Working in unison needs a broad base

Coalition formed in UNISON?

Amongst all the surprise and astonishment that has greeted the 'historic' Labour/SNP coalition in Edinburgh (although constituents in East Renfrewshire might be forgiven for questioning the novelty of this situation) it is interesting to consider a factor that might well have been a catalyst,

A factor that has not been publicly mentioned (as far as I know) is what happened in the huge furore around the LibDems' Alternative Business Model (ABM) proposals in the last administration. The proposals, which primarily involved privatising both support and front-line services in the city, caused a huge backlash, with a very successful campaign, led by the council trade unions but incorporating a much wider community base, ultimately leading to its defeat.

Of course, given the knife-edge balance of the previous party make up (29 each with the Tories always likely to back selling off services), this defeat had to involve detaching SNP support from their LibDem coalition partners and a joint vote with Labour (and the Greens) to defeat the plans.

UNISON (the largest council union) activists in the city have admitted privately that their greatest concern was the the notorious resentment between Labour and the Nationalists might scupper the final votes. In the midst of a very vocal and highly-charged campaign, the difficulty in gaining the joint support of the two key parties without pushing either into a political corner was a manoeuvre worthy of Balkan dexterity!

Working together

As is now known, it was ultimately successful and scuppered the LibDem privatisation plans in all areas. Ultimately two ABMs were defeated by joint Labour/SNP amendments and the LibDems threw the other one out themselves. The two parties also – it now appears – reaped the benefits in the elections. Jenny Dawe and her LD colleagues were left to face the full wrath of the electorate on their own.

Was this experience a straw in the wind of this week's shock coalition? A positive experience in working together can only have assisted the move towards it. Too much cannot be ascribed to this working together, or indeed should it be predicted for this coalition. The economic future for all local government in Scotland is bleak, and difficult times lie ahead. Not only will these strain the alliance, they will almost certainly mean issues with their own workforce and with the communities they serve.

Lessons that both Councillor Burns and Councillor Cardownie need to heed are that power does not simply involve the division of positions on the council, but must ensure that services are defended for their communities. And just as the workforce was instrumental in piloting joint activity over the ABM crisis, they need to continue to be part of the working together package to steer Edinburgh through the crises to come.

Faint scratching noises as the bottom of the barrel is scraped

As the sons set on Rupert Murdoch’s empire (ⓒGeorge Galloway), perhaps the most unedifying sight in a thoroughly unedifying political arena is the view of Alex Salmond’s apologists attempting to shift blame by pointing at Blair, Thatcher, Brown, Cameron and their past courting of the media godfather. 

On blogs and on networking sites, aides and supporters of the isolated Salmond have been using the ‘they all did it’ argument in frantic attempts to distract attention away from the fact that they didn’t all do it, and in fact no one did it at the same time and in such a way as the dear leader.

Of course it is true that party leaders at Westminster and Holyrood have much to answer for in the shameless cultivating of support from Murdoch’s tabloids. And some people have been warning for some time - back at least to Thatcher in the UK - that this is a subversion of democracy. Often this has been at much risk to their own careers and private life. Indeed, Tom Watson MP has been one of those politicians who has ploughed a lonely and risky furrow in opposing the power of the Murdochs, often in opposition to his own whips office and party hierarchy. The least he deserves is a serious hearing when he suggests methods of lancing the boil, rather than Salmond’s curt dismissal that he ‘does not need any lectures from Tom Watson’. Recent experience - not least the revelations of phone hacking of Scottish politicians and media figures - suggests otherwise.

Of course, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report was prepared by politicians, and will be subject to partisan views. But Alex is a politician and his supporters are no strangers to partisan views. Mind you, I’m not sure how many of them will be too keen on his refusal even to back the majority view of that report and to throw in his lot with the Tory minority in failing to condemn Mr Murdoch’s ‘fitness to run a media empire’, In the absence of a BSB takeover to lobby for, maybe defending Murdoch on this will be a sufficient ‘quid pro quo’?

'Is anyone watching?

For despite SNP activists attempts to fling mud  (apparently being photographed reading the Sun equates to writing messages of support for it and leaking the date of the referendum to it), there is a huge difference between the actions of Thatcher, Blair, Cameron et al and that of Alex Salmond. It is this. Salmond’s activities are taking place now. After the revelations of the Millie Dowler and other phone hackings, after the exposure of editorial complicity in police bribery, and after every leader in the rest of UK politics has realised the damage their associations with NI were doing (even Jeremy Hunt had the grace to hide behind a tree!), Mr Salmond scheduled new meetings with the tycoon, and made it clear he was open for a closer relationship. 

And the lack of understanding, attempts to excuse the inexcusable, to brazen it out, and to fall into the age-old nationalist rant of ‘blame Labour’, is what will cause the damage. Oh, this might be seen as still significantly a debate amongst the chattering classes, but (in particular) the hacking of a dead schoolgirl’s phone will always make sure that the distaste for Mr Murdoch and his editorial placepersons spreads wider than that.

It is a shame that the many good people in the SNP remain so quiet on this one. Party discipline is normally something to be recognised and even applauded, but not when something as wrong as this is going on (as Alan Cochrane said the other day in the Telegraph). The normally sure-footed SNP machine has mishandled this one, and mishandled it badly. The problem with elevating leaders to semi-divine status, is that their feet of clay all too often melt!

MayDay Festival broadens coverage

This year's festive activity around MayDay is showing a increasing coverage and has been gathered/organised by Glasgow Friends of MayDay (GFoMD) into the programme shown here. It is particularly welcome to see that a number of organisations are beginning to target MayDay (and surrounding dates), for their activity. Everything looks interesting and entertaining, but at the risk of offending some, I'd like to draw your attention to four specific events.

Firstly, the MayDay Concert organised by GFoMD, on Friday 4 May 7.30pm in the Community Central Hall, in Maryhill Road. Comedy, Music and Poetry as Bruce Morton, Eleanor Morton, Arthur Johnstone, Dave Anderson, Marc Livingstone and Tom Leonard, help us celebrate the International Workers' Festival. Tickets £8/£6 from here.

Secondly, the first showing in Scotland of a film made by Ken Loach in 1969! This was a film commissioned by Save the Children, but when the charity saw what Ken had produced they refused to release it! Time mellows even injured charitable feelings and the film was shown in London last year to mark Loach's 75 Birthday. By all accounts it is a remarkable film! It is on at the GFT on Saturday 5 May at 4.40pm. Tickets from the GFT.

Thirdly, the Northern Soul night on the evening (8.00pm) of Saturday 5 May at the STUC Centre. Being organised by the Glasgow Trades Union Council, this is a repeat of the hugely successful night of last year.  The DJs are ready, the venue is primed, get your butts along to dance into Mayday! Tickets on the door (£5).

And, of course, the pinnacle of the celebrations is the Glasgow MayDay March and Rally itself. It starts from George Square at 11.00am, but that is the last thing that is similar to previous years! This year the Rally will take place at the prestigious Royal Concert Hall, and the main speaker is author Owen Jones, whose book Chavs, about the way traditional working class communities have been denigrated, abused and 'demonized' by the UK's ruling elites, has made a significant impact.

Many other events also feature in this year's programme. Everyone should be able to find something to mark the festival in an entertaining way!

Copies of the programme, illustrated here, are available digitally from me. If anyone wants artwork for printing from, I can also supply that. Unfortunately we don't have the resources to print multiple copies ourselves.

Major Misunderstanding takes over at The Herald

The reduction in the level of accuracy and checking that is being done on stories in The Herald is becoming seriously concerning. Recently this broadsheet that was once a paper of record has started to sprout enough typos and inaccuracies to suggest it wants to become a Scottish version of the Guardian (circa 1980's). However today (12 April) there is a far more significant error. It concerns a page lead on (yet another) spat between the Scottish Government and Westminster (see here). This time over public sector pensions.

Danny Alexander MP

While the dual responsibilities for pensions mean that this area is ripe for disputes to occur (devolved public service pensions are devolved to Holyrood; reserved public service pensions and general pension policy are reserved to Westminster), this particular story has to be unbelievable - literally.
Brian Currie, the author of the article, would have us believe that Danny Alexander (Chief Secretary to the Treasury) has written to John Swinney suggesting he is unilaterally going to move the index to which public sector pensions are linked from the current Consumer Price Index(CPI) to the older Retail Price Index (RPI). This is apparently because the CPI goes up faster than the RPI and the switch will save money. John Swinney is reported to be 'angry' and 'astounded'.

Well might he be, but it would seem that this proposal is somewhat unlikely, even for the gaffe-prone ConDem coailition. Why? Well there are at least two good reasons why such a move is unlikely. Firstly, RPI goes up faster than CPI, not the other way round, so Danny Alexander (who wants to cut money from public sector workers' pensions) is most unlikely to move the link to the faster rising index. Secondly, Mr Alexander already changed the link in the other direction taking effect only in April 2011! It follows that neither is he likely to have written wanting to change it back, nor to tell the Scottish Government that it was being changed – as everyone was well aware of it a year ago.
If you check the Scottish Government's release (presumably the source for this story) here it does not say that the index change is the objection. It objects to proposals "to legislate for an automatic link between normal pension age and state pension age, and also set the normal pension age for police officers and firefighters at 60."

John Swinney, 'angry and astonished'

John Swinney's 'anger' and 'astonishment' appears to be about that - not about a switch to RPI for pensions as stated. Incidentally, trade unions (on both sides of the border) would be inclined to welcome any such switch as they have spent some time and resources campaigning and taking out an (unsuccessful) Judicial Review AGAINST the switch from the RPI to CPI instituted in April 2011.
So is this an invention by John Swinney to attack Westminster? A strange change of heart from the Minister? Or a cock up on the reporting/sub-editing front at the Herald? Given the cutbacks in reporting staff at Newsquest Towers I know which my money is on!

But more seriously, if this major piece of misinformation, however generated, can get into a paper such as the Herald (and as a page lead too!), it suggests that levels of scrutiny and accuracy are far below any responsible level of adequacy. The Herald, far from being a paper of record, risks becoming a paper of ridicule.

Public interest should not be compromised

The news (in today's Sunday Mail) that the Scottish Government has now reverted to their fallback reason for refusing to release details of correspondence between them and Sir Brian Souter - one of their biggest donors - should come as little surprise to dedicated Freedom of Information watchers. The use of the 'total cost' excuse by the Scottish Government is becoming a far too regular hiding place for unwanted information release.

It is concerning that this getout clause is being used increasingly by the Scottish Government (and is being latched on to by other public bodies) and it begins to look like it is used to avoid a) giving a specific exemption and b) appeals to the Information Commissioner invoking the 'public interest' test. As the cost limit is not indexed -linked, it also applies to more and more information requests as time passes.

The clause is a convenient one, as it isn't technically an 'exemption' in terms of the law, and therefore not subject to the public interest test, which the previous refusals to disclose the information (because the requester hadn't clearly identified the information, and because it dealt with correspondence with the Royal Family) both were in this case.

Bad enough then, that a Government that trumpets its commitment to 'open government and Freedom of Information by ensuring as much information as possible is made available without having to be asked' (Scottish Government – 6 Principles) seems to regularly practice bureaucratic moves to stymie legitimate information requests, but could there be something more behind this one?

Recently the Scottish Government issued consultation on an amendment to the FoI(s)A. A small amendment, much of which was unexceptional in tidying up anomalies that impacted on potential prosecutions under the Act, and reducing time limits for the release of restricted information. Freedom of Information campaigners heaved a sigh of relief too, that suggestions for the introduction of charges for FoI requests had been left out.

But included in the proposed legislation was a clause to bring the Scottish Act in line with recent changes to the UK Act, in particular increasing the level of exemption for 'correspondence with the Queen or her heir'; so that this would be an 'absolute' exemption. This caused some surprise. Why would this government wish to emulate the ConDem government especially by reducing the citizen's rights to information? Especially as part of a minor amendment that was largely about fixing anomalies and increasing access.

Many campaigners pointed out that this ran completely contrary to FoI principles (not least the Scottish Government's own!), but the responses were muted – many wondered whether to bother replying to such a minor consultation at all. Indeed the strongest arguments against were advanced by the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC), himself.

Around the time the consultation closed a couple of interesting Appeal decisions were published by the SIC. Both found that the Scottish Government had unjustifiably rejected (or in one case ignored) requests for information about their involvement (or otherwise) in the process of the conferring of a Knighthood on Sir Brian Souter, by the Crown.

As many who know me will testify, I am one who tends to place 'cock-up' theories before the 'conspiracy' theories, but it is an interesting coincidence (to say the least). Is it merely unfortunate that a government that recently spent £100,000 plus of our money trying to keep their cost estimates of a local income tax secret, consistently refuses to release other information at so much less cost? In particular does an 'absolute exemption' on any contact between the Scottish Government and the Crown, help or hinder the disclosure of the facts on Sir Brian's nomination for a knighthood?

The recent track record of this government suggests that openness and transparency are now far from their aims.

Tak a long spoon…

Tom Watson MP was at the Glasgow Libraries' Book Festival, 'Aye Write'  last night. He was talking about his long (and at times scary) campaign to expose the over powerful ‘Sir’ Rupert Murdoch, and his media empire, News International.

He came across as a generally sincere and likable backbencher, with principles. One of which was that the closeness of the Murdoch media with politicians and the police bordered (!) on corruption. As a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee - he loves films and football! - he took a particular interest in the media. He had also had previous experiences with the Murdoch press, who have doorstepped him, put a private eye on to follow him, raked about in his (and his neighbours) dustbins regularly, and (by admission from a News International journalist) had Rebekah Brooks out to get him, since he resigned as a Defence Minister and ‘damaged her Tony’.

His presentation last night was a lesson in warnings for Alex Salmond. Apart from the admissions of illegal payments to the police, hacking into news subject’s phones on an ‘industrial scale’ and muckraking journalism, he believes that News International had become too powerful in terms of media ownership in the UK, and that Prime Minister after Prime Minister either courted or went in fear of Murdoch.

The fact that he includes in this litany everyone from Margaret Thatcher onwards, and does not spare his own party leaders means, I think, that his warning to Alex Salmond last night (and again in todays Daily Record column) should be taken very seriously. He admits to having admired Salmond and his aptitude to ‘tell the truth to power’. He said he was very surprised that Salmond leapt straight into private meetings with ‘Sir’ Rupert, as one Scottish Government communication erroneously called him. Writing a tribute to the launch of the ‘Sun on Sunday’ in its first issue and allowing the paper to ‘scoop’ the referendum date have tied the first minister into the News International octopus as surely as Andy Coulson’s appointment has done with David Cameron.

It will come back to haunt him. Unlike David Cameron, Alex Salmond’s snuggle up to the old media fox, comes at a time when his papers are under a number of criminal investigations - one by Strathclyde Police. It is in the middle of the Leveson inquiry, which is showing signs of probing even deeper; and a variety of other groups are asking queries about whether the Murdoch clan in general are ‘fit and proper people’ to run media companies.

Should the results of the Leveson Inquiry and/or the corruption inquiries prove to be as damaging as they could be, then the mealy-mouthed excuses of the First Minister’s spokesperson that it is ‘all about jobs’, will be exposed as dangerous delusion. It already seems that it is more likely all about getting the Murdoch media to give Eck their support, as Rupert (I can’t help remembering Denis Potter’s name for his tumour) casts about for some damage to do to the British state that has (finally) turned on him. As Tom Watson said ‘One thing’s for sure, Murdoch is not doing this for the good of Scotland or the Scottish people.’

It is slightly surprising that an experienced campaigner like Salmond (and even more so the SNP media machine that surrounds him) would go down the same road as Blair and Cameron before him. Especially after the experiences of those associations. But he does have previous in cosying up to tycoons. Rupert Murdoch, however,  is not Brian Souter or  even Donald Trump. Tak’ a long spoon? I suggest a ten foot tarry bargepole might be more appropriate.

Unique Filmshow latest to mark Clyde Work-in Anniversary

Cinema Action film one of the mass meetings

Campaigning against the closure of a service? Looking to highlight what your job means to your local community? Why not come and have a look at how a successful campaign was waged forty years ago?

A unique opportunity is coming up for people in and around Glasgow to see contemporary accounts of the legendary UCS work-in. A radical film collective - Cinema Action - were the only film crew allowed into the yards during the work-in. They produced two unique films of the work-in. One - UCS 1 -is a short account of the  campaign to build the campaign in the community, while in Class Struggle - Film from the Clyde, the whole work-in is filmed from the point of view of the workers.

Both of these films, along with a short film produced by the STUC to mark the 40th Anniversary. are being shown at Glasgow's Mitchell Theatre over three days, from Wednesday March 21 - Friday March 23. An added attraction is the presence at each of the showings of Ann Guedes, one of the film collective who made these films. She is over from Lisbon to take part in panel discussions after every showing. Other panelists will include historian, Dr Chik Collins, STUC president, Mike Kirby and Actor and Director David Hayman.

The programme is as follows: Weds 21, 1.00pm - UCS 1 and STUC film. Tickets £5; Thurs 22, 7.30pm - UCS1 and STUC film. Tickets £6; Fri 23, 7.30pm Class Struggle - Film from the Clyde. Tickets £7.50.
The suggestion is that Wednesday will be aimed primarily at schools and colleges, Thursday at TU and labour movement activists,  and Friday at the public, but no-one will be corralled into any particular showing. Tickets are available from www.glasgowconcerthalls.com, and more details of all the events taking place as part of the 40th Anniversary are on the website at http://ucsat40.blogspot.com.