Posted on

From the Times: Revolt grows over Labour’s inquiry into Holyrood rout

Ed Miliband is facing growing criticism from party members in Scotland over the type of inquiry he has ordered into the reasons for last week’s disastrous Holyrood election defeat.

The Labour leader is being accused by senior figures in the Scottish party of setting up a top-down, Westminster-led inquiry which, they say, effectively sidelines both Labour’s ruling Scottish executive and the party membership north of the Border.

The deep unhappiness in the Scottish party about the way that the inquiry was set up and is being conducted is certain to surface at a meeting of the Scottish executive today at which the party’s crushing election defeat is said to be on the agenda.

There were indications last night that some members of the executive may even attempt to expand the inquiry’s terms of reference to include the Scottish party’s wider membership.

The row began when it was reported that three Scottish MPs at Westminster — Jim Murphy, the former Scottish Secretary, Ann McKechin, the Shadow Scottish Secretary and Anne McGuire, Mr Miliband’s parliamentary aide — would take the leading roles in the inquiry into what went wrong.

However, it later emerged that while Mr Murphy would indeed co-chair the inquiry, he would be joined as co-chair by Sarah Boyack, elected last week as a Lothian regional list MSP.

Allies of Mr Miliband claim that it was never the intention to have three MPs heading the inquiry and that there had not been any change of heart. But senior figures in the party in Scotland say privately that they do not wholly accept this explanation.

One source said: “The whole thing was a cack-handed attempt to take the inquiry away from the party in Scotland and, although Sarah has now been appointed, people are absolutely furious about the way this has been handled by the leadership in London.”

Another said: “The absolute priority for the Scottish executive today is to ensure that any review that takes place genuinely involves all party members in Scotland and not just a small coterie. Any review that is seen as a UK-led one will have shot itself in the head.”

Last week’s election marked a new low for Scottish Labour with their share of the overall vote falling for the third Holyrood election in a row. They ended up with only 37 seats, 22 behind the SNP who gained an overall majority. Iain Gray, the Scottish Labour leader, later said that he would stand down from the post in the autumn.

One ally of Mr Miliband said last night that alarm about the inquiry was understandable. He added: “I do think though that at the end of [the] executive, there will be agreement that the inquiry should go ahead.”

Meanwhile, speculation that Mr Murphy might heed calls from party colleagues to become leader of the Scottish party looks wide of the mark.

Senior colleagues of the MP for East Renfrewshire say that his real interest lies in remaining at Westminster. “He is not interested in coming to Holyrood to take on Alex Salmond. He’s not interested in becoming First Minister,” said one. Others pointed out that it would look odd if the person heading the “root-and-branch” inquiry into the Scottish party’s abject performance last week then went on to become Scottish party leader after it had reported.

With no sign of any Labour MSP at Holyrood making moves to succeed Mr Gray, however, the option of having an MP as leader has not been ruled out entirely. Such a solution was followed by the SNP in 2004 when Alex Salmond returned as party leader. He remained an MP, with Nicola Sturgeon leading the party at Holyrood, until 2007 when he became an MSP.

Willie Rennie is expected to be appointed as the Scottish Lib Dems’ leader at Holyrood after the resignation of Tavish Scott last weekend.

via Revolt grows over Labour’s inquiry into Holyrood rout | The Times.

Posted on

You are wrong Mr Harris

Tom Harris has launched another attack on the Coalition for doing things in a way that does not approve of. This is not a mere policy disagreement (after all, Mr Harris is one of the most tribal Scottish politicians who disagrees with a lot of members of his party). No, this is a very real case of doing things not as Mr Harris (and Labour) has done things in the past, but his palpable anger at things not being done the way he thinks they should. He confesses to this anger by proudly stating he is one of those House of Commons Shouters that makes the Salmon Seals in the Scottish Parliament seem like the embodiment of civilised debating technique. He even makes an unwelcome reference to his own backside (talking out of perhaps……).

His complaint this time is that since the Coalition Agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories was agreed after the election, it is not a valid document from which to launch a programme for Government and the associated legislation that the Government brings forward.  Mr Harris clearly believes that pre-election manifestos are the only programme that a Government can put forward. This is a remarkable position to take and does not stand up to even the most rudimentary examination.

Firstly, it should be pointed out that Scotland was governed between 1999 and 2007 by a Coalition that had an agreement. That Coalition was led by the Labour Party. I don’t recall Mr Harris standing for Labour in 2001 denouncing the Coalition and being a MP elected to end this evil devolution idea that offered stable two-party Government. If Mr Harris is so utterly sincere in his dislike of Coalition Governments due to the development of Coalition Agreements then he should have the courage of his convictions and stand as a candidate on that topic – follow David Daviswho resigned and stood again on the issue of Civil Liberties. Make a stand Mr Harris and seek re-election as an anti-coalition Candidate. Doing it at the elections for Holyrood next year would give a clear mandate for him to oppose a Labour led coalition (if that were an option available after the election).

If the UK had a tradition of parties only ever governing and legislating on their manifesto contents then I could see his point. If every MP (remember for Westminster its MPs who are elected, not Parties) tried as hard as they could to deliver the manifesto that they stood on after winning their election then he may have a further point. However, Mr Harris is firmly of the opinion that manifestos are only valid if the party wins power, not the candidate. So, when the next General Election occurs and a voter asks Mr Harris how hard he worked to get that manifesto delivered he is happy to say he ditched on May 7th (give or take a few days for the Coalition to reach its agreement). If Mr Harris does not need his manifesto then why do either the Liberal Democrats or the Tories? After all, according to Harrisian logic, they didnt win either. The electorate did not grant sole power to any one party or empower any one manifesto. Who should the Queen have asked to form a stable Government?

Secondly, between 1997 and 2010, the Labour Government brought forward many pieces of legislation and enacted various policy ideas that were not in their Manifestos. Just four days after being elected into Government in 1997 Labour granted the Bank of England its independence. Where was the manifesto commitment for that? Where was the democratic mandate for that Mr Harris? What about tuition fees? What about removing the 10p tax rate and increasing the taxes of the lowest earners? Which manifesto will I find that in? Which Labour Manifesto can I read about the ID Card legislation? Why is it that only Labour is allowed to enact for things that were not in their manifesto?

Thirdly, lets address Mr Harris’ belief in the strange power of the Coalition Agreement. He lambasted the Cabinet Office Minister Mark Harper for stating that the Tories were voting for this legislation even where their Manifesto offered a different version and that the Coalition Agreement had suppressed the Tory manifesto. Here is can be seen that Mr Harris is very wrong. There is nothing stopping a voter asking a Tory MP about this and the Tory MP stating that he felt that it was best to agree to an alternative in return for getting agreement for other parts of the Manifesto. It is then up to that MP and that voter to agree or disagree that the deviations from the manifesto were worth it. The manifesto is still the primary MP/Voter accountability document – despite Mr Harris’ indecent haste in dropping his manifesto. This same conversation will be the same for every Lib Dem MP (only Charles Kennedy MP can state he abstained from ditching parts of the Lib Dem Manifesto).

That is the key to Coalition Agreements. They are an amalgamation of manifesto commitments and party policy positions. Each MP in the Coalition Parties will have to go back to their voters and persuade them that the Coalition Agreement, with its manifesto gains and manifesto loses, was worth it. That is the democratic process Mr Harris.