency- expotentially.
A smaller number of public sector jobs means that private sector jobs will have to be created in order to avoid having large numbers of unemployed people putting pressure on an already exhausted welfare system. Given Greece’s current ‘credibility deficit’, and the lack of money to create new public sector jobs, it remains doubtful how this could occur.
The government’s attempts to reduce deficit are bound to have wider repercussions than imagined- or announced. The question is, essentially, if Greek policy-makers have considered these repercussions appropriately. Finding money to pay off a debt is one thing, but adjusting a whole workforce and a job market to wholly new conditions is something completely different.
In ancient Greek tragedies, a person or thing called deus ex machina would appear at just the right time to provide an unexpected helping hand, a solution nobody had thought of. It seems to be absent from modern tragedies though, and the hero of this particular tragedy, Greece, has no one to count on but itself.
Nikolaos Bizas,
Research Associate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)