Christmas (sic!) trumps safety amid more councillor confusion

The row over Dundee City Council's rebranding of the Christmas lights switch-on as Winter Light Night rumbles on, with numerous letters in the local press no doubt adding to official discomfiture.

And Courier columnist John J Marshall argues that the name change had more to do with avoiding causing religious offence than the expanded programme planned for this year, citing the Director of City Development's report to councillors, which said the evening would be:

A chance for everyone to come together and celebrate the city, focusing on our shared culture, history and identity.

Indeed, the words 'shared culture' in particular seem symptomatic of typical PC-speak. However, the phrase above seems to originate from a national initiative called Light Night, which is an offshoot of the Association of Town Centre Management, perhaps indicating that the downgrading of the Christmas aspect of the programme was not wholly politically motivated. In fact none of the other cities hosting a Light Night appear to have a festive element to their events.

However, in view of previous nationally publicised controversies about the secularisation of municipal Christmas celebrations, then presumably Dundee City Council officials should have realised that the move could prove controversial, even if councillors perhaps weren't as attentive as they might have been over the matter.

Anyway, it's interesting that another issue dominating the local news this week also involves lights, but this time of the lamp standard variety. It seems that the council has been refusing to repair lampposts damaged by errant drivers, and a slightly bizarre notice attached to a 'street lighting column' in the city's Menzieshill area reads:

PUBLIC NOTICE
The street lighting column situated here was struck & knocked down (most probably by a vehicle). No one has owned up to this accident. The column is unlikely to be replaced unless a responsible party can be found. Should you have any information regarding this incident please call the customer services helpline on 0800 23 23 23.

Unsurprisingly, concerns have been raised over safety and even the ruling Nationalist administration are unhappy with the situation, but SNP councillor Will Dawson, convenor of the city development committee, claims the decision not to replace damaged street lights was made by the previous Labour/Lib Dem administration and the SNP had not been aware of the measure until a couple of months ago. But Lib Dem councillor Fraser Macpherson has countered that the "budget was passed unanimously and all aspects were discussed in an all-party setting", and is calling for a rethink.

Thus more than a hint of party politics in evidence, not to mention more councillor confusion, but it's interesting to compare the cost of the Winter Light Night - £50,000 - with the cost of repairing the damaged streetlights, which with currently around 10 in the city would total something like £8-10,000.

And all this seems to partly stem from a spat between SNP and Labour councillors following a recent stabbing and knife-point robbery in the Menzieshill area, with the former describing as "destructive" and "offensive" remarks by the latter's Tom Ferguson relating to the two incidents.

SNP councillor Alan Ross described the area as a "safe and nice place to live". Unless, of course, you are left in the dark due to unrepaired street lights.

Yes, Mr Gray, that said it all

At FMQs earlier today Labour's Iain Gray pushed the mantra that Alex Salmond is 'losing it', and in evidence cited the SNP's trouncing in last week's Glasgow North East by-election. Indeed, the victor in that contest just happened to be in the Holyrood chamber, and Mr Gray triumphantly said:

Willie Bain, Scotland's newest MP, sitting in the public gallery, that says it all.

Indeed, Mr Gray. That says a lot about a new MP who was only yesterday being paraded in front of the cameras with Mr & Mrs Brown in Downing Street before taking his place in the House of Commons, only to a few hours later hotfoot it back to Edinburgh (paid for by the taxpayer, presumably) to make a guest appearance at FMQs. I know that candidates in the by-election had some difficulty differentiating issues devolved to Holyrood from those reserved to Westminster, but this is getting ridiculous.

That also says a lot about Mr Bain's attitude to the House of Commons - rather than prioritising finding his feet in his new environment he instead thought it better to rub the SNP's noses in it at Holyrood's weekly set-piece.

And that also says a lot about Labour's attitude to yesterday's Queen's Speech - Willie Bain's response to his party's legislative programme was to disappear back north to be paraded as a political scalp, which in turn underlines the pointless nature of his election during the fag-end of a government, with yesterday's Westminster set-piece amounting to little more than wasteful electioneering.

And on a wider note Alex Salmond's humorous and indeed self-critical quip about Willie Bain possibly seeking a dual-mandate emphasised the question mark often surrounding the post of MP/MSP as amounting to a proper job: Alex Salmond manages to do both, as well as serving as first minister.

Indeed, Mr Gray - your remark said a lot about the nature of party politics and priorities.

Anoraks v nonattitudes

The post-poll analysis of last week's Glasgow North East by-election largely failed to mention the impact of the Socialist Labour Party on comparisons with the result in the 2005 general election.

Of course, convention holds that the Parliamentary vote to re-elect the Speaker should be uncontested, thus the figures are not readily comparable, but the SNP did stand against Labour's Michael Martin in the 2005 contest - not to mention several minor parties - and to the extent that the SNP and Labour hugely outpolled the other candidates both now and then means that there is some merit in comparing the numbers.

However, in 2005 Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party garnered 4,036 votes, while last week its candidate secured a mere 47. This surely underlines that the earlier hefty vote for the fringe party was down to voter confusion - as the Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin wasn't identified as a Labour candidate on the ballot paper, thus voters intending to vote Labour put their cross beside the hard left option.

Hence while the bare numbers show that Labour's share of the vote increased from 53.3% to 59.4% between the two polls, if it's assumed that c. 4,000 of the Socialist Labour Party's vote were intended for the Labour Party in 2005 then its share would have been around 67% then, therefore meaning that the straightforward comparison between 2005 and 2009 flattered last week's Labour candidate Willie Bain - the bare numbers show him increasing Labour's share of the vote significantly, whereas adjusting for the Socialist Labour Party effect shows a significant fall.

Anyway, a week's a long time in politics, and to that extent the above is all water under the bridge now, but I thought of this facet of the Glasgow North East result when reading an article in this morning's Times by political guru Daniel Finkelstein. The piece is essentially about public ignorance of politics, and includes examples like the following:

A very nice friend, who reads the newspaper every day, told me that she didn’t think David Cameron would win the election. Why, I asked? Because the Tories will win, she replied. But he is a Tory, I exclaimed. Oh, she said, I thought he was Conservative.

Although I don't think I come into the league of political anoraks - and I mean the term as a compliment, not a criticism! - like Will Patterson, it's easy to find public attitudes like this amusing, although clearly the serious issue with people like the so-called "nonattitudes" is the implications for the democratic process. For example, Mr Finkelstein points out how the likes of today's Queen's speech is an irrelevance outside the political bubble; it will barely register with the general public, at least as regards anything approaching the substance of what's announced or its relevance (or lack thereof this time round).

Lord provost not switched-on over switch-on

Dundee has been in the national media recently over the City Council's decision to dispense with the traditional Christmas lights switch-on, which will now be called the Winter Light Night. Church groups and others have complained that the rebranding has eroded the traditional Christian aspect to the festival. Unsurprisingly, others still have viewed the decision as born of political correctness, with the Christmas element being dropped to avoid offending members of non-Christian faiths.

However, it's since been reported (not online) that the council and church groups have held meetings to clear the air, with the SNP administration insisting that the event has merely been extended from the traditional Christmas lights switch-on, hence the change in title. Indeed, when the Courier first reported the new event in August the council's development director was quoted as saying that "the Christmas lights will also be switched on for the first time for the event".

On the other hand, perhaps comments on the Homecoming Scotland website by development committee convenor Will Dawson do allude to a desire to downgrade the significance of the Christian element, if not to 'cancel Christmas' altogether: "The varied programme of Winter Light Night reflects today’s Dundee as a diverse and vibrant city. There will be something to suit all tastes, and everyone is invited."

Anyway, today's Courier reports that Dundee's lord provost John Letford - who it should be recalled defected from Labour to help the SNP take control of the city council, but who remains a staunch Unionist - shares "the churches’ view about the omission of the word Christmas from the switching on of the lights", following complaints that "the Christian faith has been betrayed and that he was responsible".

And Mr Letford claims he was in the dark on the lights:

He accepted that an item about the Winter Night Light had gone through committee and he had not opposed it but said that was because he believed what was being proposed was in addition to the traditional Christmas lights event, rather than a replacement.

But it is in addition to the Christmas lights and not a replacement, surely? Indeed, the council has responded:

The proposal for the Winter Night Light celebration was approved unanimously at a meeting of the city development committee on Monday, August 24. The report (submitted to the committee) explained that the Christmas lights will also be switched on for the first time for the event.

Which is in fact what was in essence outlined by the Courier report almost three months ago - presumably Mr Letford neither paid attention to what was going on when the committee met nor read the report about the proposal in the local press.

Of course, in view of the lord provost's role in propping up the SNP administration there's a potential political dimension to all of this, but more importantly this issue is perhaps instructive as regards the efficacy of the council's decision making process.

In the normal course of events the fact that councillors are voting on matters they are not 'switched-on' about will not become an issue, but this particular controversy at least highlights that much of our so-called local democracy is little more than municipal government by officialdom, with councillors merely turning up to rubber-stamp decisions made by the bureaucrats.

An earthquake of sorts

While it perhaps wasn't a political earthquake on the scale of the SNP's victory in Glasgow East last year, Labour's early morning triumph in the Glasgow North East by-election was surprising in view of the party's margin of victory over the Nationalists. It seems that the result was never in doubt, but did anyone forecast that Labour's Willie Bain would secure almost 60% of the votes, while the SNP's David Kerr polled a mere 20%? Equally predictable, however, was that none of the other parties even came close.

Nationally, Labour will of course be hugely encouraged by the result, which they will take to signify - rightly or wrongly - that Gordon Brown isn't a totally busted flush and that the forthcoming general election isn't a completely lost cause.

In view of Labour's lack of popularity at the UK level and the Scottish Government's relative popularity in mid-term, the SNP will be bitterly disappointed that they didn't at least perhaps poll half the number of votes that Labour garnered, since with hindsight anything more ambitious was grossly unrealistic. And the result perhaps adds credibility to the recent opinion poll showing Labour decisively ahead of the SNP in Westminster voting intentions. Of course, the Holyrood data shows a different picture, but maybe the evidence demonstrates that the gloss is slowly but surely coming off the SNP Government - à la Barack Obama, but at a slower pace - and Alex Salmond's forecast of 20 seats at the general election was delusionally optimistic. Indeed, perhaps the prospect of a Tory Government could benefit Labour rather than the SNP north of the border, since the former will be seen as the credible opposition standing up for Scotland rather than Mr Salmond's implausible wish to hold the balance of power in a hung parliament and thus "hang Westminster by a Scottish rope".

The other big story of the night was that the Conservatives managed to squeeze the BNP out of third place, despite fairly certain noises to the contrary only minutes before the result was declared. But the Tories' margin over the BNP was small, and indeed was largely similar to that in the European elections in May. However, UKIP outpolled both the BNP and Tories in May, but did not take part in the by-election, thus it's perhaps reasonable to assume that UKIP's votes were split between the two, which may in fact have prevented a third place from Tommy Sheridan, who seemed to mop up much of the hard left vote from the other parties.

Contrary to my forecast, Independent/Jury Team candidate John Smeaton secured little more than 250 votes (as compared to around 1,000 for the Tories and BNP), which again demonstrates the difficulty of anti-politics candidates in making an impression, even with the current mood of anger and disillusionment following the MPs' expenses scandal.

Of course, in that regard the abysmal 33% turnout tells its own story.

The Sun hoist by its own petard?

It must have seemed an open goal for the Sun. A a grieving and aggrieved mother, whose son had died in Afghanistan, a scribbled note of condolence - replete with spelling mistakes - from an unpopular prime minister conducting an increasingly unpopular war, and only weeks after the newspaper had turned its back on the Labour Party. And we all know that the Sun doesn't take prisoners, and doesn't adhere to a publishers' Geneva Convention in its battle against political foes, even when reporting on a real, and increasingly fraught, war.

But it now seems that the Sun's plan has unravelled somewhat, and while it may yet win the war, it appears to have lost the battle. Jacqui Janes' grievances always seemed a bit narrowly-based to justify the paper's splash - she seems broadly supportive of both the war in Afghanistan and Gordon Brown himself, despite understandable anger at equipment shortages. Her outrage regarding the letter per se seemed to be based largely on its untidy and misspelt nature, which she described as an "insult" to her dead son.

A recording of Mr Brown's subsequent phone call to her was made without his knowledge and was made available on the Sun's website. Of course, it's also been underlined that the prime minister is blind in one eye, has limited vision in the other and may in fact be dyslexic. His poor handwriting has indeed been a well known issue for some time, even for non-politicos.

Robert Crampton in the Times suggests that the furore may have arisen due to differing mores between social classes:

In the middle class, many of whose members spend their lives in front of computers, the handwritten note is seen as superior to the typed. It represents the personal touch. Authentic, rootsy, person-to-person, heartfelt.

But to Jacqui Janes, I think, to judge by her comments in The Sun yesterday, the handwritten note is something that you leave out for the milkman when you want an extra pint.

And it's difficult to find anything wholly critical of Gordon Brown in the rest of the press, particularly following his emotional and very personal message conveyed at a press conference yesterday. Ian Bell in the Herald analyses the Murdoch angle and suggests it's "just not British to hound a man for attempting decency". Even Tom Bradby's coverage on ITV News last night seemed more sympathetic than when the story broke, Craig Murray is broadly supportive and indeed the Sun's online comments seem to be generally critical of the paper's stance.

In the Times Melanie Reid compares the attack on Gordon Brown with how a disabled person might be treated in a more humdrum context and contrasts the episode with the official "Fairer Britain" objective of "mutual respect based on shared values with fairness at their core":

Fair? It’s so far from fair that it takes one’s breath away. Whatever one thinks of Mr Brown he is still the PM, and whatever his considerable failings as a politician, there is something pretty vile about the personal attacks now being levelled at him.

As one partially sighted writer put it, perhaps instead of criticising we should be deeply impressed that someone who can only read large print and needs help from aides should write by hand to the bereaved relatives of soldiers killed in action. His letter was self-evidently physically laborious and came from the heart, which makes it even more sad that it is being misinterpreted.

It's thus perhaps unsurprising that today's Scotsman reports that Mrs Janes has now forgiven Gordon Brown, and says she "felt exploited" (although she seemed to say otherwise when questioned by Jeremy Paxman on last night's Newsnight) and "didn't expect the attack on Mr Brown to be so personal".

And while the Sun itself adopts a slightly different angle - it says Mrs Janes now "accepts humbled PM's apology" - it's latest coverage certainly portrays the prime minister in a slightly better light than in its previous reports.

Thus perhaps two lessons can be drawn from this affair. First, people will clearly recognise sincerity in particular circumstances, even if in a more general context where motives are doubted and opportunism suspected. Second, and following from the first point, attacks of a more personal nature can often backfire, even evoking sympathetic responses from normally visceral opponents.

Immigration and employment ghettoes

(Published as a letter in the Sunday Herald.)

Sunday Herald correspondent Bob Purdie portrays the immigration problem as largely cultural. He writes that a culturally diverse and tolerant society can be achieved by creating “an environment in which people can meet each other as human beings”, but ignores the economic impact, which may indeed be a root cause of cultural friction.

Often immigrants are portrayed as addressing skills shortages, such as in the NHS. That’s all very well, assuming there are genuine vacancies rather than merely a wish to drive down wages. However, in many entry-level jobs the effect is very often merely to dampen earnings and displace indigenous workers.

An example of this is the taxi/minicab sector, where drivers are paid by commission and/or are self-employed owner-drivers. The presence of additional drivers at the rank or in despatch offices has a self-evidently detrimental effect on earnings, thus causing friction.

Of course, it’s often argued that immigrants are taking such jobs merely because indigenous workers won’t do them. However, in many English towns and cities indigenous cab drivers are an unusual sight, whereas in equivalent Scottish locations the reverse is largely true. Thus, rather than indigenous Scots being unwilling to drive cabs, perhaps the difference is the presence of large immigrant workforces lowering earnings for cab drivers in English locations. As this effect takes hold the sector becomes a labour market ghetto.

Hence the consequent “British jobs for British workers” style of rhetoric and fertile ground for the more overtly racist political parties, which exploit economic detriment and insecurities among threatened or displaced workers.