Brown sidesteps a By-Election

Call off the party folks, the Sunday Herald reports that the Motherwell & Wishaw By-Election is off.

It appears that Jack McConnell will no longer be the High Commissioner to Malawi, and will instead be envoy to Africa. So he'll now be handling UK diplomacy for an entire continent while remaining an MSP. I'm sure the people of Motherwell & Wishaw will be just tickled pink about that.

My Sunday Whip is going to have a new regular line as well: "Jack McConnell was absent" is clearly the new "Margo MacDonald abstained"...

Motherwell & Wishaw will be without an MSP for quite a few days

Why? Because it's been pointed out - quite sensibly - that it will be rather a tough ask for Jack McConnell to be High Commissioner to Malawi and the MSP for Motherwell and Wishaw. Even McConnell agrees, saying that he won't be both at the same time, while asserting that Malawi won't go without a High Commissioner. This means that the idea of the By-Election co-inciding with a General Election is pretty much dead.

That implies quitting Holyrood at Christmas. That in turn suggests a By-Election by the end of March 2009. And it will be delayed until then because no one would ever want a By-Election in January or February if they can help it, so Motherwell & Wishaw could go the full three months without an MSP if both of McConnell's statements are true. And Labour will want to avoid that.

But is there an alternative? Yes. There could be attempts to keep Sir Richard Wildash - the current High Commissioner - in place until May 2009 at the latest. That would enable a By-Election to take place just under a year from now, on the 11th of June.

Why then? Simple. It's the date of the European Election in Scotland. It would couple the By-Election to a poll that's already happening - saving money for Labour - and drive up turnout. Labour activists would hope that it boosted the Labour vote in the area as well. Or, indeed, they may hope that the European performance keeps the seat Labour.

No, that's when the By-Election will be - people have forgotten the European Eection as a possibility and it's the most likely: turnout will be abysmal in January, February and early March, and unless Labour are convinced that they can not only hold the seat but hold on to their vote, they won't want an embarrassing result in the run-up to June. So they'll hold the two together. And to avoid the bad publicity of no one representing Motherwell & Wihsaw, and letting the SNP's lead over Labour in terms of Parliamentary seats double for a couple of months, it'll be a short campaign. That suggests that he'll quit in May.

And Malawi? Well, here's what McConnell told the press:

"There will be absolutely no time when I'm still a member of the Scottish Parliament and High Commissioner in Malawi."

That's clear-cut. He's making a statement of how things are going to be. There are no qualifications and he's stated that it will absolutely not happen: he will not, at any time, be both an MSP and a diplomat. But here's the next bit:

"There will also be no time, I'm sure, when Malawi's without a High Commissioner."

No absolutely, and the "I'm sure" actually puts doubts on the situation. The first bit is a statement of intent: this is how it's going to happen - it sounds definite. With the "I'm sure", he sounds like he's giving an opinion, or a prediction. I was sure that Portugal would win Euro 2008. I was sure that Rangers would win the SPL last season. Being sure of something happening doesn't mean it'll happen. In fact, the way it's delivered, the minute you actually utter the words "I'm sure", you add something unspoken to the sentence. When you say the words, "I'm sure Malawi won't go without a High Commissioner," what you're actually saying is "I'm sure Malawi won't go without a High Commissioner... will it?" There's something about those words that makes the statement more about re-assurance for the speaker than for the listener.

Which is why Malawi's going to get shafted. And all because Labour want to win the odd Parliamentary vote criticising the SNP's policy on paper clips.

So long

If anything, the only surprise was that it came a week earlier than had been envisaged: Jack McConnell has quit as Labour Leader with immediate effect. That's notable in and of itself in that he isn't hanging around to see his successor in, he's not just going, he's actually gone. Cathy Jamieson is the Acting Labour Leader.

But it's looking like that's as close as she'll come to being in charge: Wendy Alexander has already declared her intention to stand, and she has the support of other tipped contenders Andy Kerr and Margaret Curran. It's doubtful that Jamieson will put her name forward. Indeed, it's doubtful that there'll be any serious contenders. Charlie Gordon may attempt to put his hat in the ring but he has to secure the support of 6 MSPs first. Given that the Alexander machine has been built up since before the election, and the speed at which it has been activated, I don't see anyone else being able to achieve even that.

And what of Jack? He appears to be heading for the House of Lords, but not until the New Year Honours. And he appears to be the next High Commissioner for Malawi (fitting, given the links he attempted to build up there), but a vacancy for that post will not arise until 2009, and he might not be able to fill it immediately as it would be hard for him to work in Malawi and be MSP for Motherwell & Wishaw. Given the state of the parties, he might not yet want to force a By-Election, but we will see where the land lies in 2009.

Meanwhile, with Elspeth Attwooll standing down from the European Parliament in 2009, George Lyon, now former MSP for Argyll & Bute and former Deputy Finance Minister is looking to return to elected politics. Clearly he's written off making a pitch for a return to Holyrood in 2011.

A swift boot up the Jack-sy

(Running out of 'Jack'-based headlines? Moi?)

Well, folks, we have a stalking horse. Or at least, we appear to. Charlie Gordon (the MSP for Glasgow Cathcart, after the By-Election to replace Mike Watson) has decided that it's time that the Labour Party was given a say on its Leader in the Scottish Parliament (this would be a first, incidentally: in the McLeish-McConnell contest a hastily arranged Electoral College involving MSPs and the Party's Scottish Executive, and McConnell then decided not to contest the full Leadership Election held later), and that he could be the one to bring it about.

According to the Herald: "However, it is understood he has little expectation of winning the leadership, and that the effect would be to draw other MSPs into such a race.

"Contacted yesterday, Mr Gordon would say only that he has not ruled out standing to force a contest."

I'm not totally certain of the procedure for ousting a sitting leader, but when there's a vacancy, candidates require the backing of one eighth of the Parliamentary Party, or six MSPs in this case. In 2001, John McAllion and Malcolm Chisholm both failed to get the seven that was needed then. Will Charlie Gordon succeed where they could not? (If Labour people were willing to enlighten me as regards the procedure of ousting an incumbent, I would be grateful)

In a sense, it doen't matter. The pendulum has swung against Jack McConnell: Annabel Goldie was seen as in trouble before the campaign got underway. As it did, McConnell was seen as the one in the weakest position. In the aftermath of the election, Nicol Stephen appeared to be in difficulty, but the spotlight has again shifted to McConnell. The Labour group has the poorest discipline of any of the groups in terms of rebellions (see Whips passim) and people are not just talking about life after McConnell, they're talking about either making life after McConnell happen ASAP, or at the very least throwing the question of the Leadership open to a wider audience. Charlie Gordon has said that he will force a contest, and Wendy Alexander's campaign is being prepared, if there is to be a vacancy. The conclusion is clear: the vultures are circling, and McConnell's time is up.

Perhaps it would have been better for McConnell if Labour had lost the Cathcart By-Election back in 2005!

Jack off

(Well, I am sorry, but 'Hit the Road, Jack' has been overused.)

Anyway, Scottish Labour's voice on Earth for one day a week, the Sunday Mail, is reporting that Jack McConnell's departure from the Labour leadership is now imminent. The paper reports that the former FM will announce his departure before the end of the Summer recess, and it seems that there is an element of pressure on him to do so by 20 August. This suggests that his quitting isn't actually his idea. Of course, some more churlish bloggers might suggest that Jack McConnell hasn't actually had many ideas before now, and that his time in office might best be summed up by a departure from it that he didn't think of.

Anyway, the Mail quotes 'a source close to Jack McConnell', who says, "Jack has the option of resigning or trying to battle on. Part of him wants to stay because he feels Labour needs an experienced leader to take on a big beast like Alex Salmond. But he recognises that a lot of people in the party think it's time for a change and hanging around might cause a war. That's not a war that Jack wants to fight."

So if the source is accurate, he's going before he's pushed. A wise move, and certainly wiser than the sentiments expressed in his suggestion that "Labour needs an experienced leader to take on a big beast like Alex Salmond." Salmond has been quite willing to gut McConnell with a flick of his tongue at FMQs: when McConnell quoted the Monty Python Dead Parrot Sketch to describe the SNP policy on the Edinburgh Trams, Salmond replied that there was only one dead parrot in the chamber. When McConnell said that Salmond was no Donald Dewar, Salmond retorted that McConnell was no Henry McLeish. In short, on the one point that McConnell thinks works in his favour - his ability to take on Alex Salmond - McConnell falls well short.

So the question is, who will succeed him? The Mail names three names: Wendy Alexander is the first. I would imagine that she will get the votes of the Party's 39 MPs, given her closeness to Gordon Brown. Under the electoral college system, Parliamentarians get one third of the vote, so the MPs will be responsible for around 15% of the electorate, while MSPs comprise about 18%. This means that Alexander has almost one sixth of the vote virtually in the bag. Andy Kerr is the second, and is likely to get McConnell's supporters (i.e. the Labour Party in Lanarkshire). The paper names Margaret Curran's Hands as the potential third candidate, and claims she is popular with the MSPs. But is Scotland (and in particular, Scottish Labour) ready for a Party Leader called Margaret? The last Margaret didn't get such a good reception in Scotland.

So who will win out of those three? Alexander has a reputation as an intellectual, and is in a prominent position, but she's not everyone's cup of tea and probably lost a lot of friends after she bottled out of going for the Leadership in 2001. Andy Kerr represents an element of continuity, so given that McConnell lost Scotland for the first time in half a century, and given that change is felt to be needed, there's a possibility that Kerr could get tanked, unless he works hard at courting the Unions and the membership at large is actually quite happy with McConnell. Margaret Curran's Hands could surprise, but the rest of her has a rather terrifying, confrontational edge (my mother once walked in while she was being interviewed on TV and went, 'Yeeek!'), and it's the rest of her that needs to be the candidate. She needs to get the hands under control. None of the successors are ideal. And that's a big problem.

Baron McConnell of Inertia

There are reports in Scotland on Sunday that Jack McConnell's ticket out of the Labour Leadership has emerged: entry to the House of Lords. It's felt that McConnell's entry so such an august and demanding institution that George Foulkes place in it rules out the possibility of him taking part in the full work of Holyrood would both quietly move him out of the way and provide a link between Holyrood and Westminster.

How many links do people want? There's the Scotland Secretary, and Foulkes admitted that his job is to keep London informed of what's going on. So this in a way suggests that Foulkes' 'spy' role is about to come to an end, giving more credence to current speculation.

McConnell, meanwhile, could sit next to Foulkes, and indeed, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, McConnell's one-time Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. And some people are already drooling at the prospect of a By-Election in Motherwell & Wishaw, but I'm not so sure.

One thing does occur, though. Didn't Jack McConnell spend the Election campaign criticising Alex Salmond for 'running away to Westminster'? Perhaps Lord McConnell of Hypocrisy would be a more suitable title.

Row #1

Of all the things for the first row to be about, I'd never have bet on it regarding the status of Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. While neglecting to talk to Alex Salmond, Tony Blair decided to have a little tete-a-tete with Colonel Gaddafi, in which the UK agreed that it would plan a prisoner transfer, which, if the Scottish Executive consented, would see al-Megrahi return to Libya.

Now there are two sides to this one: on the one hand, there is the view that the Memorandum of Understanding with Libya specifically made it clear that the UK Government would ask the Scottish Executive's permission to transfer al-Megrahi, so there was no need for this to be discussed beforehand. On the other, there is the fact that this would land on the Executive's desk sooner or later, and so it was only right and proper that they at least be kept in the loop.

The plot thickens when you hear Jack McConnell, informing radio listeners that the former FM had blocked moves for this to happen before. This means that 1) this is the latest chapter in persisient moves by the UK Government to hand al-Megrahi over (sidestepping the sentence he was given by the Scottish judiciary and the agreement that he would be tried in a Scottish Court - albeit based in the Netherlands - and if found guilty, held in a Scottish prison); and 2) yes, the UK Government is going out of its way to blank Salmond in a way that they didn't do to McConnell.

Actually, the current FM has got off comparatively lightly. He has been ignored by the Head of the UK's Government. McConnell got publicly slapped down by random junior Ministers that no one had previously heard of.

McConnell's sympathy for Salmond (watered down by lines like 'if this is true...') is telling: it shows how exasperating it must have been for him to deal with London. And he was in the same party as Blair! More amusing was that despite McConnell's reaction, the Labour MSPs' cybernetic implants were re-activated last night, and Drone 10 of 46 (known as Margaret Curran's Hands before assimilation into the Borg Collective) went on television and attempted to screech Alex Neil into submission (Alex Neil doesn't do submission, Maggie dear) and allege that everything is perfectly OK. This is now the Labour line.

Except that McConnell's reaction to Parliament (blamed on a lack of notice of the statement by the Hands), and his revelations on radio today undermine the line that his colleagues have taken.

So you have a persistent attempt by Blair to subvert the Scottish judicial process. You also have an act of contempt for the Executive, whose Ministers have a right to know what is landing on their desks. Credit to McConnell, he's given sympathy and (albeit half-hearted) support to Salmond on this, and say that Scottish institutions deserve more respect. It's a shame that his colleagues are ignoring him.

We're getting somewhere!

Enfin! Holyrood looks like it's close to having a Presiding Officer, in the shape of Alex Fergusson, Conservative MSP for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. Controversially, he might still take the Conservative whip, something neither George Reid nor David Steel did. Steel did, however, take the LibDem whip in the House of Lords. That impasse looks broken, however.

Next, Coalition. The SNP and Greens have a 'co-operation agreement'. The two agree on opposition to new nuclear power stations (they did anyway), support for independence and a referendum (they did anyway), and early legislation to deal with climate change (incidentally, I've always wondered how you actually do this - you can halt the man-made causes of climate change but you can't halt the change itself, so this is basically like making death illegal).

In practical terms, the Greens agree to vote for Alex Salmond as First Minister, and for his ministerial team (which, assuming he comes through on Wednesday, will be smaller than under the previous Executive). In return, they get one of the SNP's Committee Convenerships, and will be consulted on the Legislative Programme, Budget, and big policy announcements. The SNP also agree to be nice to the Greens, or rather, "to give sympathetic consideration to issues raised by the Green Party in Parliament, including via Motions and Members Bills."

It's a very loose model, far looser even than the Confidence & Supply proposals initially floated last year, and neither side has really played a blinder here: the SNP do not have guaranteed Green support for Budgets and Confidence motions; the Greens don't get all that many policies that weren't on the cards anyway. The SNP do have two extra votes for their Ministers, though (always useful), and the Greens get a bit of extra prominence via a Convenership. The major positive, however, is that this could be a template for a new arrangement with the LibDems, or even the Tories: the key to the agreement's success is its looseness.

But are the LibDems truly up for doing a deal? Rumours abound (via Richard Thomson) that a strop by Tavish Scott and Mike Rumbles could be the real cause of the LibDems' rejection of SNP advances, and that a power struggle is now on in the Party, and it looks like Nicol Stephen lost it: he is reported to have wanted to enter a Coalition, while Tavish Scott was the LibDems' Ian Paisley. Or rather, the LibDems' Ian Paisley of the 1970s.

Speaking of power stuggles, the knifes are starting to point at Jack McConnell's back. Successors are now being openly discussed, with Wendy Alexander, Margaret Curran's Hands and Andy Kerr all being mentioned. Even John Reid is being supported!

Three and a half months

I'm surprised that HolyroodBelle hasn't picked up on this, as this is right up her street. In the midst of the 'my endorsements are bigger than your endorsements' battle being played out, and the variety of polls, this quote from Jack McConnell stuck out for me today:

"This is an election, it is about electing a government, it's not a game and therefore it is essential we put across the choice that exists the consequences of the vote.

"This is about the government of Scotland, it's about the future of our country, people should think very carefully about that choice."

In January, McConnell said:

"The prize will be worth it. On May 4th, to have bucked every international trend for a mid-term election..."

Governments do not get elected in mid-term elections. Governments face re-election at the end of a term, and/or are elected at the start of one. So is this a mid-term, as McConnell said, or an election for a government, as McConnell also said? It can't be both.

But then, indecision is something of a feature in Scottish Labour. A promised NHS pay rise hasn't materialised, and until the start of this month, tolls on the Forth and Tay Bridges were a good thing, but they aren't anymore.

In addition to the possibility of a U-turn, this is the sacrifice of one of his biggest excuses for a poor performance: he can't say that people were thinking about Westminster when he's now gone out of his way to remind people that the election is all about Holyrood. If things go badly for Labour, then either he says that people were indeed thinking about Holyrood, in which case his record is poor enough for his party to be voted out, or he says that they were in fact still thinking about Westminster, in which case he's shown himself to be complete ineffectual having tried to remind people that the election decides the make-up of the Scottish Parliament.

It's also patronising: is he really suggesting that voters are too stupid to realise what body they're voting for, and that a government will be (or should be) formed at the end of the election? That's right, Jack, treat undecided voters like muppets just one week before an election. That'll get people back on side, oh yes.

Labour in trouble

The Sunday Herald reports that a Labour MP - it doesn't name them - is on the verge of switching to the SNP. This would, if the report is accurate, be the first defection of any Labour MP to the SNP since Dick Douglas switched over the Poll Tax, and with less than four months to go until the Holyrood election, would be a PR disaster for Labour.

This is not a good campaign for McConnell: Labour are behind in the polls, his attempts to talk about devolved issues (and to give him credit, he is trying to do that, even if the nub of his speeches are to say what a mess he thinks the SNP would make of them) are being swamped by Westminster MPs talking about how awful independence would be. This then blunts McConnell's attempts to paint Alex Salmond as a negative campaigner, when all we hear from the Labour Party is 'Salmond bad'.

But what was interesting was what he said to Labour candidates in Edinburgh: "The prize will be worth it. On May 4th, to have bucked every international trend for a mid-term election..."

Mid-term?! This is the end of Jack McConnell's first full term, the end of the Executive's second term in office. This is only a mid-term if you consider Westminster as the be all and end all of politics. That little phrase might just provide the SNP, and Jack McConnell's critics within Labour (as well as some of the more small-n nationalist members of the Party) with a stick with which to beat the First Minister.

The J.A. MacNumpty Lecture

(with apologies to the estate of J.P. Mackintosh)

I thought I'd consider the expected theme of Jack McConnell's presentation at the J.P. Mackintosh Lecture: namely the fear that a debate about Holyrood's powers could lead to inertia. This is one of Labour's favourite themes in the run-up to an election: raising worries that the SNP's desire for independence would lead to schools and hospitals being sidelined.

The problem with this idea is that it conveniently ignores the fact that any party who forms the Executive will put together a Cabinet of Ministers, each with separate jobs. So one focuses on hospitals, another on schools, and another on, say, the economy. That way, the Executive can do more than one thing at a time. It's hard, therefore, for an entire group of Ministers to focus on just one thing, forgetting that they all have their own job to do.

But consider this: the fear that the SNP are single-minded, and will focus only on the constitution, is the only thing that Labour have really said about the post-2007 situation. We've heard lots from Labour about the Union, but we don't actually know what their vision for schools and hospitals actually is. Considering that their Ministers love to mention the words 'schools' and 'hospitals' in their speeches, you'd think that by now we'd have some idea of what they want to do with them!

Meanwhile, you have the SNP campaigning against student debt, proposing a replacement for PFI, and seeking to prevent the closure of the Monklands A&E Department. So while Labour acknowledge that schools and hospitals actually exist, it's the SNP proposing to do something with them. While Labour accuse the SNP about obsessing over the constitution, the SNP are trying to put forward policies on everything else (well, let's face it, most people by now have a fairly good idea of what the SNP's policy on the constitution is), and Labour are left talking about... the constitution. Oh dear.

McConnell is expected to discuss the 'inertia' brought about by talking only about Holyrood's powers rather than using the ones it already has. I have to admit that I'm not entirely comfortable taking lessons on inertia from a man whose slogan was 'Do less, better', but there you go. The thing is, this again ignores the Cabinet idea: a Health Minister can already deal with NHS matters and is expected to do so: it's someone else's job to put together a blueprint for transferring extra powers to the Scottish Parliament.

Moreover, McConnell is talking about no further powers for Holyrood at this time. If inertia isn't acceptable for the NHS or education, why should it be acceptable for the Scottish Parliament? And with rumours that Ministers are considering allowing asylum applications in Scotland to be dealt with in Scotland rather than by the Home Office (a single state with two different immigration policies? is that wise?), will McConnell turn any such plans down, as Holyrood has enough to be getting on with?

Further, what Labour hasn't realised is the nature of the constitutional discussions in each of the parties: the SNP's position is pretty conclusive in that when 100% of powers are transferred from London to Edinburgh, the constitution debate as we know it becomes basically obsolete. The LibDem idea behind fiscal autonomy is that the Scottish Parliament ought to be in charge of raising money that it wants to spend, and even if you look at that proposal through a Unionist prism, there's a logic to it insofar as the current system allows Holyrood a good deal of spending power but with very limited fiscal responsibility, while also tying Scottish spending plans to what a UK Government wants to pass Scotland's way. The Tories see extra financial powers as a means to an end (at least, those who support them do): namely the reduction of corporate tax levels in an attempt to stimulate business. All three of those parties will still release a manifesto next year which contains policies on what Holyrood can do. So the Labour justification for maintaining the status quo, that otherwise Scotland's politicians will forget about other matters, doesn't wash. It's not so much an argument, as an attempt to kill the debate, and it hasn't worked.

One final point: while Jack McConnell is accusing the other parties of obsessing about Holyrood's powers (even though he himself is really talking about little else), Labour activists are writing to newspapers accusing the SNP of 'parking' independence, and talking about everything except their flagship policy. Now, I know that the Labour Party is meant to be a broad church, but really, this is ridiculous: these two ideas are contrary positions as they can't both be true. And most impartial observers will tell you that they're both false.

So we have a situation where different parts of Labour are saying completely different things, neither of which are true, a statement from the party's senior spokespeople which appears hypocritical when viewed in the full context of what they're actually saying, and an idea which is unambitious to say the least.

So at the end of it all, the question is this: do they think the voters are idiots, or are they actually trying to lose next year?

FMQs

The first FMQs of 2006, and a relatively interesting session. Nicola Sturgeon led on the scandal in England, where registered sex offenders have been found working with children. She was anxious to know whether or not this was possible in Scotland. Her approach was sensible: it was consensual and constructive, asking why it was that the Sex Offenders' Register had some 3,000 names on it, but only 56 (it's now 63) people were expressly banned from working with children. Jack McConnell responded carefully and earnestly (so credit is due to him): he pointed out that it was theoretically possible (though it would depend on employers being lax) that sex offenders could end up working with children, and that the Executive would implement some of the Bichard Report's recommendations (the Report following the Soham murders in Cambridgeshire). He pointed out that the list of people who are expressly barred was only established recently and was not retrospective. He informed the Chamber that the law would have to be amended if it was felt that it needed to be made retrospective. Unfortunately, he didn't say he was going to do that.

Annabel Goldie led on the collapse of a murder case in Edinburgh: she wanted an inquiry. McConnell thought that the Lord Advocate should look into things, but stopped short of the inquiry wanted by the Tories.

Robin Harper, however, lobbed a hand grenade into proceedings, which was quite impressive considering how much he stuttered at the start. His opening gambit was to ask the First Minister what his contribution to sustainability was. McConnell was slightly stunned by this, but then announced that he shows leadership within the Executive on issues such as the environment, citing recycling as an example of where progress has been made. He went on to announce that he recycles his rubbish. (Well, actually he said, "I do my bit every week." This could be anything, really.)

At this point, McConnell must have been congratulating himself for getting out of what was a tight spot. What he didn't realise was that he'd walked right into Harper's trap, who used his last supplementary to refer to the Scottish Executive Environmental Performance Annual Report, which showed that Executive Business car mileage has increased by 65% in the past year, and a decision had been taken to drop quietly their target of car mileage reduction. The FM was completely thrown, and had to admit that he hadn't read the report. He also tried to make the Greens look like nerds for having read it themselves. It didn't work.

FMQs

There was a last-day-of-term feel to Holyrood today, possibly because this was in fact the last day of term. It reminded me of 'Toy Day' at primary school, when everyone brought in games to play.

Nicola Sturgeon brought Buckaroo. She was attempting to load the McConnell with different problems until he kicked out. Taking the biography of the First Minister ('Lucky Jack') as her inspiration, she first asked if Blair's continual refusal to deal with McConnell was what led him to meet with David Cameron. McConnell replied that both of them have been seen in Scotland, which was more than could be said for Alex Salmond. Sturgeon had the grace to laugh. She then went on waiting times. McConnell pointed out that he had met all his targets. Sturgeon brought out the hidden waiting list manoeuvre (when will these two stop playing 'My statistics are bigger than yours?'). McConnell lashed out, Nat-bashing, and then presenting the Parliament with a list of Nice Things. It was lovely really!

Annabel Goldie went for Backgammon. There's no real reason why I've picked that one, except it feels like a Tory game. Aside from a brief discussion about plans for the New Year, and Goldie telling the FM that 'meetings can be very fruitful' (is she coming on to him?), this was far more serious. She led with the story of two thirteen year-olds found collapsed on the streets of Aberdeen having drunk themselves stupid. She asked for more to be done, and for the Children's Panel to be used to deal with under-age drinking. McConnell struck a conciliatory note. There was an acknowledgement on both sides that action needed to be taken and this was the so-called 'New Politics' at its finest.

Colin Fox brought Go For Broke (see my previous post). He discussed the target of securing equal pay and conditions for male and female council workers and asked the McConnell whether he would raise Council Tax or cut services to achieve this. McConnell tried some Trot-bashing for a change. A brief waste of time, and a shame after the festive ambience provided by Sturgeon and (to a lesser extent) Goldie. That said, McConnell did get in a dig about Fox's Robin Hood costume. He has, therefore, gone up in my estimation.

FMQs

Well, I don't know about you, but I need a stiff drink after this week's instalment. Nicola Sturgeon led with financing for local councils, citing a Finance Committee report that suggests that councils will have to increase Council Tax by up to 6.6% if they aren't allowed to keep any efficiency savings that they make. Jack McConnell denied that the Finance Committee said this (they didn't say it exactly, but the figure 6.6% is used in Paragraph 86 of the Report as the rise if no furhter savings are made, and it points out that the savings that are going to be made won't be efficiency savings as they'll lead to a cut in services, so McConnell wasn't on sure ground here), then said that even if they did, they're wrong. More Nat-bashing ensued. Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North and a member of the Finance Committee) stepped in, but forgot that as this was First Minister's Questions, you have to ask a question, thus incurring the wrath of George Reid.

Annabel Goldie asked why people are killing each other more under Labour. McConnell looked like he wanted to add another figure to that statistic at that moment, but decided instead to point out that when the Tories tried to end automatic early release for prisoners, it was cack-handed electioneering, whereas when his Executive gets around to it, it won't be. The facts that this was a promise in the Labour 2003 Manifesto, there's less than 18 months to the next election and it hasn't been done yet were clearly lost on him.

Colin Fox decided to ask an urgent question to gloat about the decision of Edinburgh Council's tenants not to have their housing stock transferred to a Housing Association. McConnell said that the decision was tragic (i.e. the people of Edinburgh are wrong - way to endear yourself to them before an election, Jack!), and blamed Fox for lying to them about the consequences of stock transfer (i.e. the people of Edinburgh are mugs - fantastic, Jack!). He then claimed he was a Socialist. Personally, I'm not sure that Jack would recognise Socialism if it came up and nutted him, but the First Minister never lets pesky things like the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Then it was Robin Harper's turn. Harper is more easy to listen to then his colleague Shiona Baird, but he does have a tendency to stumble his way thorugh a question. This week he stumbled his way through rendition, with a rather halting question about whether or not the First Minister would co-operate with the Council of Europe's call for an investigation into it. McConnell gave an equally halting answer about how he can't order the police or the Lord Advocate to issue the necessary search warrant.

FMQs

For those of you who read this as a substitute for watching it, let me just say that you missed nothing!

Sturgeon led on the Auditor General's report on the NHS, and started complaining about so-called 'hidden' waiting lists. McConnell pointed out that they weren't actually hidden. They accused each other of undermining the medical profession. I decided to finish a su doku puzzle rather than keep listening. Judging by the screeching and posturing, I made the right decision.

Goldie is trying to be Cameron-esque, extending her bosom (McConnell brought bosoms into this, by the way) to McConnell if he takes a more Blairite line. The First Minister didn't quite know what to do, and started talking about David Cameron's bosom. I decided to start on the kakuro puzzle rather than watch the sick spectacle unfold.

And Colin Fox attempted to guilt trip McConnell over the War in Iraq, noting Cindy Sheehan's visit to Parliament. I listened, but it sounded at best dull and at worst whiny. Tommy Sheridan would have done a far better job. Please come back, Tommy. All is forgiven!

FMQs

Well, McConnell came out fighting today, slamming the Opposiiton parties for their stance on immigration. Unfortunately, it pretty much turned into a train wreck. Our Jack seems quite convinced that he can actually change policy for the whole of the UK. Sadly, everything he said, Tony McNulty has smacked down already. Never one to let the facts get in the way of some Nat-bashing, however Jack pressed on, saying that he had made representations to the Home Office despite the fact that according to them, he's never asked them to change their policy. They can't both be right! Not only that, but Jack dug an even deeper hole for himself when he said that since the Westminster elections not one SNP MP had brought this up at Westminster, suggesting that he's the only person to have raised this. Except this comes from Hansard of 3rd November, Column 982, during Business Questions:

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): When we have the debate on returning asylum seekers, can we have a good and proper look at the use of dawn raids by the immigration service? There is almost universal revulsion and embarrassment in Scotland about the use of that practice, especially with our backdrop of a falling population. Does the Leader of the House agree that because of our different immigration requirements, and because of our clearly different political values on the matter, it is time to devolve immigration to the Scottish Parliament?

So not only is there a gap between what he's saying and what the Home Office are saying on what he's discussed with them, but there's also a gap between what he said and what Hansard has recorded about the SNP. Oh dear. And that's before you factor in the difference between McConnell's viewpoint (dawn raids are necessary as part of the immigration policy) and Communities Minister Malcom Chisholm's comments that dawn raids are an awful thing. Both Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Fox had a field day with him on this.

Annabel Goldie, on the other hand, took a different tack: she opened as though she were part of a tag team with Nicola Sturgeon (a concept that may worry both SNP and Tory activists), then started talking about energy policy. It is interesting (well, it is if you're me) that while Jack McConnell ruled out new nuclear power stations in Scotland, Tony Blair is taking a pro-nuclear line in Whitehall. What's even more interesting is that Goldie seemed to be supporting Blair on this one. Now, obviously, you'd expect the Tories to be pro-nuclear, but there's definitely a positioning going on here - it goes without saying that she's trying to get Blair supporters to defect to the Tories for 2007. This is just what they need to hold onto their three consitituency seats and maybe take Perth from the SNP as well. Mind you, that's not to say it'll pay off!

The Smackdown Files

It's clear that the people at the Home Office don't particularly like Jack McConnell. Our Jack wanted to encourage international students to stay in Scotland after graduation as part of the Fresh Talent Initiative, only for the Home Office to increase the visa renewal costs for non-EU students. Then, Jack had made it quite clear that the Home Office's practice of dawn raids to deport failed asylum seekers went against the grain somewhat in Scotland. Following his repeated criticisms of the system, and pleas for Scotland to be made a special case, the Home Office has decided...to maintain the status quo. The SNP and the Tories are of course demanding a statement to the Parliament so that McConnell can explain the Home Office position.

But don't worry, folks, the relationship between Whitehall and the Executive is 'evolving'!

Egad, if it's like this now, just imagine what'll happen if Alex Salmond makes it to Bute House in 2007, and/or one of the Davids somehow gets into Downing Street in 2009.