It's only bad if someone else does it, Part 5,904

From today's Herald:

Direct train services between Glasgow and London on the troubled East Coast Main Line are to be axed under a major recasting of the route’s timetable being discussed by the Government and rail industry, The Herald can reveal.

The changes on the arterial route, one of two connecting Scotland to England, will see trains that currently run from King’s Cross up the east coast to Glasgow stop at Edinburgh from December 2010.

Passenger Focus, the statutory watchdog, said yesterday it was “seeking reassurances” that another operator would step in to deliver direct services from Glasgow to the north of England, warning that key routes to destinations such as Newcastle, York and Doncaster could be affected.

There were unconfirmed suggestions Arriva Cross Country could take up the slack under the new timetable by extending the service it operated from Glasgow along part of the East Coast Main Line as far as York. That would only leave destinations in the south-east of England without a direct connection to Glasgow.

John Mason, the SNP MP for Glasgow East, said the changes revealed Labour’s “hypocrisy” on rail following criticism this week of the SNP’s decision to scrap the Glasgow Airport Rail Link. He added: “These plans, which have been made without any consultation, are a serious mistake and must be stopped in their tracks.”

James King, Scottish board member of Passenger Focus, said: “Withdrawing these services is only acceptable if another operator can be found to provide connectivity between Glasgow and the north-east of England as far as York. We would want to be reassured that another operator can pick up the slack.”

I'm not going to add to John Mason's point of the double standards at work here (and at least the SNP have merely put on hold a plan that was yet to come be implemented, whilst Labour are considering going so far as to axe existing services), save to note that the final decision rests with Lord Adonis, who has been on the campaign trail this week. I bet he waits until after Thursday to make his choice.

The Negative-o-meter: 5-6 November

In the week running up to the Glasgow By-Election, and to analyse in greater detail accusations of negativity, I thought I'd look at the candidates' pieces for The Steamie, and flag up the positive and negative comments. The positive shall be marked in green, and the negative in red. Relatively neutral comments (or ambiguous points which could be positive or negative depending on how you look at it), agenda points and party-based fluff will be left alone. I like to think my readers are a pretty sharp bunch: you can interpret the situation as you wish.

Willie Bain

I'm pleased to be taking part in this great idea by The Steamie to get people engaged with this by-election online.

Although I know not everyone uses the internet to access their news - I know lots of Glaswegians who are increasingly using it to find out what's going on and keep in touch with friends and family. I hope that by writing on here that I can help some of them understand more about me and my plans.

Despite a late night in the Newsnight studio I'm keen to hit the ground running this morning - talking to voters and hearing their concerns. I've lived in this area all my life - I think I'm the only candidate that can (honestly!) say that. I'm not a politician and I've never stood for election before but I'm proud of this area and I want to do my best for it.

The issue that people constantly raise with me on the door is their anger at the way the SNP is ripping off our city. Despite the SNP's budget going up by £600m this year they are giving extra money to some projects - but shortchanging Glasgow. It's amazing how many times people raise this when you speak to them. So I'm going out and about in the constituency today - knocking of people's doors and letting them know who I am and what I believe in.

I'm also meeeting with Andrew Adonis to tell him about the importance of good transport links to the Glasgow economy and the shockingly short-sighted decision of the SNP to cancel the airport rail link at a cost of 1000 jobs.

The other issue that people keep raising with me is about the SNP candidate fibbing about where he was born. Look, at the end of the day the real issue in this story is about trust. People's trust in politics is at an all time low. We have to start trying to restore that trust and that starts with people being able to believe the people that seek to represent them.

I've been clear with people what my top priorities are:

* stopping the SNP ripping off Galsgow [sic] and dishing out the money elsewhere
* cracking down on crime and anti-social behaviour - I've been running a carry a knife go to jail petition to get automatic jail sentences for knife criminals
* helping glasgow pensioners through tough times and fighting to protect jobs
* campaigning for better shops, better homes, and better buses

Thanks to everyone who is supporting me in this campaign. If you want to get in touch with me then you can email me at willie@williebain.com.

Best wishes

Willie Bain
Labour's candidate for Glasgow North East

Ruth Davidson

Well done the Steamie for coming up with this idea. I’ve been blogging on this campaign for sometime and I’m glad now the other candidates won’t be able to run away when I ask them a question!

During the five months that this campaign has been running it has become clear that the issues in Glasgow North East are not that different from those across Britain. People are worried about their jobs, worried about Labour's recession, worried about public services, and worried about crime.

MP's from all parties have betrayed the trust that the public had placed in them. That is why David Cameron apologised as soon as the details of MP's expenses claims came out, because it was wrong and the people of Britain deserved an apology. It was then that he said he wanted a new type of politics - which was when I decided I should put myself forward as a candidate. I am not a career politician, but I do believe that politics needs new people to get involved, get stuck in, and try and change things for the better. As candidates we all need to work to restore the public’s trust in politics.

That is why the very first thing I did following selection was to promise to run a clean campaign - which I invited all the other candidates to join. I have kept to that - the Conservatives won’t use personal attacks in order to get votes. That is why I have pledged to be open about my expenses if elected. Simple things, not exploiting expenses, discussing the issues not the personalities, but I think that they help people to believe I will keep my word if elected.

David Cameron and the Conservative Party believe the same thing. That is why we have been honest about the problems with the public finances. Instead of pretending nothing needed done, the Conservatives have told the truth that there will have to be savings in Government spending. We don't want to reduce spending, but we have to be realistic and tell people the harsh truth that Labour have spent all the money – and it is up to the next Government to repair the damage.

That’s why in the Scottish Parliament we have identified ¼ billion pounds worth of savings. Take Scottish Water out of public ownership, stop this nonsense of free prescriptions and free school meals for people who can afford to pay. Some things in life are not free – we have to accept that, especially in this current climate.

This election is about which party can bring the change that is needed to Glasgow North East, and to Britain. The Conservatives have the policies that will create jobs, repair the public finances, and help to fix our broken society. Most of all, we are the party that will be open and honest with the public – that’s what is needed to help rebuild trust in politics.

David Kerr

Welcome to the Steamie's by-election coverage. It's great to be taking part in this new way of covering a by-election, putting my campaign direct to you the voters.

In the next few days I’ll use this blog to tell you about some of the amazing people and inspiring projects I have met and seen in the constituency and the kind of MP I will be if the people in Glasgow North East vote for me.

Five months after Michael Martin resigned we are now into the last seven days of the campaign and it's turning out to be closer than many people thought. Despite the lengthy delay voters haven’t forgotten the expenses scandal that caused the by-election or the five school closures in the constituency that left Labour so scared the vote was delayed for five months.

Those issues have many people, who had always voted Labour, questioning the party they have supported and looking toward the SNP.

I'll be out campaigning today with John Mason MP, in Carntyne where Glasgow East meets Glasgow North East.

John's political earthquake demonstrates the difference an SNP MP can make. When it came to school closures – Labour didn’t dare put forward any closures in John’s constituency but they took people in Glasgow North East for granted.

Residents of Glasgow East had been let down by their MP - with no constituency office and no one to vote for their interests. John has set a new standard for Glasgow MPs - accessible, available and putting his constituents first.

In Glasgow North East constituents have been in the same position - with no office for the local MP in the constituency and decades of being taken for granted by Labour in Westminster and in the City Chambers.

People in Glasgow North East deserve the same level of representation their fellow East Enders have in the neighbouring constituency. This constituency deserves an MP whose priorities will be constituents priorities and that’s what I will deliver if elected next week.

Eileen Baxendale

I think this is a great idea from the Steamie. I would love to see more newspapers and media outlets adopt innovative approaches to help get more people engaged in politics.

I want to say right from the start that I think it was simply outrageous that the Labour party have allowed the people in Glasgow North East to go without an MP for so long, well over 125 days now. This just shows that the Labour Government has lost touch with the people it serves.

Since this campaign kicked off all those weeks ago, I have been working hard, knocking on doors and listening to people right across the constituency.

The message that I am getting again and again is that people are fed up being overlooked and ignored and that they want change. They want their politician’s focus to be on sorting the economy, creating more local jobs and tackling local crime.

I believe that it is Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats that have the policies and ideas to make a real difference on these issues.

To really tackle these problems we need more than just sensationalist, headline grabbing soundbites. We need a new approach.

On the economy and banking, it is Vince Cable that has been the voice of reasoned authority over recent months. It was he who first warned about the impending economic collapse. Labour were too slow to act and the Tories were simply nowhere on sorting out the economy.

On tackling crime and creating jobs, Liberal Democrats believe that this is best done at a local level. We are committed to putting the heart back into our communities and giving local people a greater say over their own affairs.

Locking everyone up and sending our young people to prison is not the best way to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. We need more community based initiatives that tackle the root causes of why young people in our society get involved in crime in the fist place.

Labour’s recession has led to tough times for all of us. The Liberal Democrats want to sort out the tax system to give a boost to those on low and middle incomes. We want to raise the income tax threshold so those on less than £10,000 a year don’t pay tax. This would put around £700 a year back into the pockets of those on low and middle incomes.

It is the Liberal Democrats who are the only party offering real progressive change to our society. Unlike the SNP it is the Liberal Democrats who can make a real difference at Westminster and stand up for the people of Glasgow North East.

Willie Bain

Just back from the STV studios where the four main candidates cross–examined ourselves in heated spirits.

In a slightly peculiar manoeuvre, the SNP man decided to throw a two-pound coin at me. I was thinking a question might be more likely, but there you go.

Amazingly, he vigorously defended the decision to scrap the airport rail link and the loss of up to 1,300 jobs. I thought he’d want to stand up for Glasgow, but he seems he wants to be Salmond’s man in Springburn.

Earlier, I met with Andrew Adonis, the Secretary of State for Transport, to discuss the importance of good transport links to and from Glasgow. He got the train from the centre of town up to Springburn.

Like me, he was angered by the SNP’s decision to cancel the rail link. If elected I will do all I can to fight the SNP’s decision and stop them ripping of Glasgow in the future. I oppose the cuts in housing and regeneration in the SNP’s draft budget for next year and I believe that Glasgow should get a metropolitan supplement, as Edinburgh does and is proposed for Aberdeen. The SNP cannot continue to rip off Glasgow. It isn’t a by-election slogan as the SNP try to brush it off: it is a tragedy for our city.

Harriet Harman also joined the campaign this evening and was out knocking on doors with me – first with the cameras, and then just the two of us later on. We stopped for a quick coffee in Dennistoun.

It really was all hands on deck today. Tomorrow I’ll be out and about again from first thing to late.

David Kerr

Less than a week to go and the SNP campaign is in full swing.

SNP activists are out across the constituency - with more coming to join the campaign this weekend - including a visit from the Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.

Today I'll be joined on the campaign trail by Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop to meet some of the young people that are benefiting from the SNP's investment in education in this constituency.

A few weeks ago we visited Glasgow North College and today we'll be heading to John Wheatley's campus. These colleges have received record levels of investment from the SNP and with help from the Scottish Government are providing extra places to support people during the recession.

That's the kind of investment we need to bring opportunities to this constituency, to ensure a bright future for our young people.

There's another sign of the SNP's commitment to Glasgow today. In the face of serious budget cuts from Labour in London the SNP has had to take some tough decisions over how we allocate Scotland's budget. I'm proud of the fact that the SNP's priorities are health, education and making our communities safer.

Today Nicola Sturgeon will announce the next step toward a new £840 million Southern General - built entirely with public funds - as the contracts are signed. Alongside it will be a new children's hospital for Glasgow.

That's the kind of investment I want to see across the city - and that's the kind of investment the SNP will continue to put into Glasgow.

David Doherty

Over the last few years, Glasgow has become one of the Greenest parts of Scotland, and Glasgow North East is no exception.

Glaswegians are represented at Holyrood by Patrick Harvie MSP, and the city has returned five Green Councillors, one of whom, my colleague Kieran Wild, represents Canal Ward here in Glasgow North East.

In the Euro-elections Greens came third in Glasgow North East, ahead of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, although it'd be dishonest to put out a leaflet saying "only Greens can win here".

It's not hard to see why Glasgow's increasingly backing the Greens. Our major campaign at Holyrood over the last year has been to try and insulate all of Scotland's homes, cutting bills, boosting jobs, tackling fuel poverty and beating climate change all in one go. As a volunteer I'm on the board of a building renovation charity, and I'm only too aware of the problems in this area across the city. The parties who've governed Glasgow, locally and nationally, should be ashamed of themselves for letting people continue to suffer in damp, unhealthy and expensive homes.

What's more, Labour and the SNP may be bickering about GARL, but only the Greens have consistently opposed the M74 currently being bulldozed through the South East of the City. We could have had Crossrail built by now for a fraction of the cost of this motorway, but sadly only Greens continue to make that case.

Finally, Glasgow's economy has taken a serious blow from the credit crunch and the recession, and people are understandably reluctant to back any of the parties who celebrated the risk-takers, backed the deregulators and handed over vast amounts of our money to the bankers. Pretending it all never happened isn't a long-term response to this crisis, nor is it a sustainable one.

So, let me be the first candidate to admit this election isn't in the bag for us, but we are part of the world's fastest-growing political movement, and we have confounded the naysayers who said we couldn't get MSPs, MEPs or Councillors elected. Sometime soon I'm confident we'll make that Westminster breakthrough, and people in Glasgow North East can be the first to deliver that radical change.

Willie Bain

I was delighted to welcome the Prime Minister to the constituency this afternoon.

Gordon and I visited North Glasgow College – a shining example of what Labour has achieved in the area. I’m proud that Gordon was so impressed with the building, and the opportunities that the college provides for people in my area.

It’s sad that some people want to talk down our community, but I think the college is a great example of the changes I have seen in my life here.

I’ve put some more information up on my website. The man in the photo with the Prime Minister is my dad (also Willie). He was really proud to meet the Prime Minister.

It was taken inside our campaign centre, which is in the old college building over the road from the new one. The building was opened by a former in 1909 by Earl Rosebery who was Prime Minister in the 1890s. The foyer contains a moving and sobering war memorial to the college students who died in the First World War.

So, after Days 1 and 2 of this endeavour, that's where we are:

Three posts by Willie Bain, one of which laden with ambiguous comments and innuendo which I can't properly brand as either positive or negative, one of which was basically a hatchet job, and the third fairly anodyne;

Two posts by David Kerr, one of which offering a point/counterpoint format - a negative point balanced by a contrasting positive one - followed by one that was mostly good news;

One post by Ruth Davidson, which was generally positive with the occasional dig;

One post by Eileen Baxendale, which was broadly positive with slightly more frequent digs;

And one rather bleak post by David Doherty, which seemed to identify a number of key problems but, to me, looked light on actual solutions.

Let's now see what the weekend brings...

MacNumpty on your Mobile

Don't worry, I'm not hacking into your bluetooth, I've just registered with this new fad, so as to make it easier to read the blog on a phone.

Simply go here:

http://macnumpty.mofuse.mobi/

Of course, seeing as most of my posts are - how to put this? - rather comprehensive affairs, it'll still take a while to load, but comes with a lovely quick index of recent posts, and without all the bells and whistles that trying to load the web page comes with. So a rather nifty thing, I think.

The Sunday Whip

The return to business at Holyrood was relatively quiet and broadly successful for the Government - doubtless energies are being conserved for the more severe battles to come. On Wednesday, the only matter to be decided save the Business Motions was the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965 Modification Order 2009. This, like the Business Motions, was waved through.

Thursday saw a little more meat and quite a few absences: Labour's Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathie Craigie (Falkirk East), Helen Eadie (Lab, Dunfermline East), Patricia Ferguson (Lab, Glasgow Maryhill), Labour's Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley South), Labour's Shadow Housing Secretary Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Nanette Milne (Con, North East Scotland), Hugh O'Donnell (LD, Central Scotland), Labour's Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston), and Labour's Shadow Finance Minister David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden).

They missed the waving through of the Marine (Scotland) Bill and its Financial Resolution. The only votes came on the SNP motion on the Scottish economy.

First came a Labour amendment, which fell by 67 votes to 48 with two abstentions. Voting against were the SNP, Tories, Margo, and four of the LibDems: Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland), Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney), Finance Spokesman Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale) and Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife). The remaining LibDems voted in favour along with Labour, and the Greens abstained. I'm afraid I do not know whether the LibDem position on this vote was simply miscommunicated or whether a free vote was allowed, but the sight of the Finance Spokesman facing away from the Leader (and the majority of the Group) on an economic issue doesn't bode well. Similarly, the majority of Group members voting for an amendment that would render their own amendment incompetent is - well, it's a rather unorthodox tactic, let's just put it like that. I've slagged the LibDems off enough for one day.

Anyway. Next came the Tory amendment, which passed by 64 (SNP/Tory/Green) votes to 52 (Labour/LD) with one abstention (Margo). The LibDem amendment may as well have been struck off as it fell by 99 (SNP/Labour/Tory) votes to 18 (LD/Green/Margo), but was still less unsuccessful than the Green amendment, which fell by 114 (SNP/Labour/Tory/LD) votes to 3 (Green/Margo). The amended motion passed by 62 (SNP/Tory) votes to 54 (Labour/LD/Green) with one abstention (Guess who!):

That the Parliament recognises the impact of the recession on Scotland and notes the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to support jobs and communities, strengthen education and skills and invest in innovation and industries of the future to ensure that the nation is both protected from the worst of the downturn and well placed to take advantage of any recovery; further recognises the need to support existing and new businesses to create jobs; regrets the historic underperformance of the Scottish economy in new business creation; welcomes the positive and timely impact of the significant business rate reductions for small and medium-sized businesses and the Town Centre Regeneration Fund, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with all other levels of government and with the business community to do more to help raise the level of new business start-ups in Scotland.

So that was that. Next week we've got a debate on National Parks on Wednesday, Tory business on Thursday morning, and a debate on the Autumn Fisheries Negotiations on Thursday afternoon. Let's see what happens...

Has the meaning of 'Democrat' changed?

Well, yesterday was, as we know, the super-secret meeting of LibDem High Command. Well, I'm over-dramatising there - it was the Scottish LibDem Conference and like all conferences, the shindig was members-only. So that in and of itself wasn't a big thing. But one of the matters being discussed was the independence referendum. This is what Stephen had to say beforehand:

If we had taken courage in our convictions that Scotland is better with a stronger parliament but within the UK we should have made sure that was asked of the people, either before 2007 or by getting involved with the SNP working on what we agree with and forming the words of their referendum White Paper so that it was not rigged. Giving the people the right to determine their own future is what we stand for.

In my opinion, and sadly many who may vote for us, what 2007 was a betrayal of was our party's constitution and the name Democrat that exists in our title. Calling those of this view a minority of rebels may prove dangerous, it often is a sign that the leadership is actually quite scared that they are losing the argument.

He also quoted the Scottish LibDem Constitution:

We [the Scottish Liberal Democrats] believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from them. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.

You'll notice - as he himself admits - that this principle jars somewhat with the LibDems' refusal to support a referendum. But, with the party's MEP, a key Parliamentary Candidate and a number of activists and even some MSPs making the call for the party to revise its approach, there was hope that the majority of LibDem supporters who want a referendum might just get their way.

But this is what Stephen had to say this morning:

Actually what came out of yesterday was that that the party was opposed to this particular referendum.

Ah! So self-determination and democracy only carry the day when you approve of the question that's being asked - marvellous!

But this is the problem. Here's the question that the SNP wants to ask:

I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state.

Stephen is under the impression that such a question is less than clear. Now the wording is long-winded - that's to prevent the Bill from falling foul of the Scotland Act, I believe - but take another look at the end of it: so that Scotland becomes an independent state. Seems pretty clear to me. It's in the indicative mood, FFS! The full question highlights process - negotiation - and result - an independent Scotland. To suggest that people might not understand what the conclusion of any negotiations would be following a hypothetical 'Yes' vote is akin to accusing the Scottish electorate of being illiterate. Read the question. The meaning is obvious when you do.

But, let's face it, the specific question isn't the issue. No question would be satisfactory, with the possible exception of: Do you honestly think that it would be better for Scotland if it were ripped kicking and screaming away from the rest of the UK, with a Berlin-esque wall erected between the Solway and Firth, TV signals from England blocked, your job and money sent South, and everyone forced to behave like they're on a shortbread tin?

The honest truth is that the LibDem Leadership's primary objection to the question is that people might answer 'Yes' to it.

And again, there's usually something said about the 'timing'. 2010, apparently is the wrong time to have this discussion. But let anyone who thinks that this issue will be re-visited after the next Holyrood election be under absolutely no illusion whatever: 2011 will be the wrong time. 2012 will be the 'wrong time'. So will 2013, 2014 and 2015. Whenever a referendum is proposed, it will be the wrong time for the Leadership.

So let's be realistic: when the LibDems say they don't have an objection to a referendum, the truth is that they will have an objection to any referendum proposed by the SNP. And there'll be no negotiation on the matter: rather from the get-go, Alex Salmond has been sufficiently careful to allow himself wiggle room so that he can negotiate a conclusion. Neither the wording nor the timing need be set in stone and the suggestion has always been made that a third option of extra powers for Holyrood (where the LibDems sit in terms of constitutional policy) could be offered. But no. There's never been any hope of negotiation. It's not 'this' referendum that's the problem at all. Any referendum on the subject will be 'this' referendum.

It was like that in the aftermath of the election. The LibDems wanted the SNP to ditch their key election pledge as a pre-requisite for negotiations - and there was me thinking that you had the negotiations specifically to discuss what policies did and didn't go forward! - then blamed the SNP for the talks not going ahead for not meeting an outrageous, impossible demand.

Then there was the Budget, when the LibDems refused to have any sort of talks about the Budget unless it included a 2% cut in Income Tax. Again, trying to get what they want before negotiations begin, and flouncing out when they couldn't say what budgets they'd cut to pay for it. Then when the Budget fell, they blamed the SNP for not negotiating after they made an impossible demand and refused to budge from that position.

It was the same on LIT, where instead of discussing the situation with the Government, they could have secured the variability they wanted. But instead, they just kept carping from the sidelines then blaming the Government when it was obvious that a Bill just couldn't progress.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the LibDems remind me of that snotty-nosed little brat you knew at Primary School (there's one at every school), who'd grab your arm and move is so that it hit another part of you, all the time whining, "Why are you hitting yourself?", until eventually (in most cases) they did it to the wrong kid and ended up dangling from the school railings by their underpants.

But let's look at a wider point - all of the references to the Bill go along the lines of Alex Salmond's Referendum Bill. Note how it's personalised. But in every reference the LibDems make to the FM or the Governemtn, there's an element of contempt which I just don't get when on so many issues the two parties sing from the same hymn sheet.

They want fairer local taxation. So do the SNP. They hated the idea of tuition fees. So do the SNP. They want a fairer voting system - and the timing is perfect to discuss that element of the constitution, apparently - and so do the SNP. They want the troops to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan. So do the SNP. They want a fairer pension. So do the SNP. They're horrified at the erosion of civil liberties under Labour. So are the SNP. They wanted bridge tolls abolished. So did the SNP. They want a nuclear-free Scotland. So do the SNP.

And yet, for all that, this row over the constitution - which is supposed to be a needless distraction according to the LibDems - is blown up into such a gulf that the Liberal Democrats despise the SNP with a passion bordering on instability to the extent that they'd prefer to work with Labour.

So for all of their so-called principles, they'd rather work with the party of the unfair Council Tax, of tuition fees, of a rigged voting system, of bridge tolls, of PFI, of ID cards and detention without trial, of nuclear power stations and Trident, of Afghanistan and Iraq.

And what did they get? STV in Council Elections (I can just hear householders all over Scotland saying "I'm skinning myself for Council Tax again but at least my vote for my local Councillors actually counts!"); tolls abolished on just the Skye Bridge - it was a legal loophole that saw them abolished on the Erskine Brige - but no movement on the East Coast bridges until the SNP came to power; and a fudge on tuition fees, which saw the payment due date move back and for a lot of people, could have actually seen them pay more than they would have done upfront (for example, my upfront tuition fee bill came to £250 in First Year, £100 in Second Year, and nothing thereafter). Again, it took an SNP Government to abolish them. And when the LibDems had a chance to demand LIT, they didn't bother, yet now they blame the SNP for not implementing it when it couldn't get majority support in the Chamber, and claim they're the only people who genuinely want LIT despite not lifting a finger for it in 1999 or 2003.

There's a pattern emerging: for illiberal, undemocratic Labour, the Liberal Democrats will drop their keks, but they'll nail them to the mast when dealing with the SNP, to the extent that they'll try and find a way of worming out of a policy that even their supporters are calling for. And yet their supporters will swallow it.

So the Liberal Democrats will continue that "betrayal of the party's constitution and the name Democrat" as long as living up to it would mean working constructively with the SNP - no matter how many key figures within the Party they have to slap down.

But I suppose we should be grateful that there have been no expulsions over the matter: Neil Craig knows what happens when you say things the party establishment doesn't find comfortable. So do Martin Ford and Debra Storr.

Booting out people who disagree with the established view, and denying the Scottish people a say on their own future - some Democrats!

I'm sure we could have them under the Trades Descriptions Act...

Labour Reshuffle

Whilst struck down with the manflu, I saw that Iain Gray has re-shuffled his team. I confess that at first I thought that it was a hallucination - much like the time I was delirious with food poisoning and ended up thinking I was Gordon Brown, tottering around the house mumbling about how I was going to "sort out that bitch Cherie" - only to find that, no, this was real.

In a way, it resembles the old style Executive in that it has a plethora of senior posts. Though interestingly, the demands I seem to recall for a Minister for Economic Recovery - surely still quite relevant while the UK is still in recession - have translated into the Economy & Skills portfolio actually being absorbed by Andy Kerr's finance role. Perhaps Kerr and his Deputy, David Whitton, were under-occupied. Instead, we have a new Housing and Regeneration portfolio and one is forced to wonder what snappy title it will make way for next year when Labour finally realise that criticising a government for not paying attention to housing issues doesn't work if they're the first government since devolution to, you know, actually build new council houses. But given Labour's care and attention to the (now former) Economy and Skills portfolio, we must be wary of any notion from the Labour frontbench that housing has become a genuine priority, and should - for now - work from the basis that this is just a passing fad for Iain Gray and next year's reshuffle will see a Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Check Shirts appointed in place of this post.

Finance, Economy & Skills

Andy Kerr remains at the top here, with David Whitton as his Number 2, Lewis Macdonald still at Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and Charlie Gordon returning to the frontbench as Shadow Transport Minister, the post from which he resigned at the start of Wendy Alexander's troubles. A harbinger, perhaps?

Education

Charlie Gordon's successor and predecessor at Transport, Des McNulty, replaces Rhona Brankin who is stepping down, though will still be formulating policy. It's a significant promotion for Des, who will be leading the attack on Fiona Hyslop - who the opposition do seem to enjoy attacking and who has been derided as the "worst Education Minister ever" - a somewhat harsh assessment of a Cabinet Secretary who finally got around to abolishing tuition fees and who did not preside over any exam result fiasco unlike Sam Galbraith. Though, interestingly, he's now chosen to blame Hnry McLeish. But I digress. The rest of the support team remains as is: Ken McIntosh at Schools, Claire Baker at Further and Higher Education, Karen Whitefield at Children & Early Years. So with those three and Rhona Brankin still drafting the actual policies, it's not entirely clear what Des McNulty will be doing with his time.

Health & Wellbeing

A return to the front bench for Jackie Baillie, who was sacked when Iain Gray first took over. Richard Simpson remains at Public Health and Frank McAveety at Sport.

Housing and Regeneration

Cathy Jamieson takes over at Labour's primary focus for synthetic outrage over the coming year, in which her first task will be to choose between supporting a Thatcherite policy like Right to Buy, or supporting the SNP Government. Mary Mulligan remains Shadow Minister for Housing, which does muddy the job description waters somewhat.

Justice

Richard Baker stays (does he have dodgy photos of Iain Gray in his desk, or something?). Let me explain why this is a mistake: Kenny MacAskill was faced with the toughest decision a Justice Secretary could ever have faced, was placed in a no-win situation, made a choice which, whatever your feelings on the matter, did lead to a major outcry and almost an international incident, and despite being in a minority Government which was outnumbered and outvoted on this issue in the Chamber, he's still the Justice Secretary. This basically makes Richard Baker the Chris Iwelumo of politics and he too remains in situ. His new Community Safety Spokesman is James Kelly, who moves from the Whips' Office.

Rural Affairs and Environment

Sarah Boyack stays here, with Elaine Murray staying as Shadow Environment Minister, Karen Gillon staying at Rural Development (though with maternity leave and illness keeping her out of the loop for a large part of last year, this is, in effect, a new appointment). A new Climate Change portfolio is added (clearly Gray is not confident in Charlie Gordon speaking on this issue as Des McNulty did) with Cathy Craigie filling the role.

The others

Pauline McNeill stays at Culture and the Constitution, John Park loses his portfolio but remains in the Shadow Cabinet as the party's campaign manager, Michael McMahon becomes Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Local Government - thus creating a set of posts that map on to neither the Cabinet nor the Parliamentary Committee structure - and Paul Martin replaces him as Business Manager. David Stewart remains as Chief Whip, with Rhoda Grant and Cathy Craigie supporting him. And of course, Johann Lamont retains her Deputy Leader position.

So what can we say about this revised front bench? Not a lot. It's larger than ever, and despite that, Iain Gray's warm words for Wendy Alexander weren't matched by a job. This is particularly telling as at this stage in the last Holyrood cycle, John Swinney was brought back onto the SNP front bench as Finance Spokesman after a year as a Committee Convener having brought his Leadership of the Party to a close.

We can't trust the realignment of portfolios as a guide to the party's priorities, as the last 'priority' portfolio has been subsumed into Andy Kerr's post.

And there are few new faces (though it's taken Cathy Peattie and Cathie Craigie ten years to get this far), but that would be hard when the full team consists of more than half of the entire SPLP. That problem is further exacerbated when you look at how other figures are ruled out: there are 25 posts in total - 28 if you count the whips and 29 if you count Tom McCabe as the Labour representative on the SPCB - and a total of 46 Labour MSPs.

Wendy Alexander is apparently still frozen out, as is Jack McConnell. That reduces the pool to 44. Trish Godman as Deputy Presiding Officer is also ruled out. That's 43. Rhona Brankin has just stood down citing family reasons, so that's 42. Hugh Henry and Irene Oldfather are Conveners of key Committees - Public Audit and the European and External Relations Committees respectively, though that doesn't preclude Public Petitions Committee Convener Frank McAveety from being a frontbencher - so that's 40. Malcolm Chisholm has been pretty much blackballed since speaking out in favour of Kenny MacAskill over Lockerbie so that's 39. Margaret Curran wants to go to the House of Commons while George Foulkes is already in the House of Lords so that's 37. Duncan McNeil is Convener of the SPLP so a frontbench portfolio is probably out of the question, even though a Committee Convenership isn't. That's 36. Ill health precludes the possibility of Peter Peacock returning to the front bench, and that's probably true of Elaine Smith as well. That leaves just 34. So I can only imagine that Bill Butler, Helen Eadie, Patricia Ferguson, Marlyn Glen and Marilyn Livingstone are somewhat put out. And even then, at least Patricia Ferguson used to be a Minister and Marilyn Livingsone was the first SPLP Convener. That leaves just three figures - Butler, Eadie and Glen - out in the void.

That's the only thing we can tell: efficiency is supposed to be Labour's big thing but their team is far too large, covering more than half of the Parliamentary group and only a small handful of members with neither a position nor an obvious reason not to have one. It's also ridiculously sized when you realise that the smaller parties cope well enough with their 16 members apiece and the SNP produced a credible alternative government-in-waiting (we know this because it is no longer waiting) with just over half the number of MSPs available to Labour.

It's also particularly barking mad when you realise that the SNP have just one MSP more than Labour, have the 13 Parliamentary Liaison Officer posts to fill in addition to 16 Ministers, three Whips, a DPO, a number of Committee Conveners and a member of the SPCB, have three former Ministers on their benches but have seven MSPs - two more than Labour - on what could be called the waiting list.

The oversized Labour frontbench means that even if Iain Gray wanted to bring in new talent, there isn't any available to him as the people he does have are already in position. Perversely, therefore, he has to cut the number of posts and await the election. And of course, the fact that not all of these people will get something should he get to name a Government means that while he might be trying (and able) to please everyone now, sooner or later, he's going to have to piss someone off and he's leaving it too late. He's just deferring slightly awkward personnel decisions - which begs the question of how he'll handle the more important matters. Perhaps he should keep using the subjunctive to describe how he'd behave if he were FM.

Mev, p'tahk!

Well, this has got me off my sick bed: nominations for the Glasgow NE By-Election have closed and we have learned that Mev Brown is on the candidates' list. Here's his political CV up to now:

5 May 2005 - Westminster Election. Tory Candidate in Edinburgh East. He came fourth out of eight, with 4,093 votes (10.31%).

29 September 2005 - Livingston By-Election. Independent candidate. He came eighth out of ten, with 108 votes (0.37%).

10 November 2005 - Murrayfield By-Election (City of Edinburgh Council). UKIP candidate. He came eighth out of eight, behind even the Liberal candidate - and I mean Liberal Party candidate , as they had a candidate besides the LibDem - with just four votes (0.2%)

27 April 2006 - Moray By-Election. NHSFirst candidate. He came fifth out of fifth with a slightly more respectable 493 (1.8%) votes.

3 May 2007 - Holyrood Election. #1 on the NHS First List - having agreed an electoral tie-up with Scottish Voice which saw him drop his plan to stand in Lothian. They came thirteenth out of sixteen, with 1,955 votes (0.69%). He also stood in Airdrie & Shotts, where he came fifth out of five with 970 votes (3.57%).

4 June 2009 - European Election. #3 on the Jury Team List in Scotland. They came thirteenth out of thirteen with 6,257 votes (0.57%).

And that list doesn't convey the alleged attempted hook-up with the SSCUP (they knocked him back), his intervention on the scotsman.com comments section, his presence on policing forums asking for policies, the presence of his party mildly pissing off a genuine health campaigner whose candidacy for Coatbridge had been declared about a year in advance of the election, and two differing biography pages on his websites.

So with the Jury Team backing John Smeaton this time, Mev begins another stage in his quixotic journey through the footnotes of electoral history.

Incidentally, mev is Klingon for 'stop'. I'm not sure whether I want him to or not...

My tupp'orth on the BNP

Let me begin this post by saying that I rarely watch Question Time. I don't find anything out from it that I can't find out from the blogosphere, which, frankly, tends to put things far better. Spending an hour listening to politicians ignore questions from a studio audience and basically say what they were going to anyway - and have said often enough beforehand - is, quite frankly, some distance down my list of fun ways to spend a Thursday night in. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if the choice were between gouging my own eyes out with a pair of matchsticks and watching QT, I'd ask whether the matchsticks were lit or not. So it was mostly out of morbid curiosity that I tuned in on Thursday night.

I needn't have bothered.

And the reason for that is that we didn't learn anything that we didn't otherwise know. The other parties hate the BNP. We knew this. Were one to analyse Nick Griffin's demeanour and opinions, one would conclude that he is the result of some sort of genetic splicing experiment involving the DNA of Adolf Hitler and Richard Nixon. With maybe some Richard Littlejohn and Jeremy Clarkson thrown in just for the hell of it. Again, nothing new there.

Besides, looking at the reaction, it seems as though everyone saw what they wanted to see. Those already hostile to him saw a fascist bully out of his comfort zone, weakened by his smarter opponents (this was definitely true whenever Bonnie Greer spoke). Those already sympathetic saw a man victimised by the rest of the studio, David Dimbleby et al representing an Establishment bent on suppressing him. Those few undecideds saw a bunch of politicians squabbling and Griffin failing miserably to deal with any question put. Certainly the guys in my local, who you'd think would be the kind of people Griffin would speak to, were not impressed.

But for me, the rest of the panel, in their urge to kick the shit out of Griffin, missed the killer blow. He referred to a poll which suggested that three quarters of the public agree with the BNP's stance on immigration. Bonnie Greer snorted with derision, but no one thought to ask the question that would have felled him:

If so many people agree with you on immigration, why aren't you in Downing Street already?

And of course, none of the answers to that are good for Nick Griffin. Barring any paranoid rants about media suppression, there are three possible responses: first, the poll is bogus; second, there's about 70% of the population who might well agree with the BNP but find the whole party package so repugnant that they won't actually vote for it; third, that many people may well be unhappy about immigration, but to put it bluntly, they don't actually care that much in the grand scheme of things as they have other, more practical, more immediate things to worry about.

Those possibilities need not be mutually exclusive, but I suspect that Griffin himself will probably own up to the third, and possibly, to some degree, the second, given how much time he spent trying to assure us that because of him, the BNP was almost respectable. Of course, respectable parties don't get people frothing at the mouth to the extent that they're willing to riot outside a television station that invites them before the cameras, but that's by the by.

No, the BNP's speciality is going into communities that have been left behind, taken for granted by the other parties and left basically to rot, cut off from the main centres of power and left to feel that any vote is a wasted vote. So when the BNP come in, like the proverbial new broom, of course they're going to get noticed by people who, frankly, haven't been noticed by anyone else in years.

And I should know about that frustration: I spent a large chunk of my childhood on one of those council estates that had basically been left to fall apart. The sort of place where the BNP could very easily sneak in.

Except, at that time certainly, and even today, the BNP couldn't gain much traction as there was no immigrant community to play the locals off against. I must have been seven before I actually met someone who wasn't white.

That was Mr. Singh, who my Dad found a job with at the time. And unlike his previous job - where when the boss finally did get round to paying him, the wages consisted of a chicken breast, three tins of beans and a pair of size 10 boots - Dad actually brought cash money home from it. But he wasn't just treated like he'd joined Mr. Singh's business. No, we were all treated like we'd joined his family. My parents got an invite to his daughter's wedding; when Dad called to see him, I went too, and I'd be invited into the house and play with his younger kids, who were about my age.

So you can give me Mr. Singh's enterprise and hospitality over Griffin's vile scapegoating any day of the year.

But my point is this: the immigrant, ethnic minority population were a lifeline for my family, not a drain. Immigration and ethnic minorities had nothing to do with the grim situation we found ourselves in beforehand - and that's doubtless true of the communities where the BNP have been successful as well: the problems people face will go back decades and will now be shared by the same people that the BNP vilify.

That's the truth that the BNP don't want you to hear. The problems that those potential BNP voters face existed long before any wave of immigration, and they won't be solved by any wave of deportation either. The BNP's core principles won't make anyone's lives any better. And they know it just as well as anyone.

Which is why they concentrate on the broken fences, the burnt-out street lights, the pot holes, the litter and the dog shit. And before you know it, you've actually voted for them not because you're racist or because you fear immigration but because they're the only people who've ever done anything useful for you.

The moral of this post is this: QT didn't legitimise Nick Griffin or his viewpoints. If that's been done at all, it's been done by the thousands of people who have voted BNP. He's spent a week in the media spotlight, facing all sorts of criticism and responding with a melange of evasion and paranoia. He wanted to talk about the issues of the day on television (is racism not an issue of the day?), but even if he had, would his performance have assured people that he and his party could be trusted to sort out the postal strike, or get the economy out of recession. Judging by the fact that he's spent his week in the sun ranting about Churchill and re-writing the history books, I'd say he couldn't get the economy out of a paper bag.

But just as I don't trust him to sort out the problems I see, so those who voted BNP don't trust the other parties to sort out their problems. And that's the real nut to crack. You don't fight fascism by storming television stations that broadcast views you don't agree with (as Orwell might have said, the viewers looked from UAF to the BNP, from the BNP to UAF, and from UAF to the BNP again, but already it was impossible to tell which was which). You don't respond to fascist parties by sending bovver boys to break up their events - if you do that, you've sunk to their level and they have won.

You don't win the argument against them by flouncing off the stage either. As always, it's positive messages that win out, and in this case, real actions. If mainstream parties want to get these people who've voted BNP back, they need to treat them like mainstream communities, and deliver actual, concrete positive change to their lives in the way that they haven't done before.

Blanking the BNP hasn't worked - they've got enough elected officials to prove that. Screaming at them hasn't worked. Debating them can at least stop the rot, and show people that whoever does have the answers, the BNP certainly do not. But if you really want to beat the BNP, you do it by going directly to the people, and taking steps to make their lives better. We can all stand here and preach moral superiority all we want but if we've allowed whole communities to fall by the wayside, then we have no moral high ground at all as our action (or rather, inaction) has caused such suffering and desperation that people now turn to the likes of Nick Griffin.

And the longer we leave it, the longer we spend whinging about the BNP rather than actually tackling the poverty and frustrations of people who've been left on the margins, the harder it'll be to win them over, and the more embedded the BNP will become.

The reality is that the BNP will never offer solutions to people's actual problems. The mainstream parties can, but they have to start doing so. That's how we beat them.

In which Yousuf has a hissy fit

And I don't ever want to hear people like Will or others complain that Labour are negative when their campaign strategy has no positive reason to vote SNP at all.

Thus spake Yousuf Hamid, Labour activist, general good egg, and usually quite smart. Smarter than this, anyway.

Because here's the thing, as his party colleague Kez Dugdale said this week:

In fact, most of the leaflet is spent defending the SNP Government - talking about their justice and policing policies.

So in his rush for the high horse, Yousuf clearly hasn't been paying attention to what's actually going on around him. And the mad part is this: the SNP have been in Government for two and a half years - a full decade less than Labour - and yet has a record it feels confident that it can stand on. Indeed, the press release unveiling David Kerr is pretty positive in tone. So if Yousuf wants a positive reason to vote SNP, here's one of many: SNP MPs will do whatever they can to prevent any Government of any hue cutting the Scottish Budget and putting those benefits and that progress at risk. Labour - and Tory - MPs will spend this Parliament and the next one attempting to explain why their ham-fisted economic policies and scramble to defend bankers should jeopardise measures designed to ease the lives of ordinary, hard-pressed men, women and children.

But Labour are reduced to defending the indefensible and waving the Tory stick about. My, how Yousuf has grasped it!

Of course, if Labour's record were that good, we'd be hearing all about it, I'm sure. If what Yousuf says about the SNP not offering positive reasons to vote were right, there wouldn't be people in Glasgow North East - like the first voter David Kerr spoke to on the campaign trail - who have decided to vote for the SNP for the first time next month.

Instead, we have that old chestnut: "Vote SNP, Get Tory". It's nothing less than a lie: this is a By-Election and the loss of Glasgow North East will not even cost Gordon Brown his majority, let alone put David Cameron into Downing Street. The only David that could gain from an SNP vote is David Kerr. I assume that Yousuf knows this, but has chosen to peddle the fib anyway.

And of course, this leaflet comes in the week when the SNP announce a plan to reverse one of the Tories' most devastating policies - which Labour did nothing to counter-act - in Right to Buy: a savage embodiment of the "Me first!" culture that Thatcher promoted, in which people who benefited from affordable, social housing have been permitted to snatch that right away from others who might need it, increasing the snobbish stigma around rented properties, making affordable housing for others harder to get, and forcing them to take their chances in the private sector. Getting rid of that disgusting pillar of the Society of the Self is the single most progressive thing to happen in any part of the UK since the creation of the National Health Service. And it's been done by an SNP Government.

So when Yousuf whines that protecting affordable social housing isn't progressive - he's wrong.

When he says that a vote for David Kerr is a vote for David Cameron - he's wrong.

When he says that the SNP offer no positive reason to vote for them - he's wrong.

When he says that it's perfectly all right for Labour (and himself) to mislead people in their campaign of spite and negativity, as opposed to offering a defence of their twelve years in office, or some sort of hope for the future - he's wrong.

And if he thinks that Labour losing votes, losing seats and losing power is the fault of anyone other than the Labour Party, for taking so many people for granted and letting so many people down, people that Labour was founded to look out for - then he is very much wrong!

And with all that misinformation, this high horse that he's found? Well, it turns out it's an ass.