mirror, mirror on the wall…

Sometimes it’s not good for your health – or other people’s – to listen to the radio while driving.

This morning my blood pressure was suffering as I listened to Labour MP, John McFall (who is sometimes treated as if he is some sort of apolitical commentator rather than a party politician), slamming the management of the Dunfermline Building Society for their “reckless” decisions and “folly”. 

Speaking on Good Morning Scotland, Mr McFall also had a needless dig at Alex Salmond, failing to disguise the political capital the Labour Party has been trying to make out of the difficulties faced by Scottish financial institutions.

Of course the Dunfermline has clearly made some poor decisions. But this was all in the context of Gordon Brown’s abolition of boom and bust. Mr Brown, and no doubt Mr McFall, told us constantly that the UK economy was in great shape, record employment, low inflation, with a lot of it due to the financial deregulation engineered by the great leader.

Not only that but Mr Brown had abolished the economic cycle and was rubbishing anyone who suggested that the credit bill was unsustainable.

On top of that the Dunfermline had to compete against Northern Rock and others who were gorging themselves on the lax regime created by Mr Brown’s financial brilliance.

In those circumstances, is it all that surprising that the Dunfermline got involved in commercial property and other areas of business it might regret?

So, Mr McFall might stop to consider who was truly reckless and guilty of folly here – was it the Dunfermline or was it the Labour Party (member – John McFall) who created this massive credit bubble in the first place?

Not quite on the Jonathan Ross scale, but still…

I realise that a political blog isn’t the best place to complain about rudeness but I was taken aback by Andrew Neil’s handling of the discussion between Derek Draper and Guido Fawkes on the Daily Politics.

Iain Dale, rightly points out that the debate between the two bloggers was not the best showcase for political blogging. But, sadly, given their history there can have been few surprises that it degenerated into a petty slagging match.

Much worse, I thought was the sight of a Neil telling one of his guests, in this case Draper, to “shut up”.  There will be plenty of people of course who would have enjoyed that moment. But regardless of who the guest is, I think it is utterly unacceptable for a BBC interviewer to be so blatantly and aggressively rude.

Andrew Neil can be an effective interviewer, but his desire to be a player rather than a mere questioner is inappropriate. His views on Scottish nationalism for example should disqualify him immediately from a role that requires at least the pretence of impartiality.

Expenses and allowances

During and after the Olympics some commentators expressed distaste that politicians were falling over themselves to be associated with various gold-medal winners.

The basic idea seemed to be that these grubby low-lifes had no right to be anywhere near the likes of Chris Hoy, Rebecca Adlington and the rest of the victorious Team GB.

I actually believe  - and I think I can be pretty confident that this isn’t the most universally-held  of views – that politicians are generally at least as good, if not better, role-models than elite sportsmen and women.

The vast majority of politicians put themselves forward because they believe, however wrongly in the case of Scottish Labour, that that they can make a difference;  that they can genuinely improve the lives of  their fellow citizens.

For this they have to subject themselves to a generally unforgiving environment. Imagine in your job having to ask people every four or five years if they want you to continue and facing the prospect of a very public vote of no confidence and loss of employment.

If they do succeed they face routine public scorn and a hostile press. Alastair Campbell can be a hard man to like (especially for an SNP supporter) but his general analysis of political journalism is spot-on.  The obsession with gaffes, alleged humiliations, character assassinations and on-going hunts for resignations make any kind of reasoned deliberation a tough task.

But that’s why the behaviour of people like Tony McNulty is so infuriating. He may not have broken any rules but he’s confirmed so many negative opinions about politicians and makes it  almost impossible for those of us who want to defend them.

In a classic New Labour tactic, Gordon Brown has now called for a review of MPs allowances in an attempt to control the story. But this kind of thing doesn’t work anymore.

Mr McNulty should just hand the money back and issue an apology. It won’t make any difference but at least it would be the right thing to do.

Mr Brown goes to Washington

This pieceby Stryker McGuire in The Independent is brilliant.

The stuff about how the Oscars etc are covered in the UK is spot on.

In some ways the demeaning relationship between British politicians and the US is mirrored by the Scottish cringe in relation to the UK.

Scottish achievement or failure it seems can rarely be celebrated or derided on its own merit  – it’s how we are viewed or measure up to the rest of the UK that is presented as the most important thing.

Where does that lack of self-confidence come from?

Fundamental(ist) mistakes from The Steamie

I’ve written before (ok – quite a lot) about the generally poor level of political  commentary in Scottish newspapers. It’s not that I’m obsessed by this, but I really do believe that we could be doing things a lot better.

Working as a lecturer I’ve now started to become interested in the academic aspect of political opinion – particularly the contribution, if any, that newspapers make to the achievement of a deliberative democracy – the kind of engaged, inclusive democracy that the founders of the Scottish Parliament had in mind.

But for that to happen, we need at the very least to have a greater understanding of the political process.

This post in  The Steamie – a decent enough contribution to the political blogosphere in Scotland -  is an example of real misunderstanding masquerading as insight.

Political journalists were interested, reasonably enough,  yesterday in why Nicola Sturgeon, rather than Kenny MacAskill was chosen to front the launch of the SNP’s drive against Scotland’s booze culture.

David Maddox, in The Steamie, suggested that it was in part due to the desire to present Sturgeon, rather than MacAskill as the SNP leader in waiting:

“ Mr MacAskill …… is the most likely figure that any challenge from the so-called fundamentalist wing may gather around, if things were to go pear shaped in the next couple of years. ”  

I want to say this as politely as I can – but that is just daft.  Having worked for John Swinney during his leadership I would not deny that at that time there were painful divisions within the SNP.  But it was far too simplistic to present these divisions as fundamentalist versus gradualist.  It was really the result of the move by the SNP from being a party of protest to becoming a party of government.  There just isn’t a big fundamentalist/gradualist split anymore.

But even if there was,  Kenny MacAskill would probably be the least likely senior figure in the SNP that the fundamentalists would “gather round.”

After the election of 2003, Kenny wrote some interesting articles about the future direction of the SNP. You can get a flavour of this, by reading this piece in The Times, which includes the line:

 ”Shouting “independence” louder is no more likely to increase the vote than would wearing a darker shade of wode.”  Hardly a fundamentalist rallying cry I would have thought.

In truth SNP has developed into a thoughtful movement – is it too much to ask for political hacks to keep pace?

Let’s have your glasses now please

For years politicians in Scotland have bemoaned our national addiction to alcohol.

“Something must be done,”  has been the cry.

Now that the Scottish government does propose to do something Labour, the Tories and LibDems all decide that this represents a great opportunity to kick the SNP.

How much better it was when governing politicians wrung their hands and made speeches and told us all how terrible it was without actually trying to do anything about it.

Those, like me, who are sick to death of seeing children’s playparks covered in broken bottles on Saturday mornings from the excesses of the night before would prefer to see some action.

More seriously, those who have to work in our A and E departments must be disgusted by the the drink-fuelled violence that they witness every weekend.  

But, for our opposition politicians, that matters much less than having a go at Kenny MacAskill and Nicola Sturgeon.

It is occasions like these that remind you just how unfit Labour, in particular, is  for office.

Why Daniel Finkelstein is very good

The best political commentator around is Daniel Finkelstein of The Times.

This high-quality posttoday demonstrates his ability. The reason he’s particularly good is that, unlike most political journalists, he’s  been involved in politics at a high strategic level – ie he’s actually tried to win votes and therefore knows something about it.

When I ran the SNP leader’s private office I was amazed at just how little political correspondents knew about – well, politics.  They were great at running stories about gaffes, humiliations, who was up and down and who said what to who.

But their opinions, freely given, on the business of campaigning for office were usually nonsense.

I remember John McTernan used to write well for Scotland on Sunday, even if I disagreed with almost everything he said,  and I have written occasionally for that paper and some others.  But here in Scotland the press really lacks commentators with the insight gained from running or even being involved in national election campaigns.

That might be one reason why political opinion in our newspapers (with the exception of Ian Bell and one or two others) is so woeful.