Mind the pay gap

The point of last week's post about Labour's Dundee Holyrood candidate Richard McCready and his seeming one-trick campaign pony of paying public sector workers a 'Living Wage' of £7.15 per hour was underlined by a subsequent article in the Courier.

It should be recalled that the post argued that this emphasis on the public sector perhaps wouldn't go down well with the masses more generally, and this point was arguably driven home by the headline 'Public sector wages soar ahead during recession' in Dundee's morning newspaper a couple of days later. The article emphasised that working in the public sector can make you almost £10k per annum better off as compared to the private sector, this based on figures for women, with less of a differential for men, but still a significant £4k worse off in the private sector.

Which, of course, hardly seems likely to endear the private sector majority to Mr McCready's pitch, particularly considering the healthy public sector pensions and the likes of the no compulsory redundancy policies of many councils and others, and notwithstanding that those who would benefit from the Living Wage won't be particularly well paid anyway, even by the worst private sector standards.

But to that extent it was perhaps slightly puzzling that the figures were obtained by Labour MSP Marlyn Glen, who might not be the most obvious person to bash the public sector, particularly if her party wants to portray those therein as impoverished.

However, a check on Maz's website seems to indicate that she intended using the figures to make a point about the gender pay gap being "set to widen again", whereas Courier reporter David Clegg has niftily exploited the numbers to emphasise the public/private pay gap, presumably because of the paltry salaries earned by those journos.

Of course, and as alluded in Tuesday's post, in view of the likely turnout in May Mr McCready could probably be home and hosed with the support of less than a quarter of the electorate. And since a quarter of Scots work in the public sector then clearly enthusing that group has its advantages, irrespective of how those working elsewhere might view his stance.

And, more importantly, check out this pic of Ms Glen sporting a somewhat, er, windswept look, while Iain Gray has not a hair out of place. Curious.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word...in Nationalist Dundee

The last year or so has seen a raft of apologies from SNP luminaries, including Nicola Sturgeon over fraudster Abdul Rauf, John Swinney regarding the SVR, Stewart Stevenson after the winter weather chaos and even Alex Salmond in relation to the Homecoming.

However, this welcome evidence of humility does not seem to have permeated down to Councillor Ken Guild, leader of Dundee City Council's SNP administration. During the recent budget debate Labour wanted to reduce the council's bill for alcohol served in City Chambers on the basis that funds would be better spent on "bairns not booze". Cue accusations of hypocrisy from Mr Guild, who pointed out the "well-stocked drinks cabinet" found in the administration leader's office when the SNP took control of Dundee.

Which in turn got his Labour opponent Kevin Keenan more than a tad annoyed, because he claimed that the swally in question was bought by the Labour group rather than from the public purse. Cue a threat of legal action, and an investigation by the council's chief executive.

Which seems to have vindicated Councillor Keenan, but instead of an apology Mr Guild has used the opportunity to puff up the budget "achievement" in "the context of unprecedented financial challenges", blah, blah, with the nearest to an expression of regret being his "disappointment that this achievement has been overshadowed by a remark made during the political cut and thrust" of the debate, which seems to be an attempt to shift the blame rather than take it on the chin, thus perhaps not unlike MSP Bill Aitken's recent remarks following his resignation as justice committee convener.

No wonder Mr Guild wants to "move on in the best interests of the council and the city as a whole". Aye, right. The best interests of Mr Guild, by the sounds of it.

Would something even resembling an apology be too difficult, both to Mr Keenan and to council tax payers for the resources deployed to sort out this storm in a whisky glass?

More Labour public sector preferment?

Every cloud has a silver lining, so although my neighbourhood isn't exactly what you'd call salubrious, on the other hand the political class seems to turn its nose up at it, so one doesn't get them chapping on one's door during election campaigns.

Of course, we do get those mailshots which are sent to the named individual and can also use that person's name for the salutation, thus the intention is presumably to portray the impression of 'personal attention', to use a phrase more usually associated with commercial service providers. On the other hand, these mailshots use my address as per the electoral register rather than my normal postal address, which sort of detracts from the individuality of it all.

Onywey, one such missive arrived at the weekend, on this occasion from Labour's Richard McCready, who is currently a cooncilor in Dundee and is the party's candidate in the Dundee City West constituency for May's Holyrood election, with the contest presumably a straight fight between the good Mr McCready and the SNP's Joe FitzPatrick.

So what's Mr McCready's pitch? Slightly bizarrely, methinks, he's leading on Labour's "living wage" pledge for a minimum of £7.15 an hour in the public sector, as shown in the graphic. Which will no doubt appeal to the (presumably) minority of public sector workers earning less than that, but hardly seems likely to inspire the masses. Ah, but it's only first in the public sector, and then he/Labour will "fight for it across Scotland".

Braw. But who will he/they be fighting? Not the Scottish Government, presumably, because that'll equally presumably be Labour - at least from Mr McCready's perspective - and in any case he's perhaps alluding to the national minimum wage, which is a reserved power for Westminster. So Labour will be fighting the coalition Government, which would be a bit rich given that the NMW was within the party's remit until less than a year ago, and there was never any indication of setting such a rate. And, of course, leading on a reserved matter for a Holyrood election seems a strange course of action, to say the least. On the other hand, his accompanying letter merely says that: "We will campaign for every sector in Scotland, including private companies, to pay a Living Wage." Which is about as convincing as saying he'll ask bankers to "be nice" and give up their bonuses.

In essence, therefore, Mr McCready is punting a wage rise for a minority of public sector workers, and while no doubt this minority is deserving of a rise perhaps voters more generally will view this as the usual Labour preoccupation with their public sector/union cronies rather than the public per se. What about those on the NMW in the private sector who do not enjoy the job security afforded by the likes of Dundee City Council, for example?

Well that's unfortunately how I view the issue - and indeed feel more shafted by the likes of Mr McCready and Mr FitzPatrick than mollycoddled - so my vote will be going elsewhere, assuming I even bother voting at all.

Of course, no doubt the candidates will view the likes of myself as a lost cause anyway, so my opinion - and that of thousands of like-minded others in the constituency - is of no relevance.

However, even if his pledge does seem superficially appealing to the electorate, surely it won't stand up to even the merest whiff of scrutiny?

Nationalist navel-gazing

This blogger tends not to salivate over the latest opinion poll results, thus the finer details of the figures are generally completely ignored.

However, it's a bit more difficult to avoid the nuances behind the headline figures this morning because Scotland on Sunday is prominently featuring an article about the SNP proudly proclaiming that they have a mandate for a second Holyrood term which "crosses parties", this based on polling results which indicate that a significant number of those who intend voting for other parties think that the Nationalists should be re-elected.

Come again? Some people who intend voting Tory (say) think the SNP deserve a second term? Intuitively that's bullocks; why doesn't the Tory voter just vote SNP? On the other hand, no doubt the whole thing can be rationalised. For example, the precise wording of the question asked isn't clear from the SoS article, so the summary above may be misrepresenting it all, if only slightly.

Moreover, at a very basic level voting for one party while supporting another (whatever that means, precisely; normally support might be an unproblematic concept in an opinion poll context, but clearly in this instance it's exact meaning becomes of greater relevance) could be done for a variety of reasons, for example tactical voting in a seat that your favoured party has no chance in, or perhaps in the sense that a Celtic supporter thinks that Rangers deserve to win - such is democracy!

But perhaps such analysis is better left to the experts. For this blogger the impression conveyed by the whole thing is that of a slightly desperate and contrived attempt to impress from the SNP and questionable news values from SoS: standard polling results are of little interest outside the political bubble without engineering self-serving figures like this.

Heaven help us if this is any indication of the kind of campaign we're to be subjected to over the coming weeks.

Scunnered

Any regular readers might have discerned a bit of disillusionment with politics during the couple of years that this blogger has been pontificating, but while in some ways that provides the motivation, on the other hand in recent weeks the scunner factor has been such that I'm finding it difficult to summon up the effort to as much as express it, hence the slower than usual posting rate this month.

Of course, the devolution settlement and voting system for Holyrood elections largely predisposes the parliament towards ineffectual lame duck governments, thus to that extent the only thing to really get excited about is the bunfight mentality which seems to characterise Scottish politics, borrowed, of course, from the mother of parliaments down south.

And this feeling is exacerbated by the lame duck government being into its fag end period; indeed perhaps it's the perspective of a part-time parliament which in turn conveys the impression that MSPs are in permanent election campaign mode. In fact, if this isn't tiresome enough at the best of times, with the whole thing moving into overdrive over the next couple of months things can only get worse.

And if Wendy Alexander's retreat from frontline politics doesn't put the tin lid on the recent near political implosion of Scottish Labour in a welter of oppositionism, cynicism and duplicity, the SNP's schadenfreude at it all perhaps demonstrates the lack of a real and credible Nationalist agenda for change, beyond of course the highly questionable assumption that another SNP government will presage a promised land of wealth, fraternity and, er, renewables.

So last night I turned to Newsnicht for some blogging inspiration. Something about the characterisation of being 'Wendied' wisnae sexist 'cos Alex is never criticised in the same way but in reality the men really are and she wisnae really leaving to spend mair time with her family because they all say that, but although it's a cliche it's true in my case, said Wendy, but it couldnae be because it never is, even in Wendy's case.

Thus the most interesting thing about the whole item was Iain Macwhirter's new hair style and colour, which means he's gone from being a bit of a Dode Clooney to, ahem, maybe it was something to do with the piece being on Wendy. Well no doubt there's some compelling medical reason for his makeover, and it wouldn't do for Mr Hair-for-the-blogosphere to get bitchy about such things, but let's hope for a hasty return of the old Iain.

The oligarchy prostituted and perpetuated

Interesting to compare a recent article in the Caledonian Mercury with one of the weekend's big news stories. A comment piece by SNP supporter Stuart Crawford bemoans the fact that "talented and successful individuals" who complain about our political process won't stand for office themselves and attempt to change things, and he puts this down to what might be called the 'barriers to entry' (to borrow a term from economics) to the system putting them off, in particular the need to serve an apprenticeship in the form of leafleting, door-knocking etc to be selected as a candidate by local constituency parties. Instead he advocates some sort of fast-track entry for talented individuals on the basis that getting the best people is more important than "the most campaign medals".

Leaving aside the problems with parachuting in a David Kerr-style figure to a particular constituency - a problem not of course confined to the SNP - Mr Crawford's argument seems objectively compelling.

On other hand, perhaps the elephant in the room regarding his analysis is that it presupposes the current party political oligarchy, when perhaps the reason talented individuals don't get involved is that the only route in is via tribalistic and bankrupt party politics. Thus it's perhaps not so much party procedures that are the problem rather than the parties per se.

I've mumped and moaned about the difficulties facing independent candidates at all levels several times before, thus there's probably no point in rehashing these arguments now. However, at the elected office entry-level, and as someone who made a half-hearted attempt to stand as an independent in Dundee's 2007 council elections, it's interesting to compare the lack of media coverage afforded to independent candidates with the perpetual news cycle in the local press of pointless councillor comments in relation to the latest crime story regarding a violent attack, vandalism or whatever. 'It's awfie', 'something must be done' seems to just about sum it up, and this hardly adds to the sum of human knowledge, but on the other hand seems to help standing councillors gain re-election, as the party label helps propel them into office in the first place.

Of course, it's that latter point which links up with the big weekend news story mentioned at the outset, which is Brian Souter's half million pounds donation to the SNP electoral war chest. That in many respects there seems to be an ideological chasm between Mr Souter and the Nationalists is one point - although the SNP is hardly the first party to prostitute itself in this way - although as regards Mr Crawford's point about attracting talented people into politics this kind of thing will merely perpetuate the problem, since it helps perpetuate the current party oligarchy.

Thus the media, big donors seeking influence and other factors join with straightforward oligarchical momentum to make the walls of the party political citadel effectively impregnable, which in turn means a disaffected electorate and a deterrent for candidates who might put people first as opposed to party.

(On the other hand, Carnoustie recently witnessed a minor political earthquake with the election of independent candidate Brian Boyd in an Angus Council by-election, taking the seat from the SNP in a closely fought contest. Which shows that it can be done, but this very definitely represents the exception rather the rule.)

Quick taxi U-turn

Further to Tuesday's post on councillor, er, inconsistencies regarding things like taxi licensing, it's not just locally elected representatives who are at it. It should be recalled that the taxi trade in Dundee wants a cap on numbers, and although the council has agreed to examine the issue there has been some prevarication on the matter, apparently because of the "enormity" of the task.

But Dundee MSP Joe FitzPatrick has stuck his oar in, issuing a statement supporting the idea in principle, and citing evidence from Glasgow, Perth and Edinburgh. In particular he says: "Edinburgh operates a limit on the number of taxis and frequently reviews the demand for taxis and commissions regular surveys of demand."

However, Jim Taylor, a campaigning taxi driver in Edinburgh, who is embroiled in litigation with the City of Edinburgh Council over the above procedure in relation to an application for a taxi licence has contacted the Courier to express his misgivings about the proposal in Dundee. In today's Courier, a couple of days after Mr FitzPatrick's intervention regarding what happens in other Scottish council areas, the MSP says: "Mr Taylor is a resident of Edinburgh and will be reflecting his experiences as such, which will be different to those in Dundee, and I have suggested that Mr Taylor contact his local MSP in Edinburgh to pass on his views".

Er, hello? Clearly Mr FitzPatrick's problem isn't so much what's happening in Edinburgh as that Mr Taylor's opinion doesn't 'fit the narrative', but why be so obvious about this double standard?

Mr FitzPatrick also suggests that capping taxi numbers could "improve professionalism" in the city's taxi sector, but since these matters normally depend on direct regulation or competition in the market then it would be interesting to know his precise thinking on this, since it seems like a red herring.

For example, it appears generally accepted that taxi vehicle standards in Dundee have improved significantly in recent years, following a quality control crackdown by the council, and indeed this was in spite of a previous cap on numbers being removed.

Mr FitzPatrick's action brings to mind another intervention a handful of years ago by his SNP colleague Stewart Hosie MP, who helped create acres of news coverage over several weeks, culminating in strike meetings and a go-slow by taxi drivers in central Dundee. This seemed to achieve little except stirring up trouble.

There's already been an element of strife in the current dispute without the likes of Mr FitzPatrick's rapid U-turn and ill-informed remarks potentially making things worse.

(A c. 200-word version of the above sent to the Courier as a letter!)

Dundee dirigisme

Over the years I've become a bit blasé about Westminster politics. Thus yesterday's exposure of Labour hypocrisy regarding al-Megrahi left me largely unmoved, as did 2009's expenses debacle. The latter certainly didn't change my view of politicians in they way it did with some people; it was perhaps more a case of confirming my pre-existing view. From that perspective it's probably more constructive/destructive to concentrate on critiquing the 'new politics' of the Scottish Parliament. Or for 'new politics' read 'same old, same old' watered down a bit.

However, it's perhaps local government that induces the greatest levels of personal incredulity, maybe because it's generally closer to everyday life than the shenanigans of Holyrood. And possibly also because the type of things which might provoke a political and media storm in the national context often merit little more than a brief mention at the local level.

One recent head-scratching example concerned a planning application in Dundee. A developer had proposed converting part of a grand old building in Dundee - possibly an old jute mill - into student accommodation. It's the one to the left in the photograph above.

Officials recommended refusal - "site not appropriate for student housing", "adversely affect historic character", blah, blah. Most councillors dutifully followed suit. Committee chairman Rod Wallace said: "I think the location is a problem."

Except that there are already 391 students living on the upper floors of the building. There are student apartments all over this area, including a few purpose-built blocks which have appeared in the last few years. Hardly surprising, because Abertay University is a couple of hundred yards away, and Dundee University is just a few minutes walk. And the city's main pub and club area is even closer.

In particular, it's only a couple of years since Abertay opened a shiny new purpose-built row of mini-tower blocks on one of the city centre's few green areas, in the face of much local opposition and with the university even threatening to pull out of Dundee if it didn't get its way. In fact the multi-coloured monstrosity can be seen to the centre-right of the photograph, and it's around twice the size of the visible part. Actually it's not a bad looking building, particularly by the standards of the adjoining North Marketgait (below), but it certainly puts into perspective the official comments regarding the "historic character" of the proposed renovation.

However, the crux of it all is probably to be found in comments by the planning director, who said: "I am concerned about building the right number of student units in the city. There is also concern of a potential over-supply of student housing schemes." The proposed development consisted of 25 apartments in the context of thousands of students living in the vicinity. The developer had researched the local market.

But, of course, officials and councillors know better, in effect rigging the market and clearly considering that existing developers should be guaranteed a profit.

Mr Wallace also chairs Dundee's licensing board. A couple of years ago the board granted a licence for a new-super casino complex which is open all hours and effectively extended city centre drinking time by several hours. Before this the clubs closed at 2.30-ish. Last year I passed this establishment at nearly 4 am and there was a huge queue of people outside. Indeed, If I'd turned 90 degrees or so when taking the above photograph I'd have been facing the entrance to this establishment. So much for "historic character". Meanwhile, it's not that long since Glasgow councillors were getting uppity because some supermarkets were rearranging their alcohol shelving a bit, because this was contrary to the health objective in the new licensing legislation.

Of course, it's not that long either since Mr Wallace was proposing to bring in local minimum pricing for alcohol, despite his Conservative Party's stance on this at Holyrood and disregarding a similar scheme in Dundee being ruled unlawful a mere handful of years ago. And the council also recently lost another court case relating to the new licensing legislation. But the sheriff "got it wrong" harrumphed Mr Wallace. But we'll no' be appealing. Oh.

Mr Wallace also chairs the licensing committee. Busy man. Last year he led taxi operators in the city to believe that a report on capping the number of vehicles would be available by late autumn. That didn't happen. More recently he said the council was waiting for Scottish Government guidance on the issue, thus it was unlikely that anything would happen before the Holyrood elections in May. Not long after and he said the draft report would be available by the spring. Cue yet another spat with the local taxi trade. Then two SNP councillors supported the idea of a cap "in principle". Mr Wallace accused them of "jumping the gun". Quite.

I also seem to recall the good councillor saying recently that he and other opposition members should be included in the SNP administration's budget negotiations because of their long experience in local government. Indeed.

To be continued. Unfortunately.

Police discretion can mean political oppression

It was interesting to read the section of Lallands Peat Worrier's recent post (primarily concerning political process) on prosecutorial discretion, in which he mentions "vague, broadly-drafted criminal legislation" brought forward in Holyrood (presumably alluding in particular to measures intended to target organised crime) and also the recent cause célèbre regarding what might be termed fiscal selectivity - in a cynical or more positive sense, depending on taste - namely the Tommy Sheridan case.

That was neatly juxtaposed with a recent post from another Nationalist blogger, namely Mark MacLachlan of The Universality of Cheese fame/infamy. It should be recalled that Mark's dismissal from the employ of Mike Russell led to an exchange of email correspondence in the course of which the former suggested to the latter that it might be politically expedient for the education secretary to find his former aide another job. Which certainly paraphrases what he said, and may also euphemise it, but only just. In any case, it surely didn't merit a subsequent charge of breach of the peace, even ignoring the initial ludicrous talk of blackmail.

However, it seems that the procurator fiscal has decided not to proceed with the breach of the peace charge brought by police, which seems eminently sensible for an issue surely more appropriate for an industrial tribunal.

However, the issue perhaps demonstrates how police and prosecution discretion could be used as a tool of low-level political oppression (or high-level, as Tommy Sheridan and his supporters would no doubt argue): irrespective of how likely an eventual prosecution and conviction was, the months elapsing between the charge and eventual decision not to proceed will certainly have made for an uncomfortable year or so for Mark. Indeed, the decision was actually taken almost six months ago, but it seems that no one had the decency to communicate this to Mark, notwithstanding that numerous people who would have known about the decision must surely have been aware that he was being kept in the dark about it. And no sign of any press interest now either.

I've chuntered on about the invidious aspects of this kind of discretion before, not just in relation to the episode perhaps not dissimilar to Mark's when Dundee's Lord Provost had riot police sent to the front door of an elderly constituent for the indignity of describing the LP as an "embarrassment" in an email, but also regarding the perhaps more important issue of the discretion afforded to police in relation to low-level crime - for example drunk and disorderly behaviour - in what's colloquially termed 'turning a blind eye' and which perhaps depends to a large extent on the social position of the victim.

Thus to an extent it's all to do with social or political status. Of course, most people operating in the online environment will have suffered a lot worse than either the education secretary or Dundee's LP did - if they haven't in the real, offline world - but for the vast majority it's just a case of grin and bear it, and the wrongdoer gets of Scot free, and there's certainly no punishment as per Mark MacLachlan or the Dundee citizen (de facto punishment or otherwise).

Indeed, the last time I complained to a police officer - in the street about someone acting in an abusive and threatening manner - they (in fact there were two of them) completely blanked me.

Of course, if I had been a politician or councillor then no doubt it would have been a case of "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir", sort of thing.

Equally, if they'd known I was the author of an esteemed and highly influential political blog then the outcome might have been different. On the other hand, perhaps it just underlined that Planet Politics is neither esteemed nor influential after all!!

Give the bairns a credit card?

As I've argued before in several letters published in the press, the Holyrood predilection towards tax and spend (or, at least, when Westminster is doing the taxing) hardly augurs well for the idea of fiscal autonomy. If the UK experience of the last few years is bad enough, what price another Portugal, Ireland, Greece or Spain - the so-called PIGS? (My list isn't wholly accurate, but it's the Planet Politics PIGS, not the more generally accepted definition!)

But to that extent the involvement of the ostensibly right-leaning Ben Thomson in the Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility seems slightly bizarre: in the Holyrood context "fiscal responsibility" seems almost oxymoronic.

Of course, Mr Thomson thinks that making Scotland's politicians more accountable for the money they spend would make them more responsible. But given the experience of the PIGS and indeed the triple-A rated UK, this argument seems more theoretical than one backed up by compelling real world evidence.

Perhaps Mr Thomson simply means that once fiscally incontinent politicians have ballooned public borrowing to crippling levels then they will be trounced out of office by the electorate - à la last year's Westminster poll - thus to that extent accountability works.

On the other hand, it's surely slightly irresponsible in itself to argue for this concept of responsibility, when it seems self-evident that there's a good chance that equally irresponsible politicians would embark on a spending binge fuelled by borrowing powers, and the idea of responsibility would only kick in when the whole creaking edifice of debt came crashing down. However, perhaps the thinking is that a debt-fuelled spending splurge in a fiscally autonomous Scotland would presage a more right-leaning political class at Holyrood - again à la last year's Westminster vote - but the problem with this is that it's perhaps a bit scorched earth-ish, and in any case the political/economic cycle seems based on a left-leaning spending splurge followed by a right-leaning period of austerity to clean up the mess, which in turn makes the left seem more attractive to voters, thus an effectively perpetual swing between the left and right.

Therefore perhaps a bit like letting out of jail a career criminal who's almost certain to reoffend, on the basis that he'll be held responsible when he does the inevitable and is thrown back in jail again.

Anyway, Mr Thomson appeared on yesterday's Newsnicht debate on the ongoing Calman v fiscal autonomy bunfight. He employed an interesting metaphor to rationalise the argument for more fiscal responsibility, saying: "Children who have to earn their money through doing a newsround* tend to spend it much more wisely than if they just get given it as pocket money".

Oops. If Mr Thomon's alignment with the fiscal autonomy cause seems like one of unnatural bedfellows, then this kind of comparison is hardly likely to endear him to the more hardcore Nationalists, who of course would agree with his characterisation of current Scotland receiving pocket money, but would presumably baulk at extending this idea of immaturity to a Scottish nation with more financial powers.

Likewise, it would perhaps be easy to pick holes in his analogy** - politicians don't earn any money at all; they take it in tax from earners and then spend it - but perhaps it would more accurately reflect reality if fiscal autonomy was viewed as giving the bairns access to a credit card. And, of course, any parents providing access to such a card without spending limit might themselves be deemed irresponsible.

Thus giving the drug addict parents the keys to the pharmacy is perhaps worrying enough, but allowing these parents to let the juveniles in as well would surely be the height of irresponsibility!

* Presumably posh Scots for a paper roond!
** No clever Dick remarks about the difference between a metaphor and an analogy, please.