Scenes from a Campaign

Jeff is not the only one turning his attention to Livingston today.

Livingston enjoys a fascinating presence in UK political history: for the first 22 years of the constituency's existence, it was represented by Robin Cook, until his death just a few months after the 2005 Election. Now, it should be possible to eulogise and not idolise someone, and Cook was by no means a saint, but he was an impressive performer and of course, presented the most effective case against the Iraq War that anyone could have done during his speech announcing his resignation from the Cabinet. And that departure, incidentally, marked the last principled resignation from the UK Government: the only ones to come close to being based on principle were Clare Short's delayed reaction to the Iraq War and James Purnell's prediction that Gordon Brown would hand the upcoming General Election to the Tories. So Robin Cook, MP for Livingston, former Foreign Secretary and the last member of the Cabinet to resign on principle, enjoys a special place in the books. Whatever his faults, he'll be remembered as an intelligent, high-powered politician and an independent mind. And Livingston will be associated with him.

How tragic, then, that his successor, Jim Devine, should end up in the dock for fraud. That he should have falsified receipts for his expense claims, and worst of all, that he should have defended his actions by claiming that a Whip told him to do that (if the Tommy McAvoy had told him to lie face down on the Westbound carriageway of the M8, would he have done that?).

Yet now we come to the man who would be his successor, Graeme Morrice. Now, he will probably avoid the complete downfall suffered by Devine, but the omens are not good if this leaflet is anything to go by:

Now, it looks like standard fare: the memories of the Thatcher years, and the carping about the SNP - nothing unusual for a Labour leaflet. Nothing positive, nothing hopeful, a quick CV and then the usual attempts to dismiss the SNP as irrelevant while at the same time devoting a large part of the missive to slating them.

But then there's this:

Ah, yes, those memories of the Thatcher/Major years. Such a shame that a Labour Chancellor and Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury have both come out and said that they'd be far more brutal with the Budget than any of Thatcher and her Chancellors were. How ironic: he could stop George Osborne, but would he even try to stop Alistair Darling or Ed Balls when they start wielding the red pen?

And the rest? Well, see for yourself:

In short, two pages in which he misrepresents who's in charge of West Lothian Council by describing it as an SNP/Tory Council (which will be news to COSLA, who see West Lothian as an SNP/Independent Coalition: the independents in question being Action to Save St. John's Hospital, who have been airbrushed out of political history by Councillor Morrice) and poses for photos on issues which either relate to Holyrood (so he'll be able to do nothing about it) or the local Council (so he'll actually be able to do more about it if he loses and stays on the Council).

It's strange. In a way, Devine is more impressive: he, like his predecessor, has become an icon of the big political question of the day, albeit for all the wrong reasons. And Morrice's photo might not be a police mugshot, but still, his leaflet really ought to be gracing the pages of Glum Councillors. Maybe Livingston could use some anonymity, an MP who won't make waves in the Commons but will turn up at railway stations with an MSP, a placard and a photographer.

Or maybe not...

I had the pleasure of reading Lis Bardell's guest post on Jeff's blog. Lis is the SNP candidate for Livingston and managed to sum up quite exquisitely just how the scandal has hit the area. As it happens, I had the good fortune of meeting Lis at the SNP Spring Conference and found someone who knows her area and knows the people, and clearly relishes chewing over the big issues. She's clearly someone who'll be at ease with local campaigns, but will be incredibly adept at handling the wider questions that go beyond Livingston and affect all of us. In short, I spent an evening at Conference in the company of an intelligent, articulate person with an independent mind. Remind you of anyone?

Maybe a spell out of the limelight isn't what Livingston needs. Maybe, instead, what's needed is a return to the things that connected that part of West Lothian to the wider political scene for all the right reasons.

That, I think, is where Lis comes in.

The Sunday Whip

This was a busy and rather successful Parliamentary week for the Government, and saw one of the most vote-heavy days in since the election.

Wednesday was its quiet, borderline-consensual self, and there were a number of absentees: Bill Butler (Lab, Glasgow Anniesland), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Patricia Ferguson (Lab, Glasgow Maryhill), LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (Lab, West of Scotland), Marlyn Glen (Lab, North East Scotland), Shadow Transport Minister Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) and Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston).

They missed the waving through of the Business Motion and Stage 1 of the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc. Bill. The main substantive piece of business came in the Government motion on Double Jeopardy: the LibDems had an amendment but had requested to withdraw it. However, they were thwarted by David McLetchie, who decided to force it to a vote just, it seems, to show that he was obviously the sort of child who pulled the wings off insects for his own amusement: the amendment fell by 104 votes to 0 with the 14 LibDems abstaining on their own amendment. The motion itself passed by 115 to 2, with the Greens being the only opponents:

That the Parliament agrees that, although double jeopardy must continue to provide an important safeguard, it needs to be reformed to fit with a fair and modern criminal justice system; agrees that persons who confess after an acquittal or who undermine trials by threats or corruption should be retried; supports reform to allow a second trial in very serious cases where important new evidence emerges and for this to apply retrospectively, and welcomes the Scottish Government's consultation on this issue.

There then came a motion from the Corporate Body, which was waved through probably because just reading the motion would have taken half an hour:

That the Parliament recognises that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body ("the SPCB") commissioned and received a report from Sir Neil McIntosh on the Reimbursement of Members' Expenses Scheme and in implementation of those recommendations therefore agrees to:

(a) Amend the Resolution of 12 June 2008 ("the Resolution") agreeing to the Reimbursement of Members' Expenses Scheme ("the Scheme") annexed as Annex 1 to the Resolution by—

(i) adding after "appropriate" at the end of paragraph (iv) "and in particular, and without prejudice to the generality—

(a) entering into arrangements with those members who, in relation to Edinburgh accommodation, are claiming and have claimed reimbursement of mortgage interest allowance in accordance with paragraph 4(5)(b) of Part B of the Previous Scheme and paragraph (v) of the Resolution. In respect of paragraph 2.1.6 of the Scheme as amended by this Resolution, the entitlement to the costs in paragraph 2.1.3 (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Scheme will not apply to those members who have not entered into such an arrangement with the SPCB; and

(b) making provision for termination payments to members' staff who are close family members of the member (as defined in paragraph 9.1.1 of the Scheme), where the costs of employing such close family members is reimbursed in accordance with Section 3 of the Scheme and termination of the employment of such close family members on or before the 31 July 2015 is due to the effect of paragraph 3.1.8 of the Scheme as inserted by this Resolution, and paragraph (a)(ii) of this Resolution. Such termination payments shall be calculated in accordance with the principles for determining redundancy payments provided for in Section 3.6 of the Scheme";

(ii) adding after "31 March 2011" at the end of paragraph (v) "except that (i) the entitlement to reimbursement of staff costs under Section 3 of the Scheme in respect of close family members (as defined in paragraph 9.1.1 of the Scheme) whose employment by a member commenced before 1 April 2010, and (ii) the requirement to declare such relationships to the SPCB in accordance with paragraph 3.7 of the Scheme as it read prior to the amendment made by this Resolution, shall end not later than 31 July 2015";

(b) Amend the Scheme with effect from 1 April 2010 by—

(i) substituting for existing paragraph 1.6.2—

"On no more than two occasions in any financial year, a member may transfer in total an amount which does not exceed in aggregate one half of the limit on that member's entitlement to reimbursement of office costs to that member's entitlement to reimbursement of staff salary costs. A member making such a transfer shall notify the SPCB in advance of incurring any costs in respect of the sum transferred";

(ii) deleting from paragraph 2.1.4 the words "and 2.1.6";

(iii) substituting for existing paragraph 2.1.6(b)—

"(b) the member also owns another residence in Edinburgh which the member uses in connection with the performance of Parliamentary duties, the member is entitled to claim reimbursement of the actual costs specified in paragraph 2.1.3 (b), (c), (d) and (e) in respect of that other residence.";

(iv) inserting as new paragraph 2.3—

"2.3 SHARED RESIDENTIAL LEASED ACCOMMODATION

2.3.1 Section 2.3 shall only apply to a member with a main residence in a constituency listed in Group Three of Annex A.

2.3.2 Subject to paragraph 2.3.3, where more than one member leases the same residential property in Edinburgh together with another member or members, those members are entitled between or amongst them to reimbursement of the costs of leasing the residential property in accordance with paragraph 2.1.3.

2.3.3 The limit on the entitlement of each member to reimbursement of costs reimbursed under paragraph 2.3.2 is the limit in each financial year specified in the Schedule of Rates plus one third of that amount in respect of each additional member, apportioned equally between the members.

2.3.4 A member who submits a claim in respect of the cost of shared residential leased accommodation shall declare that arrangement to the SPCB. The declaration shall be in writing, include the name(s) of the other member or members with whom tenancy is shared, a copy of the letting agreement and/or lease, and such other information as the SPCB shall determine.";

(v) inserting new paragraph 3.1.8—

"Section 3 does not apply in relation to the employment of a close family member by a member, whether individually or through a pool;

(vi) substituting for existing paragraphs 3.7 and 3.7.1—

"3.7 EMPLOYMENT OF CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS OF ANOTHER MEMBER

3.7.1 A member who submits a claim in respect of the costs of employing a close family member of another member, whether individually or through a pool shall declare that relationship to the SPCB. The declaration shall be in writing and shall include the name of the close family member, the name of the other member, the relationship to that other member and such other information as the SPCB may determine" ;

(vii) substituting for existing paragraph 8.4—

"8.4 ACCOMMODATION, OFFICE AND ASSOCIATED COSTS

8.4.1 A former member is entitled to reimbursement of the costs reasonably incurred—

(a) in the closing down of a parliamentary office;

(b) in connection with the termination of any agreement pertaining to leasing residential property within Edinburgh under paragraph 2.1.2(b);

(c) in connection with any ancillary obligations arising from paragraph 8.4.1(b);

(d) for the purpose of travel within Scotland undertaken in connection with (a) (b) or (c);

8.4.2 The reimbursements in paragraph 8.4.1 are subject to a limit equivalent to one third of the office cost provisions set out in section 4";

8.4.3 Any costs reimbursed under paragraph 8.4.1 may include the costs of travel of the former member's staff provided that such costs are incurred for the purpose of paragraphs 8.4.1(a), (b) or (c).".

Then came another waved through motion on nominations to the European Economic and Social Committee:

That the Parliament endorses the Scottish Executive's proposal to nominate Mr George Traill Lyon, nominated by CBI Scotland and the Institute of Directors Scotland, Mr Sandy Boyle, nominated by the STUC, and Ms Maureen O'Neill, nominated by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Poverty Alliance, to the UK delegation on the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union for the forthcoming mandate from September 2010 to September 2015.

Finally, MSPs approved the Advice and Assistance and Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2010, the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010 and the National Bus Travel Concession Scheme for Older and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010.

Thursday, meanwhile, saw a staggering thirty votes taken, all revolving around the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. John Farquhar Munro was the only day-long absentee, and apart from that, there was the usual revolving door of MSPs, though Iain Gray did miss eleven of the votes, ten of which in the morning, when he doubtless would have been rehearsing for FMQs. And of course, the Deputy Presiding Officers Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire) and Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland) were alternating in the Chair and seem to have a permanent pairing arrangement whereby whichever is in the Chair, the other also refrains from voting, so could only vote on three occasions.

Green Amendment 1 fell by 64 (SNP/Con/Margo) votes to 63 (Lab/LD/Green).

Labour Amendment 24 fell by 63 to 62 (same party balance), while Labour Amendments 25 and 27 fell by 63 to 61 (same balance again), while Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts) voted against her own party's Amendment 28, which fell 64 to 60.

Labour Amendments 29, 30 and 32 to 36 were taken together, as were Amendments 38 to 41 and 43. Both blocs fell by 63 to 61.

The Government had a series of amendments which all passed convincingly: Amendment 60 passed by 120 to 2, Amendment 61 by 122 to 2, Amendment 68 by 121 to 2 and Amendment 69 by 122 to 2 again. In each case it was the Greens opposing the amendments, though it's worth noting that we can only guess at what Margo MacDonald would have done for Amendment 68: she missed that one.

Tory Amendment 44 fell by 64 (SNP/LD/Green/Margo) to 16 (Con) with 44 Labour abstentions, Labour Amendment 73 fell by 62 (SNP/Con) to 61 (everyone else), and Amendment 74 fell by 64 (SNP/Con/Green/Margo) to 60 (Lab/LD). Government Amendment 51 passed by 77 (SNP/Con/LD/Margo) to 46 (Lab/Green).

Tory Amendment 77 fell by 47 (SNP/Margo) to 32 (Con/LD/Green) with 45 Labour abstentions, while LibDem Amendment 78 fell by 63 (SNP/Con/Margo) to 17 (LD/Green) with 45 abstentions. The Tories could only muster LibDem support for Amendments 84 and 85, which fell by 94 to 30 and 94 to 31 respectively.

Labour's Amendment 52 fell by 63 (SNP/Con/Margo) to 62 (Lab/LD/Green) while Tory Amendment 91 passed by 77 (SNP/Con/LD/Margo) to 48, where Labour and the Greens were joined in opposition by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill (Edinburgh East & Musselburgh), who had clearly pressed the wrong button.

Labour Amendment 26 was voted down by Alasdair Morgan's casting vote, with MSPs tied at 62 votes each: Labour, the LibDems and Greens in favour, the SNP and Tories against. Labour Amendments 31 and 42, however, both fell by 63 (SNP/Con/Margo) to 62 (Lab/LD/Green).

Government Amendment 97 itself had two amendments, both lodged by the Tories. 97A fell by 109 to 16 when no one but the Tories supported it, but 97B passed by 108 to 17 with the LibDems and Greens opposed. The amendment Amendment 97 then passed by 125 to 2, with only the Greens voitng against it.

Alasdair Morgan had to use his casting vote again to reject Labour Amendment 26, which tied at 62 votes each with Labour, the LibDems and Greens in favour, but the SNP, Tories and Margo against. Amendment 55, however, fell by 63 to 61 (the same party breakdown).

So finally, after all that, the Bill itself was passed, by 109 (SNP/Lab/Con/Margo) to 16 (LD/Green), with Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife) and Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) the only MSPs not around at Decision Time to see the fruits of their day of labour.

So that's the last Whip now until the 18th, though I'll have the Spring Whip ready soon enough to check up on MSPs' overall records this term. With the General Election around the corner, it'll be a good opportunity to see how much parliamentary bang the parties deliver for your electoral buck.

Counting the Beans

I have to confess - my plan to sit down and digest the Budget in full were disrupted somewhat when my LibDem Councillor decided to come round canvassing, and also to attempt to convince me that flattening a beauty spot for the sake of two houses and the neighbours' ability to watch Cash in the Attic is worth the loss of a pleasant green space. He also said that he wasn't bothered about how I voted in a General Election - showing how much (or how little) respect the LibDems have for voters in areas where they can't print out one of those bloody bar charts.

Anyway, before I was rudely interrupted, I have to say that I wasn't expecting much from the Budget but still ended up disappointed.

It didn't help that at PMQs, Gordon Brown protested that the Tories kept going back over past decisions and should talk about the future, only for Alistair Darling to open his speech with a lengthy passage which involved going back over past decisions. Oh dear.

And I noticed that their was a plan to jack up duty on cider and alcopops, as the Treasury had spotted that they weren't making enough money out of it. Think about it: it's not about tackling binge drinking, it's about spotting that cider drinkers are paying less tax than beer or wine drinkers. And fuel duty is still going up, but in stages.

And there was the moment where Tories celebrated the adoption of one of their few ideas - lifting the stamp duty threshold - only for Labour to celebrate when an increase in the stamp duty rate for £1m+ houses.

And of course, the claim that they're helping first time buyers seems hollow when the Government axed the Ownhome shared equity scheme months ago (though at least the ISA threshold is going up).

Meanwhile, with easy credit being the source of the present financial crisis, the Government wants to gain make it easier to lend money. I found myself humming History Repeating by Shirley Bassey at that one. And gloating that the Bank Bonus Tax has netted more than double the Treasury expected to only serves to underline just how much money the banks are still dishing out in bonuses.

Then there was the real laugh: lines about how you can't cut your way out of recession and how making cuts too soon could prove disastrous, only near the end of the speech for Darling to announce that they'd already found cuts to make and that the next Comprehensive Spending Review is going to be ugly.

And at the end, a very lengthy passage about how they'd managed to rub the Tories' oses in Lord Ashcroft's mess.

So basically, the statement was riddled with contradictions and we have no idea of how a Labour Chancellor after the Election would behave. Unfortunately, David Cameron's speech was equally devoid of content - it was basically a rant about how Labour are rubbish and he should be in charge now - so we're left utterly lost. We're told that this election sees us forced to choose between two competing visions, but with just a few weeks until the election, we haven't a clue what those visions are. How dismal.

The Celebrity Hate Meme

Thanks to Yousuf and Caron, I've been tagged in the latest fashionable meme: to name a celebrity who you hate with a passion, which started with this basic premise from the Telegraph's Bryony Gordon:

I have a theory that almost everybody loathes one person in the public eye with such passion that the mere mention of their name is enough to make you combust with rage. This person has to be someone famous, someone you have never met before, someone who can pop up on the television for 30 seconds yet make you feel apoplectic for hours afterwards.

For Yousuf, it's Robbie Williams (who would have been on my shortlist). For Caron, Gary Rhodes. I had a shortlist: Robbie would have been on it had Yousuf not got there first and done such an excellent job. Jordan would have been on it, but I decided that was like shooting fish in a barrel (well, two ridiculously large fish in an ill-fitting barrel, to be precise), as would Victoria Beckham. Peter Scudamore is probably just short of 'celebrity' status, so was ruled out, and Rafa Benitez nearly got on there, but the sole reason would have been his hypocrisy at complaining when Wigan Athletic Chairman Dave Whelan reflected on the sorry internal state of Liverpool FC, stating that Whelan should focus on his own club, just a week after he himself ripped the piss out of Sam Allardyce's tactics at Blackburn.

Instead, I've gone for the obvious choice: Steve Bruce, with the help of this image from Bobbing Along, the Cardiff City fanzine (that's a thought, I could have done Peter Ridsdale):


The Wales fans above have summed up my feelings admirably. So let me explain why it is that Brucie Bonus makes be want to hurl a Size 10 boot into the TV set.

We begin our story in the 2000-01 season, back when Wigan were in what was then Division 2 (now League 1, of course). Steve Bruce had been sacked by Huddersfield Town for sending them on something of a death spiral, while Bruce Rioch had been summarily dismissed from the Latics gig for looking at Dave Whelan the wrong way. The Chairman brought Steve Bruce in as his successor with only a handful of games left, and he steadied the ship, securing us a place in the Play-Offs.

Then, almost as soon as we got knocked out of the play-offs, he buggered off to Crystal Palace.

He didn't stay there long either - by the end of the year, he'd moved on again, this time to Birmingham, and I seem to recall that it didn't initially occur to Bruce to let Palace know that he was quitting. He did at least stay in the Midlands for a decent stint, but in 2007, when it first looked like Carson Yeung was going to take over Birmingham City and rumours were flying around that Bruce would be one of the first dismissed by the new owner (it was two years later when Yeung finally bought the club and he has kept Alex McLeish on up to now), Bruce was complaining to anyone who'd listen that he was being treated unfairly, that he had a contract with Birmingham which should be seen out, and that he deserved to know where he stood. For the rest of us, it seemed like what had gone around was now finally coming around for Bruce.

Luckily, he found an escape route: by then, Wigan were of course in their third season in the Premier League and after the tense 2006-07 season ended up driving Paul Jewell out of the managerial post, Dave Whelan opted not to learn from former Bradford City Chairman Geoffrey Richmond's mistake and duly appointed Jewell's deputy, Chris Hutchings, as his successor. Consequently, Whelan was the only person surprised when results started gong badly wrong and relegation was beginning to look increasingly likely. In came Bruce, returning like the Prodigal Son, and Wigan fans founded themselves revising the last six years of their lives, claiming that, actually, they'd always liked Bruce.

Then, last Summer, he did it again. Despite being a Newcastle United fan, Bruce opted to succeed Ricky Sbragia at rivals Sunderland. Now, Sunderland and Wigan are very similar in terms of status. Let me explain - there are two criteria to a good signing for a club: 1) you have to have heard of the player, and 2) the player has to be quite decent. The problem when you're at a club like Sunderland or Wigan, however, is that on the whole, you're generally only capable of signing players who meet only one of those criteria. Chris Hutchings focused on the former (hence Titus Bramble), but Bruce, to his credit, was and is adept at getting the latter right instead. Hence signings like Amr Zaki (who was good for two months), Wilson Palacios (who now plies his trade with Spurs), Maynor Figueroa (who at least had a flash of brilliance against Stoke this season) and Hugo Rodallega (who has endured being partnered with Jason Scotland and Marcelo Moreno - South America's answer to Kyle Lafferty - upfront without going insane) initially read like a "Who's That?" of world football but all have made a mark. It seemed, therefore, that he'd go down a similar route at Sunderland. Instead, his first act was to declare that signing players for the Black Cats was like Harrods, comparing his former employers to Tesco.

This ludicrous declaration was rendered even more barking when he then spent the entire close season letting it be known that he wanted to sign Tesco product Lee Cattermole and proceeded to conduct negotiations through the press.

Then he spent the January transfer window bleating that Liverpool were tapping up Kenwyne Jones.

On another note, there's the tactics: they were, to a degree, effective, often brutally so - especially with a Midfield combination of Lee Cattermole and Michael Brown (and a team with both of those in it is guaranteed to reach full time with 10 men or fewer). But they were Allardycean in nature and it speaks volumes that Bruce's slog 'n' clog approach was the only one to thrive when the pitch at the then JJB Stadium was at its worst, with the scorch mark running from goalmouth to goalmouth, and churned up by the egg-chasers' abuse of the surface. We did manage to grind out a fair few results, but when we didn't, when both the process and the outcome were dire, it was absolutely soul-crushing.

So the charge sheet is as follows: he's a mercenary, a money-grabbing Judas who'll go anywhere and say anything if he smells the cash; he's a hypocritical gobshite; his tactics owe more to Wigan Warriors than Wigan Athletic. But there's another thing.

I hate Steve Bruce for what I turn into when he's involved.

I should have nothing against Sunderland. They aren't below Wigan in the table (so do not currently pose a threat to the Latics' Premiership status in the way that West Ham, Wolves, Hull and Burnley need to keep losing), and they aren't local rivals. There's an odd chain of rivalry in the North West: Burnley and Blackburn Rovers are arch-rivals (to the extent that my usually quiet Rovers-supporting workmate's only rant in the office up to now has been "Why is Burnley even a Borough?! It's just a crappy little town that belongs in Yorkshire!") , but Bolton consider Blackburn their main rivals. When Blackburn either aren't available or are pre-occupied with Burnley, Bolton turn to Wigan in an emergency. Wigan see Bolton as emergency rivals as well, when Preston North End aren't available (and in any case, the Latics' real hate figures are Wigan Warriors Rugby League) and Preston fans see Blackpool as their main foes. The Black Cats don't form part of that chain at all and yet I want them to suffer.

And it's all because of Brucie Bonus.

I want to see Sunderland relegated. They're not local rivals, it's not a "them or us" situation, and they're not one of those clubs like Newcastle or Leeds (or, at the nicer end of the table, Man United) who just manage to piss everyone off, mainly because of the way the fans project themselves, but I want to see them go down.

And it's all because of Brucie Bonus.

Every time Sunderland come into the equation I turn into a creature of pure malevolence.

And it's all because of Brucie Bonus.

And that, really, is why I hate him.

As always, I choose to swallow the meme - it looks like it's starting to double back on itself anyway...

The Sunday Whip

Every now and then, Parliament throws up a bizarre event that makes it difficult to categorise what's going on. This was one of those weeks.

Wednesday wasn't great for the Government. There were eight absences: Shadow Further and Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston, who has made only two Decision Times in the past month), Alex Johnstone (Con, North East Scotland), Labour Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok, who ought not be confused with John Lamont), John Lamont (Con, Roxburgh & Berwickshire, who ought not be confused with Johann Lamont), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West, who is now genuinely worrying me as he hasn't cast a vote in Parliament since two months ago today) Shadow Cabinet Member Without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife) and Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South).

They missed a Government debate on Tourism. The Labour amendment passed by 70 (Lab/Con/LD) votes to 50 (SNP/Green/Margo), and the Tory amendment passed by 70 to 47 with three abstentions, but the LibDem amendment fell by 64 (SNP/Con/Green/Margo) to 56 (Labour/LD). The amended motion passed by 71 (Lab/Con/LD/Margo) to 49 (SNP/Green):

That the Parliament supports the Scottish tourism industry as it works toward the shared growth ambition set out in the Tourism Framework for Change (TFFC) strategy; commends the commitment shown by the industry in establishing the new TFFC Leadership Group to drive an industry-led approach to improvements in quality, skills, innovation and investment across the sector; believes, however, that the Scottish Government must also take responsibility for meeting the skills gaps; notes that, in spite of the efforts made by tourism businesses and local communities as part of Homecoming Scotland 2009, overseas visitor numbers and economic activity in the hotels and catering sector fell in the first three quarters of 2009; regrets that, in spite of that fall in earnings in the sector, many Scottish tourism businesses are facing significant increases in non-domestic rates with immediate effect; notes the recent announcement that a focus on Scotland's food and drink will start in 2010; recognises tourism as a key sector with a vital contribution to make to the Scottish Government's strategic objectives and economic recovery plan; notes the importance of continuing to promote Scotland as a place to visit, stay, live and work; further notes that in its 2008 report, Growing Pains - can we achieve a 50% growth in tourist revenue by 2015?, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee recommended unanimously that the Scottish Government should set up a review group of leading industry specialists to make recommendations on the type and number of tourism education, skills and training courses in the future; notes that the committee's report suggested that the starting point for the review group should be a wholesale rationalisation into a model that suits Scottish needs and has industry buy-in; calls on the Scottish Government to implement the committee recommendation as soon as possible, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all press releases and announcements that it issues regarding tourism statistics paint a clear and wholly accurate picture of the industry.

Following that, the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010 was waved through.

Thursday, meanwhile was missed by Margaret Curran, LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Johann Lamont, Margo MAcDonald (Ind, Lothians), John Farquhar Munro, Peter Peacock (Lab, Highlands and Islands), Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott Shetland), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston) and Andrew Welsh (SNP, Angus).

It was bloody complicated, thanks to the Labour motion on Climate Change. Now the SNP, Tory and LibDem amendments were all waved through, but the Green amendment caused a problem. It related to a live planning application for a new coal power station at Hunterston, so Ministers couldn't take a position on it. Accordingly, when the Green amendment came up (do take a look at this commentary from James), it passed by 66 to 26 with ten abstentions. Labour, the LibDems and Greens voted in favour, the Tories against, but the 30 SNP MSPs who voted split equally in three ways:

Alasdair Allan (Western Isles), Aileen Campbell (South of Scotland), Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock & Loudoun), Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North), Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland), Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow), Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland), Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothians), Dave Thompson (Highlands & Islands) and Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) all voted in favour.

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North), Angela Constance (Livingston), Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West), Christine Grahame (South of Scotland), Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland & Fife), Bill Kidd (Glasgow), Michael Matheson (Falkirk West), Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland), Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) and Sandra White (Glasgow) voted against.

Nigel Don (North East Scotland), Bob Doris (Glasgow), Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland), Rob Gibson (Highlands & Islands), Tricia Marwick (Central Fife), Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland), Ian McKee (Lothians), Christina McKelvie (Central Scotland), Maureen Watt (North East Scotland) and John Wilson (Central Scotland) all abstained.

And all the Ministers didn't even dare touch the abstain button, so sat on their hands. Am I the only one who thinks that this whole 10:10:10 thing is too neat, that it prevents there being a majority (or even plurality) SNP Group position on an issue where the Government (made up of members of that SNP Group) can't be seen to take a position? It seems clever, though a little contrived.

Anyway. The motion passed, by 66 (Lab/LD/Green + a third of the SNP) to 10 with 26 (Tories and a third of the SNP) abstentions:

That the Parliament notes the publication of the UK Climate Change Committee Report, Scotland's path to a low carbon economy; believes that the Scottish Government needs to review its Climate Change Delivery Plan to take into account the passing of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; believes that there are economic opportunities to be gained from investment in low-carbon technologies and that the Scottish Government needs to take a lead through public procurement, particularly in the fields of transport and construction, and specifically calls on the Scottish Government to put in place a programme to replace its own fleet with low-carbon or electric vehicles, to bring forward the planning and development of a national vehicle battery-charging infrastructure and to enable the public and businesses to make the practical changes required to meet the targets set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; urges the European Union and UK Government to take action to support Scotland's ambitious plans and targets; notes that, while preserving the environment must not be seen as being in conflict with economic growth, it is vital that current economic circumstances are recognised and that all public expenditure offers value for money to the taxpayer; also opposes new unabated coal power capacity, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to reject plans to build a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston, given that large-scale carbon capture and storage at existing coal or gas plants has never been successfully demonstrated.

Then came the Labour motion on building better buses, and Ministers could take part in this: an SNP amendment was waved through and a LibDem amendment passed by 101 to 16 (the Tories voted against), while Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) missed the final vote, on the amended motion, which passed by 100 to 0 with 16 Tory abstentions:

That the Parliament notes that some transport authorities have secured better value for money when tendering for bus services by purchasing vehicles themselves rather than incurring costs that include a vehicle supplied by the bidders; further notes the flexibility and efficiency of the five Alexander Dennis Limited (ADL) ALX 300 buses operating in the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport area, which are fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and which have variable numbers of seats in various configurations enabling one vehicle to be used for demand-responsive services, school services and local scheduled bus services in the course of a single day; considers that to the proven efficiency and social benefits of such buses should be added the environmental and jobs benefits of increasing production of ADL's new hybrid bus, which is compliant with both DDA requirements and with emissions targets, but notes with concern that over 900 workers at ADL, Scotland's sole bus manufacturer, are on a three-day week; calls on the Scottish Government, as a matter of urgency, to fund grants for acquisition of ADL buses by transport authorities and by commercial bus operators to ensure a new generation of bus-build that secures Scottish jobs and skills, world-class bus manufacturing in Falkirk and the provision of world-class transport for the Scottish public; notes changes to the Bus Services Operators Grant scheme promoted by the Scottish Government that will promote more environmentally friendly buses; notes that a number of UK cities, including Aberdeen and Glasgow, did not meet EU air pollution targets in 2009; further notes that poor air quality causes tens of thousands of premature deaths across the UK each year; believes that a bus scrappage scheme, making grants available to bus operators to replace old, polluting buses, would have a serious impact on reducing air pollution and carbon emissions, and further believes that the benefits to the environment and the economic boost to bus manufacturers will be considerably greater if the UK Government announces funding for a bus scrappage scheme in the Budget on 24 March 2010.

Finally, MSPs agreed to set up a Committee for the William Simpson's Home (Transfer of Property etc.) (Scotland) Bill.

So that's another week. Next week, we have a slew of motions, and Stage 3 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill to contend with.

Getting women into Parliament

I think, after last year's stooshie, readers will know where I stand on All-Women Shortlists. I'm opposed to them, but one question that was posed to me (and I didn't answer at the time) was, what would I do?

Well, you know that I don't like centrally-planned lists. I think they defeat the purpose of a Parliamentary system where an individual is elected to represent constituents. I don't think that jamming a candidate down people's throats is necessarily the way forward. Similarly, planning doesn't work: the upcoming General Election isn't one poll, but 650 sub-polls. A party could draw up a list of 217 women candidates for various seats but there's no guarantee that they'll get in. That, incidentally, is why extrapolations of opinion polls aren't great: they give you the national picture, but don't tell you precisely what's happening in, say, Airdrie. Every election produces surprises that the polls and extrapolations weren't prepared for.

Now, the Indian solution would get round that: the plans are for the Lok Sabha to have a quota of women MPs (on third of members), and that each constituency will have a woman MP for at least one term over a three-term cycle. When it's a constituency's turn, it will only be able to elect a woman.

Except this is open to abuse: it would be easy for parties to bundle three constituencies together, and have the candidates rotate depending on who had to move and when (similarly, had this been in place at Westminster, the Wintertons could have switched back and forth between Macclesfield and Congleton for years). Further, I'm horrified at the thought of voters' potential choice of candidate being restricted by 50% simply because of whose turn it is. That defeats the object of liberation movements, surely?

So, that's what I don't want - what do I want?

Two words: electoral reform.

Think about it. You could very easily insert into the rules for electing MSPs a section specifying each gender must comprise at least one third of each regions' MSPs. So Highlands and Islands has 15 MSPs - that would be a minimum of five women. The others have either 16 or 17, and as you can have a third of a woman, that would be six women in each. A guaranteed minimum of 47 women every time.

And the legislation would effect only Regional MSPs, the only part of the current electoral process subverted would be the parties' list making process: it might be necessary, for example, to skip a few names and go straight from, for example, number three to number five to meet the quota. But as things stand, most of the Regions meet it already: Central Scotland has seven women MSPs (4 constituency, 3 list); Glasgow elected six and now has seven; Lothians elected seven and now has eight; Mid Scotland & Fife has six; and South of Scotland has six. Highlands & Islands woefully elected a sum total of no women Constituency MSPs and only two Regional, so three of the male Regional MSPs would have to be displaced (Dave Thompson would make way for Mhairi Will; David Stewart for Christine Conniff; and Jamie McGrigor for Helen Gardiner). And West of Scotland has only four, so would need to exchange Stuart McMillan for Fiona McLeod. In real terms, Bill Wilson would have to be replaced as well, but somehow, the SNP in the West of Scotland managed to select only one woman on a list of twelve (now, that is a problem), so instead, Jackson Carlaw would have to stand aside for Stephanie Fraser.

So no change to the result, only party organisations seeing their plans subverted, and a five extra female MSPs. If Westminster were to adopt AMS, they could write this in and it could work.

Similarly, you could insert a clause into legislation for STV stating that registered parties fielding candidates in a division had to field at least two: one of each gender. That might be a pain for smaller parties trying to conserve precious deposits, but the legislation could also provide for a discount for the second candidate (so, say, £500 for an independent, £800 for a party pair, £1,000 for a group of three). So whereas it takes 59 candidates (and £29,500) to cover Scotland in its entirety, it would take no more than 20 pairs (so 40 names and £16,000) to do the same.

If you were feeling particularly ambitious, legislation could also be written specifying that each division had to elect both genders (so a minimum of one of each gender). Now, again, this might mean that voters' higher preferences would have to be skipped over, but they would simply transfer to the next applicable ranking, so voters would have shown at least some level of support - a more open situation than now, where voters would be able to express a preference between different candidates of the same party, and it would guarantee somewhere between 25% and 33% representation for women. That may not be great, but it's a sight better than the status quo, and of course, there's nothing putting voters off from increasing that percentage without any further input.

So there you have it. An AMS system that preserves the freedom of constituencies to vote for whomever they wish of whichever gender they wish and promotes a closer gender balance, or an STV approach that ensures voters aren't forced to choose between gender and party, and can set up a guaranteed level of representation using voters' stated preferences rather than centrally planned lists or cycles.

We can achieve a modern-looking Parliament. But not by stapling rules onto an outdated electoral system.

The Sunday Whip

Another quiet week, and largely a decent one for the Government. I'd have thought that by now, things would be getting ultra-confrontational in advance of the General Election (I still think that in the next few weeks we should stand by for Parliament failing to take positions on anything as everyone retreats to 'attack' mode and motions or amendments fail to attract any support beyond the party submitting them), but that hasn't started yet. And MSPs didn't have to cross a picket line for the Chamber sessions on Wednesday and Thursday.

Anyway. There were 12 absentees on Wednesday: Gavin Brown (Con, Lothians), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley South), John Lamont (Con, Roxburgh & Berwickshire), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw), Duncan McNeil (Lab, Greenock & Inverclyde), Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), and Alex Salmond (Gordon).

They missed the Government motion on aquaculture. A Labour amendment fell by 58 - SNP and Tory votes; Ian McKee (SNP, Lothians) missed this one - to 43 (Lab/Green) with 14 abstentions. A Tory amendment passed by 73 (SNP/Con/LD) to 43 (Lab/Green), while a Green amendment fell by 114 to 2. The amended motion passed by 113 - Shadow Education Secretary Des McNulty missed this one - to 0 with two Green abstentions:

That the Parliament notes the continued development of an ambitious and sustainable Scottish aquaculture industry; recognises the economic importance of the industry to Scotland as a whole and many coastal communities in particular; calls on the Scottish Government to clarify what action it is taking to develop and retain a skilled and qualified workforce in the sector; supports industry calls for greater clarity about the food consumers buy through country of origin labelling, and invites ministers to make clear their intentions regarding any moves to amend protected geographical status for Scottish farmed salmon; notes the considerable work being carried out under the auspices of A Fresh Start - the renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture, published on 21 May 2009; notes the continuing need to consult with industry stakeholders on the development of the industry in Scotland, and further notes that ways must be found to streamline the planning process and remove barriers to the development and growth of the fish farming industry such as the lack of affordable housing and available sites for fish farms in order to allow the industry to grow to its full potential.

Following that, MSPs waved through the following SSIs:

Budget (Scotland) Act 2009 Amendment Order 2010

Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010

Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 (Treatment of Office or Body as Specified Authority) Order 2010

Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 2010

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010

Local Government Investments (Scotland) Regulations 2010

Thursday went along much the same lines. There were 13 absentees: Gavin Brown, Angela Constance (SNP, Livingston), Tory Deputy Leader Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland & Fife) and his boss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland), Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central), Mary Mulligan, John Farquhar Munro (whose last vote in Parliament was on 21 January, this is not a good sign at all), Housing Minister Alex Neil (Central Scotland), Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East), Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) and Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross).

First came the Tory motion on the management of schools: the SNP amendment passed without quibble, but the Labour amendment fell by 69 (SNP/Con/LD) to 44 - Labour/Greens again: Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North) missed this one - with one abstention. And you know who that was by now. Anyway, the LibDem amendment was waved through while the amended motion passed by 67 to 3 with 43 abstentions. Christine Grahame (SNP, South of Scotland) and Margo MacDonald gave this vote a miss, while SNP Chief Whip Brian Adam voted against the motion along with the Greens; the rest of his party voted in favour with the Tories and LibDems (as he's the Whip, was he the rebel, or were the other 41 rebelling?):

That the Parliament agrees with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that "choice and diversity are the hallmarks of a mature and confident society" in the provision of state-funded education and that it is now time to explore alternative models for delivery of school education with a view to empowering head teachers, raising standards and increasing parental choice; welcomes the community trust model for schools put forward by East Lothian Council as worthy of further examination and believes that this and other models to be found elsewhere in Europe should be the subject of detailed consideration and debate; recognises that Scottish education is generally of good quality with many important strengths; believes that any alternative models that are considered should build on these strengths and preclude academic selection as a legitimate criterion for school entry, and calls on the Scottish Government to publish an options paper on models of school organisation to facilitate this; believes that any changes to the model of school organisation should be motivated by raising attainment and improving pupil outcomes rather than profit and dogma; recognises the benefits of greater community and parental involvement in the management of schools; notes that the implementation of a new curriculum, falling teacher numbers and straitened budgets remain key areas of concern for education professionals, and recognises the cross-party consensus behind the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee's examination of the management of schools.

Following that was the SNP motion on serious and organised crime. A Labour amendment passed by 56 (Lab/Con) to one - John Wilson (SNP, Central Scotland) with 58 (the rest of the SNP along with the LibDems, Greens and Margo) abstaining. Tory and LibDem amendments were waved through, as was the actual motion:

That the Parliament recognises that serious organised crime can have a devastating impact on communities and businesses in Scotland; further recognises that tackling this menace should be a key priority for a Safer and Stronger Scotland; supports the role of the Serious Organised Crime Taskforce in spearheading Scotland's commitment to address this type of crime; supports Scottish law enforcement in implementing the taskforce's serious organised crime strategy, Letting our Communities Flourish and supports the view that serious organised crime cannot be seen to pay; believes that the Scottish Government should ensure that there are no further delays in the construction of the Scottish Crime Campus at Gartcosh, which was originally due for completion this year but is now not expected to be fully operational until mid-2013; supports the crucial role played by the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency in ensuring that there is a co-ordinated strategy to tackling serious and organised crime in Scotland, and also believes that the Scottish Government must make progress in implementing the findings of the Joint Thematic Report on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, published by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland and the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland, to ensure that there is greater success in seizing and recovering the assets of those who profit from crime and asks the Scottish Government to keep the entire issue of serious and organised crime under review in order that any further measures that may be deemed necessary can be considered; believes that, while good progress has been made on the recovery of assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Serious Organised Crime Taskforce must ensure that police and prosecutors use the Act to its full extent; notes with concern that there are no current convictions for human trafficking in Scotland, despite Glasgow being considered to be second only to London for the extent of people trafficking, and calls on the Scottish Government to take urgent, concerted and properly resourced action to break the misery of sex trafficking and to identify and support women being trafficked to Scotland, particularly in the lead up to the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014.

So that's another week passed. Next week, I'll be in Aviemore, running the rule over debates on Tourism and Malawi (those are two separate debates, MSPs will not be mulling over the merits of Lilongwe as a potential jaunt for their hollybobs), and Labour business.

Slogans and Actions

We now know what banners the parties will fight under for the upcoming election.

Labour have A Future Fair for All (Freud kicked in as I was typing this and it initially came out as A Future Fail for All), which is bland and inoffensive (Who ever campaigned for unfairness? Well the Republican Party seem to, but even they try and dress it up), but it also reeks of "Jam Tomorrow". Let's face it, they've been in power for 13 years so have had plenty of time to deliver a present fair for all.

The Tories have gone for Year For Change. It's vague (changing what to what?), and if anything, it's worse than the Labour slogan: 'change' is one of those concepts that sends otherwise rational human beings into a state of frenzy. Some people dive on change as exactly what's needed, without stopping to think what's being changed or why, and want to get rid of things just because they're old. Other people freak out at change - they want things to stay the same, however crap things are. Why? "Because this is how we've always done it!" Again, no one stops to think about what's being changed and why. Trust me, if change were automatically a good thing, Obama's already solid margin of victory against John McCain would have been far, far bigger.

The SNP have sought to repeat the message that served the party well in Glasgow East: More Nats, Less Cuts. Now I agree, it should be Fewer Cuts, but the message has a zing about it, and conveys an idea in the way that the other two don't: SNP MPs will be able to prevent cuts to the Scottish Budget. It's leaving a hostage to fortune, perhaps, but it offers a clear marker. It's short, it's sharp, it's a stark message. In short, it's effective.

By contrast, the Liberal Democrat message is anything but. Change that Works for You: Building a Fairer Britain. Firstly, it's a rip off of the Labour and Tory slogans (though it implies that their change would be better than Tory change, and in fairness, I would be inclined to believe that), and they aren't all that good. Secondly, it goes to highlight two things that the LibDems' critics love to flag up: that they're part of the consensus and don't find it easy to stand out (they've gone with two ideas that are already in use) and they're trying to face both ways (it's the Labour slogan AND the Tory slogan). And from a communications point of view, it's dreadful.

Firstly, and I can't stress this enough: slogans should not have subheaders. Ever. That misses the point of a slogan.

Secondly, it's overly long at nine words. It's longer than the Labour and Tory slogans put together and it conveys no more information than either of them. Obama's Change You Can Believe In was five words and worked. The SNP's It's Time was only two words (and could be customised, as in: It's time... to put more police on the streets, for example) and worked. Labour's New Labour, New Britain was four words, conveyed a message (that Labour had changed for the better and was in a position to change the country for the better). The Tories' Labour Isn't Working was horrendously negative, but conveyed a serious message in only three words.

But there's a broader point: it's looking like a Hung Parliament. And that means the LibDems will have a real influence. But I'm not convinced that they're capable of doing anything meaningful with it. Remember 2007? They went in a sulk in Scotland, and ended up cut out of the political process, having ruled out a Coalition (and so influence) with everyone. In Wales, they had the choice of being in a Labour-LibDem Coalition, or a Plaid-Tory-LibDem Coalition, but indecision crippled them, the other parties ran out of time and a Labour minority Government was formed leading to a Grand Coalition with Plaid. The LibDems would have had to be a part of any majority Coalition in Scotland and blew it. They should have been the kingmakers in Wales and they blew it.

Now, at Westminster, even their slogan is indecisive. It might be that they're trying to hedge their bets (always wise), but it's generating even more uncertainty and if that mindset carries on for very much longer after the election, however important the LibDems are to the overall outcome, then they could find themselves cut out of the process. Again. Their voters will want their policies to bear fruit. Their activists will want a result that gets them somewhere, doing something, to prove that their work wasn't in vain. But their MPs, like their MSPs and AMs before them, could end up chucking it away either in a fit of pique or a fug of indecision. They will deserve what happens to them. The rest of the party will not.

Bo, Selecta!

Well, you have to admire Labour's eagerness. At a time when there are still vacancies unfilled (and a situation in East Lothian where the local party is seeking to create a vacancy) for an election this Spring, some activists are looking forward to next year's Holyrood elections. Well, the ones with the potentially messy selection contests.

And the one for Renfrewshire South did have the capacity for a mess: the seat is effectively a new one, created with offcuts from West Renfrewshire, Paisley South and Eastwood. Now, the sitting MSP for the first of these, Trish Godman, is probably in a wiser position to stand in Renfrewshire North & West. The sitting MSP for the second, Hugh Henry, could have easily fought Paisley but that would have involved a selection contest with Wendy Alexander if she is a mind to stand again, so Renfrewshire South perhaps seemed the better bet. And the MSP for the third, Ken Macintosh, could stand again in Eastwood, but that seat sees some very unfortunate (for him) boundary changes, which mean he has to be sure of a 3.15% swing from the Tories to Labour just to hold onto his job. So Renfrewshire South was always going to be a battle between Messrs Henry and Macintosh.

Hugh Henry has won that battle.

This is significant, not least for Ken Macintosh, whose wish to get re-elected has become considerably more difficult (remember also that the notional Tory majority of 2,018 in Eastwood is, if anything, lower than it ought to be thanks to the intervention of an independent, former Tory, candidate in the last election, who prevented Jackson Carlaw from winning the seat on the old boundaries).

But more importantly, everyone likes to talk about Jim Murphy swooping to Holyrood like an avenging angel should he be beaten by the Tories' Richard Cook in a few weeks' time. But where? With Trish Godman in Renfrewshire North & West, Wendy Alexander in Paisley, and Hugh Henry in Paisley South, there ain't no room, particularly with Ken Macintosh's plans for a chicken run thwarted.

And the Regional List is no help to either of them: Labour's constituency performance means that the party is, notionally, over-represented in West Scotland: by rights, they ought to have seven seats rather than eight, and the SNP ought to have six seats rather than five. That means that any Labour hopeful on the List needs a swing from Labour to the SNP of 4.63% on the Constituency Vote (enough for the SNP to win Dumbarton and Cunninghame South, taking out Irene Oldfather and Jackie Baillie in the process) yet at the same time, has to hope that Labour's Regional vote losses are minimised. A difficult position to be in.

So, before we have the Westminster election out of the way, we have the opening, internal manoeuvres in the Holyrood election. And they aren't good for the Shadow Minister for Schools and Skills.

The Strange Case of Steven Purcell

I'll start by going through what we all know:

We know that Steven Purcell has resigned as Leader of Glasgow City Council. We know that despite early indications to the contrary, he has now taken the step of resigning as a Councillor altogether.

We know that Purcell has left the country, though we do not know where. The tabloids can't decide if he's on the other side of the North Channel (in Donegal), the other side of the Atlantic (Florida) or the other side of the world (Australia).

We know that Purcell attended a rehabilitation clinic. We know that he briefly went missing from there last weekend. We know that he was being treated for 'chemical addiction' and we now know that he has taken cocaine. Further, we know all this despite the initial statement citing 'stress and exhaustion' as the reasons for his departure.

We know that Council Deputy Leader Jim Coleman is in charge temporarily. We now know that Coleman refused to put his name to the statement drafted by Purcell's lawyers and PR firm as the Council (or at least, the Labour group) had drafted a different statement referring to the addiction.

We know that the police, specifically the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, turned up at the City Chambers to discuss the risk of blackmail to him, and that following that discussion, Purcell upped sticks to the West End.

We also know that Labour were made aware of the situation in the run-up to the Glasgow East By-Election, but chose to do nothing, save prevent him from being the candidate.

And that's where we are. When it was stress, everyone was wishing him well, singing his praises and hoping for a speedy recovery. Now, it's like they're all talking about someone different. Was this not the same guy who helped to bring the 2014 Commonwealth Games to Glasgow? Apparently not, that was a team effort. Was this not the same guy who was tipped to be a future Labour Leader and First Minister? Apparently not, because we say this about every Leader of Glasgow City Council. Granted, the precedents are Frank McAveety (who got into trouble for choosing eating a pie over Parliamentary duties) and Charlie Gordon (whose approach to fundraising ended up causing the downfall of Wendy Alexander), so if we were shooting for the moon beforehand, we didn't even manage to hit a star on those occasions.

But Purcell was different: he did secure the Games and he did have something about him. While a number of the decisions taken on his watch were unpopular (the school closures spring most readily to mind), he was capable and was highly adept at banging the drum for Glasgow in the way that we expect Alex Salmond to bang the drum for Scotland.

Plus which, I have to confess to a respect for Purcell which I'd imagine not many of you will be surprised by: while there are a good number of 'out' politicians these days, there are very few who would make decent role models - who wants to emulate Peter Mandelson, for heaven's sake? Purcell, on the other hand, managed to navigate the rapids of Glasgow Labour, get to the top there, and seemed more than ready to go to the next level. Even though he attained the Leadership before he came out, he sought and won re-election as himself, and the actual announcement seemed to come and go without any big thing. So of course seeing someone like Purcell getting there and staying there is a boost, a cause for optimism and a reason to be ambitious. After all, if he can get there, why not anyone else? Speaking from my own perspective, there are a couple of practical barriers (being 100 miles away from the border is the primary obstacle) to my wanting to put myself forward for something in the short to medium term, but thanks to people like Purcell, sexual orientation isn't one of them.

So what happened?

Well, at the risk of understatement, it looks like Purcell made some bad choices. Most of us do, but then, most of us don't lead Scotland's largest local authority. So when they caught up with him, as happens to everyone, then they were absolutely going to hit him harder and heavier than usual. And let's face it, a sequence of events which, if some reports are accurate, leads to you leaving the Northern Hemisphere altogether is pretty earth-shattering.

And of course, it seems that Labour were sitting on a timebomb for eighteen months. There was never going to be a good time for this one to go off, but having had that long to draw something up, they've contrived to destroy Purcell when they were seeking to protect him. We've gone from "Leave the man alone!" to "What the hell has happened here?" in one move and it's exasperating, but it's not hard to see why. In fact, the two aren't mutually exclusive: there is nothing that can be achieved by hounding Purcell except prolonging the agony that he's surely in. Rather, the questions are to be asked of his colleagues and basically boil down to, "Who knew what? When did they find it out? What did they do about it?" The answer to the last one is, apparently, naff all. Bravo.

And it was the silence that did it in the end: when the story did finally break, the instinct to circle the wagons took over, but it was done to such extremes that rather than leading everyone to believe that Purcell just needed time, it led everyone to reckon that there was more going on than we were being told. And so it proved. It's like trying to move up (or, indeed, down) a flight of stairs quietly: the steps seem to be creakier and you end up making more noise tiptoeing than if you'd just blundered up normally.

The result? A few days ago, everyone was talking about there being nothing more than a temporary vacancy in the City Chambers, now Purcell is out of politics altogether and probably for good. The Lazarus act required for anything else to happen would have to go beyond even Mandelsonian proportions.

And of course, Glasgow Labour is starting to turn in on itself, with people jockeying for position and various figures looking to hang Purcell out to dry. This suggests that the outlook for the Labour Group could have been ugly whether the former Leader's trajectory was the upward vector we were expecting or the downward vector we got: there doesn't seem to be an obvious successor and given Jim Coleman's caretaker status, Scotland's largest local authority is left basically rudderless for three months, plenty of time for a lot of in-fighting and back-stabbing. Moreover, this happens in the run-up to what has, of late, been a rare beast: a Westminster General Election where Glasgow has the potential to surprise. Can John Mason succeed where Robert McIntyre, Winnie Ewing, Margo MacDonald and Jim Sillars all failed and consolidate a By-Election win against Labour? Can Osama Saeed beat the Labour machine and the hostile press coverage to win Glasgow Central? Can either the SNP or the LibDems get that breakthrough against Labour in Glasgow North? You have to go all the way back to 1992 to find even one reason to be at the count in Glasgow, but this time, we have at least three, and now we're going there against the backdrop of a Council likely to eat itself.

And of course, a potential Scottish Labour leader is now out of the picture, which has broader ramifications at Holyrood: either they have to hope that Jim Murphy loses East Renfrewshire but manages to sweep into the Scottish Parliament next year like an avenging angel, or they have to find the personality that Iain Gray left down the back of a couch somewhere. The former isn't ideal as a) he actually has to lose his seat, which isn't set in stone; b) he would then come in as a loser rather than as a winner, and c) the last person to switch like this was Alex Salmond, and he got the Party Leadership first having announced he was seeking not just to be SNP Leader but also First Minister, then getting step 1 achieved, had more than two years to find and win a seat at Holyrood. Jim Murphy, on the other hand, would have to get elected to Holyrood before even being eligible to stand in a contest to be Labour Leader, which means finding and winning a seat (not easy when the equivalent seat to his own is, notionally, already in the hands of the party he would have lost to by then and the other seats are likely to have sitting Labour tenants), then there has to be a vacancy for the group leadership, which requires Labour to lose the 2011 Election, and only then can he stand, and before he can utter the words 'First' and 'Minister', would have to endure a lengthy period as Leader of the Opposition. So unless Labour manage to pull something out of the bag this Spring, then in three months time, Iain Gray will basically be the uncontested Leader of Scottish Labour. And I really don't think that's good for them.

One last thing: am I just being insecure/paranoid about some of the press reporting? My hackles were raised when the Scotsman used the word 'lifestyle' in one of its pieces - the L word is one of those god-awful euphemisms and seems like a decent corroboration of the "nudge nudge wink wink you do know he's a poof" approach described in an excellent post by Clairwil. Maybe I'm just seeing a demon that isn't there, but if I'm not, then it seems the press have learned nothing from the outcry following Jan Moir's attempts to dance on Stephen Gately's grave.

I hope Purcell is in Australia because I know that if I were in his shoes it would be excruciating to watch what's now unfolding. The spotlight has been shone on his personal demons, and in the melee that's developing, we're in danger of giving into our own.

The Sunday Whip

One of those weeks, I think would be the best way of describing this, with votes bordering on farce on occasion. On the plus side, that makes collating everything quite entertaining.

Anyway. Wednesday saw quite a few absentees: Shadow Health Secretary Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton), Rhona Brankin (Lab, Midlothian), Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians), Shadow Transport Minister Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart), John Lamont (Con, Roxburgh & Berwickshire), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Tory Chief Whip David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands), Duncan McNeil (Lab, Greenock & Inverclyde), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East), the FM Alex Salmond (Gordon), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston) and Jamie Stone (LD, Ciathness, Sutherland & Easter Ross).

And there was quite a lot to get through. The Business Motions were waved through, the Ure Elder Fund Transfer and Dissolution Bill passed through without dissent, and the spirit of consensus was almost carried forward into the vote on the SNP motion on regeneration: the Labour and Tory amendments were accepted unanimously, but the LibDem amendment ran into trouble for, well, no discernible reason: it still passed, by 65 votes (everyone but the SNP) to 0, but the 45 SNP MSPs present abstained. I still haven't quite got my head around this whole forcing-a-vote-just-to-abstain thing, I don't really know what it achieves and I don't understand why people go to such trouble over something they clearly have no strong feelings about one way or the other. But hey ho, it happened, the amendment still passed and the motion itself went through unchallenged:

That the Parliament acknowledges the continuing need for regeneration of communities across Scotland, particularly in challenging economic times; also acknowledges the critical role of local government, community planning partners, the private and voluntary sectors and community members in delivering regeneration; notes in particular the importance of an effective planning system and the necessity of genuine community engagement to secure real change; recognises the contribution that regeneration makes to increasing sustainable economic growth and the improvement of opportunities for people living in deprived communities; acknowledges the success of the New Life for Urban Scotland initiative focused on Castlemilk, Ferguslie Park, Wester Hailes and Whitfield and described as a landmark in the history of urban regeneration in Scotland in the official assessment of the scheme; welcomes the £60 million Town Centre Regeneration Fund secured in the 2009 budget, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward detailed proposals on how it intends to deliver its regeneration ambitions in the context of its economic recovery plan and how it will protect and enhance the contribution of the voluntary sector through structured and sustainable funding from central and local government.

Then came the SSIs. Now, usually, these don't attract a vote and it's clear that a small handful of MSPs weren't expecting any votes to take place on this week's selection - they clearly didn't pay any attention to the brief debate around them when it became clear that the Greens weren't happy with the proposals for the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. And frankly, I'm surprised they might have needed to listen to any debate to understand that the Greens would oppose this. The Greens take the view that more roads mean more cars, more cars mean more emissions, more emissions mean more pollution and more pollution is a bad thing, so they were always going to try to stop the orders being passed, and the only way they could do that was force a vote and hope for the best. Sadly, Schools Minister Keith Brown (Ochil), Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop (Lothians), LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney) and John Scott (Con, Ayr) appeared not to realise this and, it seems, did a runner. I have come to this conclusion as they were not present for the vote on the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010, which passed by 104 (everyone but the Greens) to 2.

It was at this point, however, that the Fugitive Four realised their mistake: I'd like to think they all left the Chamber, spotted that something was still going on, all yelled "Shit!" and ran back in at the same time as I think that's a charming image. They were, accordingly, back in the Chamber for the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010, which passed by 107 votes to 3: LibDem Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife) found himself voting with the Greens this time.

Then came that most dreaded of Parliamentary occurrences: a quip from the Presiding Officer, noting that one member (Smith) had been "hauled back into line" when the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) (Craibstone Junction) Special Road Scheme 2010 passed by 108 to 2.

It was followed up by another quip, claiming that "free will obviously still exists" when the A96 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 passed by 107 to 3, this time with Angela Constance (SNP, Livingston) voting with the Greens.

Then we got a snapshot of the PO's inner despair ("I give up!") when the A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 passed by 108 to 2, and Alex Fergusson decided to refrain from further attempts at running commentary for the A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010, which also passed by 108 votes to 2.

Anyway. The farce was over, the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010 passed without dissent (and I'm sure the Greens noted the irony in an energy efficiency scheme being agreed in the same breath as a massive road-building operation), as did the remaining Bureau motions.

Thursday, meanwhile, saw a slightly less comfortable day for the Government. And there were fewer absentees than the previous day: Ted Brocklebank, Jackson Carlaw (Con, West of Scotland), George Foulkes, Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Jamie McGrigor (Con, Highlands & Islands), Duncan McNeil, Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow), John Farquhar Munro, Irene Oldfather, and Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan).

Things started easily enough: a Labour motion on factoring services saw SNP and LibDem amendments waved through, though a Tory amendment fared less well, falling by 57 (Labour/LD/Green) to 13 with 46 (SNP/Margo) abstentions - Stuart McMillan (SNP, West of Scotland) and LibDem Finance Spokesman Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale) missed this one. However, the motion itself, passed without any further dissent:

That the Parliament notes that the Office of Fair Trading market study into the property management market found that the market is not working well for consumers in Scotland; welcomes the recent cross-party support for proposals to require property factors to register and to make provision for an accessible form of dispute resolution between homeowners and property factors; further welcomes this positive progress toward the introduction of legislation to ensure better accountability of property managers for their standards and the services that they provide; seeks to ensure that the appropriate authorities are given the powers necessary for effective enforcement of any new legislation, and calls on the Scottish Government to give consideration to the introduction of a mandatory accreditation scheme to cover private, public and voluntary sector property managers.

The Government motion on educating children and young people to compete in a globalised 21st century didn't do too well, though. The Labour amendment passed by 70 (Lab/Con/LD/Margo) votes to 48 (SNP/Green), the Tory amendment passed by 70 to one (Stuart McMillan) with his colleagues and the Greens abstaining, a LibDem amendment at least had some consensus about it, and the motion itself passed by 71 - Labour, the Tories, LibDems, Margo plus Christopher Harvie (SNP, Mid Scotland & Fife) - to 45 (the rest of the SNP group) with two Green absentions:

That the Parliament recognises that in the globalised and increasingly interconnected 21st century it is essential that young people are equipped with the skills and capacities needed to succeed in the global marketplace; regrets the absence of a coherent skills strategy and the lack of preparedness for implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence, particularly the lack of detail regarding the new qualifications and provision for vital continuing professional development; notes the Scottish Government's determination to learn from other countries' education systems to ensure that Scotland further improve its performance and applies a global perspective to its approach and ambitions; believes that the priorities for parents and teachers across Scotland are substantial improvements in basic standards of literacy and numeracy, greater rigour and greater flexibility in the SQA qualifications structure and wider opportunities for young people to pursue formal vocational training so that Scotland can strengthen its international reputation in educational attainment; notes the particular importance of modern languages and science in modern society and the global marketplace, and believes that the Donaldson review of teacher training must ensure that teachers are equipped with the right knowledge and skills to develop these and other key subjects and meet the needs of pupils in the 21st century.

So that was that. Next week there are Government debates on aquaculture, and serious and organised crime, along with Tory business on Thursday morning.

A Tale of Two Polls

Aren't contradictory polls annoying? Yesterday, we saw Yougov announce that on the Constituency vote, Labour led with 33%, the SNP were second with 28%, and the Tories and LibDems were tied for 16%. Today, we find out (though the fieldwork was done earlier) that Ipsos MORI put the SNP at 36%, Labour at 29%, the LibDems at 15% and the Tories at 14%. Unfortunately, we don't (yet) appear to have figures for the Regional Vote on the Ipsos MORI poll. So as things stand, we can only really see which of the new constituencies are in play next year.

The YouGov poll makes uncomfortable reading for Michael Matheson, who would be at risk of losing Falkirk West. By contrast, Ipsos MORI give Karen Whitefield (Lab, Airdrie & Shotts) and Cathy Peattie ((Lab, Falkirk East) cause for concern.

YouGov have bad news for Nicola Sturgeon (or, more likely, bad news for whoever should end up fifth on the SNP's Glasgow List), as Glasgow Southside would move into the red column. Ipsos MORI have worse news for Pauline McNeill, who would lose her seat.

The YouGov poll would make it wise for Enterprise Minister Jim Mather to once again seek a place on the Highlands & Islands list, as his seat woud go to the LibDems on their results, while Na h-Eileanan an Iar would go to Labour (bad news for Alasdair Allan). By contrast, Ipsos MORI have the SNP holding those seats, and even have the party gaining Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch from the LibDems.

YouGov see Angela Constance failing to hold on in Almond Valley and Kenny MacAskill unable to retain Edinburgh Eastern. By contrast, Ipsos MORI see Mary Mulligan losing Linlithgow and Rhona Brankin losing Midlothian North & Musselburgh.

YouGov foresee trouble for Keith Brown in Clackmannanshire & Dunblane and Bruce Crawford in Stirling as both would be vulnerable to Labour. Ipsos MORI foresee Lewis MAcdonald losing Aberdeen Central to the SNP.

The YouGov poll puts Willie Coffey in difficulty in Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley, and would give LibDem Jeremy Purvis the chance to hang on in Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale despite the boundary changes. The Ipsos MORI results see that as an SNP win, and see Karen Gillon losing Clydesdale.

Finally, the YouGov figures highlight Kenneth Gibson's vulnerability in Cunninghame North, but Ipsos MORI have Jackie Baillie in trouble in Dumbarton.

So as things stand, there are twenty constituencies in play: ten SNP constituencies and one SNP notional according to YouGov, against eight Labour seats and one LibDem constituency as per Ipsos MORI.

The messages do seem contradictory, but perhaps the best thing would be to get this year's election out of the way, the better to see the shape that next year's contest will take.