Scottish Labour

How the Scottish Labour Leadership contest should look (but won’t)

Perhaps the greatest service Tom Harris has ever done for the Scottish Labour Party is to try to flush out contenders for the Scottish Labour Party’s leadership, by declaring that if no one good stands – he will. While Deputy Leader Johann Lamont is widely expected to run others potential contenders like Ken MacIntosh, Jackie Baillie and Hugh Henry seem to have gone off the idea – and who can blame them?

Despite resistance from some MSPs the expectation is that the review led by Jim Murphy and Sarah Boyack is to recommend that the leader of the Scottish Labour Party can be drawn from elected representatives in The Scottish Parliament, Westminster, or the European Parliament. In theory that could mean a busy leadership contest with a wide variety of candidates, and a genuine debate about the future of the party – but I fear that may be wishful thinking. Here’s who I think should run, but probably won’t:

David Martin MEP

David is one of the most senior Members of the European Parliament, having been elected for the Lothians Constituency in 1984. He was Vice-President of the European Parliament and is currently a senior member of the Parliament’s influential Trade Committee. He could certainly take-on Salmond in Statesmanliness, having been one of Scotland’s overseas representatives for the best part of 30 years.

Now based in Bearsden David straddles the East-West divide quite nicely. He’d make an ideal candidate for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, as well as the West of Scotland list. Though he can often appear decidely middle-class he’s imbued with the sort of thoughtful socialism which the party has sorely lacked in recent years. He also appears to be well regarded by the press which, if this year’s election taught us anything, is a must.

Duncan McNeil MSP

My real outsider. A former colleage once said to me of Duncan McNeil that “along with Frank [McAveety], he has the very best grasp of ordinary voters out of everyone in the Scottish Parliament” – I couldn’t but agree. Absolutely no-one is suggesting Duncan as a potential leadership candidate but in my opinion, they should be.

Though he’s not necessarily a household name, Duncan is popular and often father-like figure within the Labour Group in the Scottish Parliament. A former organiser with the GMB, he was Government Chief Whip under Jack McConnell and was elected Chair of the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party in the last Parliament. Duncan also played a prominent role in the recent Inverclyde by-election, and I’m pretty certain that were it not for his personal popularity Labour would have lost Greenock and Inverclyde to the SNP in May.

At 61, Duncan is unlikely to have the appetite to run, however were he to do so he’d bring a much-needed dose of reality to the debate about the future of the party.

Margaret Curran MP

Margaret Curran has been touted as a potential leader of the Scottish Party since she was Communities Minister in Jack McConnell’s Government. She was one of the favourites to succeed Wendy Alexander until she was harangued into running in the Glasgow East by-election, all-but ending any change of her ever leading the party. With the north-east of Glasgow losing a seat in the Scottish Parliament Margaret’s eventual election to the House of Commons helped avoid a messy selection battle between herself, Paul Martin and Frank McAveety.

Though she’s only been an MP for little more than a year Margaret has settled well into the Commons (and eventually got out of the habit of call the Speaker “Presiding Officer”!) Word on the street is she’s Ed Miliband’s go-to-gal on matters north of the border, and should receive the backing of Westminster if she were to throw her hat in the ring.

In government and in opposition the Party’s media team carved out a highly unpleasant “attack dog” image for Margaret, which in my opinion put-off more voters than it impressed. Since leaving the front bench Margaret’s managed to soften her image somewhat to reflect the warm and witty character that she is in reality. She has the experience and fortitude to be credible against Salmond. In addition to being popular with activists (in particular Young Labour and Labour Students) she has the vigour required to shake the party up internally, something which is sorely needed.

While Tom Harris may not be alone in wishing Douglas Alexander or Jim Murphy would stand, they’ve set their sights on senior jobs in the UK Government. If the party wants MP as its leader, it has to be Margaret Curran.

Ken MacIntosh MSP

In the days that followed the election in May Ken emerged as an early favourite for the leadership, though as I mentioned above he seems to have gone off the idea. He recorded an impressive result in May, regaining his notionally Tory Eastwood Constituency and turning a notional 2,000 vote deficit into a 2,000 vote majority – though it must be noted that in a Tory/Labour marginal Ken was fighting a very different fight from most seats in the country.

Prior to his election Ken was a producer with BBC News in London. His experience with the media is immediately apparent, and he impressed many with his witty-yet-considered stint on BBC Scotland’s election coverage. Yet despite his being the Labour Group’s star-performer with the media Ken’s talents have seldom been acknowledged by successive party leaders. Overlooked for ministerial office, the only post he ever held in government was as an unpaid parliamentary aide – a position from which he resigned over hospital re-organisation. Though having never been a minister could actually work in his favour.

From a tactical perspective, I believe that Alex Salmond would find it difficult to work out how to handle Ken. With his cheery persona and ‘family-man’ image (six kids, and counting) Ken could deflect the bluster of Alex Salmond far more effectively than anyone else. If the MSPs are determined to be led by one of their own then they should be doing everything they can to make sure Ken runs.

Is the Scottish Parliament Short With Short Money?

The Scottish Parliament, like its mother in Westminster, operates a system of financial support for opposition parties. “Short Money” is intended to level the playing field between the government, who have the resources of the civil service to aid them in formulating policy, and the opposition. It pays the salaries of researchers and press officers in each party’s support units, office costs, and certain other expenses to assist members in the pursuance of their “Parliamentary duties”.

In Westminster the level of funding is calculated on the basis of a fixed amount-per-member plus a further sum per 200 votes received. Following the Neill Report in 1998 the level of funding per member was, by a resolution of the House of Commons, more than doubled making Short Money in Westminster rather generous. The Short Money levels in the Scottish Parliament were established by s97 of the Scotland Act. As part of the transfer of legislative power to the Scottish Parliament during the first month of its existence the UK Parliament amended the Scotland Act by Order-in-Council to expressly un-reserve the making of payments to “any political party for the purpose of assisting members of the Parliament who are connected with the party to perform their Parliamentary duties.” As the present Short Money funding level in the Scottish Parliament is enshrined in statute primary legislation in the Scottish Parliament would be required to vary it. The consequence of this is that, relative to Westminster, the opposition in the Scottish Parliament is vastly under-resourced.

For the financial year 2011/2012 the level of funding for opposition parties in the House of Commons is £15,039.85 for every seat won at the last election plus £30.04 for  every 200 votes gained by the party, which for the Official Opposition makes a total of £20,050.24 per member. In the same financial year the level of funding of opposition Parties in the Scottish Parliament is a mere £7,094 per member. The votes element of the Westminster formula is designed, in part, to smooth out what can be stark variations in the sizes of oppositions in each parliament. There is no provision for such smoothing in the Scottish Parliament.

The result, therefore is that the main opposition party in the Scottish Parliament has seen its Short Money drop from £309,899.24 to £262,478 in a Parliament where the role of the opposition is more important than ever.

The Neill report in 1998 said of such events:

The Official opposition has a general duty to scrutinise the actions and the legislation of the Government.  We do not think it appropriate that it should receive a significantly smaller amount of Short money simply because it has recently suffered at the polls.  Indeed it can be argued that, if the party in government has an overwhelming majority in [Parliament], it is particularly important that the Official Opposition should be adequately funded and resourced.

When the Scottish Parliament debated the various statutory instruments which, among other things, gave them legislative competence over Short Money on 2nd June 1999 (exactly one month before Primary Legislative power was transferred to Holyrood) the opposition was united in its view that the level of Short Money was inadequate.

Mike Russell, lately Cabinet Secretary for Education, proposed that the Scottish Parliament refer a decision on what the level of opposition funding should be to the Neill Committee, and that the Parliament should agree in advance to accept whatever recommendation the committee made. He also argued that:

There is no doubt that by dramatically reducing the amount of Short money available to parties, which is, in effect, what the Westminster Government’s order does, the Labour party is attempting to ensure that the work of the Opposition parties is undermined.

Then SNP Deputy Leader and current Finance Minster John Swinney decried the government for showing “no hint of benevolence, no sense of fairness.”

Similarly, the then Scottish Conservative Leader David McLetchie argued that:

What is good enough for Westminster is apparently not good enough for the Scottish Parliament, and the apparent altruism of Her Majesty’s Government is only skin deep. In Westminster, Labour can afford to be generous as it is backed-at least for the time being-by a large parliamentary majority. In Scotland, Labour is doing everything it can to suppress opposition to its unprincipled coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

There can be little doubt that the then Scottish Labour leadership, arrogantly presuming that they themselves would never be in opposition, were attempting to choke off funding to the SNP. It wasn’t until the Scottish Labour Party were ejected from Government that the stark the folly of their presumption came to be realised.

A few days after the 2007 Scottish Parliament election Jack McConnell asked his colleagues for a substantial increase in their contribution to the Labour Support Unit from their individual allowances, which its fair to say was met with hostility from the more territorial Labour MSPs. Following her elevation to the Leadership of the Scottish Labour Party Wendy Alexander followed her Shadow Justice Secretary Pauline McNeill in calling for Short Money to be increased. Having only one seat more than Labour in the Scottish Parliament and been forced to live on paltry Parliamentary rations for their 8 years in opposition the SNP were understandingly unsympathetic.

But four years on things have changed radically. The SNP won well against a Scottish Labour Party which, in all honesty, deserved to lose. They have the first overall majority in a Parliament which wasn’t designed for such an eventuality. They’re guaranteed five years in government; Holyrood is to receive a raft of new competences from Westminster; and there will be a referendum on Independence for Scotland. As the newly elevated Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business, Bruce Crawford can show the benevolence and sense of fairness of which Ted Short was so possessed, and which the Labour-led Executive so clearly lacked. And if fairness isn’t justification enough for the Scottish Government, maybe we can even call it “Crawford Money”.