From zero to hero(ine)

Yesterday's Scotsman carried a story about singer-songwriter Sandi Thom receiving financial 'kickbacks' of £10,000 from the Scottish Government in relation to various promotional performances. Of course, particularly relevant to the claims was that Ms Thom is a high-profile SNP supporter and is admired by First Minister Alex Salmond, who has sung a duet with her.

Defending the payments she said:

£500 for breakfast may seem a lot, but when you are feeding six, seven, eight people from my band and my manager, then it builds up.

As someone who normally breakfasts on a bowl of Tesco branded cereal and some milk - which probably costs little more than fifty pence - the reported figures seems excessive, even for eight people in a hotel, and Sandi Thom's explanation ridiculous.

But today's Sunday Times reveals that Ms Thom is to sever her ties with Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government. Moreover, she told the newspaper:

All I see within the parliament is just playground politics, people trying
to make the other one look like an idiot, trying to find something to make a mockery of the other party, and that’s got nothing to do with Scotland’s future.

That is just people being petty and wanting to get one over on each other. It is something I don’t want any part of any more. I won’t do any more gigs for the government. It is just silly and childish.

Well said that singer-songwriter. What a difference a day makes!

Car crash blogosphere hits MSM

Yesterday's 'Battle of the Bloggers' showdown between Derek Draper and Guido Fawkes seems unlikely to endear the public to political discourse generally, never mind the still relatively arcane world of the blogosphere.

For different reasons neither of the two seem particularly attractive in the medium of television, and that's even disregarding the confrontational nature of their exchange on the BBC's Daily Politics.

Two particular moments stick in the mind. Derek Draper asking Guido Fawkes where the money came from and who was pulling his strings in view of the cost of getting started in blogging seemed either incredibly naive or a deliberate attempt to highlight the latter's bankruptcy. Meanwhile, Fawkes's description of Draper as "crooked" in relation to fairly run of the mill political machinations and his claim that he "hates" politicians both employed the kind of intemperate language that moderate public opinion finds distasteful.

Thankfully Andrew Neil's show is watched primarily by political anoraks, but if even they are unfamiliar with the blogosphere then yesterday's spat is unlikely to have provided them with a positive image of the blogging..er..community, and instead it must look like an online caricature of the 'Punch and Judy politics' that so alienates the public.

Blogosphere bubble?

You would have to be inhabiting a different blogosphere not to have noticed the frenzied excitement on anti-Labour blogs (ie most of them!) in relation to a speech made by MEP Daniel Hannan to the European Parliament.

Of course, only hardcore Brownites would deny that Mr Hannan's speech was a robust, effective and substantive demolition of the prime minister and his economic policies. And that's not to say that the substance of the speech is entirely beyond criticism.

However, Mr Hannan didn't really say anything that hasn't been said before, as he himself says, so why the blogosphere consternation that his speech received little coverage in the MSM?

Perhaps the explanation is that the adulation afforded to Mr Hannan wasn't based on substance at all; it has arisen because of the particular circumstances of the speech, in particular that Gordon Brown was present in the Parliament when the dressing down was delivered, which clearly appeals to the more ad hominem nature of much of the criticism directed towards the prime minister.

By the same token, blogger extraordinaire Iain Dale describes as "woeful" an interview given by treasury minister Angela Eagle on the BBC's Newsnight, claiming that she "crashed and burned". Ms Eagle did indeed completely avoid Jeremy Paxman's persistent questioning about the governor of the Bank of England's caution regarding another fiscal stimulus, but isn't this what politicians of all parties are particularly adept at? It was little more than the usual Paxo v politician scenario of irresistible force meets immovable object, and Ms Eagle acquitted herself well in the 'answer any question but the one asked' stakes!

Of course, it was the substantive development of the governor's warning that the MSM concentrated on yesterday - The Times carried a rare double-length leader, for example - rather than the political theatre of the Hannan speech.

Trading political baubles

The war of words over Dundee's lord provost handing the SNP control of the city is hotting up, with Councillor John Letford claiming that his former Labour party colleagues offered him an OBE in return for handing his chains of office to Independent councillor Ian Borthwick to retain the latter's support.

Mr Letford says he is now coming clean because of the effect criticism of his actions is having on his wife the lady provost, but he has also said that the adverse reaction was not unexpected, therefore why didn't he at least stand down from the provostship and support the SNP as an Independent councillor, if not resign and fight a by-election or retire altogether?

Instead he agreed with the nationalists to retain the chains of office as a quid pro quo for his support, which inevitably led to accusations of cynicism and "backhanders".

Of course, all this perhaps confirms suspicions that Mr Letford has a particular penchant for the limelight and trappings of office, and indeed a letter in today's Courier suggests that the Lord Provost should receive a knighthood for his tireless work and dedication towards making Dundee "a great place to live". Which would be fitting given that Mr Letford seems to have taken on the mantle of a poor man's Sir Fred Goodwin!

Meanwhile, another Courier correspondent repeats the oft-cited "man of principle" mantra in relation to current depute lord provost Mr Borthwick, and suggests that he should be handed Mr Letford's chains of office.

Which is a tad unfortunate given that Mr Letford additionally claims Mr Borthwick also made the offer of an OBE if the lord provost would step aside in his favour.

Of course, Labour group leader Kevin Keenan and Mr Borthwick both deny that an OBE was on the table, but this latest instalment in the saga of the court of King John will only underline the increasingly Machiavellian image of Dundee politics.

Dundee policy vacuum

Will at J Arthur MacNumpty and Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting have stimulating posts and subsequent comments on the battle for control of Dundee City Council, thus rather than replicate that here it might instead be a good idea to analyse the policy perspective as opposed to the politicking and personalities.

Except that there's not really a lot to discuss; indeed, any analysis is perhaps best directed towards the policy vacuum in Dundee local politics rather than policies per se.

When the issue of SNP wresting control of the council from the ruling Labour/Lib Dem/Tory alliance came to the fore again following the nationalists' success in the Maryfield by-election, I asked on this blog whether anyone in Dundee would really notice if a new administration was formed, because apart from the flags and labels there seems very little substantive difference between the parties in the city. Indeed, the political promiscuity evidenced by councillors both recently and in the past few years - any port in political storm - is perhaps symptomatic of philosophical homogeneity, at least regarding the local perspective.

The blanket coverage afforded to the situation by last night's Evening Telegraph is surely proof positive of that; scour the dozen or so articles on the Tele's website and the nearest to policy considerations you're likely to find is something vacuous like "doing the best for Dundee".

Of course, disputes do arise, and last week I mentioned the spat over a report from the Scottish Housing Regulator which was highly critical of the council. However, fast forward a few days and yesterday's Courier reported that a response from the council's housing director had been "unanimously agreed by all parties" and the department's draft action plan had passed through the housing committee with "barely a whimper". Normal service has been resumed, with councillors suitably placated with predictable municipal-speak such as recommendations to "form a best value review group to approve the improvement plan for submission to the Scottish Housing Regulator following consultation with relevant stakeholders, to oversee and monitor the plan and agree the consultation and involvement arrangements for tenants and staff". Sorted!

Indeed, when asked on BBC Radio Scotland last week what change in direction a new nationalist administration would bring to Dundee, SNP group leader Ken Guild said merely that they would be more "open to change" and a "breath of fresh air". When pressed by the interviewer Mr Guild replied that his administration would be "more receptive" to ideas from inspectors and council officials, which unfortunately underlines the impression that councillors often simply rubber-stamp decisions effectively taken by paid and unelected bureaucrats.

Similarly, the SNP's housing spokesman said on an internet message board no more than that there would be a noticeable change in the service received by tenants. Of course, that may well be the case, but what's the evidence to support this claim, which is otherwise as compelling as a cv merely claiming that a job applicant will be a good employee.

By the same token, the SNP's successful candidate in the council by-election which precipitated the current power struggle was quoted in last week's press as saying simply that a new three-year community plan for his ward demonstrated that a "multi-agency approach will make Maryfield a better place to live" - it would perhaps be more instructive to hear his views on the recent multi-agency and cross-party blame shifting regarding the killing of toddler Brandon Muir at the hands of his drug addict mother's drug addict boyfriend.

The victorious Craig Melville also seems to suffer from the career politician syndrome - an MA in Politics and European Studies followed by four years as a caseworker for MP Stewart Hosie - and thus is probably more attuned to the business of the political bubble rather than the business of the real world.

So what's it all about then? Councillor John Letford's defection from Labour to smoothing the path to power for the SNP as an independent (sic!) who will support the new administration in return for keeping his title of Lord Provost and associated trappings perhaps ably demonstrates the motivations in play - power and status, a bit of extra dosh from the personal perspective, and kudos for the party tribe.

Of course, effective and efficient administration of the city is essential, as is scrutiny and accountability, but these ideals seem to play second fiddle to vacuous, self-serving and Machiavellian party politics.

Political implosion in Dundee!

It seems that the brown stuff has really hit the air extraction device following the decision of Dundee's Labour Lord Provost to resign from the party and thus open the door to the SNP taking control of the City Council.

After a relatively low-key story in this morning's Courier, tonight's Evening Telegraph is full of articles about Cllr John Letford's resignation, the reaction and the implications.

Unsurprisingly, many seem to be reflecting my own view on the subject - that Mr Letford realised the writing was on the wall for the Labour/Lib Dem/Tory administration and in effect jumped ship and concluded a Faustian pact with the SNP in order that he could keep his position as Lord Provost, replete with ceremonial chain, big posh limousine with little flags on it, fancy lamppost outside his house in the city's Charleston council house scheme and endless photo opportunities. The SNP's stance seems equally cynical and a grab for power at any cost, despite the usual claims that the Lord Provost post is purely ceremonial and not political - that may well be the case, but it's the political machinations involved that are the problem, not the Lord Provost post per se.

Meanwhile, it looks like the Labour/Lib Dem coalition may seek to formalise their relationship with the Tories in a bid to remain in power as part of a "Unionist alliance". This would also involve pivotal independent councillor Ian Borthwick, who has thus far refused to formally endorse the SNP's bid for control and has instead called for Dundee to be run on a cross-party basis.

I'm off to buy my Tele - more later!!

Paradoxical nationalism

Some aspects of Scottish nationalism seem puzzling and paradoxical. For example, the SNP considers it inappropriate that interest rates are set by the Bank of England in London, yet seems prepared for an independent Scotland to cede monetary policy sovereignty to the European Central Bank in Frankfurt.

Then there's Alex Salmond's support for Muslim women wearing the veil, which seems to conflict with ideas of a Scottish national identity and reduces Scotland to a mere geographical entity rather than a nation state, but which clearly has its merits.

Perhaps the most obvious example is the Scottish diaspora; people who love their country so much that they prefer to live elsewhere, and who have the chutzpah to lecture the (resident) people of Scotland on how they should be governed, and who can, for example, refer to critics of nationalism and independence as "cancerous" on internet message boards.

More in keeping with nationalism, perhaps, was Alex Salmond's recent press criticism regarding Heart of Midlothian owner Vladimir Romanov, which included phrases like, "If you get a club sold to a very rich foreign guy - often a Russian oligarch or somebody like that - then I suppose you enter a kind of devil's bargain", and that Hearts had been taken over by "a rich guy from the Baltic states".

Slightly ironic, then, that one of Mr Salmond's lieutenants - Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill - lists in the Scottish Parliament's register of interests part ownership of a flat in the Baltic state of Estonia, not to mention the disposal of shares in a public house there - I wonder what the liquor licensing laws are like?!

Of course, Mr MacAskill doesn't quite seem in the oligarch league, and football's perhaps a different game from more mainstream business and property investments, but Mr Salmond's comments do seem to betray the hint of a dislike of foreign money in Scotland.

I wonder what Estonia's poor think of that rich(ish), foreign guy from Scotland?

Labour advance in Dundee

Labour made slight progress in last week's council by-election in Dundee, increasing its share of the first-preference vote from 30 per cent in 2007 to 31 per cent this time round. Of course, the headline news was that the SNP wrested the vacant council seat from Labour, taking them within touching distance of controlling Dundee City Council, which is currently run by an 'unholy alliance' of Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative councillors.

Indeed, the SNP increased its vote by a bigger margin than Labour - by three per cent to 48 per cent - and the nationalists' advance seemed to be at the expense of both the Lib Dems and the Tories, who lost a couple of percentage points each to take them to 11 per cent and 7 per cent of the first-preference votes respectively.

However, the purpose of the headline above is to underline two issues. First, that the SNP's claim of some kind of minor political earthquake - a la the Glasgow East Westminster by-election - is slightly misplaced; in fact, the party could have lost a significant share of the vote, and as a corollary Labour gained a significant share, but would still have registered a nationalist gain from Labour.

In turn this leads to the second issue - that the 'fair votes' of the proportional representation system can effectively mutate into a cruder quasi-first past the post affair in a by-election scenario. Of course, the STV system is a complicated beast, but in both 2007 and last week the SNP's percentage share of the first preference votes was in the mid-forties, while Labour secured around thirty per cent in both counts. In 2007 the system afforded SNP two of the seats in the three-member ward, while Labour had one councillor elected, which seems intuitively fair.

However, with only one seat up for grabs in a by-election contest it's hardly surprising that the most popular party will win it, but if this seat had been won by a less popular party at the initial poll courtesy of STV then the fairness disappears - the SNP now control all three seats in the Maryfield ward while last week securing less than half of the first-preference votes.

Of course, to an extent the SNP can claim that this provides some redress regarding the claimed unfairness of the already largest party in terms of councillors being prevented from getting their hands on the levers of power by the unholy alliance - the (de facto*) coalition can reasonably have been said to have benefitted unfairly, while now the tables are turned and it's the SNP's turn.

SNP control of Dundee City Council is not, of course, a foregone conclusion. Independent councillor Ian Borthwick is being posited as a 'kingmaker'; his support could result in the nationalists taking control of the council, although the Dundee press quotes Mr Borthwick as suggesting a cross-party administration, but the other parties have poured cold water on this idea. It's also been reported that an SNP approach to the Lib Dems has been ruled out. However, the nationalists are also making overtures towards the Tories, and given the political promiscuity evident in Dundee nothing can really be ruled out; there's certainly evidence to suggest that current Labour support from the smaller parties is born of matters like personal advancement, the more lucrative convenorship positions and simply power for the sake of it rather than any grand ideological considerations, and given the lack of substantive opposition in Dundee it's arguable that the SNP's bid for power is based on similar motives, not to mention the usual party political tribalism and flag-waving.

However, although politics in Dundee normally seems a fairly non-contentious business, occasional spats do arise, but again this seems mainly resulting from party political machinations and opposition for the sake of it rather than anything more substantive. For example, the run up to the by-election saw the Labour administration leader accuse the SNP of pressuring the Scottish housing regulator to release a report damning of Dundee City Council in the critical few days before the poll. In turn, as well as understandably making hay over the criticisms the SNP group leader has threatened to report the Labour councillor to the Standards Commissioner. Meanwhile, the city's only independent councillor has predictably called for the bickering to stop and for the parties to instead address the shortcomings highlighted by the regulator and put council employees and tenants first.

That's not to understate the importance of these issues nor, of course, to suggest that criticism and accountability is undesirable. But these issues seem more administrative in nature rather than anything that should be associated with ideological considerations in general or party bickering and politicking in particular.

Indeed, from a personal perspective I've never noticed any real difference regarding the stance of Dundee's parties in relation to my own particular local interests. Thus the question is: apart from the parties themselves and the more politically-motivated members of the public, if power changed hands in Dundee would anyone really notice?

*Labour and the Lib Dems are in formal coalition, while Conservative support for the administration is described as "informal".

Chris's council campaign coalition convenorship confusion

While the Lib Dems were unsuccessful in Thursday's council by-election in Dundee, a correspondent to the city's Courier newspaper pointed out the transport problems raised during the campaign by Chris Hall, the party's candidate:

It seems there are problems in practically every street and on every pavement. Problems with bus services such as the 18 and 21, road safety nightmares in Pitkerro Road and Arbroath Road, issues with unadopted pavements and traffic lights all over the place.

And as all local drivers know, there are huge potholes appearing in many of the roads in the area which pose serious risks to car suspension. Dundee’s roads have never been in a poorer state.

As a Dundee resident I can certainly identify with many similar problems, so fair play to Mr Hall for raising them.

But wait a minute - as the letter writer points out, Dundee's planning and transport convenor is none other than Lib Dem councillor Fraser Macpherson, who is part of the Labour-led coalition forming the council administration. In fact, Mr Macpherson also acted as Mr Hall's election agent!

Couldn't they just cut out the middlemen (the electorate!) and sort out these issues between themselves?! Perhaps the point of standing for election is power for the sake of it - indeed, the Dundee Lib Dem's homepage refers to the "Tory-Labour-Nat arguments which have achieved so little for our city in past years".

But no mention of the coalition - perhaps Mr Hall should be told!

Sorry seems to be the easiest word

While it would be preferable if politicians could be a bit more realistic and humble about their abilities, and more predisposed to contrition when they (inevitably) make mistakes, a good candidate for cynical and cringeworthy political stunt of the year is surely David Cameron's decision to say sorry for the Conservative Party's role in creating the environment which has led to the current economic crisis.

It's hardly surprising that a widespread interpretation of Mr Cameron's stance is that it's intended to help fill in the hole that Gordon Brown has dug himself into over his refusal to even acknowledge the Labour Government's contribution to an admittedly worldwide problem - if the opposition party can apologise, why not the Prime Minister and ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Of course, the latter point perhaps points to the cynicism of Mr Cameron's stance - if an indication of shame and humility is rare enough in government, whenever has this really been expected of oppositions?

There is substantive merit in David Cameron's admission, however. And to some extent this does vindicate Mr Brown's position - the economic crisis is rooted in global economic circumstances, and it seems unlikely that things would have been materially different if the Conservatives had been at the helm as the credit crunch and subsequent recession developed. But the Prime Minister's refusal to acknowledge even some element of past neglect or error makes him look both delusional and pigheaded.

Multi-agency blame shifting

Last month Dundee witnessed the annual mess of litter and other debris generated by festival-goers queuing for T in the Park tickets. This ritual gives the distinct impression of the authorities standing back and only getting involved to clean up the mess after the event. Indeed, in this context a Dundee councillor said that he had been "tremendously impressed" with police and other authorities as regards the organisation and clear up of the "phenomenal" amount of litter generated at the event itself.

Fast forward a couple of weeks and a much more serious example arose of the authorities giving the impression of doing nothing and intervening only after the event to clear things up - the killing of toddler Brandon Muir.

Cue the same (so-called) opposition councillor, who said he had always been "impressed" and "more than happy" with the performance of Dundee's social work team, who do a "really good job".

Indeed, the councillor seemed to blame the public for not being "brave enough" to speak up regarding the dangers facing Brandon. Hardly surprising, therefore, that Dundee's social work director declared himself the "right person to take child protection services forward" and claimed that more information from the public might have saved Brandon.

A police spokesman also suggested that those closest to the boy were responsible for his death, and First Minister Alex Salmond effectively absolved police and social workers from any blame.

And with an ex-chief constable appointed by Dundee City Council to investigate the case, doesn't this all suggest that officialdom has already been cleared of any culpability regarding this tragedy, and that at best process and protocol will shoulder the blame and perhaps recommendations like promoting a more "multi-agency approach" will be made, whereas maybe the self-evident multi-agency blame shifting betrays a bureaucratic and ultimately dangerous diffusion of responsibility.

Indeed, it's perhaps this kind of thing that engenders a public mistrust of officialdom and thus a reluctance to act as informants, and therefore the sense that the authorities have exonerated themselves from blame and pre-empted the investigations will only compound this.

Of course, as member of the public I would not like to rush to judgement while not fully appraised of the facts. However, given that UK social work departments debar people such as the overweight and smokers from adopting children it seems perverse that Brandon Muir could be left in such a self-evidently dangerous and now well-documented environment.

Bridge tolls and hospital parking charges - compare and contrast

A recent letter in the Dundee press compared the SNP Government's approach to the abolition of bridge tolls in Scotland with its stance towards free hospital parking. If it could find the money to replace lost toll revenue and thus allow free passage for bridge users then why not find the money to buy out the PFI parking contract at Ninewells Hospital and therefore abolish the "tax on health" which it's claimed the charges there represent? After all, there's surely a better moral case for abolishing hospital parking charges rather than bridge tolls.

Perhaps this contradiction can be explained by the SNP simply trying to gain maximum electoral advantage at least cost - the most 'bang for buck'.

To curry favour with voters the Scottish Government had little choice but to abolish bridge tolls and dip into public coffers to do so. On the other hand, it could gain similar political kudos by abolishing parking charges at most hospitals but at no direct cost to itself. Of course, the charges at PFI hospitals like Ninewells were retained. But the Scottish Government can shift the blame for this, because Labour signed up to the PFI contracts, thus the SNP can still come up smelling of roses, despite its different approach to the bridge tolls scenario.

Whatever else the elevation of the nationalists to the lofty heights of government has brought, it's probably not an end to cynical and opportunistic politicking.

(An abridged(!) version of this response was published in the Evening Telegraph last week.)

Political/criminal continuum?

Earlier this week Westminster's Treasury Select Committee temporarily upped sticks to Edinburgh to hear evidence on the credit crunch and the difficulties facing Scottish banks. The Times reports:

Christopher Harvie, a Nationalist MSP, and a professor of history, even cited the thrillers of Eric Ambler, John le Carré, Graham Greene and John Buchan. Their writings had shown he said, “that it was difficult to establish where criminality ended and certain types of business practice begins”.

Well said, Professor Harvie. However, replace the word 'business' with something else and the resultant sentence is perhaps equally appropriate:

...it was difficult to establish where criminality ended and certain types of political practice begins.

Adam Smith was a free market apologist(?)

In a newspaper article Dr Eammon Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute, takes a predictably defensive approach to the role of free markets in causing the economic crisis, and instead launches a full-frontal assault on the impact of banking regulation, which in turn he uses to advocate less taxation and regulation.

To illustrate this he uses a vivid comparison - courtesy of another free marketeer - from the sport of swimming. Imagine tying up Michael Phelps and throwing him into a pool weighed down with chains; he would no doubt sink, but this could hardly be attributed to a 'failure of swimming'. Thus why call markets weighed down by "excessive and inept" regulation a 'failure of capitalism'?

More specifically, Dr Butler refers to rules of banking regulation which paralysed the sector when the issue of toxic assets raised its ugly head - their uncertain worth meant they could neither be quantified nor offloaded, the regulations meant the banks had thus to stop lending, and the rest is history.

However, this narrative ignores how a lack of regulation led to the toxic asset situation in the first place - most obviously, imprudent lending to sub-prime borrowers and a failure to address the consequent house price bubble fuelled by cheap money, with the complexity and lack of transparency in the market for the assets resulting in a lack of understanding even by experienced bankers.

Thus if this does not present a rationale for tougher regulation then it surely provides a good argument for different regulation, and certainly does not absolve free markets and justify a laissez-faire approach.

Dr Butler concludes by saying: "Occasional crises are the cost of prosperity that entrepreneurial capitalism brings."

But surely government should seek to regulate markets in order that these crises are avoided or, at least, their effects mitigated. Few would dispute that capitalism creates prosperity. However, as is often said, free markets are a good slave but a bad master.

Pension discredit

Many trees have been felled and bandwidth utilised in pursuit of the vexed question of Sir Fred Goodwin's pension. There seems to be a broad degree of consensus that the ex-RBS chief executive doesn't deserve his £16 million pension pot, having effectively presided over the destruction of the bank in its previous form and as a significant player in the financial sector hubris that has brought the world economy to the brink of catastrophe.

The public opprobrium against the so-called "world's worst banker" culminated in Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, declaring that while Sir Fred's pension "might be enforceable in a court of law...it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion". Of course, Ms Harman's crude populism has generated something of a backlash - not against the proposition that the banker's pension is undeserved, but against the broader implications of her statement.

But if Ms Harman's and the Labour Government's stance seems a politically motivated attempt to shift the blame from their own failings, the reaction to her soundbite has seemed similarly crude and partisan.

For example, in The Times Oliver Kamm said:

She could hardly have been more openly dismissive of the rule of law. In a free society, public opinion is not unmediated: unpopular minorities need their rights to be protected. When an unpopular minority of one finds himself the target, the Government has in effect abandoned fairness and equality before the law. It is scarcely surprising if, in these circumstances, intimidation and threat become part of civic life.

Similarly, the newspaper's Daniel Finkelstein talked of "mob rule", and stated:

I would rather live in a country where people get away with being paid ludicrous amounts that they don't deserve, than in one where the public turns on someone who happens to walk in front of a television camera while it is rolling, and then tries to tear that person limb from limb.

These seem gross overreactions; Harriet Harman was clearly not talking about usurping the law and was instead proposing amending it to take account of overwhelming public opinion. Of course, such a legislative change might have run into problems in terms of its retrospective nature and that it might be challenged under the Human Rights Act, but to equate it to mob rule is absurd.

Indeed, while not actually advocating the expropriation of Sir Fred's pension, another Times columnist - economist Anatole Kaletsky - took a more measured view:

...in the real worlds of politics, economics and social behaviour, rules, laws and contracts frequently have to be modified and reconsidered. Provided they occur in a fair, reasonable and transparent manner, such changes, are perfectly compatible with legal certainty and the rule of law. Indeed, flexibility in interpreting and changing regulations, is necessary for laws to be respected and observed.

To underline his point Mr Kaletsky uses the example of governments throughout the western world changing the rules to provide effectively unlimited insurance for depositors in the wake of the financial crisis - if they had not done this then a run on the banks would almost certainly have occurred, ultimately causing the whole system to collapse. But although the retrospective change in the terms of the schemes primarily benefitted well-off savers at the expense of taxpayers - smaller deposits were already guaranteed - there was no real public or political opposition because of broad awareness that the stakes were high.

Either way, Sir Fred is unlikely to lose his pension by way of virtue of a change in the law, thus to that extent the above is largely academic. But in a more practical vein the Lib Dems' Vince Cable suggested during last week's PMQs that existing company law relating to employee negligence could be used to claw back the pension.

Of course, this could provide a more equitable solution to the problem, but what seems self-evident is that, whether or not Sir Fred keeps his pension, the lawyers are having a field day.

Interestingly, Daniel Finkelstein ended his piece with this slightly bizarre statement:

In his magnificent book, Reasonable Doubts, O.J.Simpson's appeal lawyer Alan Dershowitz explains that it was right to find O.J. not guilty of murdering his wife, even if he did it. Simpson was a rare black defendant able to finance his case and show how the LA police routinely fitted up defendants, even if they didn't fit him up. He was powerful enough to force the court to defend the rule of law, something that was even more important than the conviction of the despicable Simpson.

(Muriel Gray repeats the 'mob rule' argument in today's Sunday Herald and again seems to ignore the difference between autocracy and politicians making populist, crude and kneejerk statements.)

CCTV under surveillance

In yesterday's Times columnist David Aaronovitch dissected the oft-quoted claim that "the average Brit is caught on security cameras some 300 times a day". After some astute detective work he concluded that the statement is just a tad misleading and exaggerated, and in fact derives from a hypothetical and rather contrived claim that a person could be caught on camera 300 times. This is based on a concocted day in the life of a fictional character called Thomas Reams:

Reams is a City type who, rather unusually, lives on a drug-infested estate. He manages to visit two schools, the maternity wing of a hospital, goes to work, shops, is caught speeding in his car, crosses a level-crossing, parks in several car parks before switching to public transport. He goes to Heathrow airport, then a football match at Chelsea, after which he drives through London's most notorious red-light district (by mistake, I hasten to reassure the fictional Mrs Reams).

Clearly a day in the life of the average Brit! While the article ably demonstrates how something which is little more than a fictional account can mutate into widely accepted fact, the broader question about CCTV and the so-called 'surveillance state' is surely what precisely the problem would be if the 300 times a day claim was in fact more plausible.

Of course, in an ideal world CCTV cameras wouldn't be required at all, but we don't live in an ideal world, and indeed perhaps the more pertinent question is why we live in an environment so violent, dishonest and anti-social that we need so much surveillance and indeed whether the spread of such security measures does in fact demonstrate their ineffectiveness.

On the other hand, are surveillance measures inherently problematic and a threat to liberty? Surely if we're in a public space then we should accept a measure of scrutiny provided, of course, that it's not disproportionate and over-intrusive. And if we accept the principle of surveillance per se, does the geographical extent really matter? If it's accepted that we can be passively scrutinised by a policeman on the beat, should this only be confined to certain streets and areas? If not, then what's so different about CCTV cameras?

Surprise, surprise?

Last month a Dundee councillor expressed "surprise" that the Douglas housing estate in his ward included the city's vandalism hotspot.

Yesterday a 23-year-old drug addict was convicted of the unlawful killing of his drug addict girlfriend's son, who was aged only 23 months when he died. The court case revealed a picture of drug taking, violence, anti-social behaviour and prostitution.

Since all this took place on the Douglas housing scheme, is it really surprising that the area also includes Dundee's vandalism hotspot?

If the councillor was genuinely surprised at the amount of vandalism on the estate, it would be interesting to know how he feels about the violent death of toddler Brandon Muir.

Obama: A (wee) lesson from (Scottish) history

With Alex Salmond's US trip making the headlines last week (and Gordon Brown's forthcoming visit certain to do likewise), it's perhaps appropriate to consider whether President Obama's nascent administration can learn anything from the SNP equivalent in Scotland.

Several parallels between the SNP's and Obama's paths to power can be discerned, and to that extent the former's two years in office could provide some indication as to how the latter's administration might progress.

First, both campaigns benefited from unpopular incumbent leaders, mainly due to their involvement in the Iraq war - Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W Bush respectively. (Of course, Labour in Scotland was led by Jack McConnell, but some of London Labour's unpopularity clearly reverberated north of the border.)

Second, both campaigns were based on an idealistic vision for the future. In the SNP's case this centred around the independence aspiration, or at least the desire for a party that would specifically represent Scotland's interests in the UK context. Meanwhile, Obama's bid for office centred around the prospect of the USA's first black president. Of course, the contrast with the Blair/Bush axis helped consolidate both these visions of change and idealism.

At a more practical level, both campaigns were bolstered by significant financial support, and this factor was considered crucial to both Barack Obama and the SNP, the former benefiting from a highly effective fundraising campaign via the internet, while the latter found an unlikely political sugar daddy in the shape of social conservative and bus tycoon Brian Souter. (Of course, Mr Souter's largesse was chickenfeed by US standards - it would have barely financed Sarah Palin's wardrobe for a few months - but was certainly material in the Scottish context.)

Despite those advantages, however, neither the SNP nor Obama managed to secure resounding victories. The nationalists managed to merely scrape home as the largest party, but without an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, with the resulting weakness of the administration evident in things like the recent retreat on the local income tax manifesto committment. Of course, Barack Obama secured a decisive victory via the electoral college system, but in terms of the popular vote he obtained 52.9 per cent; a comfortable margin, but hardly a landslide.

Thus it's arguable that despite the unpopularity of the incumbent leaders, their campaigning advantages and the promise of a fresh start, the electorates gave neither the SNP nor Mr Obama a decisive mandate to govern.

Of course, in Scotland the electorate's caution has arguably been vindicated by Alex Salmond's administration - the initial chutzpah over things like the name change from 'Executive' to 'Government' has given way to a faltering policy agenda; a classic triumph of style over substance. Indeed, if it's true that politicians campaign in poetry but govern in prose, then the first few chapters of First Minister Salmond's book have transpired to be only semi-literate. Meanwhile, President Obama's first few paragraphs have self-evidently not been run through the spell-checker, and the punctuation's clearly a bit ropey.

Thus the lesson from Scotland for the president's supporters is simple - prepare to be disappointed. Of course, it's hardly inconceivable that Mr Obama's administration will be judged by history to have been a force for good, and both he and Mr Salmond will secure at least some achievements, but his first faltering steps demonstrate that, rather than the promised land, the realities of office beckon.

What's appropriate?

It was interesting to see the reaction of the political blogosphere to the tragic death of Ivan, the son of Tory leader David Cameron.

Scottish Unionist was possibly the first Scottish blogger to offer his condolences, while Labour sympathiser Jamie at Not a Village in Westminster followed suit. Lib Dem Caron also proffered her sympathies, as did nationalist cum Tory Jess the Dog. On the other hand, most bloggers (including Tories) seemed to make no comment.

Of course, in the wider political world there was criticism of Gordon Brown's offer to cancel PMQs as a mark of respect, and unsurprisingly this resulted in accusations that it was done for political ends. There were no doubt more offensive comments made in relation to the issue elsewhere, but I would normally avoid such blogs anyway.

Particularly interesting, however, was SNP Tactical Voting's Jeff, who a couple of days after David Cameron's bereavement posted an article entitled 'Cameron - Featherweight Champion of the UK?". Personally I wouldn't have made such a post until Mr Cameron was back into the political fray, or at least until his son was buried. Not, of course, because he is likely to read my forum, but just because it would seem inappropriate and disrespectful.

Perhaps I'm just being old-fashioned, and Jeff will have considered the issue and presumably decided that it should be politics as usual, but despite my trying to tease his thinking out of him on the comments section of his post, he clearly isn't for divulging his thoughts.

Of course, as with any other issue of morals and ethics we will all have our own stance on such matters but, for example, I doubt if Labour blogger Tom Harris would be openly critical of David Cameron at this juncture.

A point related to the 'politics as usual' argument is that similar or worse tragedies befall other people and the wider world ignores their sensitivities, thus to that extent as a high-profile public and political family the Camerons shouldn't be afforded special treatment. That's clearly a plausible argument as well, but where to draw the line?

Edit: It seems that Jeff (who I think was travelling) was not fully aware of the facts regarding the bereavement of Ivan Cameron. The post above should therefore be considered in that light.