Mike Robb's Politics

The Question Question

2012-01-23T20:28:00.001Z

Whether we like it or not, the independence referendum will dominate political debate in Scotland until the question is settled.

Just when we should be focussed on growing the economy, protecting jobs and creating opportunity for our young people, the SNP will ensure the next 24 months are all about the politics of conflict and separation.

So if we are going to have one (a referendum) we should make sure we get it right and settle the issue once and for all. What I want to see is a definitive mandate from the people of Scotland, which makes absolutely clear to the Scottish Government what they want.

There are all sorts of permutations of 2 or 3 questions which we can debate. The problem is agreeing the wording and then interpreting the outcomes. Based on current opinion polls, its likely that a 3-question referendum which posed the options of status quo, independence and “more devolution” would result in a majority for the last option. But that would allow the SNP to continue to pursue an independence agenda on the basis that the majority had not actually said “no”.

I’m pretty sure this is why Salmond keeps talking up the 3-question argument.

At the same time, a simple 2-question referendum, “status quo” or “independence” does not provide much of an option for the many people, like me, who want to see more economic and social levers brought under direct Scottish control. That vote – and it might be substantial – could split or abstain, with unpredictable results.

I was reminded last week, that the 1999 Devolution Referendum found a way round this kind of problem; the first question was about the principle of devolution (a straight yes or no) the second, which was only relevant if you answered “yes” to the first, asked whether you wanted additional powers to be devolved, in this case the 3p income tax variation.

So how about a two question referendum like this:

Question 1: do you want the Scottish Government to negotiate the separation of Scotland from the UK as an independent country (Yes or No)?

Question 2: if Scotland remains part of the UK, do you want the Scottish Government to negotiate the devolution of more economic and social powers to the Scottish Parliament (Yes or No)?

With this approach, we get a clear mandate for or against independence. No debate.

If there is a majority vote against independence, but for more powers – which is what I’ll campaign for - it gives the Scottish Government a mandate to negotiate that, but removes the option of independence as an eventual outcome. The political debate would then be about the economic, social and other policies which best suit Scotland without the emotional distraction of nationalism.

Such an outcome would nicely cook the SNP goose, just in time for the 2015 Westminster and 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. If you agree with me, how do we make it happen?

Envisioning Scotland

2011-11-10T23:29:00.000Z

The article below was originally posted on Labour Hame www.labourhame.com

Is it only me who is more and more frustrated by where we seem to be going?

The SNP won a huge vote of confidence from the Scottish electorate this year; confidence in their policies and confidence in their style of government. We are kidding ourselves if we think this was because Scottish Labour somehow “got it wrong” or that we lost just because we ran a poor campaign. We don’t have a natural right to represent the majority of Scottish voters. The sooner we start to recognise that the better.

That’s why I am frustrated by the current focus on leadership elections, organisation and party structures. Most of which means absolutely nothing to most Scots and, worst still, makes our grand but inward looking arguments seem ever more irrelevant to the lives and aspirations of ordinary people.

The SNP out spent, out organised and out campaigned us, and continue to do so. To deal with that, we need to do way more than just re-organise the constituency party deck chairs. We need a policy programme that enthuses people in Scotland about what Labour will do for them.

Whether we like it or not, we are heading towards an independence referendum. We need to work out what we want to achieve from that. Are we just about winning a majority “no” vote, or are we brave enough to use the coming debate to make the case for our own vision of a confident and self reliant 21st century Scotland? Do we think devolution has gone far enough or do we want to make a Labour case for more? If Scotland votes for independence, what will people want an Independent Scottish Labour Party to do for them?

For me, our current approach of coming up with ever more complex arguments of why independence won’t work is pointless. Finely put arguments about the costs of UK Defence, EU membership and who can best fund renewable energy investments will of course exercise the minds and blogs of the political classes. But they won’t change the mind of a single SNP supporter and risk coming across as endlessly negative to uncommitted voters who just want to see a positive future for themselves and their families. Ditto attacks on the personality and style of the SNP government.

Scottish Labour needs to develop its vision of a devolved, confident Scotland and make its case for a vote against independence with a positive alternative. An integrated part of the UK and Europe but with its own distinctive social and political culture which best reflects our mutual and cooperative traditions. Personally, I think we should be arguing the case for “devolution max” with left of centre policies that work in a Scottish context and are based on much more control of the economic levers. We need to recognise the strengths of being part of the UK, but not be afraid to argue for distinctive, Scottish politics. Politics that the rest of the UK might look at and say “can we have some of that too please”.

That’s all just a wee bit harder than agreeing to change CLP structures. But it’s what we need to do and it’s what I want to hear about from our leadership candidates.

On Greek Democracy

2011-11-03T17:01:00.000Z

My first reaction to George Papandreou’s call for a referendum in Greece on the EU “bailout” plan was “he’s lost it”. Waking up to the radio reports of chaos in the financial markets initially confirmed that view. But 24 hours later I’m starting to see where he is coming from.

Greece might just about be the first western democracy to put the decision about whether deficit cutting austerity programmes are the best strategy to lift us out of recession to a vote. To give ordinary people a chance to say what they think of policies that seem to more about bailing out reckless banks – who have caused most of the problems we are now encountering – at the expense of their jobs and living standards, instead of policies to stimulate real demand, growth and economic confidence.

Actually, how refreshing is that?

It might even start a trend. Who should be dictating how we live and prosper? The already financially secure - who seem too be leading so many western governmenst right now - and the money makers at the global financial institutions, or democratically elected governments with a mandate from their own people?

Of course, it might all just a be a high stakes bit of realpolitik to gain a few last minute concessions or railroad opponents in Greece behind the plan.................... Time will tell.

Transport Pricing & Payouts

2011-08-21T09:22:00.000+01:00

According to yesterday's Guardian, Stagecoach is about to pay out some £340m in dividends and share buybacks to its shareholders. Clearly a very profitable business, as are many of the other train and bus services providers. Given this scale of profit, why are these firm then proposing to raise rail fares by between 8% and 13% from next January? The government sets the pricing rules they will say. Which is true. And it is the government which gets the benefits of spending savings; it can reduce its subsidy to the same companies by an amount corresponding to the price rise. In theory, this makes funds available for rail infrastructure investment..
But if the bus & train firms are so profitable anyway, shouldn't we make them spend more of that profit on investments in infrastructure and improving services before paying out to shareholders?

Good News for Highland Coastal Communities

2011-07-22T13:53:00.000+01:00

Credit where credit is due. Today's announcement from George Osborne and Danny Alexander that a new development fund will be available to coastal communities around the UK, derived from Crown Estate revenues, is good news for the Highlands. As offshore wind and wave power develops, these communities will start to get some direct benefit.

From my political perspective, its frustrating that this welcome initiative has come from the Coalition and not as a result of Scottish Labour pushing the idea, as I argued in my blog last month. Ed Milliband and the shadow team are doing well at Westminster but we seem to be a policy & ideas free zone in Scotland at the moment. The sooner we get over the May elections, stop arguing about internal organisation, contracts and rulebooks, the better. We need to get back out there campaigning again.

What Hutton actually says.....

2011-06-30T22:13:00.000+01:00

Frances Maude, Danny Alexander and other Coalition ministers quote "former Labour Pension Secretary" Lord Hutton's report in every second sentence to justify the claim that public sector pensions are un-affordable. Unfortunately, they have clearly never read what Hutton actually says. Thanks to Mehdi Hassan in the New Statesman for this:

"One final point: can we, once and for all, nail the right-wing lie that public-sector pensions are "unaffordable"? The cost of public-sector pensions is set to fall in the coming decades. Don't believe me? The Hutton Report, commissioned by the coalition government and used by ministers as a justification for the "reforms" to pension contributions, states on page 22:
There have been significant reforms to the main public-service pension schemes over the last decade, including increased pension ages for new members and a change in the indexation of pensions from RPI to CPI indexation. Some of these changes have reduced projected benefit payments in the coming decades. For the interim report, the commission asked the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) to project future public-service pensions expenditure. It projected benefit payments to fall gradually to around 1.4 per cent of GDP in 2059-2060, after peaking at 1.9 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010-11.

But, as Jon Snow's interview with the Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, on Channel 4 News on Monday evening revealed, the government seems totally unaware of the contents of the report that it commissioned -- and that it now chooses to hide behind."

Pension Reforms

2011-06-22T19:09:00.003+01:00

There’s a lot more right than wrong in John Hutton’s wide ranging report into how we need to adjust our assumptions and expectations about state-provided pensions. Difficult though some of his conclusions are in terms of indexing, contributions and retirement ages, we are all living longer and we need to work through the implications of that.

Treasury provided pensions in the UK exist to fund two main groups; a basic level of retirement income for all of us through the state pension in its various forms and occupational pensions for public sector workers, from bin men and classroom assistants to school heads and NHS chief execs.

The principle since the post war social contract has been that the state pension is funded from NI contributions accrued by the Treasury. In contrast, public sector occupational pensions are funded through a mix of individual contributions and employer (central or local government) contributions paid into conventional pensions funds in much the same way as private sector pensions. These latter arrangements vary widely between different working groups. School teachers’ contribution and pension rules are very different from low paid council workers. Local government workers have a completely separate (and fully funded) scheme; civil servants are part of the overall Treasury fund.

So making changes to the system is complex and needs careful negotiation to get a the right balance of fairness between new and long standing public employees on the one hand and the wider tax paying public on the other. Negotiations which have been under way between the DWP and unions representing the main public sector workers groups for some time. Despite what the tabloids rant on about, the unions have always been ready to negotiate a long term solution.

Enter Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, with his speech to the IPPC last Friday. In a 20 minute, rapidly delivered monologue, Mr Alexander did huge damage to the chance of a negotiated settlement. A settlement that was there to be negotiated and which would have opened up long term solutions to the pension problem created by the success of the NHS and other social reforms in delivering a longer-living society. The Chief Secretary laid out exactly what the coalition intended to do effectively predetermining the outcome and making the negotiation sessions still to come this week and next meaningless at best. Now Hutton himself has warned that the coalitions approach risks driving many public sector workers out of the schemes altogether.

Why did he do it? He’s been closely involved in the negotiations, so I hope it wasn’t political naivety.

So was it deliberate? A tactic in an overall strategy to provoke the public sector unions into strikes and other protests that would allow the coalition to blame the unions for undermining the economic recovery, neatly getting him and Osborne off the hook for car-crashing growth? Only this week, ONS figures highlight the growing gap between government rhetoric on spending cuts and the actual level of government borrowing.

Working out a fair, long term solution for public sector pensions needs serious – and non party political –engagement between the government and the different public sector groups affected. Its too important to be rushed, or conducted by public posturing. Danny made a well reasoned case for change in this week’s Inverness Courier. Why do his actions in London seem driven by a very different agenda?

New Ideas for Scottish Labour....

2011-06-05T21:48:00.000+01:00

In my last post, I argued that Scottish Labour needed to start developing policies which would fit with a distinctive Scottish agenda, but which also needed to reflect economic and social needs in different parts of the country. Here’s a first example of what I mean.

Like many Labour politicians, I’ve long argued the need for link “green“ investments to the creation of real jobs and other economic infrastructure. This wont just happen, it needs government policy, planning and pump-priming. The Highlands are at the centre of developments in off-shore wind and wave power but how do we ensure that benefits don’t just go to the developers, manufacturers elsewhere or specific communities – welcome though that would be locally - but are shared across the whole area?

The Crown Estate Commission (CEC) owns the rights to developments on the seabed for up to 12 miles offshore. In recent years, the CEC has used that right to levy charges on businesses operating offshore, first on major fishing companies and now on the offshore wind and wave developers, most of whom are operating on sea-beds off the Highland coastline. The potential revenues are growing rapidly as the scale of offshore development ramps up.

At present, all that money goes to the UK Treasury.

Highland Council, HIE and others have long argued that a slice of this revenue should be earmarked for economic and social development in the Highlands and Islands, in the same way as the Shetland Oil Fund was used back in the 1970s.

The LibDems used to support just such a policy but seem to have abandoned it now. No doubt vetoed by Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander as part of the same deal which saw the LibDems sell out on Student Fees, VAT and the Cuts. The SNP want all the CEC’s powers and revenues transferred to Scottish Control. There’s a strong case for that, but there need to be assurances about how such powers will be used to benefit specific regions and not just fund favoured projects elsewhere.

We promised a Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner in our 2011 Scottish Manifesto. Should Scottish Labour seize the initiative and make the case for a Highlands Renewables Fund - kick-started from a share of CEC Revenues – which could be used to benefit the region socially and economically?

Where Next for Scottish Labour?

2011-05-13T18:26:00.005+01:00

Team Labour in Culloden

There are a lot of things you can say about last week’s election results in Scotland.

The SNP played a blinder and picked up support from a swathe of Scottish voters that crossed class, geography and traditional party allegiances. The LibDems were punished for joining so enthusiastically with the Tories, breaking promises on cuts, VAT and Student Fees in exchange for a share of power.

Scottish Labour mainly kept its share of the vote (we actually increased it in Inverness & Nairn), but lost seat after seat to the SNP as voters turned to Alex Salmond and his well respected team in even bigger numbers.

I’m not going to fall into the easy trap of blogging away about what Labour got wrong and why. I’ll leave that to others if they want to. I want to talk about what Labour needs to do about it.

There are four things I think Scottish Labour needs to do.

we need to elect a leader with ideas based on modern Labour values but who can appeal to a broad range of voters. A leader who can enthuse the party faithful but who ordinary people can relate to when they perform in Holyrood, on TV or in a community meeting. A leader who can build a team around him or her whose collective ability, vision and values will generate trust and confidence in Labour again

if we are serious about devolution, we need a Scottish Labour Party which is firmly part of the UK Labour movement but which can think, develop policy and campaign independently and in directions which reflect the specific social and political environment of Scotland. A federal approach if you like. And that applies across the country as well. What works for Glasgow or Edinburgh might need a different approach in the Highlands or North East. Scottish Labour needs to stop controlling and start devolving
above all we need to talk a lot more about our political values in ways that appeal to wider cross-sections of supporters. When we talk about fairness, equal opportunity and social justice, we need to do it in ways which make sense to the lives of people in Craigmillar and Culloden as well as in Clydebank. When we get asked “what will you do for me” we need to be able to answer that with policies and ideas which the majority of Scots relate to and trust
finally, we need a professional team at John Smith House(Labour HQ in Scotland for those outside the bubble) who can plan and run campaigns effectively and drive a media agenda whilst engaging with (that means listening) and enthusing party activists across the country.

None of the above will be easy. But the sooner we start looking forward and talking positively about what we need to do, the sooner we will return to being a political party that people in Scotland trust to stand up for them again.

For myself, I’m looking forward to helping make that happen.

Yes to AV

2011-03-31T19:21:00.002+01:00

Deciding how to vote in the AV referendum on 5th May has been a challenge.

Those of you who know me as a long standing supporter of proportional representation may be surprised by that. What’s complicated my thinking is the limited “proportional” nature of AV and its significance as a key plank underpinning the Tory-LibDem coalition. Its awfully tempting to vote NO to make political life even worse for Clegg and the LibDems (whilst they make real life worse for most of us).

In the end , however, AV, for all its limitations is a change to the voting system which may just help to restore a little bit of the public trust in our political system. A change that makes it looks less like MPs are trying to protect their own interests by keeping the system as it is. Unfair though that charge may be, that’s how a lot of people see it. And if that results in more people coming out to vote then that must be a good thing. A step in the right direction is better than no step at all.

AV has the potential to build a progressive, centre-left political majority at Westminster. The Tories oppose it for just that reason. Another good thing about it then.

Whilst I’m campaigning to elect Dave Stewart as MSP for Inverness & Nairn, there will be much more important issues to discuss. But on this one I’m clear.

Its time to say YES to AV.

EMA Cuts Tell Us All We Need to Know

2010-12-13T21:31:00.000Z

EMA (Education Maintenance Allowances) don't apply in Scotland.

In England, it gives up to £30 a week to 16-18 year olds from low income families attending further education courses. A Labour Policy, its about paying for kids books, travel and subsistence. To make getting a higher qualification just a bit easier.

Today, the Coalition cut it.

The same week as they are saying its OK for students to build up £36,000 of debt for a four year degree, they pull away the step ladder for the rest. £30 a week really matters, when your folks' can't pay.

Tells us all we need to know about the real agenda.

Cameron and Clegg both come from a highly privileged background. Its showing...

Some Economic Facts & Figures

2010-12-08T21:37:00.000Z

The rightful hiatus over student fees has rather obscured some startling detail in last weeks report from the Coalition's very own Office of Budget Responsibility, the OBR.

Thanks to the New Statesman for highlighting the following:

economic growth will be higher than forecast this year (at 1.8% rather than 1.2%). Impressive in the first 12 months after a savage recession. Since there is an accepted lag between policy and effect, this is mostly due to Alistair Darling's fiscal stimulus
growth next year and the year after has been revised down to 2.1% and 2.6% respectively. Slower growth predicted as a result of Osborne economics.....
whilst there is predicted drop in public sector job cuts from 490,000 to 330,000 this is based on a rapidly expanding private sector creating nearly £2m jobs. Douglas Alexander has noted that in the last post recession period (1993-1996), the private sector struggled to create just 300,000 jobs
by 2015, we are predicted to have a budget SURPLUS of £6bn. Good housekeeping, but why on earth is there a need, therefore, to cut £7bn from university funding over the same period? A cut that is the direct cause of the need to raise tuition fees. I say again that its about idealogy not economics.

Britain already spends less as a percentage of its GDP on higher education than the rest of Europe (0.7% compared to 1.2% in France, 1.4% in Sweden, 0.9% in Germany) so this has to be about a deliberate policy to shift higher education funding from the state to the individual. They are creating a market in education, along the lines of the US model. Equal access for all will suffer as a result.

All useful facts to have at your fingertips when (a) there is no alternative or (b) its all Labour's fault are being advanced as the reason for every coalition policy......

Conspiracy theorists will say letting the LibDems cop the flack for a week is rather a good diversionary tactic from some pretty bad economic news. Another answer to what the LibDems are for!

Cameron is Wrong on Student Fees

2010-11-30T21:16:00.000Z

In London on business tonight, which always gives a different perspective on UK politics than from just the domestic Scottish view.

Lead article by David Cameron in the Evening Standard makes the case for the Coalition’s university fee plans. “Before Protesting, Students need to get the Facts Straight”. He makes three main points; university funding can’t escape the cuts, universities need decent funding to excel and it’s all very fair because most graduates will pay less per month than now.

He is wrong in the detail as well as the principle.

Cameron states that the public “subsidy” to further education is £5bn per year and that we can’t afford it. That’s a big number but I actually though it would be more. It’s less, for example, than the £6bn corporation tax bill that Vodafone has (allegedly and legally) avoided. This is long term investment to create growth and wealth in our economy.

He argues that reform to university funding is needed to maintain a world class education system. Then gives the game away by suggesting this will come from students deciding where to “spend” their fees and so drive up standards. Market economics in further education. Kind of assumes you can afford the fees in the first place, doesn’t it David? Which I suppose feels natural if you come from your own and George Osborne’s background.

Finally he rests his case on fairness. The higher threshold will mean, he writes, that most students will repay less each month than now. Probably true, but they will go on paying for longer and the higher interest rates mean they will pay a lot more in total. Unless, of course, you are well enough off to pay the loan off early.

This is all about shifting the cost of higher education onto individual students and nothing to do with fairness.

I oppose student fees because I think they are unfair. Further education should be a right open to all and not constrained by fear of future debt. Nor should students be choosing which universities to attend based on how much they can afford to repay. Our whole society benefits from well educated graduates entering the workplace and those that go onto to earn high salaries will pay handsomely through general taxation.

In Scotland we seem to have an all party consensus on a “no fees” approach. I hope it continues.

I could – just – be persuaded down the route of a Graduate Tax. Though I see many issues with it.

Loading students with individual fees - the scale of which depends on which institution they aspire to study at - is something I will never support.

Broken Pledges (No 1 in a series...)

2010-11-07T18:30:00.001Z

Text of my letter to the Inverness Courier (which they so far have not published) asking Danny Alexander to explian why he has broken his own and his party's pledge on Student Fees

Dear Sir

With the party conference season behind us, its time to start looking at the reality of the new Government’s policies rather than listening to the sound-bites.

A promise not to raise Student Fees was a key commitment by the LibDems during the election campaign, back in May. Here in Inverness, Mr Alexander made much of that promise at the Student Hustings and challenged myself and other candidates on the issue. I made clear that I would not vote to support an increase in fees and signed the NUS Pledge. So did Danny Alexander, as reported in the Courier at the time.

What a difference six months in power makes. Now it looks like the LibDems are going to tear up their commitment and support open-ended rises in fees at universities and colleges in England to a level which will put a huge burden of debt on future graduates. How many bright school leavers from ordinary families will now think twice about going on to university, scared by the level of debt they will run up. Increasingly, will it only be kids from well off families that can afford it? What’s fair about that?

Despite the different arrangements here, Scotland is not immune from changes to university fees and funding in England. A two-thirds cut to the teaching grant paid by the Treasury to English universities, has a massive knock-on effect in Scotland, via the Barnett Formula, to the tune of as much as £400 million. It will put huge pressure on the system here, whilst higher fees will discourage Scots students from applying to English universities.

Many people who trusted the LibDems on Student Fees will want to hear from Mr Alexander how he can justify breaking such a key pledge. Perhaps the Courier could facilitate that debate?

Your Sincerely

Why Language Matters

2010-10-31T22:06:00.002Z

Language matters. I don't agree with the way Harriet Harman talked about Danny Alexander at my party's conference this weekend.  Just as I think Boris Johnston was wrong to bring Kosovo into the debate about the effect of the Coalition's housing policies on London.

Some language is just wrong in principle. But often its wrong-headed because it distracts from the real issues.

In London, we should be talking about the the impact of an ideologically driven policy on thousands of families trying to make a life for themselves in a vibrant, multi-cultural city. The combined effect of Housing Benefit caps and cuts, combined with the development of a "social "housing sector based on near market level rents will drive the unemployed and those on low wages out of high-rent areas like central London.  We will see the same effects in any area where demand for rented housing keeps local rents high, as Housing Benefit is tied to local averages, not a single national figure.

And in the Highlands, the debate should be about the politics of the man who has designed a programme of savage cuts of a depth and speed he spoke out against during the election. Who spoke out against the idea of raising VAT because of its impact on the poorest in our society - but who now presides over a rise to 20% from January. Who made a lot of noise about local post offices closing, but who now sits side by side with his new political friends who have just voted to privatise the Royal Mail.

Language matters, but its what you do that counts.

Why Osborne is just Wrong!

2010-10-07T23:12:00.002+01:00

In speech after speech at their Conference in Birmingham, the Tories argued that the coming programme of savage cuts in public spending is the only way. Its all Labour’s fault. A result of years and years of profligate spending . Labour’s fault for deciding to increase the deficit, and bail out the banks. Labour's fault for cutting VAT and boosting public spending as the recession hit.

“…. because of the problem left by the previous government……” seems to be a mandatory part of every Coalition politician’s speech.

Labour politicians, not bankers, are responsible. Public sector workers and families with children across the country now need to pay the price. There is no choice. It’s the only way to keep the financial markets happy (and profitable).

What rubbish.

Yes, Labour spent money to invest in public services, like the NHS and the New Deal. But it mainly raised taxes to pay for it; the Windfall Tax on Utilities, National Insurance rises. Remember all the Tory complaints about “stealth taxes”? Tax income rose steadily on the back of economic growth.

When the global banking crisis hit in 2008, the UK had low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and the lowest net debt of any G7 economy.

In 2008, the Labour Government had to make the critical decisions on how to respond to the global financial crisis caused the big US and UK banks. We pumped money into the banks and the wider economy to protect jobs, support household finances and keep the small business economy working. Yes, a huge programme of public spending but it worked, avoiding a total collapse in our economy. Our approach was commended and then replicated by Governments around the world.

That’s where our huge spending deficit comes from.

Of course, we need to reduce that deficit, but we need to do it through a fair and long term programme which balances income from economic growth and taxation with reduced spending.

And for me “fairness” is making sure that financial speculators, investment bankers and tax avoiders pay their share before we start putting the burden on working class families with “too many” kids.

The lessons from history are stark. In 1925, 1931 and 1980, governments told us there was no alternative to massive cuts in public spending. The markets demanded it, to restore “confidence”. Recession, devastation for individual families and huge social unrest followed every time.

George Osborne, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are taking us down the same road again.

To quote from Ed Ball’s excellent Bloomberg speech back in August:

“For all George Osborne’s talk of ‘deficit-deniers’ – where is the real denial in British politics at the moment? We have a Chancellor who believes that he can slash public spending, raise VAT and cut benefits – he can take billions out of the economy and billions more out of people’s pockets, he can directly cut thousands of public sector jobs and private sector contracts, and none of this will have any impact on unemployment or growth. Against all the evidence, both contemporary and historical, he argues the private sector will somehow rush to fill the void left by government and consumer spending, and become the driver of jobs and growth.
This is ‘growth-denial’ on a grand scale. It has about as much economic credibility as a Pyramid Scheme.”

Time to put the record straight. Step up Ed Milliband.

Rural Broadband, Rural Health

2010-10-01T21:59:00.000+01:00

I’ve posted before on the issues surrounding access to decent quality broadband services in the Highlands.

What I learned today added a whole new dimension.

I was in Inverness on business today, attending an HIE conference on Digital Healthcare and how it supports the emerging P4 strategy for service delivery – Predictive, Preventative, Personalised, Participatory.

Speakers – clinicians, academic researchers, technologists – all described what is possible in terms of delivering the P4 strategy in rural communities. The essence of which is that instead of requiring people to travel to a GP or major health centre for “treatment”, they can take responsibility for their own health by being able to access information, diagnostics, services and on-line communities. The potential benefits - in terms of quality of healthcare outcomes and cost-effective service delivery - are immense.

The Murray Community Healthcare Partnership is already piloting these ideas with the Health E-care Portal and the Dot Rural project. In Inverness, UHI and the Centre for Health Science are involved in world class research and development around the concept.

In the workshops, however, it was clear how big a barrier the rural broadband issue is. If people and communities don’t have decent internet access, they can't exploit such services. And what really surprised me was how vocal the delegates were about why this was a POLITICAL issue that the Scottish Parliament must address.

Decent broadband services in the islands and other rural areas aren’t just about on-line shopping. They are fundamental to achieving excellence in health outcomes in a cost effective way.

Labour’s Digital Britain Strategy points the way.

The Scottish Government needs to make it happen.

With friends like this......

2010-09-18T09:26:00.001+01:00

So, George Osborne is Danny Alexander's best new friend according to his extraordinary interview in today's Scotsman.

This is the same George Osborne who is planning to slash benefits for the most vulnerable in our society by at least £4bn. And that's on top of the massive cuts to other public service budgets to be announced next month plus the VAT rise in January which every ecomomic commentator agrees will hit the poorest hardest.

I challenged Danny about the VAT rise when he spoke at the recent Inverness Chamber of Commerce Lunch. He agreed with me that the rise in VAT was a "political" rather than an economic decision. Now in today's interview, the No 2 at the Treasury goes on the suggest that benefits cuts of even more than £4bn are being considered. That seems to me to be all about an increasingly right wing political agenda and nothing about fairness. Keeping your new friends happy?

The LibDems fairness agenda now seems nothing more than words on an election leaflet. Actions speak louder than words indeed.

If I was a LibDem I'd be choosing my friends a bit more carefully.

Judge us in five years time says Mr Alexander.

We will.

Time for a Change

2010-09-08T07:33:00.000+01:00

I voted on line in the Labour Leadership election last night. It’s taken me a long time during this election process to work out who the right candidate is and who I will support.

From the start, I wanted to support a leader who could get Labour back into power. Not just someone I would vote for, but someone who could earn the trust and votes of the many left and liberal leaning friends and colleagues I meet as I work and travel up and down the country.

I also wanted to support someone who shared my political values, promoted (at least some of) the policies I believed and would allow ordinary party members to feel that it was once again worth being part of a political movement. That membership mattered.

I’ve enjoyed watching and listening to Ed Balls as he has ripped into the Coalition over schools and the economy. He speaks with real authority and knowledge on both subjects. I hope he has a key role to play in our fight pack to power.

But Ed Miliband gets my vote for Leader. The Living Wage is a key policy and it’s something I have long thought is vital to fairness in our society. His views on the need to invest in the green economy and industries of the future sit comfortably with me. He has gone further to say that Iraq was wrong than his brother and I hope he will eventually stand up and say no to Trident. I trust his instincts and commitment on Climate Change.

I first heard Ed speak at conference in Manchester in 2007. He is no Obama, but he has a powerful ability to enthuse, empathise and inspire, all qualities which will build voter support. He is, I am convinced, a team builder, who will assemble a powerful shadow cabinet with the intellect, passion and moral conviction to take on the Coalition and win the argument on the economy, the recovery and the other great issues we face. A shadow cabinet that will focus on the job of winning again, rather than faction fighting around yesterday’s issues.

All of this has to be combined with a determination to take Labour in a fresh direction – radical, democratic, more openly socialist – that will establish a new left of centre politics. A new political “common ground” around which our communities can engage and develop. We also need to re-engage not just with the public but our own membership. Ed doesn’t just recognise the need to do this, from what I have read and heard, he means it.

Ed Miliband talks powerfully about the need for change. I’m trusting him to deliver.

Rural Fuel Prices

2010-08-24T22:04:00.000+01:00

The Highland LibDems - and Danny Alexander in particular - after all the noise they made about reducing rural fuel prices during the election, have a lot of explaining to do.

The Herald has predicted fuel prices in the Highlands could soar to 136p per litre from January as a result of the proposed hike in VAT to 20% on top of the already planned fuel duty increases. See here.

VAT rises always hit the poorest hardest, so what exactly is "fair" about this, Danny?

Blairs Millions

2010-08-18T21:48:00.002+01:00

Whatever money the British Legion gets from Tony Blairs book profits will be well used and appreciated by those that benefit from it.

I am not going to get into his motives. That's for him to deal with. But the torch shone on his financial affairs as a result reveals so much. The multi-million pound properties, the huge fees for speaking and advice to other governments, the estimated total wealth in 10s of £millions.

Criticising him for taking advantage of the opportunity to make that kind of wealth is difficult. How many of us would walk away?

But you can't operate in that world without losing touch with the world the rest of us live in.

For me, sadly, that explains a lot.

Benefits should define Labour

2010-08-10T21:46:00.002+01:00

An effective and enabling benefits system is for me a pillar of the kind of society I want to see.

There when you need it, supporting you and your family into work or education. Enabling you to develop to your full potential and play a part in your community whatever your personal challenges.

We need to drive cheats out of the system but above all we need to make it simpler. Recent estimates are that more than £3bn is wasted through errors and mistakes which dwarf the estimated loss of £1.5bn through deliberate fraud. Never mind the folk who don't get what they are entitled to because it's so daunting.

The Coalition seem determined to use benefit system reform as a blunt instrument to save money and drive people into low paid jobs. Incenting private companies like Experian to spy on our communities to achieve this is a shocking definition of "fairness".

But there is no point in Labour just criticising from the sidelines. We need to work out our own new ideas and reclaim the Benefit System for Labour in the same way as the NHS.

Coalition must not be allowed to re-write economic history!

2010-07-19T21:17:00.001+01:00

The constant repitition by LibDem and Tory ministers of their mantra that the coming savage cuts are all the result of "Labour's financial mess" risks becoming accepted wisdom if we don't start to counter it soon. Remember how the Winter of Discontentt came to represent all the reasons Thatcher got support for so long?

Excessive public spending didn't cause the credit crisis; what caused it was a massive over indulgence in credit by the private sector, led by bankers and financiers far more interested in personal wealth and power than stable banking. Labour - like every other government in the western world - had to pump £billions of public money into the banking system to stop it collapsing. Now ordinary people will pay a huge price in service cuts, lost jobs and a VAT hike that always hits the poorest, whilst the City gets back to "normal".

Coalition ministers tell us there is no choice but to make savage cuts in public spending, to appease the same financial markets which got us into this mess in the first place! But there is a choice if you want to make it.

What Cameron and Clegg are proposing is about idealogy. They want a smaller public sector and this is their great opportunity to do it.

Labour needs to get back on the front foot and stop the re-writing of economic history that is going on.

Which of our party leadership candidates will take up the challenge?

When Fairness Equals Savage Cuts

2010-07-07T22:38:00.002+01:00

Every LibDem candidate across the country campaigned on “fairness” during the Election.

Every letter and leaflet promised that the LibDems were the only party who would restore economic and social fairness. Locally, Danny Alexander promised fair taxes, a fairer economy – with investment in the Highlands in green energy , broadband and affordable house building - and a fair fuel deal for rural motorists.

Labour’s warning about LibDem plans for savage cuts in public spending were dismissed as scare mongering.

Two months on and the LibDems need to answer some questions.

How is it fair to raise the income tax threshold, then take it all away again for low income families by raising VAT and slashing tax credits?

Why is it now fair for public sector workers to take the pain, instead of the bankers and financiers you lambasted in all your election literature?

What’s happened to all the promises of reducing rural fuel costs? The VAT increase next January will put rural fuel prices up not down and a pilot scheme to reduce rural fuel prices seems to have been kicked into the coalition long grass. See Peter Peacock’s latest comments here.

Why is Danny Alexander leading the charge to cut not just 25% but as much as 40% from government budgets? The Barnet Formulae will bring that home to Scotland next year. If times are already tough for Highland Council he is about to make it a whole load worse.

Labour would have had to make some tough decisions about public spending, but our approach was to get the balance right between reducing spending and raising income from economic growth as we came steadily out of recession. We would have reduced the deficit by 50% by 2014 without any of the ideologically driven pain now driven by the Tories and signed up to by the LibDems.

How is all this “Standing up for the Highlands”, Danny?

The Real Tory Agenda

2010-06-08T21:30:00.000+01:00

When Conservative candidate Jim Ferguson stood up at the Kingussie Hustings and told the audience that the public sector “generated no value” he was regarded as a maverick speaking only for himself.

Now we know that his thinking was straight out of Conservative Central office.

Listening to David Cameron yesterday, speaking with scarcely concealed enthusiasm about the huge programme of cuts he is planning in public spending was chilling. Not because of the scale of the deficit – the numbers he quoted were all in Alastair Darling’s last budget report– but because of what it says about how the Tories view the public sector.

To listen to Cameron speak, you would think it was public sector workers who had caused the recession, soaking up wasteful government spending in well protected jobs, whilst the private sector withered away. The reality is that its only by keeping investment going into the public sector over the last two years that we have stopped a much worse recession; indeed the slow recovery we are now seeing – lower borrowing than predicted and lower unemployment – is probably a direct result of there still being public sector workers with jobs and therefore money to spend on their homes, consumer goods, holidays, services and all the other small economic activities that are the bedrock of our small business driven economy.

How many families have got through the past two years because at least one family member had a job in the NHS, their local council, school or a care provider? Investment in new schools and hospitals doesn’t just build smart new buildings, it employs people, experienced workers as well as apprentices.

Cut a 100,00 jobs out of the public sector – with the spending power that comes with that - and you risk plunging the private sector straight back into another recession.

Labour’s approach to rebuilding the public finances was about getting the balance right between growth and spending; stimulate the economy slowly and steadily and you eventually get higher revenues from income taxes and VAT, so you need to cut spending by much less.

What Cameron’s speech yesterday told us is that the real Tory agenda is still driven by their instinctive aversion to public services. They want a smaller public sector – full stop – and this is their magnificent opportunity to deliver it on the back of financial scaremongering, blaming it all on Labour (“a big boy did it and ran away”) and a corner shopkeepers’ approach to economic planning.

All helped of course, by LibDem willingness to wield the knife as the price for power. Danny Alexander seems to have gone very quiet all of a sudden........

A Bridge too far, Danny?

2010-05-30T23:35:00.001+01:00

When I said to comrades in Inverness last week that the real test of the new Coalition would come when it faced its first crisis, I didn't expect it to be upon us quite so quickly.

David Law, I think, has done the right thing but the elevation of Danny Alexander to be the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury must be a concern.

I don't know Danny personally, but I got to know him a little during the election campaign. I liked him as a person and he is obviously a capable politician, as his election result shows. Party politics aside, he did a good job during what must have been hugely tense and complex negotiations with the Tories to agree how they would share power. But I worry for him now.

Senior government responsibility is much like football management. Mostly, you need to put in the learning in the lower divisions in order to to be able to lead and deal with the pressure at the top. We now have the two most senior politicians in charge of shaping the economic destiny of this country both under 40 and with next to no real business or ministerial experience. Whilst I don't agree with their politics, David Law had years of experience in the City behind him and the Tories' Phillip Hammond a successful business career as well as shadowing the role for a long period. Was Vince Cable even asked, or did he not want to go there?

I notice also that none of the senior and experienced LibDems in Scotland seem to have been considered as the new Scottish Secretary. Or were they not interested?

I wonder whether the Tories are working to a very smart strategy which is to have a coalition partner in place, willing to make cuts in return for power and who can be an expendable target for the blame when the masses get difficult.

LibDems Sellout on Nuclear Power

2010-05-13T19:54:00.004+01:00

There were 5 Hustings during the election campaign in this constituency. At every single one Danny Alexander proudly promoted the LibDems opposition to new nuclear power stations and attacked me and the Labour Party for our stance (for the record I am "sceptical" about them, but won't rule them out).

A mere week after the election and the new Climate Change Secretary - Alexander's LibDem colleague Chris Huhne- has completely abandoned that pledge. See the Guardians report here.

Under the Coalition Agreement with the Tories the LibDems have agreed not to vote against plans for new nuclear power stations and will leave it to the market.

New politics or or just power at any price?

After the Election

2010-05-13T19:48:00.002+01:00

First and foremost, I’d like to thank the 10,407 voters in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey who trusted me – a first time candidate in the area - and the Labour Party with their vote. Its clear there is a very strong base of support in this constituency for Labour’s values and ambitions on which we can build for the future.

At least Labour voters knew what they were voting for.

I wonder how many LibDem voters are now questioning how their support for Danny Alexander has led directly to the return of a Tory Government and a coming programme of savage cuts which will devastate jobs and services in the Highlands. The Tories were a distant 4th in this constituency as they were across Scotland, but they are now about to dominate our lives, with the help of Mr Alexander and his LibDem colleagues.

Mr Alexander is now a leading light in a government whose coalition agreement spells out immediate and accelerated cuts to public spending, cuts to the Child Trust Fund and Child Tax Credits.

Mr Alexander also made much during his campaign of his party’s opposition to new nuclear power stations and the renewal of Trident. He attacked me on the hustings for my party’s position on these issues. Now he sits at the cabinet table with a party fiercely committed to both.

And in the Coalition Agreement published today there is no mention whatsoever of the Rural Fuel Duty Reduction which was such a key plank of Mr Alexander’s campaign.

In his last leaflet before Polling Day Mr Alexander claimed he “puts the Highlands first”.

We shall see how that claim stands up as he leads the Tory programme of savage cuts in Scotland.

My Manifesto for the Highlands

2010-04-23T19:39:00.006+01:00

Labour has now set out its plans and policies if it is elected to form the next government. Our national priorities are to re-build our economy, renew society and restore trust in our battered political system.

Here in the Highlands, my election campaign develops these ideas into five local priorities:

- protecting front line services – nurseries, community centres, day care – whilst we secure the recovery. Local jobs and services should not pay the price for bailing out the banks

- making the case for vital investments in the Highland economy; the Inverness City Bypass, better rail links south and east and high speed broadband

- radical action to build more affordable homes, to rent as well as buy

- being tough when we need to be on anti social behaviour to keep our communities safe

- action on fuel bills so we can all afford to keep warm in the winter, including home insulation schemes as well as a price regulator.

My campaign won’t be based on glitzy newsletters or high-tech media conferences. I’ll be out and about meeting as many local people as I can, on their doorsteps and in their communities. Old fashioned campaigning, but an effective way for people to judge and question me face to face and decide whether I am someone they can trust to represent them.

Most people I talk to worry about their jobs and their local services. Highland Council’s consultation on proposed areas for budget cuts is a big issue. I’ve already made clear my support for the Swimming Pool in Nairn and the six community centres in Inverness threatened with closure. We should not be pitching one community against another in this way. These are exactly the kind of front-line services we should be protecting. The cost-savings would be small compared to the damage to local communities. I’ll be fighting to save them.

Nairn Swimming Pool

2010-04-14T22:22:00.003+01:00

Since the start of the week, the local news has been dominated by Highland Council’s proposed programme of cuts to local services, including the Nairn Swimming Pool. There is a Facebook campaign to save the pool here.

As I have no direct connection with Nairn, I’ll avoid the easy option of signing up for the campaign as if the Nairn pool is a facility I have used and loved. I do however, fully support what local community campaigners are trying to achieve.

The Labour party is making the case at this election for protecting front-line services whilst we secure the recovery. That’s not easy, but local services, and the jobs that depend on them, should not be paying the price for the excesses of the banking system. And if a much-used local swimming pool is not a front line service, I don’t know what is!

I am hugely concerned about the consultation process currently being undertaken by Highland Council. We face difficult financial times, but asking communities to compete with each other about what services should be cut and which should be saved is not how I think things should be done.

Earlier this week I visited Hilton Community Centre, in Inverness, who are also on the list of potential closures. Should they have to argue why they should be saved rather than Nairn’s pool? Setting community against community is no way to do things. It’s an invidious process.

Elected politicians are there to make the difficult decisions, not absolve themselves through a flawed process of consultation.

Highland Council - like all Scottish council - is facing a truly difficult financial situation as a result of the tight budgets set by the Scottish Government.

The elephant in the room, however, is the unwillingness to consider raising more income by breaking out of the straight-jacket imposed by the Council Tax freeze. The combination of additional income with the savings that could be made in administrative areas, could provide a life-line for the Nairn Pool as well as Community Centres.

I will do all that I can to save Nairn Swimming Pool and Hilton Community Centre – as well as the many other vital community facilities across the constituency - as part of my campaign priority of protecting vital front line services whilst we secure the recovery.

Despite saying at the start that I had no direct connection with the town, I learned at the weekend that my wife’s great uncle, Donald Finlayson (her family are from the Ardersier/Inverness area) drowned in the River Nairn in 1896. I am trying to find out under what circumstances.

I hope it wasn’t because he was a non-swimmer!

Labour is right on NICs

2010-04-08T22:37:00.002+01:00

Paying down the debt you need means getting the balance right between spending, tax income and economic growth. Tax income comes from Income Tax, VAT and NICs. Raising taxes is never welcome but at least NICs share the contribution between better paid employees and businesses. It’s the fairer way. The alternative is savage cuts in public spending.

Because lets be clear; public sector “efficiency savings” are not some financial magic wand. It means real cuts in jobs and services.

It means ordinary people paying the price for the excesses of big business and the “masters of the universe” in the big banks.

These are the same business leaders who said the Minimum Wage would cost jobs. It didn’t and we are a better country for it.

I’ve had enough of fat cat business executives - who will never feel the pain of public service cuts – telling the rest of us what we need to put up with whilst they rake in their bonuses and dividends.

Increasing NICs next year, as we get back into growth, is the fair way of getting the balance right.

Making Highland Broadband Happen

2010-03-31T18:31:00.005+01:00

I've responded to the UK Government’s Digital Britain Consultation with detailed proposals on how Super Fast Broadband can be delivered to 100% of highland communities.

The UK Government proposes to use a 50p per month level on every landline to create a £1bn fund which will be used to leverage telecoms industry investment in superfast “Next Generation Access” broadband technology into areas where the market, left to itself, will not deliver.

Many rural areas of the Highlands lack decent broadband services and suffer badly in terms of economic, community and social development as a result. Left to itself, the telecoms market will not deliver to these communities.

There has been a lot of negative nonsense talked recently - much of it coming from the LibDems who really don't seem to understand the issue at all - about how there are no solutions to this, problem. But I think the government’s Digital Britain Strategy is a real opportunity. It will make substantial funds available to support investment in broadband infrastructure for rural communities. The question is how best to use it.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been working with Peter Peacock MSP to develop our response. We’ve now put forward detailed proposal on how reliable, superfast broadband can be delivered to 100% of rural communities in the Highlands. In our proposals, we make clear that we need a regional solution to a regional problem, not the “one size fits all” solutions beloved of the big telcos. We argue that rural communities should be able to work “outside in” developing community-owned solutions which can then be joined into the national fibre network.

This approach has already been used to deliver high-quality broadband services in rural communities in the UK, such as at Alston Moor in Cumbria. Across the UK and Europe, there are now many examples of social enterprises, cooperative and community-owned schemes exploiting fibre and wireless technology to deliver high quality broadband services to rural communities. We must start to look in detail at how those models could be applied in the Highlands.

UK and European funding streams will soon be available. We need the UK and Scottish Governments to work together and with local communities to make sure they are used effectively.

This kind of investment in the future economy is what the Labour Party stands for and I’m determined to play my part in making that happen.

Rural Fuel Prices

2010-03-21T21:48:00.003Z

There is a real issue with the price of fuel – petrol and diesel - in the Highlands. The combination of distance and lack of public transport alternatives means many people in rural areas have no choice but to travel by car. In principle, I support the raising of fuel duty as one way of discouraging unnecessary car journeys but many people in rural and remote areas have little alternative but to continue to use their cars. Combined with lower average incomes, this creates an issue similar to fuel poverty for domestic heating bills.

A government committed to fairness for all needs to tackle this issue. The question is how.

Fuel prices in rural areas vary widely, from around the national average to more than 10p per litre above. Despite what the oil industry says, this variation does not seem to be about extra transport costs; it seems to be about local market practice and trading volumes (Scottish Exec Report, 2001)

Small rural garages do not have the volume, so they need to charge a higher margin per litre to cover their fixed costs. Large retailers (mainly the supermarkets like Tescos and Morrisons) exploit this to charge as high a premium as their local market will bear, hence the variation between supermarket pump prices in different part of the highlands, despite their economies of scale and ability to share costs around their national networks.

The LibDems make much of their proposals to tackle these issues through a Rural Fuel Duty Reduction which would seek to reduce pump prices in defined areas by up to 3p per litre. It would require the UK government to seek a derogation under EU law. This has indeed been done by the governments of France, Greece and Portugal but ONLY for island communities (Corsica, the Peleponese and the Azores respectively).

In practice, however, for other than clearly defined island communities, the practicalities of working out what constitutes a “remote” community for the purpose of such changes in fuel duty seem impossibly complex in most parts of the UK.

The Scottish Government does use an 8-point “urban-rural” classification system that could form the basis for this. The problem is the when you map out the areas that would be defined as the most remote/rural there is little correlation with the most extreme differences in fuel prices. For example, the borders of one "very remote" region pass within 5 miles of Fort William, where current prices are only 1.1p a litre above the UK average, and within 5 miles of Oban, where current prices are only 2.1p a litre above the average.

A fuel duty reduction could lead to unpredicted market consequences (Tesco setting up over the “border” of a rural area but which is still close to a major centre like Fort William or Inverness). It could also give rise to perceived unfairness in UK tax regime between different parts of the country (should holiday home owners in rural Cornwall, for example, also benefit from such a regime?). Without very strict regulation, there may be little actual change in pump prices at rural filing stations as reduced costs are absorbed into margin or used to cover additional administration costs

So if a Rural Fuel Duty Reduction is not the answer, what is?

SNP Climbdown on Web Notices

2010-03-17T22:43:00.004Z

The SNP Government at Holyrood has climbed down over its plans allow local councils to put public notices online instead of in newspapers in response to a strong Labour campaign.

Led by Pauline McNeil MSP and strongly supported by Highland MSP David Stewart, the move was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs, who backed a motion calling "on the Scottish Government to withdraw the Local Authority Public Information Notices (Electronic Publication) (Scotland) Order 2010.

Ease of access to statutory notices, job adverts etc. is a vital aspect of local democracy and ensuring public notices are carried in local newspapers are one of the most important ways of ensuring that. This is especially the case in the Highlands, with the well documented issues about poor internet services.

The internet is a great resource and we need to press the case for access to high-speed broadband for all across the highlands. But not everyone can or will use the web and you’d think the SNP would be aware of the issues with web access in the North. Just like the broken promises over the by-pass, the SNP Government don’t seem to care much about how their policies impact in the Highlands.

This also is great news for local newspapers like the Courier, Strathy and Nairnshire which are already facing significant challenges because of the recession and who stood to lose vital revenue under the SNP plans.

Voodoonomics!

2010-03-11T20:46:00.003Z

Fed up with yet another LibDem party political broadcast masquerading as Danny Alexander's regular "Our Man in Westminster" column in the Courier, I've sent in this letter to the editor. We'll see tomorrow if they print it!

Dear Sir

Having allowed Danny Alexander MP to use his “Our Man in Westminster” column in last Tuesday’s Courier (9 March) to put his case for Liberal Democrat tax policy, I hope you will give me the opportunity to respond through your letters column.

As always, the LibDems come up with ideas which sound great but fall apart when you look at the details. They are the ideas of a party which does not have to worry about the serious business of government and how it impacts on the lives of ordinary people.

Mr Alexander describes the LibDem’s “fair” tax proposals. The highlight of this is raising the income tax threshold to £10,000. Whilst this does indeed give back £700 a year to many people on low incomes, he makes no mention of Labour’s Working Tax Credits (WTC), which already does more than this for low income families. The LibDem’s have said they want to limit WTC because it helps families earning as much as £50,000. Shame that their new income tax threshold will benefit families earning up to £100,000!

The LibDems estimate that raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 will cost £16.5bn. They claim this can be paid for – at the same time as making “savage cuts” to public spending – through higher taxes on the well off. When you read their proposals in detail, however, it’s clear that this is made up of a ragbag mix of tax avoidance savings, new taxes on air travel and cutting various capital gains tax reliefs. Putting to one side the impact of the capital gains tax changes on our pension funds, this seems to depend an awful lot on closing the same tax loopholes which every government has struggled with. These feel like SNP promises in the making to me.

In the detail of LibDem policy, £400m is to be raised from a new “green” tax on UK domestic flights.

Now I am all for encouraging people to use trains and other forms of public transport but perhaps Mr Alexander would like to explain how this new tax will affect the price of flights from hard-pressed Inverness airport to the Islands, Edinburgh and the south-east?

Labour will continue to develop a tax regime which is fair to individuals and businesses and which uses tax credits and other reliefs to support those that really need it most.

In closing, I see that pillar of the Thatcher establishment, Norman Tebbit, has praised the LibDem tax proposals (www.libdemvoice.org on 13 Jan 2010). That says everything about which side of the political divide the LibDems now stand on, and who they may be likely to support in a hung parliament.

Yours etc.

Hilltrack Campaign

2010-03-09T22:15:00.002Z

Signed up for Sarah Boyack and Peter Peacock's campaign to bring the construction of hill tracks under better control. New intrusive mountain tracks on the Scottish uplands are damaging our landscapes. Hill walkers, ramblers and members of the public are up in arms about the problem. While farmers and crofters need to construct some tracks for their purposes mostly on lower lying land, action is urgently needed.

See http://hilltrackscampaign.org.uk/

Merkinch Campaigning

2010-03-06T18:26:00.005Z

Great morning's campaigning in Merkinch today. Our team was full of enthusiasm and we got round a load of doors. The decent weather helped as well.

Door knocking can be difficult sometimes, if people are not in the mood to talk or just want to take their latest frustrations with politicians out on the poor party member on their doorstep. But this was one of those days when the people we met and talked to reminded us all why we're Labour; the woman in dispute with her employer being backed up by her Union, the family needing some decent window insulation let down by council cuts, the pensioner who grew up in service and whose dad made sure she will always vote Labour, because we are the only party that really stands up for ordinary working people. And the 86-year old who is looking forward to going out and voting Labour again because she still thinks voting is a right to be cherished!

Days like today fire up the energy levels and make us even more determined to win the seat.

More pictures on Facebook at Mike Robb for Inverness Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey

Broadband in the Highlands

2010-02-25T17:20:00.005Z

I grabbed the opportunity to meet Stephen Timms MP on Monday, when he was in Scotland on a "research" visit in his role as Minister for Digital Britain. I caught up with him in Alloa and put the case for Broadband in the Highlands.

The Digital Economy Bill that Stephen is currently piloting through Westminster make a commitment to guarantee access to 2MB Broadband to every home in the UK. That won't do much for rural areas like the Highlands, however. Its still dependent on BT wires, so you will get a connection but if you live 15 miles up a strath the performance will be woeful. What we need is Next Generation Access - NGA - based on high speed optical fibre and wireless technology and offering speeds up to 100MB with assured service quality.

NGA could transform the rural economy.

The problem of course is that the telcos - BT, Virgin, Cable & Wireless etc - won't put the infrastructure into sparsely populated areas as there is not enough commercial return. Across the UK and northern Europe however, there are community-driven programmes springing up - based on mutual and social enterprise business models - which are finding ways to deliver NGA when government steps in with some seed funding to get the "backhaul" infrastructure installed

I think we really need to look at these models in the Highlands.

The Digital Economy Bill is proposing a 50p per month levy - just £6 per year - on every BT landline to go towards creating a £1bn fund to invest in just such infrastructure. What we need to do is make sure the Highlands get a fair share of that investment and that its directed to delivery models that make sense here. That will need communities, Highland Council, Holyrood and Westminster to work together. No mean feat!

Peter Peackock MSP has been doing great work on this, and I will support him from Westminster in due course.

Labour IS working

2010-02-09T19:01:00.000Z

‘ Jobcentres are doing well and the department extracted money from the Treasury for Labour market support during the crisis. Unlike in previous recessions people have not been shifted off the claimant count into other benefits; there has been a net flow into jobseekers allowance from lone parent and incapacity benefits.

Inflows into unemployment have been lower than in the last recession and people are leaving the register faster; 70% leave unemployment within six months, compared with 63% in the 1990s and 60% in the 1980s. Employers, having once written of the official employment service, now express more than 90% satisfaction with it.’

Not as you might have thought from a Labour Party press release but taken straight from an article by the Sunday Times Economics editor on Sunday 24th January, a paper which is not exactly a ‘friend’ of the Labour Government.

It’s always difficult to comment on unemployment numbers – to say they ‘aren’t as bad as feared’ is little comfort to those who have lots their jobs, and the many young people in particular who are finding it very difficult to get a start. But it is important to look at the position objectively – and to acknowledge that the Government’s intervention has had a beneficial effect.

We can see the impact in the Highlands where unemployment is still below the national average at under 3%, compared to over 9% under the Tories at the height of the last recession in 1992.

Keeping unemployment down, and getting the employment rate back up is not just of huge importance to the individuals and families affected, but is also crucial to reducing the Government’s borrowing. The same Sunday Times article quoted above also said:
‘ official calculations suggest lower than expected unemployment could cut public spending by a cumulative £17billion over the next five years.’

Tory emphasis on immediate deficit reduction, with a particular emphasis on the public sector would lead to higher unemployment and may not achieve the deficit reduction claimed.

Questions to Hilary Benn

2010-01-24T17:49:00.006Z

I had the opportunity to meet Hilary Benn MP - UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs - when he was in Edinburgh on party business last week. At a wide-ranging discussion with party activists and candidates I was able to raise with him my concerns about on-shore wind-farms. He is, of course, a strong and passionate supporter of the climate change agenda and the need to develop renewables, but my questions did give him pause for thought. He asked me to write formally to him at his department and promised to raise my concerns with Ed Milliband as well.

1 How do we ensure that construction of renewable energy schemes will get us to the point where we can stop building new gas and coal-fired power stations and reduce the use of existing non-renewable plant.

2. Does the Renewable Obligation mechanism need changed again in order to encourage more investment in large-scale offshore and small community renewable schemes, rather than on-shore wind.

3. The UK is leading the world in the development of off-shore wind and wave power technology, with major opportunities to exploit such technology around the north of Scotland. What do we need to do to make sure that this translates into long term, sustainable employment in the Highlands?

I shall publish his reply when I have it.

Are we getting it right on Windfarms?

2010-01-23T09:46:00.005Z

Since going walking with the Dava Moor campaigners last year, I’ve tried to keep my promise to dig much deeper into the science of renewables and land-based wind-farms in particular.

I’ve often wondered when my Physics degree would come in useful. Well it certainly has now as I’ve ploughed through page after page of maths, statistics and power engineering science in the various reports authored by ”experts” on different sides of the arguments!

One of the key arguments made by those opposed to on-shore wind-farms is about variability; that wind is too unpredictable to be relied on as a steady source of energy, hence requiring major amounts of non-renewable capacity – mainly gas - to be available as “back up” for days when the wind isn’t blowing.

Its true the wind is highly variable, but I’m convinced by some very detailed work by National Grid that the UK energy network is designed to deal with such variability and will do so. There is also significant backup-generation capacity already connected into the grid, designed to deal with failure of large scale generators such as a major coal or nuclear plant. Wind-energy by itself does not seem to require substantial additional backup.

What I am far less convinced about is how far such schemes will go to actually reducing CO2 generation from non-renewable sources (the big gas and coal-fired power stations).

On shore wind farms have a relatively low “capacity credit” (the amount of non-renewable generating capacity that can, in theory, be turned off when such wind-farms are working normally). This is because their “load factor” - their actual level of energy production - is way less than their usually quoted maximum capacity, in large part due to wind variability.

The financial economics of big coal and gas-fired power stations mean that the energy companies which operate them seek to run them at close to maximum generating capacity at all times (so as to be able to sell the maximum amount of energy to pay for the huge investment needed to build them in the first place). Will the capacity credit generated by on shore wind farms be enough to offset this financial pressure? Do we need to do more to make sure that generating more electricity from renewable sources leads directly to a reduction in use of non-renewable capacity?

A second concern is whether we are getting the balance right between different forms of renewable energy generation.

Off-shore wind and wave power suffers far less from variability (compared to on-shore wind) with a much higher load factor. These schemes really can provide high-capacity renewable generation with a much higher “capacity credit”. Such developments will also have far less impact on our visual environment. At the other end of the scale, community wind-power schemes have the potential to liberate rural communities from supply constraints and energy-poverty.

Energy generators are incentivised to construct commercial scale renewables through the Renewal Obligation scheme (RO), through which they can earn significant revenues – often more than for the electricity itself - by selling the corresponding certificates (ROCS) to the energy supply companies . The energy supply companies need to have sufficient ROCS in order to show that they have met their legal obligations to supply a given percentage of their electricity from renewable sources (they get fined if they don’t). In 2010, energy companies are required to supply 10% from renewables.

This mechanism is fine in theory. However, the original scheme does not distinguish between different types of renewables, so guess what happens? Since on-shore wind farms are the least expensive to build, but still earn huge revenues from the sale of ROCS, then many energy companies can easily enter this market. Big landowners also stand to benefit from selling land to the energy generators. Are these financial factors distorting the market in favour of constructing so many land-based wind farms – with their much lower capacity credit - instead of the longer term investment needed in more beneficial off shore and community schemes?

A modified version of the Renewable Obligation scheme came into operation in 2009 and puts more emphasis on of-shore generation. Will the market work by itself or do we need to do more?

On-shore commercial wind-farm capacity is necessary and there are many areas of our countryside which are ideal for such schemes. Given the cumulative impact on our countryside, however, I think that we need to take a far more cautious approach until we are clear that the capacity credit of such schemes will actually translate into serious reductions in non-renewable generation.

Finally, this is not just about an abstract argument about the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, important though that is. It’s also about economics, and in particular the ability of the renewable energy industry to create jobs. The development, manufacture and operation of renewable technology can create just as many high-quality, sustainable jobs as the oil industry has done. The north of Scotland in particular has a rich potential for off-shore wave and wind power and we need to encourage the investment in infrastructure and services that will bring the technology and energy companies here, with the jobs and economic prosperity that will follow.

Ultimately, that’s why a development like the Beauly Denny Power Line is so important. Not just to provide essential additional connectivity but to send the message that the Highlands are open for investment in these crucial new technologies.

So here are three questions which government at all levels - UK, Holyrood and Highland Council – need to consider:

1. How do we ensure that construction of renewable energy schemes will get us to the point where we can stop building new gas and coal-fired power stations and reduce the use of existing non-renewable plant.

2. Does the Renewable Obligation mechanism need changed again in order to encourage more investment in large-scale offshore and small community renewable schemes, rather than on-shore wind.

3. The UK is leading the world in the development of off-shore wind and wave power technology, with major opportunities to exploit such technology around the north of Scotland. What do we need to do to make sure that this translates into long term, sustainable employment in the Highlands?

Goodbye to the Right to Buy

2010-01-21T13:14:00.005Z

I welcome the SNP's proposals to end the Right to Buy for new tennants in the social housing sector. Introduced by the Margaret Thatcher's Tory government the Right to Buy was a popular policy in its time but has led to major shortages of affordable social housing in recent years as all of the decent stock has been sold off.

Building sustainable communities means providing equitable access to affordable houses for families and individuals and its time that we removed the negative impact of the Right to Buy from the equation. Whilst the SNP deserve the credit for introducing the necessary legislation now, I am pretty sure its something Scottish Labour would also have done, were it still in power. Labour should back the SNP proposals.

What is also needed, however, is a decent level of funding for Local Authorities and Social Landlords to build more affordable homes. I hope the SNP will think again about the cuts they have proposed to Housing Action Grant and other programmes.

Highland Broadband

2010-01-12T20:01:00.005Z

Great to hear today that Highland Labour MSP Peter Peacock has secured a commitment from the Scottish Government to invest more in Broadband Services for the Highlands. See here. When added to the investment already planned by the UK Government through its Digital Britain Strategy this will go a long way to ensuring homes and small businesses across the Highlands have access to the fast, secure and reliable Internet services which are so essential to building sustainable communities. For once, equal credit to the SNP and Labour!

What to do about Bankers?

2009-12-08T22:05:00.004Z

In my day job, I have worked regularly in the City for many years. As an IT specialist, I'm just the hired help but its enabled me to see first hand how the many diverse organisations that make up our financial sector operate. And of course there are good ones and not so. Many companies I work with are supporting fast growing businesses and creating real jobs and opportunities. Others, however, are trading and speculating between themselves, adding no social value, whilst generating huge profits and bonus pools.

Whilst the bankers and financiers have enjoyed huge personal rewards in recent years, our communities are now paying the price in lost jobs, shattered savings and service cuts.

There is now no justification for huge bonuses for individuals, built up on the back of government funded liquidity intended to protect out financial system from meltdown. Especially when its many of the same organisations and individuals whose high-risk behaviours have been responsible for getting us into this mess.

Dealing with this is very difficult. Knee jerking into punitive taxes and caps on personal or corporate earnings - popular though that may be - risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What we need is an intelligent approach which drives long term, structural change in the financial service industry, its behaviours and its contribution to our economic health.

I am hopeful that the baleful influence of the City on Labour thinking has finally been broken. The governments comments in the last few days on the importance of building up manufacturing & industry is welcome and long overdue.

A litmus test for me will be how Alistair Darling brings a Labour solution to this over the next few days.

What a parcel of rogues in our nation....

2009-12-01T21:57:00.002Z

Spending St Andrew’s day launching a white paper on an independence referendum shows just how out of touch the SNP have become. Instead of working to get us out of recession, create jobs for young people and get more teachers into our schools the SNP plan to spend millions on a referendum that we already know the answer to. Scotland deserves better. The coming election will be about jobs and the economy. The SNP have no answers and seem to be pinning all their hopes on the Tories winning power.

Windfarm Walk 2

2009-11-18T09:20:00.005Z

An interesting and enjoyable day on Monday, being shown round Lochindorb and the Dava by local campaigners against the wind farms being proposed for the area. When you stand on the highpoint of the B9007 across the moor, or on the shores of the loch, you are surrounded by one of the most unspoilt landscapes I have seen for a while. The visual impact of so many wind turbines right across the hillscape - not to mention the access roads that will need to be built - will be huge.

If we are serious about tackling climate change we need to increase our use of renewable energy sources. Wind farms have a big role to play - or so the current political consensus argues - and I can certainly testify that the Dava is windy. Or at least it was on Monday!

Which goes to the heart of the argument made by the local campaigners I met. They argue that the intermittent nature of wind-power generation will actually increase the reliance on non-renewable sources (coal and oil) by requiring such baseload capacity to be available for when the wind isn't blowing enough (or blowing too hard) to generate power. The more wind-dependant renewable capacity you build, the more backup capacity you need in order to stop the lights going out. To make their case, I was presented with a copy of Dr John Etherington's recent book , "The Wind Farm Scam". Its heavy going and packed with a lot of power engineering science (I knew my physics degree was going to come in handy one day). If the arguments in the book are right, then we need to think very carefully about what we are doing with wind farms.

But are they? And even if they are, what are the alternatives?

This is a complex issue with no easy answers. I'd be very interested to hear views on the subject.

Wind Farm Walk

2009-11-13T09:08:00.005Z

I'll be heading to Lochindorb and the Dava on Monday, to meet local people campaigning against the plans for wind farms in the area and to walk round the loch and some of the surrounding hills. I want to see for myself where such developments are being proposed and what the impact on the area will be.

I’m committed to strong and radical action to tackle climate change. I am also of the view that land based wind generation – including large and small scale Wind Farms - has an important role to play in the renewable energy mix. Inevitably, that will mean difficult decisions need to be made. But, we need to get the balance right and ensure we don’t compromise our unique mountain landscapes for only short-term gain.

I'll post again on this topic after my visit on Monday. Meantime, I'd welcome comments with views both for and against such developments.

Keep Cool at Christmas

2009-11-05T09:51:00.006Z

Spent an interesting couple of hours yesterday with Isobal MacInnes, the Usdaw rep at the Coop in Inverness, helping to leaflet shoppers about Usdaw’s “Keep your cool at Christmas “ campaign. The event was organised as part of Usdaw’s Freedom from Fear Week.

Usdaw’s most recent survey shows that two thirds of shop staff have been abused in the last year and nearly 10% have suffered physical assault. A major cause is angry customers and reports of ‘trolley rage’ incidents are on the increase. The shop staff that I met told me that Christmas is the time when they suffer most anger and abuse. Retail shop workers are in the front line of dealing with issues such as under-age drinking and the resulting verbal abuse can leave staff upset and depressed.

Shopworkers need much more support from their management as well as better understanding of these issues from the wider public.

How Not to Reform the Banking System

2009-10-21T21:50:00.006+01:00

Interesting to hear this morning that Mervyn King (Bank of England) has jumped on the Nick Clegg (LibDem) bandwagon to separate retail and investment banking. Or maybe it’s the other way round….

To be fair, this is an idea that a few months ago I though had some merit. It’s the “masters of the universe” at the big investment banks – or so the theory goes – that took the dodgy risks, for huge personal rewards, that caused the financial crisis. Separate them from the retail banking sector and our savings and mortgages should be safe. This is, after all, what the US did back in the 1930s. And in the UK, the big hybrid banks like Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays only emerged after Thatcher’s financial de-regulation in the 1980s – the so called “big bang”.

When you really dig into what happened, however, you learn that it was sales-culture driven lending and the invention of ever more exotic financial products and transactions between banks that were at the heart of the problem, not organisational structures.

Northern Rock was a retail-only bank. It went bust entirely by itself as a result of a bonus driven sales culture. And the two big institutions that collapsed at the peak of the crisis – Lehmans and Merrill Lynch - were stand-alone Investment Banks. RBS needed bailed out, but it was bad management and a skewed culture of risk/reward that caused the problem, not its integrated retail and investment banking structure. As for Goldman Sachs……

Trying to re-structure the banking sector now will be like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. And to attempt such a solution in the UK, with what are global companies, would be doomed to failure. What we do need is strong regulation, agreed globally, that is firmly applied.
And we need to think seriously about the old idea of taxing inter-bank transactions, to dampen down self-serving trading between institutions, which generate no external value.

Mervyn King is being very vocal now, but I think its much more to do with making friends with David Cameron than good sense. What did he have to say over the last few years whilst this situation was developing? Not a lot. So I’m not inclined to listen now. Not to him, nor to Nick Clegg and his LibDem colleagues on the bandwagon..

After the Conferences, a Question

2009-10-10T09:52:00.005+01:00

After all the high political rhetoric of the party conference season, its back to the real work of local politics. Yesterday we delivered a new leaflet into Dalneigh and today we will be doing the same in Kingussie.

After all the conference speeches, I have just one question for Danny Alexander and Jim Ferguson. Both of your party leaders have promised to make big cuts in public spending if they get into power ("savage cuts" in the case of Nick Clegg and the LibDems). But, if its the bankers, financiers and some of the other top earners in this country who created this crisis, why is it now public sector workers who are being asked to pay for it?

Gordon Brown Speech

2009-09-29T21:00:00.006+01:00

I listened with some emotion to Gordon Brown's speech today. In his own way - and with the scene set so powerfully by Peter Mandelson yesterday - I think he has delivered a defining political moment, in the same way as Kinnock did with his attack on Miltant back in the 80s.

Until you hear it listed out, we risk forgetting what we have achieved since 1997. And at long last there was some vision of what more we can deliver. To pick out a few things that really matter to me, clamping down on the dangerous behaviours of investment bankers, electoral reform and a focus on citizen safety. Asking the most well off in our society to pay a bit more in tax is the right thing to do. So is our approach to maintaining investment in public services and manufacturing, training for our young people, and climate change.

The difference between us and the Tories is getting clearer and clearer by the day. It really is time to ask them questions about their priorities. Exactly how does giving £200k back to the 3000 wealthiest people in the country create a fairer society?

I loved the line about "change has consequences". Electing a Tory government will take us back to the despairing days of the 1980s when - for most people - life was about living with public service cuts, unemployment and dead end jobs whilst the self-selecting few prospered. And at last week's LibDem conference we finally got to see what their alternative offered - "savage cuts" - going further than even the Tories so far.

Jack Straw got it absolutely right in his fightback comment to Labour's critics on Radio 5 yesterday: "..... be careful what you wish for."

I'll not be leaving it to wishful thinking. My team will be out campaigning in Merkinch at the weekend. Maybe see you there.

INBS Labour Party determined to Win

2009-09-27T22:22:00.007+01:00

Much media talk over the weekend about the lack of determination to win in the Labour Party. Well anyone who doubts that we are ready and willing for the "fight of our lives" at next year's election should have been on Inverness High Street on Saturday afternoon when a team of enthusisatic Labour activists handed out hundreds of leaflets highlighting Danny Alexander and the LibDem's plans for "savage cuts".

Its been a Labour government that intervened to help people through the recession. Not just because it was the right thing to do but because it is in our instincts to do so. The Conservatives took the decision to do nothing - to let the recession take its course. And today they would use the financial crisis as an excuse to cut support for jobs and families, because that is in their instinct too. Seems it is a LibDem instinct as well!

LibDems plan Savage Cuts in Public Expenditure

2009-09-22T07:05:00.007+01:00

We are used to finding it hard to pin down LibDem policy on most issues. Now, on public expenditure, we finally know exactly where they stand. In Nick Clegg’s own words “"I have said there will need to be cuts, cuts that are savage and bold.” Even the Tories have not gone this far (yet).

The Highland economy is already facing a tough public expenditure regime - the Council is looking to trim its budget by £60m over the next 3 years - as we start to pay the price of the SNP's political programme. The impact of further "savage" cuts will be severe.

Danny Alexander is right at the heart of such plans. As Nick Clegg’s Chief of Staff, he has responsibility for drafting the LibDem manifesto for the election. In Danny's own words (Inverness Courier, 30th June) "spending cuts will hit the poor hardest". For years, the LibDems have been lining up to demand new services and programmes and criticising Labour when we have had to make difficult decision on spending priorities. Now we know exactly what they are planning to do if they get into power - or into coalition with the Tories - "savage" cuts!

Danny Alexander is carrying Cleggs’ knife in the Highlands. We must get organised to stop him.

Child Protection

2009-09-15T21:58:00.000+01:00

This article in today's Guardian by Polly Toynbee is well worth reading. In all the media furore about political correctness, it captures for me exactly why Ed Balls is right to push through this legislation. Parents must be able to be confident that the people they DON'T know who are in contact with their kids on behalf of schools and clubs have passed a simple check. It won't cost volunteers anything and it simplifies the current system by putting all the checks in one place. On this issue, John Humphreys and others on Radio 4/5 should stop attacking politicians and start giving them some credit.

1010

2009-09-01T22:11:00.004+01:00

Inspired today to sign up for the Guardian's 10:10 campaign. BIg picture political campaigns to save the planet risk making us feel good about the headline targets whilst assuming it will all just happen through what the government does. Committing to reduce my households carbon footprint by 10% by the end of 2010 makes it very personal. Now we need to work out how to make it happen.......

On Megrahi

2009-08-27T17:22:00.001+01:00

I’ve no doubt that coming to a decision about the best way forward on the Al-Megrahi case must have been a hugely difficult decision for Kenny MacAskill. Its one of those situations where there is no clearly “right” answer and required a weighing up of conflicting legal, political and humanitarian issues.

The SNP, however, has achieved the worst of all outcomes by allowing its political ideology to play a key role in the process.

My personal view is that, on balance, it was right – in humanitarian terms - to move Megrahi into a situation where he could best spend what is left of his life closer to his family. This, however, could have been achieved by transferring Megrahi back to a prison in Libya. The UK government had spent considerable time working out the terms of just such a process. Megrahi would have continued to serve out his sentence, but this solution would have strengthened the UK’s relationship and influence with Libya and would also have earned the UK credit with many Arab states and organisations. Over time, such an outcome would have many benefits for us all, in both economic and security terms.

Crucially, since he was still serving a jail sentence, Megrahi could continue to pursue his appeal.
But agreeing to work with the UK government, in the best interest of us all, did not fit with the SNP’s political strategy, which requires conflict with London to be engineered at every opportunity, so as to build the case for independence. Salmond effectively boxed himself and MacAskill into a corner last year, when he was publicly critical of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and how it had been negotiated.

By releasing Megrahi on compassionate grounds, MacAskill and the SNP Government have achieved the worst of all outcomes. Megrahi is welcomed home as a hero, damaging UK and US relationships with an important Arab power. Scotland’s status in the world has been diminished. And we will never get to hear the new evidence which might have shed some light on the real story behind the Lockerbie disaster.

We should remember that the next time the SNP tell us they have Scotland’s best interests at heart.

Help the Highland Tiger

2009-08-16T22:16:00.003+01:00

Enjoyed Thursday afternoon at the Grantown Show.

As well as meeting many local people just enjoying a fine time in the sun, it was interesting to talk to some of the community groups on their stands. I was most impressed by the volunteers of the Badenoch & Strathspey Community Transport Company, who provide a brilliant service making sure that all sorts of people can get around the community when they need to but also just to socialise.

And you couldn't miss the marvellous images used by http://www.highlandtiger,com/ to promote their work protecting wild cats.

Scrappage Scheme Success

2009-08-11T20:23:00.004+01:00

I must admit I was sceptical about the Car Scrappage Scheme when it was launched earlier this year. With its focus on trading in old vehicles for new cars, I was not sure it would work.

So I was delighted to read today that Peter Mandelson's Industry Department has announced that more than 150,000 people have taken advantage of the scheme. As a result, car sales have grown by 13.5% since last year. Even more significantly, the CO2 emmissions associated with new cars sold are down 25% from the old vehicles traded in.

Seems the scheme is working for consumers, the car trade and the environment.

Now that's something we can all be proud of.

Raigmore Campaign

2009-08-09T19:16:00.005+01:00

I had mixed feeling about starting to campaign in August, with so many activists and voters on holiday, but this weekend's experience made it worthwhile. Only a small team, but we put out 300 leaflets round the Raigmore Estate on Friday afternoon and followed it up with some door knocking on the Saturday morning.

Talking to people on their doorsteps on Saturday was encouraging. Labour voters were still Labour voters and a good few were pretty dismissive of Danny Alexander, who they think is "all talk". There was a lot of support for Gordon Brown, who many seemed to feel was getting an unjustified pillorying from the media, whilst he was just trying to do the right thing.

Maybe we are doing more right than we think?

Tories Looking Forward to Cuts

2009-07-26T14:50:00.004+01:00

Reading the Guardian piece about Shadow Treasury Chief Secretary Phillip Hammond yesterday left me cold and angry. Hammond seemed to be almost enjoying the prospect of the savage cuts in public spending he is planning should the Tories gain power in next year's election. Lots of macho talk about taking "early action" and "establishing credibility" with the City and global markets. All about needing to keep the financiers happy - the same ones who got us into this current mess - rather than understanding the impact of such cuts on jobs and services for the vast majority of people in this country.

I was in Grantown on Saturday, meeting folk at the Figgat Fair. The three small care homes there are prime examples of what may be under threat if Hammond and his ilk get their way.

Hammond may fully expect to be the nation's hate figure, but he will clearly have a big smile on his face as he wields the spending axe with undisguised enjoyment.

Digital Highlands

2009-07-20T20:54:00.003+01:00

Last month, the Government published Digital Britain, a comprehensive strategy for the development of digital communications and services across the UK to meet the needs of individuals, business and government in the information age.

Communities in the Highlands in particular will benefit from the Universal Service Commitment, which will ensure we all have access to high quality broadband by 2012. Digital Britain goes further, with ambitious plans to deliver Next Generation Broadband to all of our communities. This is not just about giving us all ever faster access to uTube. Small businesses can thrive in the rural economy when they have high-quality communication links whilst we can all benefit from access to services and information across such digital networks.

Labour's priorities between now and the General Election are threefold: cleaning up politics, taking Britain out of recession and into recovery and modernising our public services and infrastructure.

I welcome Lord Carter's report as a major contribution to third of these goals.

Nairn, Brown and the Royal Mail

2009-06-09T19:38:00.007+01:00

We took our campaign to Nairn on Saturday. An hour handing out leaflets outside the Town House and then delivering the rest door to door in Fishertown. Of all our "meet the voter" activities, so far, this was by far the most difficult. Maybe it was just the aftermath of an election day, but there did seem to be a lot more people who wanted to put us in the "all you politicians are ****" category. The expenses scandal was the issue rather than Labour itself. And we did meet a some locals - including one former party member - who stopped for a good long talk. Despite the abuse, this did feel like a real community with a potentially strong Labour support. If we can motivate them to come out and vote.

I wanted the photo of me next to the post box, to use in my coming campaign to keep the Royal Mail public. However, I was enthused today to read that the government may indeed finally be listening and will decide to delay the Bill (even if its on the ground of stock market values, a delay is a delay). I said as much to some Coop Party members last night; Gordon Brown deserves our support to lead us through till the spring, when I believe the economy will be much better. Our voters may be prepared to come out and support us then, but he needs to help motivate party workers by kicking policies like this into the long grass. ID Cards next?

Cameron, the Tories and the Telegraph know the economy is going to be better by spring next year as well and I am sure this is why the Telegraph's expenses campaign was timed to de-stabilise us now, to try and panic us into an election now rather than in 6-12 months time. I have no time for those Labour cabinet members who put their own interests before the party and our people. Strong hearts and minds have seen us through this. Things CAN only get better.

Dear Gordon.........

2009-06-05T23:03:00.003+01:00

This isn't a great time to be a Labour PPC (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate). At best, most of our friends and colleagues think we are mad. And many others think much worse of us. But we all know what is motivating us to stand, so we do feel a bit like a particular "band of brothers" (and sisters) right now, but a very determined band. Many of us have been talking by phone and email today about how best to show our support for Gordon Brown in these difficult time. Along with many other PPCs, I have tonight signed and sent this letter.

Dear Gordon

As Labour's parliamentary candidates for the next General Election, we wanted to make clear our view on the current political events. Over the last 12 years in Government, and before, you have made an enormous contribution to this country and the Labour Party and this is very widely acknowledged. However what we also recognise that in the current economic crisis, you have been the only party leader with a real plan for how we can help people through these difficult times.

In particular, your work with President Obama and others to bring together the world’s leaders to address collectively the global economic crisis has ensured that Britain – and indeed the world – is better placed to emerge quickly from the current situation. Our constituents need to know that in contrast to the do-nothing Tories, our Labour Government will continue to take the steps necessary to protect our country’s interests.

To this end we are asking you to restate your commitment to continue as our Prime Minister and to remain focused on what really matters to the people of Scotland.

Now is not the time for rocking the boat, now is the time for a steady hand at the wheel of the ship. The actions of a handful of rebels cannot be allowed to derail the economic recovery that you have led. We look forward to working with you in the months ahead as we take our case to the country whenever the General Election is called.

With best wishes

So tomorrow, we will be out on the streets of Nairn. No hiding.

Sunshine in Strathspey

2009-06-01T23:04:00.007+01:00

The sun came out for us in Aviemore on Saturday. In weather like this, campaigning is almost a pleasure. There were a lot of visitors - who all got a Euro Election leaflet - but a good many local folk who stopped to talk. Needless to say, most just wanted to vent their anger and frustration over MPs and how they have been abusing the expenses system, but at least they weren't taking it out directly on the party volunteers like us.

A surprising number of people did actually want to talk about politics. Some raised very local issues - Tescos really need to get their car park policy sorted - but others talked about the economy and even the Euro (why haven't we joined it yet)!

We seemed to be the only political party out and talking to people that morning. Maybe even the Liberals are hiding, or maybe they just don't see the need. I got the impression that local people are not too used to their political representatives being seen out and about like this, and were genuinely interested. Hopefully, some people will remember that come election time.

Politics Still Matters

2009-05-26T21:00:00.005+01:00

Going door to door over the weekend, canvassing for Labour candidates in the Euro Elections, I've lost count of how many times people have -mostly - smiled sympathetically and just asked "why are you still doing this"?

They mostly mean, of course, why are volunteer, unpaid party foot soldiers like me - and my many party colleagues who were out on Saturday - still prepared to face up and take the flack on behalf of our elected politicians in the midst of the expenses furore.

The answer is that despite the appalling behaviour of some individual politicians I still believe that electing labour party representatives into office locally, at Holyrood, Westminster and Strasbourg really matters.

In Europe it matters because its only the socialist group who are working to create jobs, protect working people, enforce better regulation of financial services and deal with climate change.

Here in the Highlands it matters because Labour is doing everything it can to save jobs, keep businesses afloat and get Scotland back on track. Its a Labour government that has rescued Scotland’s banks – not to help failed bankers, but to save jobs, mortgages, homes and savings. Its Labour who has increased people’s spending power by giving people a little extra in their pockets to support the economy; lower mortgage payments, increased child benefits and raised pension credits. Its Labour who is helping small businesses with the Loan Guarantee Scheme and making sure that HM Revenue & Customs is just a wee bit more helpful when the tax bills are due.

In Inverness it matters. Last Friday's Courier exposed the shocking social inequalities in the heart of the City. As usual, its those with the least who pay the price when our current economic model fails. Those are the people who should expect Labour to stand up for them, not make it worse.

We need to grow our way out of this recession, not cut our way out of it.

That's why I'll be proud to be out on the street in Aviemore this weekend, standing up for Labour values for all our communities.

My Pledge on Expenses

2009-05-20T19:44:00.004+01:00

The Westminster expenses scandal raises a cloud of suspicion around all those who seek to represent their political parties.

As a measure of my intention to try and restore an element of trust between voters and political representatives, as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I would like to put on record the following five pledges which will govern my conduct if I am elected to Parliament.

As a parliamentary candidate I will subscribe to the highest standards of integrity, transparency, accountability and financial economy

I seek elected office not for personal gain but to serve the public and our democracy, which I consider an honour and a privilege

I will publish my expenses online within a month of submitting them and publicise them annually in full to my constituents

I will hold regular meetings with my community and will regularly report back to my constituency party

I will apply the principle of best value to all decisions I make which involve the use of public money to cover my duties, including for travel and accommodation.

A great many of our current Members of Parliament already embody these principles in their day-to-day conduct and their example should be recognised. We cannot return to a system where only those who are already independently wealthy can put themselves forward for election to Parliament, so necessary reforms to the system of MPs’ expenses and allowances should reflect the need for those representing constituencies outside Greater London - especially from areas like the Highlands - to claim for appropriate accommodation and travel expenses. In the absence, however, of a decision on the final form of the new system, these pledges will act as my guide if I have the honour of being elected to the House of Commons.

Liberal Tax Cuts don't Add Up

2009-05-12T22:53:00.011+01:00

I listened to Danny Alexander on Radio 4's Question Time last Friday and had to admit that we both seem to share some pretty similar political values. Having read his regular column in the Courier last week, however, I find myself concerned.

In his comment on Labour's budget, his main argument was that we should be reducing income tax for low and middle income households in order to offset the worst effects of the recession. This echoed the Lib Dem proposal during this year's Scottish Parliament Budget discussions to cut income tax by 2p.

What he totally fails to say, however, is where the inevitable cuts in government spending that would result will need to be in order to fund such tax cuts.

Labour has made a deliberate choice to invest in jobs and services as the way of driving ourselves out of the recession. Just as President Roosevelt did with the New Deal in the US in the 1930s. It worked then and I believe it will work for us now. You can't deliver such investment - least of all during a during a recession - and make broad tax cuts (Labour increased marginal tax rates on those earning more than £150k).

Are the Liberals just saying what they think people want to hear (who does not want a tax cut) rather than being serious about investing our way out of this crisis? Or are they really planning for cuts in services?

Cuts in the City

2009-05-11T21:47:00.005+01:00

Working in London today. In the City. Allister Heath - who I don't know from Adam - is the editor of City AM, a widely read morning free-sheet. In a strident editorial, he wrote about what he regards as the coming political "revolution".

On Labour's prospects "... there is now almost no chance ... of anything other than a Tory Government in a year's time". And on what that will mean "Until a few week's ago, it seemed as if the Tories would turn out to be a soft touch on tax and spend. No longer...... All large projects will be scrutinised, almost all public spending commitments renegotiated........ Its time to prepare for the new order."

There are many good people and businesses in the City - I work for some of them - who are still investing in companies that are creating wealth and jobs. But the devastating spending and service cuts that Heath predicts is what many of those who should be taking responsibility for the economic mess we are in are now looking forward to. Cuts for the rest of us whilst they enjoy the benefits of the "new order".

Even in this most difficult of times, this is why we need to fight and fight for every Labour vote to protect jobs and services for all of the people in this country.

MPs Expenses in the Real World

2009-05-08T22:28:00.006+01:00

What sort of political world are we now living in when tonight's BBC 10pm news is led by 15 minutes of reporting of MP's expenses and only then by news about the potentially devastating loss of steelworkers' jobs on Teeside at Corus and the deaths of 4 of our soldiers in Afghanistan?

There is no point in trying to blame the media for this. We all know how they work. Quite simply, some Westminster MPs - and I hope it extends across all parties - have allowed their wanton and thoughtless use of an out of date expenses system to categorise all politicians as "in it for themselves". We need to change the system, but the damage has been done.

I am active in politics because I want to make a difference. I am a Labour Party member because I want to shape a world in which the vast majority of ordinary working people can enjoy prosperous, safe and satisfying lives based on Labour values of social justice and equality of opportunity. I have put myself forward to be an MP so I can have the opportunity to represent these ideals. To make sure that defending jobs in Teeside - and wherever else they are under threat - is how we get our headlines, not defending our personal lifestyles.

I know that the same values motivated all of my Labour parliamentary colleagues when they were elected. I despair at how the fee and expenses system in Westminster is now obscuring this. Tonight, in the midst of this recession, we should be talking about saving jobs in Teeside, or why we are in Afghanistan, not the personal spending of ministers.

The independent review by the Standards Commission is desperately needed. I hope it is radical. We need to get back to real politics.

Climbing and Politics in Torridon

2009-05-06T18:44:00.003+01:00

Staying in Kinlochewe with a bunch of old friends for a few days climbing in the Torridon Hills. Great to be away from the news bulletins for a bit - our lodgings don't have a TV. But the changes - for the good - in this area are plain to see all round. Road upgrades have opened the area up for safe journeys for both visitors and locals. Schools seem to be thriving - some of my pals are just back from a day at Gairloch and commented on the new high school there - and mobile broadband in the village means a few of our party can do some essential business whilst we are here. Best of all, I passed a small development of new affordable houses today - being built by Albyn -which no doubt will provide some decent homes at a fair rent for the local community. All good investments, which are making a difference. Investment that needs to be continued, not cut.

A Real Labour Budget

2009-04-22T22:48:00.006+01:00

After listening to all the detail of the speech itself, it took a while for the real significance of Alistair Darling's budget to sink in. This is a real Labour budget, that at last puts some very red-tinged water between us and the Tories.

A Labour budget which shows we are determined to invest our way out of recession, not deepen it with cuts.

We are putting government money into the green economy, to stimulate investment in renewables, in re-cycling and the emerging high-technology industries that will create thousands of jobs. Many of these will be in the Highlands which already has a large number of such early stage businesses.

We are making sure our young people have training so that they can move into jobs when the economy picks up again. We are making sure that pensioners on lower incomes are protected from the worst effects of the recession. Small businesses, which make of the bulk of the economy, are getting real help to manage their cash flow, which in turn protects jobs.

The Tory answer to the recession - dramatic cuts in government spending - is exactly the policy which deepened and lengthened the great recession of the 1930s.

Sometimes you can tell you have got something right by the noise and clamour of your opposition. David Cameron's bluster today in response to Darling's speech, and the howls of anguish from right wing media about the 50% tax band tell me everything I need to know about whose side we are on. The ordinary people.

On the 10 o'clock news tonight, there was a piece about unemployment in a small town in South Wales. As always, its not the financiers and noisy professional classes who lose out most in this kind of recession. Its the same working people who have always lost out. That's the people whose side we are on. That's the people this budget is really for.

A real Labour budget. At last.

Broadband in the Highlands

2009-04-21T22:27:00.006+01:00

I was very pleased to read Peter Peacock MSP's press release today which continues to argue Highland Labour's case for comprehensive broadband service provision in the Islands and right across our region, not just in urban areas.

Local Post Office services face cut backs and privatisation. Print media circulation continues to decline and the press seem ever more interested in political scandle and tittle tale than reporting serious news. Local shops are closing in the face of overwhelming competition from superstores.

Faced with all of this, we all need assured access to high quality internet services so we can keep in touch with friends, access a wide range of news and political views and support local businesses who sell great products on line. Broadband access is a necessity in assuring strong sustainable communities across the region. The regulator needs to be firm with BT and other providers to make sure they recognise their essential role in this.

I wish Peter well in making his case with OfCom.

Inverness West;the final push

2009-04-19T22:34:00.005+01:00

Out campaigning again on Saturday in Kinmylies with our candidate Andrew Mackintosh and his team. A great turnout of party workers and supporters, MSPs and Councillors, despite all the bad stuff in the media about smears and expenses. Getting out and knocking on doors to show people the party still cares about ordinary people still matters. What matters most to people in the real world is jobs, schools and sorting local problems.

The LibDems and SNP are putting out the message that the election is a straight fight between them. I think that is political arrogance, from two parties who are great at making promises but don't deliver. Local voters are raising issues like the TLR, anti-social behaviour and traffic where they are fed up with words and want action.

The Labour vote is solid, and I think we might surprise a few of the pundits.

Smeargate, McBride and the New Media

2009-04-15T20:26:00.003+01:00

Reading the absolute political poison about “Smeargate” in the London Evening Standard tonight (I’m down here on business) I’m wondering about the timing of launching my own political blog.
Maybe all of us aspiring progressive politicians should give up on new media and get back to press releases and stump speeches?

But two things make me think. First of all, what Damian McBride and his colleagues have done is utterly appalling. Not only is it immoral in its own right, but its devastated the genuinely good news stories about Labour’s G20 achievements. I’ve no doubt the timing has been manipulated by the anti-Labour press, but what on earth made McBride & Co even consider this kind of story-lining was acceptable. They need to get out in the real world. And whilst I am frustrated by the way the Tory political PR machine has milked the opportunity, its only what Labour would have done in the reverse situation.

Secondly, I don’t subscribe to the view that Gordon Brown somehow sanctioned or encouraged this. But I do think it shows how little our current political leaders understand the power of the new media. And because they don’t understand it, they focus elsewhere and leave space for the McBrides and Drapers to operate unchecked. So instead of the building on the power that blogs and social websites have to reach out and build support for progressive politics, we end up with the self-created hatefest we are currently enduring.

So I’m not giving up. New media is great way to build new political relationships and ideas, new ways of listening, sharing and promoting ideas. Just be yourself and don’t say things on the web that you wouldn’t be prepared to say on the street!

Inverness West Hots Up

2009-04-14T10:13:00.006+01:00

And not just the weather!

Out door knocking with Andrew Mackintosh on Dalneigh on Friday and with Andrew and Dave Stewart MSP in Scorguie on Saturday. We are getting a very good response, with a solid set of Labour promises. And its not just the voters. We ran into an SNP campaign team who also confirmed that Labour is "doing well".

There is a good feel on the doorstep, despite all the negative stuff coming from London. Most people seem more concerned about jobs, traffic and schools. Bring on the 23rd!