Monday's city region conference provided important food for thought for stakeholders and policy-makers alike. Presentations will soon be available on the CSPP website.
Following the event Bill Jamieson published this article in response to one of the presentations given.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
"Time to decide on the future of our schools"
Published in The Scotsman, 10 November 09
When Tony Blair called comprehensive schools bog standard he wasn’t deriding the excellent effort of the many fantastic teachers who ran England’s schools, he was simply making the point that the comprehensive concept was not designed to deliver dull uniformity. David Berry’s call for an open debate on the structure of Scottish schooling asks the very same question but it is unlikely to result in the very same answer – and rightly so.
Scotland starts from an entirely different base with its own educational heritage and, more importantly a stronger communitarian context. The possibilities for radical reform are far greater here than they ever were South of the border.
Scotland has a fine culture of community activism that strangely has not yet found its way into our education system. Now is the time for that public engagement.
For far too long the political and educational establishment in Scotland has thrown a protective, and defensive, cloak around the structure of Scottish education. The world has changed, yet Scottish school management hasn’t. So, how can we best reflect the needs and aspirations of local communities within a wider, comprehensive system? Indeed, is it possible to promote change in a positive way when our current system is so self-protective?
First, we must recognise that our system needs change. Whether the debate is shaped by those that call for a simplistic concentration on exam pass rates or whether we can actually reshape the comprehensive model to suit the needs of the modern world we must at least recognise that a structure built for the last century is not fit for purpose as we reach the end of the first decade of the current one.
And, as the debate on public spending continues to rage it is essential that we do not lose sight of the proper rationale for reducing levels of expenditure or allow the tired old language of "cuts" to dominate the discourse. The central policy purpose of changing the public spending profile must be to better design and deliver higher quality, more responsive services to the public and not simply to spend less public cash, either in the short the medium or indeed the longer term.
Of course, the inefficiency that has naturally developed from the botched re-organisation of local government in the mid-90's must be addressed. The waste that has been allowed to build up through the creation of non-jobs allegedly created to monitor the work of the public sector but that rarely, if ever, result in radical change for the better also has to be swept aside. The quango bonfire is still to see a spark thrown at it in anger and the shared services agenda has yet to be promoted with real rigour.
We must focus on the real gains in service improvement that can be achieved, whilst our politicians, at least most of them, have yet to grasp the real public service thistle that universal provision must be means-tested or even that structural change is needed to increase service efficiency. We will only know that our politicians, at all levels, are serious about delivering sustainable change to public services if they develop programmes to reduce the over-reliance of the Scottish economy on public sector provision.
Dave Berry’s brave step forward to start a root and branch debate about the nature of service design and delivery is therefore to be welcomed and not derided by the dinosaurs who simply seek to protect the status quo; Tony Blair called that the “forces of conservatism”. It is simply not good enough for our politicians to revert to the black-and-white certainties of opposition. Real reform demands real debate of real ideas. It is time for all of our politicians to step up to the plate and take on the challenge of change.
Of course, a host of Scotland’s schools, often supported by their local councils, are doing fantastic, cutting edge work, from driving the enterprise agenda to supporting community bands, from delivering excellent sporting opportunity to creating cultural agendas that provide our young people with opportunities that give them a step up in the wider world. The innovation in Dave Berry’s announcement is that he is willing to look at things from a different perspective.
Sure, we haven’t yet seen the detail of East Lothian’s proposals. We don’t yet know whether the Lib Dems and the SNP both agree on the exact nature of whatever is being proposed. We have no clear steer as to whether the community engagement being proposed is of a social enterprise model, whether it bites into Labour tradition as a co-operative or even whether it is a possible step towards greater involvement of the private sector. All we know is that education is founded on ideas and debate and here, at last, is someone willing to start that discussion.
If we are to reshape our public services, or more accurately our services to the public, in any meaningful manner then that must involve a radical shift towards a mixed economy of provision that recognises and rewards the benefits of the private and social enterprise sectors as well as great quality public sector design and delivery. Scotland's birth and growth rate for SMEs (about the worst in the UK and possibly across western Europe) could receive a massive boost if the public sector was to encourage the 'spin-out' of certain services to its own employee base. This applies equally to the creation and development of our social enterprises in a country where the co-operative movement has such a rich and proud political heritage.
Our schools are the most important social asset for many of our communities and the most costly economic asset for our local authorities. If Dave Berry is asking us to think more carefully about how we, as the community, wish to manage that asset then I for one am willing to take part in that debate. Come on Scotland, can we leave the party politics at the door and have a real debate about our future – Scotland’s schools?
Ross Martin, Policy Director
When Tony Blair called comprehensive schools bog standard he wasn’t deriding the excellent effort of the many fantastic teachers who ran England’s schools, he was simply making the point that the comprehensive concept was not designed to deliver dull uniformity. David Berry’s call for an open debate on the structure of Scottish schooling asks the very same question but it is unlikely to result in the very same answer – and rightly so.
Scotland starts from an entirely different base with its own educational heritage and, more importantly a stronger communitarian context. The possibilities for radical reform are far greater here than they ever were South of the border.
Scotland has a fine culture of community activism that strangely has not yet found its way into our education system. Now is the time for that public engagement.
For far too long the political and educational establishment in Scotland has thrown a protective, and defensive, cloak around the structure of Scottish education. The world has changed, yet Scottish school management hasn’t. So, how can we best reflect the needs and aspirations of local communities within a wider, comprehensive system? Indeed, is it possible to promote change in a positive way when our current system is so self-protective?
First, we must recognise that our system needs change. Whether the debate is shaped by those that call for a simplistic concentration on exam pass rates or whether we can actually reshape the comprehensive model to suit the needs of the modern world we must at least recognise that a structure built for the last century is not fit for purpose as we reach the end of the first decade of the current one.
And, as the debate on public spending continues to rage it is essential that we do not lose sight of the proper rationale for reducing levels of expenditure or allow the tired old language of "cuts" to dominate the discourse. The central policy purpose of changing the public spending profile must be to better design and deliver higher quality, more responsive services to the public and not simply to spend less public cash, either in the short the medium or indeed the longer term.
Of course, the inefficiency that has naturally developed from the botched re-organisation of local government in the mid-90's must be addressed. The waste that has been allowed to build up through the creation of non-jobs allegedly created to monitor the work of the public sector but that rarely, if ever, result in radical change for the better also has to be swept aside. The quango bonfire is still to see a spark thrown at it in anger and the shared services agenda has yet to be promoted with real rigour.
We must focus on the real gains in service improvement that can be achieved, whilst our politicians, at least most of them, have yet to grasp the real public service thistle that universal provision must be means-tested or even that structural change is needed to increase service efficiency. We will only know that our politicians, at all levels, are serious about delivering sustainable change to public services if they develop programmes to reduce the over-reliance of the Scottish economy on public sector provision.
Dave Berry’s brave step forward to start a root and branch debate about the nature of service design and delivery is therefore to be welcomed and not derided by the dinosaurs who simply seek to protect the status quo; Tony Blair called that the “forces of conservatism”. It is simply not good enough for our politicians to revert to the black-and-white certainties of opposition. Real reform demands real debate of real ideas. It is time for all of our politicians to step up to the plate and take on the challenge of change.
Of course, a host of Scotland’s schools, often supported by their local councils, are doing fantastic, cutting edge work, from driving the enterprise agenda to supporting community bands, from delivering excellent sporting opportunity to creating cultural agendas that provide our young people with opportunities that give them a step up in the wider world. The innovation in Dave Berry’s announcement is that he is willing to look at things from a different perspective.
Sure, we haven’t yet seen the detail of East Lothian’s proposals. We don’t yet know whether the Lib Dems and the SNP both agree on the exact nature of whatever is being proposed. We have no clear steer as to whether the community engagement being proposed is of a social enterprise model, whether it bites into Labour tradition as a co-operative or even whether it is a possible step towards greater involvement of the private sector. All we know is that education is founded on ideas and debate and here, at last, is someone willing to start that discussion.
If we are to reshape our public services, or more accurately our services to the public, in any meaningful manner then that must involve a radical shift towards a mixed economy of provision that recognises and rewards the benefits of the private and social enterprise sectors as well as great quality public sector design and delivery. Scotland's birth and growth rate for SMEs (about the worst in the UK and possibly across western Europe) could receive a massive boost if the public sector was to encourage the 'spin-out' of certain services to its own employee base. This applies equally to the creation and development of our social enterprises in a country where the co-operative movement has such a rich and proud political heritage.
Our schools are the most important social asset for many of our communities and the most costly economic asset for our local authorities. If Dave Berry is asking us to think more carefully about how we, as the community, wish to manage that asset then I for one am willing to take part in that debate. Come on Scotland, can we leave the party politics at the door and have a real debate about our future – Scotland’s schools?
Ross Martin, Policy Director
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Reform the Commons and like Scotland give power to the people
Article published in The Scotsman. Click here for the article.
"It's all over. The script has been written. We simply await the author reading the last lines and closing the book. The result of the UK election is as sure as Simon Cowell making another million from this year's X Factor.
So predictable. So dull. The UK's political pendulum swings again. The only hint of electoral excitement, other than the fun of baiting the BNP on Question Time, is predicting whether David Cameron can secure an outright majority. If he does, then, as others before him, he'll have 'won' absolute power on a minority of the vote. We call that democracy.
If he doesn't, my own prediction, then the fun begins. Power would have to be shared, political respect would have to be earned, argument would have to be won. Votes in the House would matter once more.
In Scotland, we're ahead of the game. Since devolution, the people have been the authors of our own political story and we haven't yet trusted any single political party to hold power on its own. Our politicians responded firstly with Executive coalitions, between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and now with a minority SNP government that has to fight its corner at every turn.
But this more representative, inclusive, democratic style of politics is a result of the electoral system and not, as would be the case at Westminster, in spite of it.
Our democracy has been strengthened by ensuring that every vote counts – or, at least, when we get the counting process right. If a single party can command majority public support then it deserves an outright majority in any parliament. If not, then the government must seek to reflect the prevailing mood of the nation, as it clearly has done in Scotland since our new century began.
The big policies that have hallmarked Holyrood (eg the smoking ban, free personal care, freezing the council tax) all commanded majority support in the Chamber. This makes for better, longer-lasting legislation that provides political stability across the life-cycles of the policies rather than the much shorter life time of any individual administration.
Imagine, for a moment, a hung UK parliament. No single party with an outright majority. Or no party in receipt of an electoral bonus the scale of which our greedy bankers would recognise; failure to secure a majority of votes rewarded with absolute political power. Our democracy is broken.
As we prepare for the forthcoming UK election we must remember that just like our banking system, our electoral system is in crisis. The crisis in confidence in our political class at Westminster, already heading into the trough, became critical with the expenses scandal. And just as we seek to stimulate our economy back to life with the shock treatment of injecting huge amounts of financial capital, so our democracy would respond to an injection of political capital – the type that would make every vote count.
Here in Scotland, democracy is alive and kicking. Nurtured and nourished by devolution, our elections are exciting, energetic and unpredictable. Why? Simple. We injected our own political capital by making every vote count.
It has led to better legislation. It has also led to a cleaner bill of health for our parliament. MSPs face tough competition all year round. They operate in a political marketplace that hands power back to the people.
Vote for a Change is seeking to get voting reform on the General Election ballot paper. In anybody's book, that's worth voting for.
Ross Martin, Policy Director
"It's all over. The script has been written. We simply await the author reading the last lines and closing the book. The result of the UK election is as sure as Simon Cowell making another million from this year's X Factor.
So predictable. So dull. The UK's political pendulum swings again. The only hint of electoral excitement, other than the fun of baiting the BNP on Question Time, is predicting whether David Cameron can secure an outright majority. If he does, then, as others before him, he'll have 'won' absolute power on a minority of the vote. We call that democracy.
If he doesn't, my own prediction, then the fun begins. Power would have to be shared, political respect would have to be earned, argument would have to be won. Votes in the House would matter once more.
In Scotland, we're ahead of the game. Since devolution, the people have been the authors of our own political story and we haven't yet trusted any single political party to hold power on its own. Our politicians responded firstly with Executive coalitions, between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and now with a minority SNP government that has to fight its corner at every turn.
But this more representative, inclusive, democratic style of politics is a result of the electoral system and not, as would be the case at Westminster, in spite of it.
Our democracy has been strengthened by ensuring that every vote counts – or, at least, when we get the counting process right. If a single party can command majority public support then it deserves an outright majority in any parliament. If not, then the government must seek to reflect the prevailing mood of the nation, as it clearly has done in Scotland since our new century began.
The big policies that have hallmarked Holyrood (eg the smoking ban, free personal care, freezing the council tax) all commanded majority support in the Chamber. This makes for better, longer-lasting legislation that provides political stability across the life-cycles of the policies rather than the much shorter life time of any individual administration.
Imagine, for a moment, a hung UK parliament. No single party with an outright majority. Or no party in receipt of an electoral bonus the scale of which our greedy bankers would recognise; failure to secure a majority of votes rewarded with absolute political power. Our democracy is broken.
As we prepare for the forthcoming UK election we must remember that just like our banking system, our electoral system is in crisis. The crisis in confidence in our political class at Westminster, already heading into the trough, became critical with the expenses scandal. And just as we seek to stimulate our economy back to life with the shock treatment of injecting huge amounts of financial capital, so our democracy would respond to an injection of political capital – the type that would make every vote count.
Here in Scotland, democracy is alive and kicking. Nurtured and nourished by devolution, our elections are exciting, energetic and unpredictable. Why? Simple. We injected our own political capital by making every vote count.
It has led to better legislation. It has also led to a cleaner bill of health for our parliament. MSPs face tough competition all year round. They operate in a political marketplace that hands power back to the people.
Vote for a Change is seeking to get voting reform on the General Election ballot paper. In anybody's book, that's worth voting for.
Ross Martin, Policy Director
Friday, 23 October 2009
Caroline Spelman MP @ Conservative Conference: Contribution to the Mayors Consultation
The Centre have agreement from Caroline Spelman MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to publish this speech as a contribution to our elected mayors consultation.
It can be read here.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
New book advocates fiscal autonomy for Scotland
‘The Political Economy of Financing Scottish Government’ by economists Professor C Paul Hallward (University of Connecticut) and Professor Ronald MacDonald (University of Glasgow) was launched on Monday 12th October at the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Introduced by Professor Drew Scott, Co-Director of the Europa Institute, the book was praised as an important piece of work in the wider debate on the future of Scottish monetary policy.
The book comprises a of collection papers on the funding of Scottish Government. The authors argue that with soft budget constraints the Barnett formula of the bloc grant is unlikely to survive because of the UK’s budget deficit. They present alternative proposals on appropriate forms of financing for Scotland under its current status within the Union (fiscal autonomy) and outside the union if Scotland was to become independent (full fiscal autonomy).
At the launch McDonald questioned the UK’s ‘one size fits all’ monetary policy. Despite opinion polls indicating minority support for the Scottish National Party, he argued that funding from Westminster ensures that a non-Unionist majority in Scotland continues to support the status quo. The lack of fiscal autonomy means that there is no incentive among Scottish politicians to drive economic growth, given that tax revenue inevitably goes to the British exchequer.
Comparing Scottish public services to the rest of the UK, MacDonald suggested that under the current system too much emphasis is placed on equity rather than on efficiency. Hallward questioned the effectiveness of the Calman Commission’s recommendations arguing that it maintains soft budget constraints. The authors also contend that while the Commission’s report focuses to some extent on efficiency, little emphasis is placed on the private sector and not enough on the public sector.
For Hallwood and MacDonald fiscal autonomy would allow for the devolution of most tax policies with the exception of VAT, while full fiscal autonomy would enable the Scottish government to control all tax policies including VAT.
By providing hard budget constraints these proposals would address the current ‘one size fits all’ monetary policy and promote efficiency in both the public and private sectors. However the authors admit that there could be trade-offs in terms of an emphasis on efficiency over equity.
Nevertheless Hallwood concluded that these proposals would not only be beneficial for Scotland, but would also enable England to streamline its own taxation and spending policies.
The Political Economy of Financing Scottish Government: Considering a New Constitutional Settlement for Scotland by C. Paul Hallwood and Ronald MacDonald Edward Elgar Publishing £59.95 pp160
Stephen Meredith
Research Associate
The book comprises a of collection papers on the funding of Scottish Government. The authors argue that with soft budget constraints the Barnett formula of the bloc grant is unlikely to survive because of the UK’s budget deficit. They present alternative proposals on appropriate forms of financing for Scotland under its current status within the Union (fiscal autonomy) and outside the union if Scotland was to become independent (full fiscal autonomy).
At the launch McDonald questioned the UK’s ‘one size fits all’ monetary policy. Despite opinion polls indicating minority support for the Scottish National Party, he argued that funding from Westminster ensures that a non-Unionist majority in Scotland continues to support the status quo. The lack of fiscal autonomy means that there is no incentive among Scottish politicians to drive economic growth, given that tax revenue inevitably goes to the British exchequer.
Comparing Scottish public services to the rest of the UK, MacDonald suggested that under the current system too much emphasis is placed on equity rather than on efficiency. Hallward questioned the effectiveness of the Calman Commission’s recommendations arguing that it maintains soft budget constraints. The authors also contend that while the Commission’s report focuses to some extent on efficiency, little emphasis is placed on the private sector and not enough on the public sector.
For Hallwood and MacDonald fiscal autonomy would allow for the devolution of most tax policies with the exception of VAT, while full fiscal autonomy would enable the Scottish government to control all tax policies including VAT.
By providing hard budget constraints these proposals would address the current ‘one size fits all’ monetary policy and promote efficiency in both the public and private sectors. However the authors admit that there could be trade-offs in terms of an emphasis on efficiency over equity.
Nevertheless Hallwood concluded that these proposals would not only be beneficial for Scotland, but would also enable England to streamline its own taxation and spending policies.
The Political Economy of Financing Scottish Government: Considering a New Constitutional Settlement for Scotland by C. Paul Hallwood and Ronald MacDonald Edward Elgar Publishing £59.95 pp160
Stephen Meredith
Research Associate
Monday, 5 October 2009
"Welcome to the World": Contribution to the Mayors Consultation
This article was published in the Scotsman.
Scotland’s cities are facing their biggest test for a generation. As the aftershock of the global economic meltdown feeds through into severe restraint of public sector finance can our cities face up to the challenge? Is it possible for our locally elected politicians to debate and decide by committee how best our cities can tackle these very testing times head on, or is there something fundamentally wrong with our system of civic leadership?
Our City Councils have gorged on growth budgets almost since their creation in 1996 and now, all of a sudden, the funding supply tap has been switch off. As we prepare for the economic upturn, are the political leaderships in our cities equipped to take the tough decisions that bring about real and lasting change, or is a different democarcy required?
Are there lessons for Scotland from the great cities of the world as they themselves begin to tackle many of these same issues? And if so, what are the chances of our political system heeding them and implementing any required change in time to make a positive impact and avoid catastrophe?
In short, if tough decisions require strong political leadership would Scotland’s cities benefit from the election of powerful Mayors (or Provosts if you like)?
In Edinburgh, over the life-time of the City Council a common feature of complaint by the citizens of the capital has been the lack of bold initiatives that really make a difference. Where game-changing projects have been promoted they have often come to nought. Why is that? What makes Scotland’s capital uniquely ill-equipped to effectively tackle change?
We don’t have an elected Mayor. Tough, decisive and almost by its nature, initially unpopular change cannot be designed around a committee table. Local, short term interest gets in the way of the large scale change required to deliver long term, sustainable service improvement.
Whether debating school closures designed to better match the supply of places to the emerging demand for them in an energetic pursuit of excellence, or introducing congestion charging to generate huge revenue sums for public transport projects to efficiently get people to work, locally elected councillors will always seek to protect their own patch. City Mayors can see the big picture.
Mayor Livingstone sought a popular democratic mandate through his manifesto commitment for the Congestion Charge and then delivered a scheme that even the bold Boris dare not undo. In Edinburgh, we’re still trying to work out how to pay for the trams, and arguing over whose responsibility they are.
A raft of other examples can be found along the road to reform that leads out of the capital, cast aside as democratic timidity gradually squeezed out any initial signs of bold political action.
Housing Stock Transfer? Failed. The creation of a modern transport interchange at Waverley? Failed. The redevelopment of the world famous Princes Street and its incredible city centre gardens against the stunning backdrop of Edinburgh Castle? Failed. Even a shared stadium for Hearts and Hibs (a la Ac & Inter Milan!)? Failed. The list is never-ending.
Scotland’s other cities have fared no better.
In Aberdeen the council has collectively stumbled from budget crisis to budget catastrophe and back again, still with no apparent end in sight.
In Dundee, the lack of strong civic leadership and the party political in-fighting culminated in the capitulation and transfer of the Provost from his lifelong political affiliation to try a different team.
In Inverness, the local council has established a “City Committee”, which in democratic terms pushes all the right buttons but in reality has no real devolution of power from the parent Highland Council.
In Stirling, the council’s major challenge – how to grow the city and its surrounding region – suffered greviously from committee-ism and local vested interests, with the choice of the “least bad option” of plonking a 3,000 house super-scheme out of sight and out of mind on the other side of the motorway.
Is it possible for any committed collection of councillors to drive real, lasting change from around the committee table?
“Glasgow does” I hear you cry! Perhaps not, as Glasgow’s Council Leader is treated externally, and to a large degree internally within the City Chambers, as a City Mayor without the formality of the title. Preparation for the Commonwealth Games, apprenticeships for all young Glaswegians who want one, the completion of the missing M74 road link, modern purpose-built schools and hospitals (following a robust programme of closures to remove spare capacity), the Clyde Gateway. All delivered with strong political leadership – just like a Mayor!
So has the time come for Scotland’s cities to join the family of nations by electing Mayors? It is certainly an idea that is finding increasing, cross-party political traction. Labour introduced City Mayors in England. The Tories have now endorsed the concept for the whole of the UK. The Liberal Democrats are against, but would surely trade City Mayors for greater proportional representation at Holyrood or its introduction at Westminster.
And what of the SNP? In preparation for the Independence referendum it is essential that the SNP make the case that Scotland’s economy can stand on its own two feet. This relies on our cities being the engines of sustainable economic growth; which is, after all, the Scottish Government’s central policy purpose.
As Ministers ponder the possibility of introducing such a radical change perhaps they will ask themselves whether Bonn, Paris and New York are wrong in their belief that City Mayors play a crucial part in the drive to pull their cities out of recession? Can we introduce Elected Mayors for Scotland’s Cities? Yes, we can. Or, as someone else once said, “Its time”.
Ross Martin
CSPP Policy Director
Scotland’s cities are facing their biggest test for a generation. As the aftershock of the global economic meltdown feeds through into severe restraint of public sector finance can our cities face up to the challenge? Is it possible for our locally elected politicians to debate and decide by committee how best our cities can tackle these very testing times head on, or is there something fundamentally wrong with our system of civic leadership?
Our City Councils have gorged on growth budgets almost since their creation in 1996 and now, all of a sudden, the funding supply tap has been switch off. As we prepare for the economic upturn, are the political leaderships in our cities equipped to take the tough decisions that bring about real and lasting change, or is a different democarcy required?
Are there lessons for Scotland from the great cities of the world as they themselves begin to tackle many of these same issues? And if so, what are the chances of our political system heeding them and implementing any required change in time to make a positive impact and avoid catastrophe?
In short, if tough decisions require strong political leadership would Scotland’s cities benefit from the election of powerful Mayors (or Provosts if you like)?
In Edinburgh, over the life-time of the City Council a common feature of complaint by the citizens of the capital has been the lack of bold initiatives that really make a difference. Where game-changing projects have been promoted they have often come to nought. Why is that? What makes Scotland’s capital uniquely ill-equipped to effectively tackle change?
We don’t have an elected Mayor. Tough, decisive and almost by its nature, initially unpopular change cannot be designed around a committee table. Local, short term interest gets in the way of the large scale change required to deliver long term, sustainable service improvement.
Whether debating school closures designed to better match the supply of places to the emerging demand for them in an energetic pursuit of excellence, or introducing congestion charging to generate huge revenue sums for public transport projects to efficiently get people to work, locally elected councillors will always seek to protect their own patch. City Mayors can see the big picture.
Mayor Livingstone sought a popular democratic mandate through his manifesto commitment for the Congestion Charge and then delivered a scheme that even the bold Boris dare not undo. In Edinburgh, we’re still trying to work out how to pay for the trams, and arguing over whose responsibility they are.
A raft of other examples can be found along the road to reform that leads out of the capital, cast aside as democratic timidity gradually squeezed out any initial signs of bold political action.
Housing Stock Transfer? Failed. The creation of a modern transport interchange at Waverley? Failed. The redevelopment of the world famous Princes Street and its incredible city centre gardens against the stunning backdrop of Edinburgh Castle? Failed. Even a shared stadium for Hearts and Hibs (a la Ac & Inter Milan!)? Failed. The list is never-ending.
Scotland’s other cities have fared no better.
In Aberdeen the council has collectively stumbled from budget crisis to budget catastrophe and back again, still with no apparent end in sight.
In Dundee, the lack of strong civic leadership and the party political in-fighting culminated in the capitulation and transfer of the Provost from his lifelong political affiliation to try a different team.
In Inverness, the local council has established a “City Committee”, which in democratic terms pushes all the right buttons but in reality has no real devolution of power from the parent Highland Council.
In Stirling, the council’s major challenge – how to grow the city and its surrounding region – suffered greviously from committee-ism and local vested interests, with the choice of the “least bad option” of plonking a 3,000 house super-scheme out of sight and out of mind on the other side of the motorway.
Is it possible for any committed collection of councillors to drive real, lasting change from around the committee table?
“Glasgow does” I hear you cry! Perhaps not, as Glasgow’s Council Leader is treated externally, and to a large degree internally within the City Chambers, as a City Mayor without the formality of the title. Preparation for the Commonwealth Games, apprenticeships for all young Glaswegians who want one, the completion of the missing M74 road link, modern purpose-built schools and hospitals (following a robust programme of closures to remove spare capacity), the Clyde Gateway. All delivered with strong political leadership – just like a Mayor!
So has the time come for Scotland’s cities to join the family of nations by electing Mayors? It is certainly an idea that is finding increasing, cross-party political traction. Labour introduced City Mayors in England. The Tories have now endorsed the concept for the whole of the UK. The Liberal Democrats are against, but would surely trade City Mayors for greater proportional representation at Holyrood or its introduction at Westminster.
And what of the SNP? In preparation for the Independence referendum it is essential that the SNP make the case that Scotland’s economy can stand on its own two feet. This relies on our cities being the engines of sustainable economic growth; which is, after all, the Scottish Government’s central policy purpose.
As Ministers ponder the possibility of introducing such a radical change perhaps they will ask themselves whether Bonn, Paris and New York are wrong in their belief that City Mayors play a crucial part in the drive to pull their cities out of recession? Can we introduce Elected Mayors for Scotland’s Cities? Yes, we can. Or, as someone else once said, “Its time”.
Ross Martin
CSPP Policy Director
Monday, 14 September 2009
News from nowhere - Stop Barroso?
Who will be the next President of the European Commission? While this question may not occupy the collective mind of a continent more pressed with unemployment and the credit crunch, it's certainly set the tongues wagging in the corridors of European power. What should have been a cakewalk for the ex-Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Barroso (already President for these past five years) - he was unanimously reappointed by the 27 Member State Governments in the Council - has suddenly turned into a rather anxious ratification process in the European Parliament, due to the obstinate resistance of several of the European Parliament political groups.
They have already scored one success: they postponed the vote which was supposed to take place in July until the autumn. Now, this week in Strasbourg, the critical vote will take place: Barroso must win a majority to secure his position for the next five years, and to become the first President to be re-elected since the great Jacques Delores.
Why the brouhaha? Those opposing Barroso (the Socialists, the Greens, the Left and most of the Liberals) have a solid argument: "Top politicians should not be reappointed without taking stock of their performance." Too often the selection of (technically speaking) the most powerful person in the EU is reduced to a game of Buggins's Turn: the key is to rotate between a conservative from a small country and a socialist from a large country, a la the process I described last time. So Jacques Delores (France, Socialist) was followed by Jacques Santer (Luxembourg, Christian Democrat), Romano Prodi (Italy, Democrat) and Barroso (Portugal, Christian Democrat - he referred to himself as not a conservative but a "centre right democrat").
This, to put it mildly, does not always produce optimal results: the Santer Commission was sacked in 1999 for financial corruption. Furthermore, this is the election of the person driving the European policy agenda for the next half decade: surely there should be a serious democratic debate before the person is chosen? Barroso's "election manifesto" is dull, unimaginative, and tries to be all things to all men. For many MEPs, Barroso simply does not measure up to their expectations.
The drive against Barroso has been led mainly by two major parliamentary characters: Daniel Cohn-Bendit, co-President of the Greens and formerly of 1968 Paris barricade fame, and Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the liberal ALDE group, and ex-Belgian Prime Minister. They have two main arguments. The first, mainly pushed by Cohn-Bendit, is that Barroso has been too right wing: he has pushed the single market, economic liberalisation agenda ahead of any action on the environment and social justice.
According to the "Stop Barroso" website, "Barroso has misappropriate the "Better Regulation" agenda to promote deregulation is the name of competitiveness...Overstepping the Commission's remit, Barroso is trying to force through authorisation of GM crop varieties in the EU...a refocusing of the Lisbon Strategy orientated exclusively at a short sighted growth and job approach, putting the environment in the waiting room..." Barroso has promoted nuclear power, refused for years to regulate financial markets, and tried to force through privatisation of public services through the Services Directive. With the financial and climate crises in full swing, Barroso's response has been tepid at best and outright negligent at worst.
The second argument accuses Barroso, not for what he has done, but for what he has not done. For politicians like Verhofstadt, the European Union simply has not done enough under Barroso's stewardship to tackle the problems of our time and to assert its power in the world: instead, Barroso has been the lackey of the Member States, and has thus allowed Europe to fragment and lose focus. As ALDE declare:
"The European Union faces a choice. Either it takes a step backwards, becomes a bureaucratic and loose confederation of diverging countries and gives up being an international heavyweight, or we decide to move forward, to become a stronger union speaking with one voice in the world, convinced of our European values and standards."
For Cohn-Bendit and Verhofstadt, this means more common European policies: a common European recovery plan, common defence policies, even a common foreign policy. Barroso is simply not up to this task: Europe needs a strong leader independent of the Member States. The implications for the balance of power in Europe are obvious and a little ominous.
Will they succeed? Probably not. The "Stop Barroso" brigade always faced an uphill battle, against the unanimous assent of the Member States, and the support for Barroso by the right wing political groups. They have also made a number of errors. First, they did not put forward an alternative candidate. It is a little difficult to emphasise Barroso's negative qualities when there is no one to compare him to, and the possibility exists that a replacement for Barroso may be worse.
Second, lay the focus, not on the merits of the argument per se, but on procedure: specifically whether to vote on Barroso under the Treaty of Nice or (if it passes) Lisbon. This may have been a useful delaying tactic, but it smothers the debate in fiendish complexity and makes it completely inaccessible to the average European. It has also resulted in splits within the "Stop Barroso" camp on the correct line to take on procedure, which has actually thrown many Liberals back into Barroso's big tent.
Finally, it is incorrect to pin all the ills in today's EU on one man. The structure of the EU makes it inevitable that the President of the Commission will to a certain extent be the errand boy of the Member States, who do after all have to approve all legislation. There is no point in the President pushing an agenda which will be rejected by the nations and regions, which are the components of the EU. If the agenda of the EU leans right, that is probably because most of the current governments in Europe are right wing, not because of Barroso. We have a Europe of the nations, not a European super state (whatever the Daily Mail may say): most people want it this way, and replacing one man will not change it.
The case against Barroso can be seen here.
Barroso's platform can be seen here.
Daniel Wylie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)