Clegg's communication contradiction

Part of the reason for Nick Clegg's success in the leaders' debates has supposedly been that he addresses the questioners by their first names, and also due to the way he looks into the camera most of the time when speaking. Apparently these techniques make him a good communicator, but surely there's a contradiction between the two?

Mr Clegg looks at the questioner when responding and addresses them by their first name, but then looks towards the camera. Thus although initially he must seem to the questioner to be a good communicator, to address the television viewers - ie the overwhelming majority of those watching the debate - he of necessity ignores the questioner in favour of the TV audience. And, indeed, he effectively ignores altogether the majority of the studio audience.

David Cameron seems to have adopted this style as well, but to me using the questioner's first name appears slightly contrived and overfamiliar, and addressing the camera directly seems a tad synthetic and, as outlined above, there's a lack of good communication in addressing the questioner but then ignoring them in favour of the TV camera.

The latter point brings to mind Australian cricket legend Richie Benaud, who after his retiral from the sport became a BBC commentator and pundit. When being interviewed by the programme's anchorman as a pundit, in his lengthy answers Benaud would look away from the main presenter and towards the camera, which always seemed both awkward and pompous.

Hence Nick Clegg's supposed communication skills seem to me a bit artificial and contrived, but of course this is perhaps in keeping with the leaders' debate format and contemporary manufactured politics generally. I prefer Gordon Brown's more traditional approach of addressing the questioner initially and then the audience generally, but largely ignoring the direct approach to the camera. The occasion is supposedly a debate, they are not reading the news or presenting a party political broadcast, although perhaps in effect the three leaders have been using the debates as a version of the latter.

But Clegg's approach seems to work, because the Lib Dems' poll ratings have soared on the back of the debates, and of course ultimately that's all that matters.

Criminally stating the obvious

A recent leaflet produced by Cambridge Police and the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership (no less) was criticised by the Plain English Campaign for proclaiming that the "number one priority" was to "reduce offending".

The leaflet's headline - 'Police continue to target offenders' - was slammed as possibly the "most pointless headline in history".

I was reminded of this while reading recent Courier reports on a Dundee "community safety plan", which is intended to help people "feel safe", and has been approved by councillors.

The reports on the plan contains such illuminating information as that police will "take the lead in trying to improve intelligence" on organised crime and that drug dealing "has to be tackled, with the aim of increasing arrests and seizures", and that police will continue to "target dealers and users in known hotspots".

Also, the need to reduce violent crime is stressed, and city centre drink-fuelled incidents will be addressed by "high profile policing at times of high demand".

Similarly, we're told that work will continue to target kerb-crawling, youth crime and anti-social behaviour.

Thus, in essence merely the repetition of what we've read numerous times before.

Perhaps if officialdom spent more time directly addressing the problems rather than stating the obvious then the need to periodically repeat these things would be reduced.

On the other hand, that might do some of them out of a job.

(An abridged version of the above is published as a letter in today's Courier.)

Shona Robison blows her stack over biomass chimney

Not a little controversy in Dundee at the moment over plans to erect two ginormous wind turbines and build a biomass plant, replete with a very tall chimney, in Dundee's port area. The arguments for and against are pretty well rehearsed, so little point repeating them here, but the issue has revealed some tensions within the city's SNP group, which perhaps underlines some of the political difficulties nationally.

The willingness of local politicians to put the wants of local voters ahead of the wider interest was ably demonstrated by the recent vote on the redeployment of firefighting resources in Tayside (in itself perhaps demonstrating one contradiction within the SNP's local/national 'champions' general election campaign mantra). Given the obvious strength of local opposition against the Dundee proposals this has clearly caused difficulties when compared to the SNP's commitment to renewable energy sources.

Thus Stewart Hosie, Nationalist candidate in the affected constituency, skillfully negotiates between the wishes of local residents and the renewables agenda by saying:

I am not against renewable energy and I remain committed to bringing green manufacturing jobs to Dundee. However, it is vital that these proposals have real community backing and that the legitimate concerns of the public are fully addressed.

However, the reason Mrs Hosie has environmentally unfriendly smoke coming out of her ears concerns correspondence by two of the SNP's support staff in Dundee, as reported in the Courier.

First, Mr Hosie's press officer, writing in a personal capacity, emailed the unfortunately named action group RATTS (Residents Against Tay Turbines) claiming residents are "misinformed" about the plans and implying that the organisation had employed "ridiculous myths" in its opposition. Worse still for the SNP, a version of the email was published as a letter in the Courier last week, much to the disgruntlement of RATTS, which claimed that the SNP is not interested in representing Dundee residents' views.

Second, the next day's Courier reported that MSP Shona Robinson's own assistant had also responded to a pro-turbines letter distributed to local politicians by suggesting that the author should write to the Courier's letters page so that "the voice of the people who would like Dundee to have jobs is heard".

Hence Ms Robison says she is "incandescent", describes the email as "totally inappropriate" and says staff should be "keeping their personal views to themselves".

With Alex Salmond's national plans to build a network of biomass plants recently under attack, the Dundee issue underlines the tensions between the Nationalists' renewables targets and the almost inevitable opposition to any development, and hence electoral difficulties for politicians and councillors locally.

With the SNP's renewables agenda already being ridiculed by sceptics, the demanding targets set by the Scottish Government mean that the political conflict relating to local planning decisions can only increase, despite the supposedly non-political nature of these issues at local authority level.

An urgent appeal for loadsa cash!

Interesting article by Magnus Linklater in today's Times (if only because if he agrees with the SNP then it has to be noteworthy).

Ironically entitled 'The BBC doesn't understand devolution', the former Scotsman editor's piece laments the fact that the SNP has been excluded from Thursday's Prime Ministerial debate (or whatever it's called) because it is "not just a minority party but the party of government” and says the BBC “should be obliged to represent fairly the changing constitutional shape of the Union”.

But the point about the “party of [Holyrood] government” and the changing shape of the Union seems to weaken rather than strengthen the case for the SNP being represented in the debate – without wanting to state the obvious, many of the powers once exercised by Westminster have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and thus the party of (Holyrood) government will have the chance to mix it on TV with the other major players in Scottish politics approximately one year from now. Hence Westminster, and thus the current election, now has less relevance to Scotland than before devolution.

Thus while no one objects to the Nationalists having their say in the campaign, and including Alex Salmond in Thursday's debate might represent a technical victory for democracy, at the same time this would be a resounding defeat for common sense.

For taking the SNP's argument to its logical conclusion would result in a debate so unwieldy that in many ways it would be a negation of democracy rather than representing its pinnacle, as many seem to be portraying it.

Because if Mr Salmond is included then in the UK context a whole host of other geographical, sectional, single-issue and fringe parties would by rights have to take part as well, since presumably the SNP wouldn't want an unfair advantage over the other smaller parties.

As a rough proxy, consider the last UK-wide national poll, namely the European Parliament elections last year. On the basis of the number of votes cast, and assuming that any party polling the same or more than Plaid Cymru had to be included, then as well as the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid, the debate would have to include UKIP (which polled more than both Labour and the Lib Dems, although clearly the European aspect skewed the party's vote) the Greens, the BNP (which polled about three times as many votes as the SNP), the English Democrats, the Christian Party/Alliance, Socialist Labour, NO2EU and Sinn Fein (wot, no Unionists?).

Thus things are clearly starting to get unwieldy, and that's before considering that others – such as the Pensioners and Jury Team – might be a bit miffed if Plaid's vote was used as an arbitrary cut-off point.

But without getting into the nitty gritty of where precisely the line should be drawn, a debate involving all of the above would be both more democratic while at the same time undermining the democratic essence of the debate: which party should form the next UK government and who should be prime minister, and indeed this matter in itself is becoming extremely complicated, if not slightly farcical. But democracy is a messy, imperfect business, and the pursuit of democratic perfection should not be to the detriment of pragmatism and common sense.

And where would it all end? For example, in next year's First Ministerial debates presumably David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Peter Mandelson or whoever else emerges as prime minster should be represented against Alex Salmond, Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie, Patrick Harvie, Margo MacDonald (at the very least!) as presiding over the Parliament that has delegated certain powers to Holyrood.

But if the SNP's action succeeds and Alex Salmond does take part in Thursday's debate then I think I should be there as well, in accordance with the BBC's obligation to deliver “impartial and independent reporting of the campaign, giving fair coverage and rigorous scrutiny of the policies and campaigns of all parties”. After all, I write a political blog read by persons other than myself (the number doesn't matter, surely?). And, more importantly, I'm not even standing for election to Westminster, thus making me eminently well qualified to take part in the debate (!)

Thus to ensure my participation I invite readers to sent me shedloads of cash with a view to mounting a legal challenge, since relying on winning Wednesday night's National Lottery would leave me a bit tight for time.

Salmond would not be a tartan Clegg

In view of the profound impact that the UK leaders' debates have had on the electoral landscape it's understandable that the SNP hope to take legal action over Alex Salmond's exclusion, but at this stage the impact of such a course of action seems likely to be limited.

The best case scenario for the Nationalists would be for Alex Salmond to be included in next Thursday's final debate. But if that was to happen then a whole host of other parties would presumably need to be included as well. Plaid Cymru, obviously, but also the Ulster Unionists, Sinn Fein and myriad other parties who have had some significant impact on UK electoral politics, most obviously UKIP, the Greens and the BNP. And no doubt others, such as fringe parties and independent candidates, would legitimately question why the line should be drawn there.

Clearly the debate would then become unwieldy, and even if there were only ten (say) participants then Mr Salmond's impact would be severely diluted. In any case, his impact would be limited. He's neither a fresh face nor telegenic in the Nick Clegg mould and, unlike the Lib Dems in the UK context, Scots are generally well aware of the SNP as an alternative to Labour and the other two main parties. And the Scots' appreciation of the SNP's insignificance in the context of UK politics as a whole is persistently demonstrated in its underperformance in Westminster opinion polls, at least as compared to Holyrood.

By the same token, Mr Salmond's now well worn pledges as an alternative to "London cuts" - scrap Trident, the House of Lords, ID cards and the Scotland Office - are mere rhetoric in the context of this election: the Nationalist impact at Westminster on these issues is always likely to be negligible, and these matters would be irrelevant in an independent Scotland, and the poll figures seem to demonstrate that the public know this. For the SNP, the unfortunate fact is that devolution has helped to further marginalise the party in the Westminster context, and indeed but for the existence of Holyrood the Nationalists would have had a much stronger case to be represented in the UK leaders' debates.

Of course, Alex Salmond demonstrates his ability for rhetoric and bombast weekly at FMQs, and would no doubt figure strongly in any debate he took part in, but for the reasons outlined above the impact of his participation in a UK-level debate on the SNP's electoral fortunes is likely to be limited.

An alternative debating platform, and one suggested by the SNP, is for an additional debate to be held including (only) Alex Salmond. But the likelihood of Brown, Cameron and Clegg taking part in such a debate is negligible, particularly as several additional debates would need to be scheduled for the other parties, as suggested by Duncan Hamilton last weekend.

Thus the best that Alex Salmond could hope for would be a debate with the Scottish 'leaders', as per last week's STV debate - which Mr Salmond shunned - or a prime time broadcast throughout the UK, but which would be unwatched outwith Scotland or would garner only slightly more interest and impact in Scotland than the STV programme or yesterday's Sky offering, which Mr Salmond did take part in.

The third obvious scenario would be for the courts to block the broadcast of the Brown-Cameron-Clegg showdown north of the border. Would this benefit the SNP? Perhaps only to the extent that it would please the hardcore Nationalist support. Others are likely to view such a move, rightly or wrongly, as pandering to the SNP's sense of grievance. Thus the effect would be merely to further polarise existing opinion.

The Nationalist v Unionist faultline in Scottish politics is already well established, and whatever the outcome of the SNP's legal move it seems unlikely to result in a sea change in public opinion. Alex Salmond would not be a tartan Nick Clegg. The main effect of airing the debates between the Brown/Cameron/Clegg Unionist axis in Scotland seems to have been to shift support from Labour to the Lib Dems. The SNP has not suffered, nor would it be likely to significantly benefit from taking part.

Irrespective of how the SNP's legal action concludes the move will provide grist to the Nationalist mill, but under any plausible scenario it's difficult to envisage Scottish voters generally being anything other than largely unmoved by the whole thing.

No concessions over concessionary travel confusion

It seems that both the SNP and Labour have got themselves into a bit of a tangle over the latter's election leaflets, with the Scotsman continuing the Thursday night leaders' debate stushie, when an irate David Cameron challenged Gordon Brown on misleading claims about Tory policies. The paper also examines several claims on leaflets specific to Scotland.

Meanwhile, the Times focuses on the spat between the SNP and Labour regarding a claim made in Gordon Brown's election literature distributed in his Fife constituency, which Alex Salmond described on television as a "lie". The leaflet (above) states that Labour will "respect Scottish pensioners" by "fighting against SNP cuts to concessionary travel".

The SNP is claiming that the Scottish Government's concessionary bus scheme is in fact being extended. But Labour are countering that the claim related to a subsidised train travel scheme operated by Fife Council, but which has recently been slimmed down by the ruling SNP/Lib Dem administration.

Indeed, the leaflet clearly refers merely to "concessionary travel", therefore can legitimately be construed as referring to Fife Council's scheme, the curtailment of which has in fact been a live issue in Fife for a couple of years now. Thus it seems that Mr Salmond, Angus Robertson and John Mason et al have a little egg on their face, but Iain Gray's accusations of "low, dirty politics", "desperation" and "fantasy and smears" are a tad over the top, and he's perhaps on surer ground when saying: “It was Labour councillors who opposed that cut. ....the First Minister doesn’t know what his own councillors are doing in Fife.” And the SNP's candidate to fight Gordon Brown said, ironically: "It is not surprising that Gordon Brown doesn’t know what’s going out from Labour in this constituency as he is never here."

The SNP politicians are very probably genuinely confused over the issue, but perhaps at least part of the blame can be attributed to Labour for including a local authority issue in a Westminster election leaflet, but looking at Jim Barrie's leaflet in Dundee West the SNP are clearly guilty of similarly confusing municipal, devolved and reserved issues during the campaign.

However, the SNP is doing itself no favours by now claiming that the confusion was due to Gordon Brown referring to bus rather than rail travel. It was David Cameron who raised the bus travel issue (inter alia) in relation to the Tories, and Labour do seem to have a case to answer in that regard, but Alex Salmond subsequently brought the Fife leaflet into play, but clearly this doesn't specifically refer to bus travel, despite the SNP's claim. Thus the first minister seemed to jump the gun a bit.

Menzies or Huhne wouldn't have cut it in political beauty contest

"Size does matter", said Nick Clegg, referring to the geopolitical influence of Europe rather than his now infamous sexual conquests. And Mr Clegg undoubtedly proves that, in this televisual and image-obsessed age, looks do matter as well.

Thus while the polls and considered opinion perhaps deemed last night's second round of the leaders debates a rough draw, there's no doubt that Mr Clegg's triumph in the first round irreversibly changed the electoral landscape for the duration of the current campaign and perhaps far beyond as well, and equally there's little doubt that his youthful and handsome appearance have been instrumental in this shift.

Of course, Clegg would have no doubt made ground on Gordon Brown and David Cameron as the outsider and fresh face suddenly given equal billing with the tired governmental duopoly of Labour and the Tories, but would a less physically attractive Lib Dem leader have cut the same mustard?

Very probably not. Clegg's predecessor Menzies Campbell was mercilessly lampooned for his doddery mien, and irrespective of what came out of his mouth and how he delivered it, it's difficult to imagine him getting anywhere near Cameron or even Brown in the debates.

And while Clegg's leadership rival Chris Huhne would have similarly benefited from being a virtual unknown - rather than the slightly better know elder statesman image of Campbell - appearance-wise he's just not in the same nick as Nick, and indeed to be frank he always strikes me as having a slightly sinister look about him.

Charlie Kennedy might have proved a slightly better bet, but clearly that's now a hypothesis impossible to test, even assuming he was Lib Dem leader at a general election in five years time, when he would be 55.

Of course, the relevance of image and appearance are hardly new to politics, and it should be recalled that in the groundbreaking 1960 US presidential debate Richard Nixon's sickly, unshaven and sweaty appearance was considered highly detrimental to his performance, particularly when compared to the youthful, tanned and relaxed look of Jack Kennedy. Kennedy won the TV debate, but radio listeners gave it to Nixon.

Thus by selecting Nick Clegg over Chris Huhne by the narrowest of margins, the Lib Dems have clearly done themselves a massive favour for the current campaign, and in turn this may be instrumental in presaging a hung parliament in a fortnight's time, a consequent PR voting system and thus the UK's electoral landscape changing fundamentally and irreversibly.

By the same token, the Tories have blundered hugely by agreeing to the televised debates. While the intention was that David Cameron would look fresh faced beside the permanently dishevelled Gordon Brown, placing him side by side with pretty boy Clegg is like a Girls Aloud beauty contest between Nicola Roberts and Cheryl Cole.

But in an age where TV newsreaders such as Alastair Burnett and Moira Stewart have given way to the likes of Kirsty Young and Isla Traquair, it's perhaps unsurprising that our politicians are increasingly judged by matters more superficial than substantial.

Of course, the term 'beauty contest' is often applied to any competition judged on largely shallow grounds, but perhaps in the political context it's increasingly almost literally correct.

In defence of Vince

Far be it from me to come to the defence of the Lib Dems, but I'm feeling a bit sorry for them given the smears and skewering they've had after their recent surge in the polls and consequent threat to the Conservatives, and despite the unwarranted long time beatification by some of Vince Cable and the similar treatment of Nick Clegg after last Thursday's TV debate.

For example, during yesterday's 'chancellors' debate on the BBC, Andrew Neill said:

You described quantitative easing as the Robert Mugabe school of economics, you later supported it...isn't the biggest myth of this election your reputation?

Despite Cable's attempts to describe the context and Neill's insistence that he had read the relevant article, the BBC presenter and his sidekick, economics editor Stephanie Flanders, persisted in saying that he'd supported a policy that he'd originally ridiculed. However, Vince Cable's article in fact states:

The big, looming, monetary issue is "quantitative easing": that is, printing money. What happens is that the government borrows from the Bank of England, not from the markets. It expands the money supply to keep the economy going and also to counter deflation without simultaneously increasing government debt. The attractions are obvious, as are the dangers.

The Robert Mugabe school of economics provides a salutary warning about uncontrolled monetary expansion in generating hyper-inflation. The road to Harare is not as long as we might hope. Monetary easing may prove to be necessary but will have to be managed with great skill and care: Too little easing and the crisis drags on – as in Japan. If there is too much, the authorities face the messy task of mopping-up liquidity by issuing bonds which add to the burden of borrowing or else we lurch back from deflation to inflation.

Thus clearly Cable did not dismiss the policy out of hand. Indeed, he clearly considered that it could be desirable, and the Mugabe reference was merely warning about the inflationary dangers of excessive quantitative easing.

Of course, journalists can do a sterling job of taking the political snake oil salesmen to task - and Andrew Neill is a master of deconstructing spin - but it's no use when they resort to selectivity similar to the politicians.

Perfunctory politics

The change in the UK's electoral landscape in recent days ably demonstrates the superficiality of the political process. Nick Clegg's victory in last week's leaders' debate was not undeserved, but the apparent seismic-ish shift in public opinion surely demonstrates the electorate's perfunctory attitude to politics. After all, the debate was to a large extent a series of soundbites, and Clegg's star rating was largely related to his status as the outsider and underdog rather than a positive endorsement per se. The debate was watched by around ten million viewers, thus perhaps a million or so of these people were moved to change their voting intentions as a result of Clegg's performance - a small proportion of the electorate. And many people hence endorsing the Lib Dems seem to have barely heard of Mr Clegg hitherto - in the Caledonian Mercury Hamish Macdonell quotes one voter as saying: "My wife watched the debate. She hadn’t heard of Nick Clegg before, but now she thinks she might vote for him.”

But based on this largely casual and numerically limited engagement with politics the shift in voting intentions seems to have been extended into a surge in Lib Dem support with the electorate generally - presumably on the basis of media reports of last week's debate - amounting to several million voters, assuming (as usual) that the polls are representative of voter opinion as a whole.

And as a consequence at least one poll has put the Lib Dems ahead of both the Conservatives and Labour - with some talk of prime minister Clegg - while another measure of public opinion has deemed Mr Clegg the most popular UK political leader since Churchill.

Of course, there is a large element of froth in this and Mr Clegg's momentum is likely to dissipate between now and polling day, with his chances of becoming the next premier minimal.

But the last few days have nevertheless demonstrated our cursory approach to politics, as indeed has the election campaign generally. Of course, the leaders' debate underlined the preoccupation with image, presentation and style, even before considering the matter of soundbites over substance.

Then there's the usual gloss of the party manifestos, which are read by effectively no one, perhaps on the basis that voters know that to engage with them at any depth is likely to prove a waste of time by the denouement of the next Parliament.

Things go from bad to worse with the election leaflet industry, and presumably most party door-knockers are more than thankful that those who answer take little interest in politics and are thus perhaps amenable to a little superficial engagement.

And let's not get started on the walkabout culture.

Of course, the level of political debate improves considerably when mainstream media and alternative debating forums such as the internet are concerned - despite the tiresome feeling that many issues are recycled endlessly to little effect - and there's still an element of local hustings, despite a growing lack of public interest. However, even at this level the proportion of the electorate engaging with this in any meaningful way must be small indeed.

But perhaps the nadir of all this is represented by the likes of the little campaign posters currently dotted around places such as the Angus countryside, and which display no more than the name of the party and candidate, with perhaps a logo.

Do the parties really think that this kind of marketing - and the word is used deliberately - makes a difference? If they do then this neatly demonstrates what is wrong with the attitude of both the politicians and the public.

On the other hand, in many ways I can certainly identify with the public in relation to a lack of engagement with politics, but in turn this is perhaps why the politicians treat us so perfunctorily, hence a vicious circle of political superficiality and public indifference.

Of course, all this is hardly a new phenomenon, but it's surely accurate to say that the trend is towards greater cynicism from both the politicians and public rather than anything more positive.

Another shove in the back for trust

More bad news for Tory candidate Peter Lyburn, who is the party's choice to wrest their target seat of Perth and North Perthshire from the SNP. After last weekend's revelations regarding embarrassing photographs, yet another cock up(!) this weekend with a Courier story about an open letter that Mr Lyburn had sent to the press. It seems that the letter - which concerned opposition to Labour's proposed National Insurance rise - included as signatories numerous members of the Perthshire business community whose permission had not been sought and indeed who knew nothing about the letter.

Thus Mr Lyburn's attempt to replicate at the local level the Conservatives' courting of business opposition to Labour's proposal nationally seems to have backfired spectacularly, thus no wonder under threat SNP rival and sitting MP Pete Wishart describes it as "despicable, deceitful and duplicitous", while John Swinney said: "In my many years of dealing with the business community in Scotland I have never seen such a deceitful initiative from a political party."

A tad over the top, perhaps, but who can blame them for no doubt grinning from ear to ear?

Meanwhile, not so good news for the SNP in the News of the World, where Government minister Keith Brown is under fire regarding the allegation last weekend that he had struck Gordon Brown's aide Rami Okasha during a campaign visit to Dollar. Keith Brown had denied the claim, but a YouTube video (above) clearly shows him shoving Mr Okasha in the back. Of course, the original allegation of a punch was perhaps overegging things slightly, but the footage clearly shows Mr Brown firmly pushing Mr Okasha, thus contradicting the minister's previous flat denial.

On the other hand Mr Okasha does seem to perhaps provoke the altercation by shuffling back into Mr Brown, but in any case the jeans, heckling, shove and earlier denial don't look good for the education minister. Not very statesmanlike, and the other Mr Brown at least had the good sense to keep his alleged manhandlings away from the public gaze.

But another NotW story concerns Labour doctoring a Jim Murphy campaign photograph because the original made him look like a member of the Addams family.

Thus not a good weekend for politicians and public trust, but what's new?

No volcanic eruption in Manchester then

It was a bit like watching PMQs/FMQs. Eager anticipation, but ten minutes in and my mind is wandering elsewhere and I'm reaching for the remote. So it was with last night's party leaders' debate, the only difference being that I managed to stay fairly alert for the first half hour or so.

Thus it all seemed like a rearranged PMQs, albeit a bit more civilised, with less audience participation and with the politicians on an equal footing. And while it was perhaps more illuminating than the weekly House of Commons joust, in essence it told politicos little that they didn't know already, although it might have helped the undecided and more disinterested to come to some conclusion regarding exercising their prerogative in three weeks' time.

Of course, as has already been repeated almost ad nauseum there were no killer lines, major gaffes or corset-adjusting gags. Equally, most objective opinion seems to have decreed Nick Clegg the winner, which is no doubt disappointing to David Cameron fans, but the thumbs down to Gordon Brown was hardly unexpected. Indeed, the relatively unknown Clegg exploited his underdog role well, and benefited from public antipathy to politics as standing apart from the Labour scunner factor and residual mistrust of the Tories.

And with all three adept at the usual copious helpings of motherhood and apple pie, style was likely to be just as important as substance. Clegg's image doesn't seem to suffer from his slightly wimpish delivery, Cameron was uncombative and looked dour - perhaps overdoing the gravitas-in-waiting - while ironically Brown seemed to be the only one really smiling, and it didn't even look entirely contrived, although he did give the impression of having taken some happy pills which gradually lost effect as the debate proceeded.

No especially excruciating moments either, but Gordon Brown's determination to get his eminently predictable Lord Ashcroft mention in made it look particularly contrived. Meanwhile, Nick Clegg's cloying peroration reference to the list of the audience interrogators by their first names - consolidating what he'd done when responding to each individual - looked too smarmy and over familiar, like when the bank teller asks: "Can I interest you in life insurance today, Stuart?"* As for David Cameron's worst moment, perhaps I wasn't paying attention at the time.

Of course, notwithstanding his decisive victory last night, Nick Clegg won't be the next prime minister, even if he again trounces the others in the remaining two contests. And the debates seem unlikely to change actual voting intentions significantly.

But if they do, the crucial question is, who benefits? Do the Lib Dems take votes from the Conservatives, thus increasing the likelihood of a hung parliament, or do they come from Labour, to that extent helping the Tories?

However, debating moment of the day was at Holyrood rather than Manchester, with Alex Salmond prefacing his FMQs performance with a statement about a "volcanic eruption", and without the slightest hint of irony. The Manchester debate didn't quite reach the same Richter scale heights, but the political fault lines were nonetheless highlighted.**

*Like when the Tesco checkout operator asks: "Would you like some help with your packing today, sir." "Er, do I look so pathologically lazy that I need help to pack a pint of milk and a newspaper while there's a dozen people in the queue? And by specifically referring to 'today' does this mean you think that I'm inconsistent about these things?" Actually, I don't really say that, but I have been cheeky enough to reply in the negative but to add that I'll give them a shout if I can't manage.

**OK, technically it's a mixed metaphor!

PoundZone politics

By the standards of election gimmicks yesterday's SNP "Clean up Glasgow - wipe up grubby politics" sloganeering wasn't bad, and Joan McAlpine provides a good summary of some of the pertinent issues in the city's municipal politics here.

However, on a different tack I was slightly amused to see that the photocall involved Alex Salmond and John Mason 'cleaning up' a shop window emblazoned with the logo 'PoundZone'.

Perhaps this was trying to convey some sort of message about the SNP's 'Independence lite' stance, which keeps the Queen as head of state and also retains sterling as Scotland's currency, at least until joining the eurozone when economic conditions are deemed appropriate.

And this rather contradictory economic message brought to mind a recent letter in the Sunday Herald, in which a correspondent called for an independent Scotland to escape "mad economic experimentation", based on his claim of a Labour or Tory monetarist policy after the forthcoming UK general election. This related to Alistair Darling's warning that public spending cuts deeper than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s will be required to reorder the nation's finances.

The correspondent's views had the usual Nationalist air of unreality about them. Of course, in view of the precarious nature of the economic recovery he raised legitimate questions as to the timing of a public spending retrenchment, but did little to acknowledge that Keynesian fiscal expansion can't continue indefinitely, and indeed has clearly paid little heed to John Swinney's complaints about "bankrupt Britain".

As for Scottish independence, the correspondent should recall that after a period in the 'poundzone' the SNP's aim is to join the eurozone, hence Scotland would be subject to the monetarist tendencies of the European Central Bank. Also, if the EU's Stability and Growth Pact had been adhered to the kind of expansionary fiscal policies seen in many member countries would not have been possible.

But at least the correspondent confirms that Alex Salmond was being a bit presumptuous when he said that "we [Scotland] didn't mind the economic side [of Thatcherism] so much".

Edinburgh ricksaw fun

Further to recent debate about pedicabs/rickshaws in Edinburgh following the death of a passenger there, there follows a couple of videos showing footage of late night trips in the capital. Of course, no doubt some of the market for this form of transport involves tourists serenely wending their way though Edinburgh's wynds and pends, hair blowing in the summer breeze, but clearly a significant element of custom involves copious amounts of booze and bravado, hence the self-evident danger.

Of course, one dominant school of thought no doubt considers this to be little more than consenting adults enjoying themselves on a night out, and that any attempts to further regulate the rickshaws smacks of the nanny state, killjoyism, etc.

But at the very least the videos demonstrate what fun it must be to work as a rickshaw driver in Edinburgh. Not!

Devolution and local decision making or duplication and dirigisme

From the perspective of the Unionist parties the concept of devolution always provides a bit of a paradox - why would a UK-wide party want different policies in different parts of the UK and hence different standards of service delivery or public choice, say. As a specific example, and apropos Calman, I previously asked why Scotland should have different speed limits and drink driving rules from other parts of the UK, and hence differing safety standards.

Thus when proposals and policies on devolved matters are discussed, tension between the Unionists' Westminster and Holyrood positions come into focus, and with the UK general election in the offing and the parties' manifestos being launched this week, the problem is likely to be particularly evident.

Thus was the case with Labour's manifesto launch yesterday. The party slightly bizarrely wheeled out Iain Gray, their leader at Holyrood, to be interrogated by Newsnicht's Gordon Brewer on the document and the Scottish version of which that also been launched.

And pressed on why Labour couldn't offer the same manifesto promises on health and education in Scotland that the party was promising from Westminster, Mr Gray could provide no compelling rationale, and did little more than waffle about [motherhood and apple pie] and mutter something about devolution meaning different systems north and south of the border. Well let's hope that the electorate have worked that bit out, but the question was why things should be different, not that they are different, which is self-evident.

Of course, he would say that, wouldn't he, because Mr Gray's position depends on devolution, thus he was unlikely to say that it would be a good idea for Labour to deliver identical health and education policies throughout the UK.

Indeed, the same question could be asked in relation to many aspects of local government, as I highlighted recently in relation to rickshaw and private hire car licensing.

And earlier in his interview Iain Gray perhaps undermined devolution himself when, justifying his involvement in the Westminster campaign and alluding to the devolved issues of education and health, he said: "They are relevant, because they're the commitments for what we will do, the things that we will pursue from opposition and the things that come 2011 we will seek to get the opportunity to deliver from government."

So Labour at Holyrood will seek to deliver the same things that Labour at Westminster is promising. Thus what's the point of devolution? But then Mr Gray said they wouldn't do the same things, but seemed unable to rationalise why they wouldn't.

Therefore this all seems to underline that from the Unionist perspective devolution is of little substantive merit other than to meet the political imperative to have more government, with different policies implemented merely for the sake of it, which in turn justifies the existence of Holyrood, Iain Gray etc.

Youth idealism

Labour is proposing lowering the voting age to 16, and the SNP included a similar provision in its bill for an independence referendum. I've blogged previously on the contradiction between this and the fact that both north and south of the border the legal age for buying cigarettes has travelled in the other direction, while the SNP Government has also proposed an identical move for alcohol off-sales, although this was later watered down to allowing local licensing boards to decide policy in their own area. In essence, therefore, the thinking is that young people aren't mature enough to make their own decisions on tobacco and alcohol consumption and thus this should be increasingly controlled, but on the other hand they're mature enough to vote on how tobacco and alcohol consumption should be controlled.

No doubt this makes perfect sense in the nether world inhabited by the likes of the Demos think tank, whose director recently said: "They are denied the political capital and social responsibility of voting."

A nice bit of idealism then, but back in the real world government thinks otherwise, unless they happen to be in idealistic mode. Or perhaps electoral cynicism and garnering votes is the dominant force, as Scotland on Sunday argued in relation to the SNP's independence referendum and Tiffany Jenkins suggests in today's Scotsman regarding Labour's more recent move.

I would have to admit that I'd probably have agreed with the proposal in my younger days, but looking back the thought of me voting at 16 seems faintly ludicrous, indeed 18 seems equally unpalatable, but I suspect many people will think along similar lines as they grow u...er...matu...er...get older.

But it seems the country has developed a huge underage drinking problem and even young adults are apparently not responsible enough to sensibly purchase alcohol and of course the same could increasingly be said about many adults. And surely this is just the tip of the iceberg in relation to numerous social and other problems which tend to be worse with those of a younger age. Moreover, it's ironic that just as Labour is proposing to give young people more of a say in how the country is run, one of its younger election candidates demonstrated a woeful lack of judgement and maturity in cyberspace.

Thus to that extent there is surely little in the way of a logical, rather than emotional, argument for lowering the voting age.

Ah, but, some will say, what about the likes of those responsible young people in the Scottish Youth Parliament? What indeed. Leaving aside the argument that the members are unlikely to be representative of young people as a whole, a report in yesterday's News of the World lifted the lid on the SYP, with a former chairman claiming elected members:

- GUZZLED booze, SNORTED cocaine and SMOKED dope during wild weekend meetings
- THREW UP after bingeing on massive vodka benders
- TARGETED female members so they could be "tapped up" for sex as soon as they turned 16
- PLAYED raunchy games of "spin-the-bottle" before disappearing off to bedrooms, and
- BROKE OUT of their rooms to cavort dangerously drunk on a hotel ROOF until cops were called.

(Emphasis as per original!)

Thus presumably that's not what Mr Demos had in mind when he referred to "political capital and social responsibility".

I should perhaps correct myself, however. Perhaps SYP members are representative of young people after all.

From cybernats to cyberprats

Whether the 'cybernat' phenomenon was a tad overhyped or whether the online Nationalist contingent was indeed a bit more of a seedy underbelly than supporters of other parties was always a moot point, but the Stuart MacLennan affair has certainly left the Labour party with egg on its collective face.

Of course, there have been cybernat scandals before in the press, and one or two SNP politicians have been in trouble over their blogs or tweets, but here was a Labour candidate shouting his disdainful commentary and naughty language from the cyber rooftops; he was not an anonymous member of the public hiding behind a pseudonym or a lowly party activist. And after the earlier synthetic rage about the relatively innocuous anti-Jim Murphy Facebook page, there's certainly an element of poetic justice for Labour, and it perhaps represented a nice elephant trap from the Sun's perspective.

Predictably, there's the usual partisan double standards on display. Labour initially defended MacLennan but then changed tack, complain the Nationalists. But didn't Mike Russell do the same in Cheesegate? Labour cry foul about the SNP trying to smear the whole party. But didn't Labour do likewise with Cheesegate and cybernattery generally?

Meanwhile, the public just shrugs its shoulders - that's politics and young people for you, they think.

Of course, the latter point is particularly pertinent, because in days of yore - ie pre internet - there was a more obvious dichotomy between the private and public spheres, so what we said outwith the public domain was more likely to stay there and, let's face it, we all say and think things in private that we wouldn't divulge to a wider audience.

And Stuart MacLennan has grown up as part of the generation where profanities and being offensive generally is considered more acceptable - consider Little Britain, Jonathon Ross, Frankie Boyle, or even Billy Connolly in a more seminal way - thus the public/private and acceptable standards of decency are less clear cut, hence the potential for a media storm when two antithetical cultures clash, and no doubt the sudden realisation by MacLennan that the real world is a bit more nuanced than he previously thought.

Thus perhaps all the parties will be a bit more circumspect about their holier-than-thouisms in future, but since hypocrisy seems to be a defining characteristic of modern politics - not to mention a puzzling lack of foresight - I don't think electors should be holding their breath.

Indeed, when reading the likes of Annabel Goldie's hyperbolic response to MacLennan's tweets - "It was repugnant, insulting and totally in character with Labour's desperate and dirty campaign" - I couldn't help thinking that this could later provide some kind of social networking hostage to electoral fortune.

But perhaps the term 'cybernat' is a bit too narrow and partisan. And far be it from me to join in the fun, but how about 'cyberprat' as an alternative? At least it's in the type of language they'll understand.

Two-bit campaigning

This morning's Times seems to be going a bit over the top about Nick Clegg's "two-bit player" gibe at Alex Salmond. Mr Clegg had said:

Alex Salmond is as irrelevant south of the Border as David Cameron is north of the Border.

Alex Salmond is a two-bit player in this election and he knows it despite all his bluster. The real contest is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in this Westminster election.

Of course, the SNP's "disrespectful" response was eminently predictable, but if the Times online Scottish section reflects the newspaper's Scottish edition then it will be leading on the story, and it says that Nick Clegg is "leaving himself open to the charge that he was undermining the status of Scotland’s First Minister".

Which seems a tad disproportionate, since slights of that ilk seem to typify contemporary politics, and the election campaign looks unlikely to rise much beyond these rarified heights. And Alex Salmond's Tweedledum and Tweedledee mantra directed towards Messrs Brown and Cameron has not attracted the same headlines.

Indeed, as far as I was aware Alex Salmond isn't even standing in this election - thus perhaps Nick Clegg was flattering his influence slightly - but then again maybe I've just not being paying enough attention.

That's because I find politics both fascinating and repellent, and at the moment the latter is probably dominating the former. It's a bit like the car crash politics of PMQs and FMQs, I suppose; you know you shouldn't really be watching, but sometimes you just can't help it.

So in the spirit of the predictable lack of substance in the campaign thus far, I proffer a few thoughts on some other matters that have caught the eye this week.

First off was probably Hamish Macdonell's piece in CalMerc about "nasty" campaigning, in particular the reaction to Tory Liam Fox's TV gaffe while in Edinburgh, when he said: "We’re here in Aberdeen South...Edinburgh South even.” Labour responded:

This is a major insult to Edinburgh and will infuriate people here. The least he could have done is remembered what city he is in. It shows the Tories haven’t changed. They still don’t understand Scotland. To come up here and lecture people on why they should vote Tory is bad enough – but to not even know what city he is visiting is highly embarrassing for him and the Scottish Tories he came to gee-up. Liam Fox should come back and apologise to Edinburgh.

Aye, whatever. And the SNP's response wasn't much better.

And in the spirit of this morning's Times, the online Telegraph also leads with a slightly bizarre headline: "Conservative win best for economy, say top bankers."

And here was me thinking that the Telegraph generally took a pro-Tory line. Oh well.

Meanwhile, a Telegraph columnist makes up for the lack of vision and substance in the campaign with a riveting piece about why David Cameron shouldn't have rolled up his sleeves while delivering a speech on Tuesday. Clearly anyone who hasn't read this yet will be sorely tempted to click on the link to read this fascinating analysis of sleeve rolling upping, but for those pressed for time - for example, immersed in Photoshoping their political opponents' campaign posters - the reasoning goes thus:

• A men's fashion guru says: "Rolling your sleeves up can be a good look, but not with a plain white shirt and suit trousers. He looked more like a waiter or a teacher than a politician. Not cool."


• He's got arms like "Asda value sausages".


• "With every recent outfit, DadCam has proved that his idea of relaxed casual chic comes straight from a Boden catalogue."


• "It’s not necessarily a good look for a pasty, pudgy British parliamentarian."


• "Cameron is forever cycling, and has the calves and thighs to prove it. But his arms are vestigial by comparison. “If you’re thinking of showing off your forearms, they’ve got to look hot,” says Tom Stubbs....David Cameron’s look like the greatest exertion they’ve ever experienced is the signing of a cheque."


• "To avoid being mistaken for a waiter, you also need a shirt made of the right fabric – denim, checked or even chambray are best. Cameron’s shirt was obviously too formal for sleeve-rolling. In fact, rather than three-inch-thick sleeve-rolls that looked like they had been studiously ironed into place, what his outfit screamed out for was a simple jacket and tie. If you must roll the sleeves on a white work shirt – and ventilation is surely the only excuse – Mooney has a tip: roll them up before you pull the shirt on. You’ll get gentle creases that look natural, rather than stark folds like hospital corners."

And after all that I can only be grateful that bloggers aren't judged on their dress sense, since my £4 Asda jeans and 'Primark man' look generally would no doubt push my readership figures from the awful to the pitiful, although I should immodestly point out that I'm quite big on the "creases that look natural". (Lest anyone thinks £4 for a pair of jeans is a bit cheapskateish, please note that they were purchased several years ago, so in today's money they'd probably cost at least, er, a fiver.)

Of course, there's slightly more substance in the poster debate, and everyone seems keen to employ the "fire up the Quattro" line. Wait a minute though. The Audi Quattro was a gas-guzzling, environmental disaster area for middle-aged boy racers who couldn't afford such a car when they were younger, so precisely what kind of message are the parties trying to project here? (OK, I'd have died for one as well, if only because I certainly wouldn't have been able to afford one.)

However, the campaign this week has been dominated by one highly unexpected development, and in view of the acres of newsprint and hours of television and radio coverage devoted to the subject it might be a useful exercise to distill the debate into a few words for the benefit of those trying to master the intricacies of Photoshop:

Business doesn't like higher taxes.

Oh well, at least Alex, Tavish et al haven't wheeled out their better halves. Yet.

Pedaling myths

Further to my recent post about Edinburgh rickshaws/pedicabs in the wake of the recent passenger fatality, a couple of critical responses cast doubt upon the safety argument, and the criticisms are addressed at some length below.

The first strand seems to come from a green perspective, and in essence the claim is that two major incidents (one fatality and one major injury) are not significant in nine years of pedicabs operating in Edinburgh, particularly when compared with other forms of transport such as taxis, trains and air travel.

Of course, as regards road safety as a whole two major incidents in a decade is insignificant, but surely the danger - and hence need for regulation - has to be be assessed on a more robust and specific basis than a mere reference to transport and safety in the wider context.

There are over 5,000 taxi and private hire car drivers in Edinburgh, but only a few dozen pedicabs. In terms of distance travelled with passengers on board the cab drivers are likely to cover several times that of the pedicabs per shift. Thus in total the cabs will cover hundreds of times more distance with passengers on board than the pedicabs, hence there must be hundreds of times more passenger fatalities and injuries in cabs as compared to pedicabs to equate the two in terms of danger. But that clearly isn't the case. In view of recent events the accident rate for Edinburgh taxis and private hire cars must be minuscule compared to pedicabs.

By the same token, passenger deaths and serious injuries in plane and train crashes are rare events indeed; have there been any at all in Scotland as a whole in recent years, despite the huge distances travelled and passenger numbers carried?

Thus train and plane travel are ultra-safe. Road travel less so, but by any reasonable standards the pedicabs in Edinburgh must be considered a dangerous way to be transported.

The second argument is related to the above and is continued thus: "There is a case for regulation of motor vehicles because of their speed and capacity to injure people."

But again the figures would seem to suggest otherwise, particularly when there were no other vehicles involved in the two pedicab incidents. And a sub-strand to the argument seems to be born of political correctness - whatever the facts of the matter, pedicabs are considered further down the road users' pecking order than car drivers and to that extent absolved of responsibility for road safety - but the tragic events in Edinburgh demonstrate the danger of this approach. Ditto pedal cyclists, and the contempt of so many of them for the law which so often makes them their own worst enemy is born of a similar ethos - cyclists are deemed 'vulnerable' rather than lawbreakers, but ultimately this approach merely adds to the danger. By the same token, a driver of a 20-year-old car can't be allowed to flout the rules if his choice of vehicle makes him more vulnerable than a driver of a brand new car with airbags, traction control and anti-lock brakes etc, nor can either motorist be excused from adhering to the rules because they're vulnerable if in collision with an HGV.

A related lower-level issue is the friction that all of this creates between the various classes of road users. The conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle drivers is of course a defining characteristic of our modern highways, and the scale of this was surely significantly less when there was a greater tendency to abide by the rules. By the same token, it seems that there's considerable animosity between cab drivers and pedicab riders in places like Edinburgh and London; as well as the considerations above, the two are also competing in the same market for the same customers, hence an aggravating factor in addition to the 'rules of the road' perspective. (See here for a video of a clash in New York.)

Of course, the above is almost wholly irrelevant because political imperatives dictate that regulation of pedicabs will be tightened, and only the extent is at issue.

The manifestoes you won't read

Not much time for blogging right now, and indeed not much point in getting bogged down with the election, thus I can perhaps save a bit of time and rationalise the latter point by quoting from a couple of articles in today's press. In The Times economic commentator Anatole Kaletsky says:

The reasons why none of the three main parties deserves to govern Britain for the next five years are depressingly familiar. Their deceptiveness over the public finances, their lack of strategic vision and their preference for politics over policy will doubtless be revealed with even greater clarity in the next four weeks.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph's uncompromising Simon Heffer pours scorn on each of the main parties in turn:

The Labour Party has failed utterly in government. It has not merely wrecked the economy, with long-term consequences: it has taken a path of repairing the damage that will, through its emphasis on high taxes, borrowing and public spending, cause more harm before it does any good – if it does any good. It has also been derelict on matters of such significance as our schools, our universities, law and order, immigration and our Armed Forces.[...]

Yet, despite this atrocity, the Conservative Party has, in the five years since its last debacle, done remarkably little to convince the public that it understands what is going on, let alone that it has any concept of how to make our country more prosperous, better run and generally happier. When David Cameron spoke to activists on the Embankment yesterday morning, one was at once splashed in the face by the cold water of the obsession with image [...] His approach has always been about ticking the boxes of militant superficiality. His main argument is that he is not the Labour Party. Well, not in name, at any rate.

And the Liberal Democrats? They have a flexibility of principle that leaves even that of Mr Cameron standing; a record of opportunism and incompetence in local government (the only place they have had any power) that puts Mr Brown's moral and intellectual inadequacies in the shade.

Of course, neither Kaletsky nor Heffer consider the fourth main party available to us in Scotland, but to a greater or lesser extent the analyses above could be applied to the SNP as well.

But as regards the next Westminster government it's clearly a two-horse race, and Heffer manages to neatly encapsulate the contenders thus:

That still leaves the problem of how Britain will ever be run properly, whether by a tribal introvert who wishes to suffocate us with his "values", or a PR spiv whose "big idea" is to appoint 5,000 commissars to assist the development of "communities".

Can't say I'm Simon Heffer's biggest fan, but I can't disagree with his basic premise outlined this morning, and sadly a significant proportion of the electorate would no doubt concur.

Unsexy and unsafe

Following my weekend post about an "unsexy shambles" being a licence for sexual predators in Edinburgh, another unsexy licensing issue from the capital makes the headlines this morning.

This time it's about a man who suffered serious head injuries after falling from a pedicab - a bicycle rickshaw - in the early hours of Sunday morning and hitting his head on the road. The man, in his early 20s, is seriously ill in hospital.

This is not the first time the safety of these vehicles has been called into question. In 2001 an Edinburgh student broke her neck and suffered a stroke after her scarf got caught in the wheels of a pedicab, and today's Scotsman report says she spent months on the critical list amid fears she may never speak again [sic?].

There is little regulation of the pedicabs, other than the requirement for a street trader's licence, which is presumably the result of using old legislation to cope with a new problem. However, how these patently unsafe contraptions are allowed to operate is anyone's guess, particularly when they're likely to be a magnet for late-night drunks. Indeed, last year an Edinburgh councillor highlighted the recklessness of some pedicab drivers and the disturbance caused by their often drunken passengers.

At around the same time Boris Johnson scrapped plans to regulate pedicabs in London amid fears that passengers injured in accidents would sue the licensing authority, instead passing the buck to the Westminster Government to pass new legislation. Elsewhere, councillors in Scarborough decided against pedicabs on public safety grounds, while in York they got the 'green' light due to their "environmentally friendly nature". Isn't local democracy great?

More generally, the then Scottish Executive launched a review of the (devolved) licensing legislation almost a decade ago, but this disappeared into the bowels of officialdom and has yet to reappear.

Of course, hard-pressed MSPs have much sexier issues to occupy their time with, such as, um...

Unsexy shambles a licence for sexual predators

Yet another unpublished missive sent to a newspaper, this time the Scotsman. But perhaps this lack of press interest reflects political indifference - the issues are not politically sexy enough - hence the reason that avoidable problems arise.


Your report, 'Woman, 20, sexually assaulted by man posing as taxi driver' (23 March), raises a number of licensing and law enforcement issues.

First, the victim was "waving her arm, looking for a taxi". As I understand it the bogus driver was driving a standard saloon car, thus in appearance it would most obviously resemble a private hire vehicle (PHV) in Edinburgh, since taxis there are London-style cabs.

Since PHVs are not licensed to pick up public hires, the victim shouldn't have been hailing it, but since illegal plying for hire is commonplace she may not have know this.

Also, saloon cars are commonly used as public hire taxis elsewhere, adding to public confusion. That it's considered necessary for each local authority to have its own rules and regulations compounds the problem, particularly in relation to vehicle types, signage and the use of meters (which may or may not be used in PHVs).

Some local authorities artificially limit the number of public hire taxis, thus increasing the number of PHVs, in turn encouraging illegal plying for hire by the latter.

And despite the odd prosecution and other official posturing, police are well known to turn a blind eye to illegal PHV hires, which further aggravates public confusion.

Lastly, the victim claims she was "very drunk" after leaving a nightclub, suggesting a breach of liquor licensing laws, but of course that these particular provisions are routinely flouted is slightly more obvious than the more arcane taxi/PHV rules.

But that a sexual predator could take advantage of all this should surprise no one.

--------------------

On an even more arcane note, and apropos the above mention of the confusion caused by each local authority having its own rules and regulations on things like hire car signage, by coincidence both Edinburgh and Dundee councils have in the past week considered the issue of PHV advertising and markings. As well as underlining the potential for public confusion, the wasteful duplication and stultifying bureaucracy are also much in evidence.

However, it's gratifying to read, for example, that officialdom in Dundee considers that there are no major policy implications in respect of "sustainability, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Anti-Poverty, Equality Impact Assessment and Risk Management.

All hail 'local decision making'!

Smoking bad, er, good; recreational drugs fine

Back to Melanie Reid in The Times, who last week I took to task for her apparently inconsistent approach to smoking. It should be recalled that a couple of years ago she said, regarding the smoking ban:

Indeed, instead of lawlessness and hostility, be prepared for the exact opposite: a widespread and generous welcome for the ban, even among confirmed smokers, and an intangible, unquantifiable uplift in the national mood.[...] Against all the odds, the smoking ban has had a positive effect. Scotland, for me, feels like a country that’s been to a health farm and come back with a clear complexion, open tubes, and a spring in its step.

While last week she said, in relation to proposals to further curtail smoking in public places:

The private lives of vast swaths of the population who have done nothing wrong are invaded as a kind of diversion therapy. We are cannon fodder for the do-gooders who perpetually feel the need to criminalise somebody, even if it’s just for smoking Embassy Regal in the playpark.

And yet more evidence of Ms Reid's new found libertarianism this week in discussing the move to ban the drug mephedrone:

Professor David Nutt, the former head of the ACMD sacked by the Government for not giving the official line on the dangers of drugs, suggested yesterday that a new approach might be the sale of small amounts of drugs like mephedrone and Ecstasy in controlled environments, such as clubs.

For those who prefer to keep their heads firmly in the sand, this is a shocking idea. But after an evening observing youngsters indulging in mass “illegal” intoxication — with the tacit acceptance of club owners, police and, by extension, society itself — to me it seems an honest, logical and responsible thing to do.

So from "being exposed to cigarettes is a physical shock" and smokers being "meek as lambs", either "standing obediently outside" or "refraining from smoking" she seems to have undergone some sort of Damoscene conversion to "drug-induced dancing and socialising is a significant part of modern culture" and "no law will stop people wanting to get high".

But while there may seem to be a double standard here, on the other hand there's a strand of thinking that would happily tolerate these seemingly antithetical perspectives, although it might be termed liberalism rather than libertarianism, or perhaps political correctness.

Thus in some respects - for example, where young people are concerned - rules are regarded as authoritarian and draconian, whereas when some other pursuit is deemed 'socially unacceptable' it is micro-managed and the rules enforced with a rod of iron.

However, the fly in the ointment of this interpretation of Melanie Reid's contradictory perspectives lies in her approach to the effect of passive smoking on children: "Of all the different kinds of harm that can be inflicted on a child in the home, passive smoking would seem to be low on the list."

Which perhaps indicates a shift from liberalism to libertarianism, rather than demonstrating the inherent contradictions of the former.

A wider issue is perhaps Ms Reid's reference to the "tacit acceptance" of police to "mass illegal intoxication", which no doubt reflects the reality of the situation. However, this in turn brings into focus the so-called 'moral panic' that politicians are currently indulging in regarding mephedrone. Are they completely out of touch with the widespread tolerance of recreational drugs (Steven Purcell?), or are they well aware of this and merely engaged in self-righteous posturing for the benefit of the likes of older voters, who think that the powers that be are engaged in a constant battle against recreational drugs rather than the reality of them standing on the sidelines spectating?

I think I need counselling...

When I was about one third of my current age the phrase 'politically correct' was probably a fairly apt description of my outlook, although I don't think the term was in common use in those days. However, the passage of time has changed my perspective ever so slightly, and while I wouldn't call myself politically incorrect, perhaps anti-political correctness is an appropriate label.

Anyway, perhaps one of the reasons for this change is demonstrated by this from Courier columnist John J Marshall, which neatly underlines the over the top, self-righteous and generally ludicrous nature of some aspects of political correctness, which perhaps often has the opposite effect to that intended, at least in the case of people like myself:

British Transport Police have launched an internal inquiry after an anti-racism poster was defaced with racist graffiti on a staff notice board in Glasgow. The acronym SAME was altered to represent a derogatory word.[...]

Embarrassed BTP chiefs have also set up support and counselling services for staff who have been offended by the slur.

What about counselling and support for members of the public offended by the ridiculous reaction of BTP management?

(JJM's column is not online and there's no other obvious mention of this story on the web. However, it was published in the Courier dated 31 March, not this morning's edition!)