Labour caught fibbing

One thing I just can't stand is politicians deliberately misleading the public, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. Once a leaflet is out there, the damage is done - I've never heard of a party putting out retraction leaflets, or writing to people afterwards to clear up the misunderstanding.

I missed the leaders debate tonight as I was attending the Evening Times Community Champion awards (more on that tomorrow), but watching Newsnight, it seems that Gordon Brown has been caught lying to the public in a leaflet put out in his own constituency.

Coming on the back of their abhorrent mailing targeting cancer patients, Labour have been scaremongering on concessionary travel. In the debate, Brown said "I have not authorised any leaflets".

Maybe he didn't authorise it, but a leaflet put out on his behalf in his own constituency clearly states that Gordon Brown will "fight against SNP cuts to concessionary travel".

What cuts would those be? The SNP Government has actually expanded the concessionary travel scheme to include disabled veterans from April 2011. Our manifesto reinforces our commitment to the current scheme for pensioners.

This is an issue that really matters to pensioners - it allows them the freedom to get about and to visit friends and family. Once Labour spread this kind of untruth, SNP activists and candidates have to fight doubly hard to win back the trust of voters.

Brown's leaflet also wanders into other devolved matters , mentioning making communities safer - that'll be the SNP delivering record numbers of police - and improving town centres - that'd be through the SNP's successful and popular Town Centre Regeneration fund.

Any campaign I've been involved in has agonised over the wording of leaflets, semantics, pedantry and meaning taken apart and put back together several times by a team of people before a leaflet goes out. It's unacceptable in my view to deliberately mislead the public, especially when it attacks another party.

I'm really glad of websites like www.thestraightchoice.org and Channel 4's factcheck, who allow us now to see all the leaflets and give the voters a better chance of finding out the truth.

Exciting news from Dundee

"Friends as you know I’m not long back from Washington D.C. and I said to people there that I couldn’t stay long, because I was off to Dundee.

And they asked Dundee Michigan, Dundee Illinois or Dundee Oregon?

I said the original Dundee.

They asked what state was it in?

It’s in a great state, I replied.

It’s got a Labour council."

Gordon Brown, Labour Conference Speech, 6th March 2009

Since the SNP's emphatic win in the Maryfield by-election on the 12th of March, negotiations have been ongoing to remove the Labour/LibDem/Tory administration from Dundee. There will be a special full meeting of Council on the 30th of March, but ahead of this the tension appears to have gotten too much for the Labour Lord Provost John Letford, who has stepped down from the Labour party to go independent.

Provost Letford said in the Courier “I have been trying to persuade my ex-colleagues for nearly two years to recognise the fact that, in the interests of the city and fair play, Dundee City Council committee conveners should be compiled from all parties... It is ludicrous to believe all the political talent required to run a city is only available in the administration and exclude half of the councillors”.

That doesn't sound like a group in a great state, never mind a Council. The anti-democratic anyonebuttheSNP administration in the city has most recently been criticised for the condition of it's Council housing. When I went up to lend a hand during the by-election campaign I spoke to plenty of scunnered Dundonians who were desperate to kick the administration out of office. I also found out how unhappy some Dundee Council employees are with those in control. What's needed isn't a rainbow coalition - it's a wind of change.

The make up of the Council is now:
14 SNP
8 Labour
3 Conservatives
2 Liberal Democrats
2 Independents

What's the point of Sarah Brown?

Or, less specifically, what is the point of sending your spouse out to campaign for you? I've been thinking about this since it was first announced that Sarah Brown was going out on the doorsteps, and I'm still not sure. Her actions have spawned a good many articles, but has she convinced any voters?

Sarah Brown seems to be a very competent professional, and she will have a unique insight into the Labour Government. I don't believe, however, that she should be encouraged to go out to the voters as the PM's wife to defend things her husband's government has done. They are not her decisions, unless she has been secretly pulling the strings all along, and therefore she can't be held accountable.

I do think, however, if she were doing it without the media circus as an ordinary party member, rather than the PM's wife, that's different. In the SNP (I'm sure other parties aren't any different) we go out and take people as we find them on the doorsteps. Ordinary activists don't turn up with tv crews and a crowd of journalists because we're there to engage with people on a personal level. Labour completely mishandled the situation, from Mrs Brown being their secret weapon, to gags and threats to shoot journalists.

I wonder what Sarah Brown says to voters on the doorstep? "I think my husband's doing a great job, you should vote Labour". That's hardly a reason! Perhaps she excuses herself thus: "Sorry Gordon couldn't be here, he's sent me instead". Or is she best placed to take news of the failings of Labour back to the boss: "I'll let the Prime Minister know personally that you feel hugely disappointed that the Labour Party has sold out it's values". Given that it seems that the Labour spin machine is targeting specific voters, I wonder whether she'd even get the chance to really win anyone over or speak to anyone that hasn't been hand picked.

From a personal perspective, I can't imagine sending my husband out to campaign for me. Obviously, the situation is very different, but I wouldn't put him under pressure to do something he's not comfortable with. Also he's not a member of any political party and, at present, doesn't see the need to be. I had him out leafleting a few times before the 2007 elections and he comes to the occasional SNP event, but politics is my thing as much as all things computery are his. As I've argued before, we're allowed to have differing opinions too!

I very much hope Sarah Brown volunteered to help rather than being forced, but I still don't think that voters would find much comfort in finding a substitute on the doorstep.

Throwing out traditions

It's nice to see that Gordon Brown will be making his own personal contribution in this time of flux by dispensing with old traditions which have lasted... oooh, since about 1999. Because, as we all know, Prime Ministers haven't campaigned in a by election since Uxbridge, Eddisbury, or Hamilton South.

It's up to each individual Prime Minister whether they want to campaign in a by election. There are quite a lot of by elections over the course of a Parliament (12 Westminster by elections since 2005), and I guess it's not feasible that they'd have time to come to them all. Most aren't even that close and the incumbent doesn't face much of a challenge. Perhaps a convention did grow up through this frequency - the BBC article on Uxbridge refers to a thirty year tradition of Prime Ministers not appearing at by elections, but internet links to back this up are a bit scarce previous to '97.

Things have changed dramatically in those thirty years. The reaction of the media to by elections can be incredible, and it's increasingly important for the parties to get a piece of the action. Why else would smaller parties bother with the expense of fielding candidates? I caught a wee bit of the 1964 General Election coverage on BBC Parliament the other day, and it's a world away from the media circus now surrounding elections.

The claim that Glenrothes is different has some merit. The Prime Minister's own constituency is next door; having lost Dunfermline and West Fife as recently as 2006, Mr Brown won't want to lose the constituency to his East. This is probably the most compelling reason for his appearance. Unlike Glasgow East, it is his back yard. Furthermore, it's a bit cruel but probably true that both the new Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament and Secretary of State for Scotland are still too anonymous to make any kind of impact on the good people of Fife.

While Glenrothes might be a campaign Gordon Brown can't shy away from, I wonder whether the suggestion in the Sunday Herald Editorial from during the Glasgow East campaign still stands, and what the implications will be this time around;

"He is being kept away from Glasgow, not because prime ministers don't do by-elections, but because this Prime Minister can't do elections.

Prescription Charges

Delay in blogging for while, due to a busy week and Joe being sick. The small highlight in his week of sky high temperatures was a visit to the chemist to pick up his prescription. It's always nice to save £1.85 when you don't expect it, and in that particular minute, I felt like dancing round the chemists. Very tragic, I know.

The real kicker was when I was leaving - a guy had just been in Haddows across the road, and was complaining bitterly to his pal about how Gordon Brown had just cost him extra on a bottle of vodka.

What the SNP giveth, London Labour taketh away... no wonder support for independence is on the rise!

Saturday - a day to relax?

Today's been fairly productive - on the political side of things, I joined Glasgow YSI, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, and Councillor Allison Hunter for a litter pick on Walmer Crescent in Govan this morning, then headed with the YSI to the Burma rally in George Square (where, unexpectedly and excitingly, I got interviewed by the BBC news!).

After the all that entertainment, I headed off to be all domestic and go in pursuit of a settee for our new flat. As is the practice, I was listening to Off the Ball and the live football coverage all day, so didn't hear the news about Brown calling off the election til I got home and settled. The News of the World are claiming credit, but it's more likely just a case of cold feet (unless this is some stunning double bluff...).

I'm less bothered about the news personally than other bloggers will be - not least those who are selected candidates. Perhaps some in the media and Westminster village allowed themselves to get carried away by election fever, or it could be Brown's cunning plan to distract the rest of the political parties (note to self - must check for "buried" news...). However, I do think that this whole affair has really shown Brown to be weak and indecisive - particularly by allowing the election situation to snowball. The little old ladies (who I believe to be a reasonable disgruntlement indicator in society) interviewed by the BBC weren't impressed by Brown's apparent dithering, and I don't believe the anyone else will either.

Brown's indecision has also left David Cameron massive scope for attack - which he made a good stab at on his News 24 interview. This kind of thing will only help the Tories build up their support.

From the Scottish perspective, this debacle will reinforce the perception of Labour as tired and incompetent. I'm sure most activists up here will be glad not to be campaigning in the wilds of approaching winter, but I suspect that we've not yet heard the last of this election that never was.

Nearly independent already!

According to the BBC, Scotland is to be largely exempt from Broon's flag waving exercises. If the Union Flag only flies from UK Government buildings, that's going to look gloriously Imperial...

Some thoughts on flying the flag

I don't really see myself as a small minded, narrow, flag waving nationalist - for a start, I don't own any flag bigger than the wee paper ones from Letham SNP (as stylishly modelled by my potplant!). I do, however, get some satisfaction from seeing the Saltire flying in the breeze above the City Chambers in Glasgow as I walk across George Square. It makes me think that, as in other independent nations across the world, a flag flying above a public building is a subtle sign that you exist.

I don't think we in Scotland should take the whole flag-flying thing too far, nor do I think we actually need to, because we have a fairly strong sense of who we are. I feel when nations have to continually wrap themselves in the flag, there's some latent doubt in society over identity. The United States is a prime example - a society which is huge and diverse, where children salute the flag each morning at school, and ordinary citizens take incredible pride in flying flags from their homes. When I was last down in England, the Flag of St George was flying from nearly every car and window - which is a real sign that people there are starting to think of who they are and who they want to be as a nation.

At a debate in the Council last week, many Labour Councillors were queueing up to say how proud they were of British institutions like the BBC, and how they felt equally British and Scottish; yet I don't see them falling over one another to hoist the Union Flag up the City Chambers flag pole. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, believes that the Union Flag should be flown from public buildings as often as possible, and has changed some old rules to let this happen. It might win him some votes in Middle England, but falling back on to the flag smacks of desperation to me.

Brown also talks of wanting to "take on" those people who don't conform to his sense of what being British is. He talks of terrorists, and of extremists. Does this mean me? I would never claim to be British, not out of any sense of animosity, but because I don't identify with the concept or feel I belong. When ever I go to London, I feel like a tourist in another land. Even small towns in England feel foreign to me: people don't understand me, I have to speak slower and more clearly. They reject my currency, they don't know anything about my politics (one friend of my boyfriend's parents asked me "what's an MSP?").

One of the positive things I did take from the BBC article linked to above was that David Cameron has come out with an unexpectedly sensible take on the matter:

In a speech last year, Conservative leader David Cameron accused Mr Brown of wanting to "institutionalise" being British, arguing it was possible to feel "multiple patriotism" with loyalties not only to where you live, but also to where you were born.

"I think we should realise that Britishness is a concept that, if grasped too hard, slips away," the Tory leader added.

I wouldn't deny that there are some people who have attachments to the Union flag, just as there are people who have attachments other flags or none. None of us should be forced, however, to fit into a stereotype of subjects in Brown's green and pleasant land or be branded terrorists.

PQs on Defence and Scotland dual role

Today's Scotsman included a report on Parliamentary Questions asked yesterday by Robert Wilson, Reading East MP, and James Gray, a Scots-born Wiltshire MP regarding the "part time" Defence/Scottish Secretary. Now it seems that Des Browne's "two jobs" won't be part time at all - he'll be giving over his Scottish Secretary duties to David Cairns.

Why bother with the title, if the role means nothing? Does Gordy not trust David to do the job without having someone to hold his hand?

The report also stated that:

"A source close to Mr Browne dismissed the concerns about the dual role as unjustified. They added that the Cabinet minister had already made clear he would work as hard as he had to to take on both roles "even if he has to get up an hour earlier".

A whole hour? Lucky us!