Labour and alcohol

Most interested was I in the 'independent' commission on alcohol that Labour set up. It had six members: Sam Galbraith, Labour party member and former Labour Minister; Stephen Doran, Labour party member and Glasgow Labour councillor; Brian Fearon, Labour party member, former Labour councillor and Labour's candidate in Ochil in 2007; Sally Brown (chair), former Labour party member and friend and neighbour of Labour MSP and former Labour Minister Richard Simpson; Graeme Pearson, former policeman and now Labour's adviser on crime (providing the skeleton for Richard Baker's sterling work); and Jeremy Blood who spent 21 years working for Scottish & Newcastle and is now a director of Mitchell's & Butler's. Impartiality - ye canna whack it!

Anyway, this commission, fascinatingly, came up with proposals that are already Labour party policy - remarkable the prescience that Labour politicians have - and scorned Minimum Unit Pricing (the policy of the SNP Government). This commission argued that "MUP is not in place anywhere in world and the evidence presented for its effectiveness relies on estimates of impact" just before it refers to the Canadian Social Reference Pricing which it suggests differs markedly from MUR. Perhaps they should have done the tiniest bit of research, something like reading the submission from the Brewers Association of Canada to the Alcohol Bill which describes SRP and shows it to be the same as MUP. In addition, Russia introduced minimum pricing on vodka earlier this year to curb consumption and has already had minimum pricing for other spirits for a couple of years, Moldova introduced it on strong alcohol products, Ukraine and China both have minimum pricing (Ukraine's politicians were arguing about how much it should rise by in April last year), and Australia was considering it at the beginning of last year (just me and my research assistant Mr Google finding MUP in action)

If you want something more stunning than that, though, look at the recommendations - this commission rejects the idea of Scotland bringing in a minimum price for alcohol based on the strength of the product and suggests, instead, that the Scottish Government asks London to introduce a floor price below which alcohol may not be sold and harmonise prices so that the cost of the drink will be based on the strength of the product. So that would be an argument that we shouldn't do it but should ask London to - the argument being that you shouldn't have a different system in Scotland. The irony of Labour being last to understand devolution is almost painful. Also interesting in that section, though, is that Labour's minimum price is based on adding together the cost of production, duty and VAT but there is an aside that "The Commission is unconvinced by those who argue that it is not possible to arrive at a notional basic cost of production." This is the only time in the report that it is mentioned that someone has suggested that it might be impossible to isolate notional basic costs (for instance, if one site is producing 20 different products on 7 different lines, how do you allocate production costs to each unit of each product?)

Labour once again ignoring the duty of responsible politicians and, instead, messing around looking for a tiny political pointscoring opportunity - a party that really can't be trusted. It's time to properly address Scotland's unhealthy relationship with alcohol and Labour just isn't interested.

Let's leave the last word to some international alcohol experts who have written to MSPs encouraging them to support the SNP Government proposals.

Top Trumps - Justice

As I said before, you can buy Top Trumps packs but they've forgotten Holyrood (how could they?). One of the comments on the Top Trumps post on the candidates for First Minister suggested that I should have added "Ability to think on ones feet" as a category - it's one I didn't consider but it would hardly be fair, would it? Salmond seems mildly disappointed if nothing unexpected happens while the Labour front bench looks like it would need to go home for instructions if the newsagent didn't have its favourite brand of chewing gum.
On to Justice though; our contenders are
SNP - Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill MSP
Lab - Shadow CSfJ Richard Baker MSP
Con - Shadow CSfJ John Lamont MSP
LD - Spokesperson on Justice Robert Brown MSP (I had to look that up)
Green - I dunno, I'll let James tell us

Categories:

Tough on crime

MacAskill takes assets from criminals and recycles them into assets for communities - on his watch Scotland’s police and courts have been pursuing organised crime and getting results . This is, of course, a big change since Labour’s time in power - I think he gets 10 out of 10

Baker talks about ASBOs for teenagers drinking but won’t agree with action to address the drinking and wants to jail daft wee laddies who go out with a knife in their pocket but won’t agree with the action needed to persuade them not to. He never mentions serious crime and has never talked about taking on organised crime. He wants to appear to be tough on crime but doesn’t have what it takes to actually be tough on crime. He gets 0

Lamont is new to the job, having taken over after Bill Aitken decided to sing the closing aria on his political career so he doesn’t have much of a record to examine. He does seem to have slotted straight into the strange twilight world of the Scottish Conservatives Justice theory, though, (a pity that he doesn’t take a leaf out of the book of Ken Clarke who takes somewhere approaching sense on Justice issues) and is obsessing on a few matters rather than offering solutions. He’s for short prison sentences and agrees with Labour on jailing wee laddies – wants to appear tough on crime but doesn’t know how. He gets 0

Brown is strange, it’s never very clear where he stands on anything (enough with the ‘typical Lib Dem’ comments, now), he’s unusually indirect for a Geordie. He doesn’t actually say much about the operation of the Justice system and hasn’t brought forward any alternative policies. He most certainly hasn’t spoken about how he would like to see us tackle organised crime. He gets 0

Tough on the causes of crime

MacAskill wrote a fair bit on how to address the causes of crime in the books he wrote a few years ago as well as in articles – firstly address the three Ds – drink, drugs and deprivation, lock up the bad guys, treat those needing treatment, and find ways to give society a fair crack of the whip. In Government he’s implemented restorative justice – Cashback for Communities as already mentioned, but also in putting community service workers to work in places where it will be helpful – like clearing snow from pensioners’ paths last winter or putting headstones back up in Edinburgh graveyards or helping restore peatlands in Lanarkshire. He’s set up a review of sentencing, gave the Advocate General free reign on reforming the prosecution of rape, moved to get rid of short sentences, started the process of addressing Scotland’s unhealthy relationship with alcohol, and started to make sure that offenders pay back to the communities they have damaged.

He’s addressing recidivism – removing short sentences is a big part of it, keeping people out of prison as far as possible and trying to make them productive members of society, keeping prison for those who are a danger to society . He hasn’t done everything yet, so only 8 out of 10

Baker has never laid out his thought on paper as far as I can tell and only comments to say “I’m against that” – I can’t recall a single time when he has said that he agrees with something that is begin done. He’s in favour of short sentences – even wanted a mandatory six month sentence in spite of the overwhelming evidence that short sentences encourage reoffending and embed many people in a life of crime. Instead of offering the underprivileged a hand up and out of the hole they’ve landed themselves in, Baker appears to want to just put a lid on the hole and keep them down there. For a devastating indictment of the lack of vision in Labour’s Justice policy, there’s only one place to go. Scores 0

Lamont hasn’t said much (give him time) but he’s got to defend this barking policy he hasn’t scored yet, but he could do worse than learn from Malcolm Rifkind who delivered the Kenneth Younger Memorial Lecture to the Howard League for Penal Reform while he was the Minister in charge of Justice policy in Scotland in 1988 and he said:

There will always be those who commit serious or violent crimes and who pose a threat to society which requires them to be confined for significant periods. Nevertheless there are many good reasons for wishing to ensure that, as a society, we use prisons as sparingly as possible. While the use of imprisonment may be inescapable when dealing with violent offenders and those who commit the most serious crimes, we must question to what extent short sentences of imprisonment and periods of custody for fine default are an appropriate means of dealing with offenders and there is no single answer to that. Prisons are both expensive to build and to run and do not provide the ideal environment in which to teach an offender to live a normal and law-abiding life, to work at a job or to maintain a family. If offenders can remain in the community, under suitable conditions, they should be able to maintain their family ties, opportunities for work or training and they may be better placed to make some reparation for their offence.

Brown is just wishy-washy, nothing much there, but he does oppose short sentences. Give him 3 points (is this like Eurovision?)


Taking decisions while resisting undue influence

MacAskill Showed his mettle here by holding off the US Government in the decision to free Megrahi, making the decision on the basis of the evidence in front of him rather than the political pressures that were on him. 10 by gum!

Baker doesn’t have that fortitude; he even thought that MacAskill should go and beg forgiveness from the US Senate. Nil points

Lamont – nae record to examine, he hasn’t made clear how he would make decisions. He doesn’t even get to speak on Megrahi, Murdo Fraser does that.

Brown gave MacAskill full support in refusing to kowtow to the US Senate, saying that the Scottish Justice Secretary is accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not the US Senate – then he ruined it with a sly dig – 8 out of 10

This would be an awfy boring game of Top Trumps but you get the picture. I think a legal mind might do a better job of analysing these contenders, I know one who frequently opines on Mr Baker, for instance …

Mind how you go!

L'esprit de l'escalier

I was having a wee debate about capital punishment last night (not with myself you cheeky rapscallion) and the deterrence effect of punishment on levels of crime (next to nought in my opinion) and I've just thought of the question I should have put to my pro-hangin-an-floggin chum:

Do you need the deterrent of capital punishment to prevent you committing murder?

Must remember in future ...

Twits of the world unite!

You may remember that cool, hip and groovy chap, Frank McAveety MSP who turned out not to be cool, hip and groovy and had to resign from his convenorship over offensive remarks. He has decided not to be offensive in future and has, instead, decided to employ someone else to do that for him. Step forward Stuart MacLennan, onetime Labour candidate for Moray who resigned in disgrace over, erm, offensive remarks and is now happily ensconced in Mr McAveety's Glasgow office.

I'm sure that they've both learned their lessons and there will be no more behaviour treating people in a derogatory and dismissive fashion. Move along, now, nothing to see here!

Art lovers

Here's a thing to go to when you're tired of seeing shows at the Edinburgh Festivals - art that you can contemplate in peace. Barbara Rae is exhibiting some prints in the Dundas Street Gallery (paintings across the road in the Open Eye Gallery).

If you fancy being really nice to me the one I like best is on the left hand wall just opposite the pillar (I've forgotten the name of it). You can see some of her stuff on her website. Mind how you go!

Ane Pleasant Satyre of the Southern Estaitis

If it hadn't been for the chance promotion of wee Danny Alexander to Chief Secretary to the Treasury the UK Government would lack a single Cabinet Secretary who represents a Scottish seat other than the Scottish Secretary. John Major's last cabinet, with fewer Scottish Members to choose from (11 Tory seats under Major, 12 Coalition seats now), had Lang at Trade and Industry and Rifkind as Foreign Secretary (Forsyth was Scottish Secretary).

Interestingly, Brown had only three (including himself) but Blair had four in his last cabinet - each with far more to choose from than Major. Is the quality of unionist MP from Scotland in decline? I suppose it is blindly obvious that Mundell does not have the quality of Rifkind or Forsyth, that Moore is no Jo Grimond and Danny Alexander isn't even Russell Johnston. It's just as clear, I suppose, that Murphy is no Tom Johnston and Douglas Alexander can't hold a candle to Willie Ross, but are they really that much worse than the fodder being served up south of the border - Vince Cable, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Huhne, Andrew Lansley, Eric Pickles?

It's just as well we can fend for ourselves, isn't it? Mind how you go!

Remember when?

A long, long time ago there was an election and some people used videos, remember these ones?







Ah, principles, eh?

Let's play Top Trumps

Top Trumps is a series of decks of cards which all have the same theme - you compare the attributes of two of the cards and the person holding the card with the best attribute wins. So, for example, if you and I were playing with a deck of F1 cars, I might pitch speed as the attribute and whichever of us had the fastest car on our card would win the hand. A fun wee game which lots of us enjoyed as children and which covers subjects as diverse as baby animals, football players, Harry Potter, Horrible Histories and Politicos. Inexplicably, they've never done Holyrood and the politicians in Scotland's Parliament so I find myself shouldering that burden.

Let's start with the candidates for First Minister in next May's election:

Alex Salmond:
First Minister of Scotland
Leader of the Scottish National Party

Election history –
Won Banff & Buchan Westminster seat1987, re-elected in 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005 – retired undefeated
Won Banff & Buchan Scottish Parliament seat 1999 – retired undefeated
Won Gordon Scottish Parliament seat 2007

Current majority – 2,062

Age - 55

Employment immediately before election – Oil Economist and Bank Economist, Royal Bank of Scotland


Ian Gray
Opposition leader
Leader of the Labour Group of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament

Election history –
Won Pentlands 1999
Lost Pentlands 2003
Won East Lothian 2007

Current Majority – 2,448

Age - 53

Employment immediately before election – SPAD to Alistair Darling


Annabel Goldie
Opposition leader
Leader of the Scottish Conservatives

Election history –
List Member for the West of Scotland Region 1999, re-elected 2003 and 2007

Current majority – none

Age - 60

Employment immediately before election – solicitor



Tavish Scott
Opposition leader
Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats

Election history –
Won Shetland 1999, re-elected 2003 and 2007

Current majority – 4, 909

Age - 44

Employment before election – councillor and farmer



Patrick Harvie
Opposition leader
Leader of the Scottish Green Party (co-convenor with Eleanor Scott)

Election history -
List Member for the Glasgow Region 2003, re-elected 2007

Current majority – none

Age - 37

Employment immediately before election – youth worker and development worker for PHACE Scotland


Other things
Then, of course, there's debating and rhetorical skills. Out of 10 points you've surely got to give Salmond at least 8 and possibly 9, Goldie probably 7 maybe 6, Harvie has to be 5 or 6, Scott about the same, and Gray 2 maybe 3.

Stature (in terms of befitting the office) - Salmond 7, Goldie 5, Harvie 3, Scott and Gray down about 2.

Capacity to develop policy (relies on party to a great extent and how much freedom there is to work) - Salmond 10, Harvie 8 maybe 9, Goldie 3, and Scott and Gray 0.

Recognisability wouldn't be a fair category, Salmond is the only one who would figure.

Courage to take decisions - Salmond 10, Harvie 10, Goldie 4, Scott 2, Gray 2


I can't think of any other categories to add at the moment, but feel free to suggest some. It doesn't look like a very even contest just now, does it? That might change when I get the chance to look at the other cabinet positions, right enough...

Mind how you go!

Charles Kennedy

The riders on the negotiations have been severe - what's wrong with red smarties anyway? Funny that the papers got it wrong and suggested he'd be joining Labour, isn't it?

Ahem.

Mind how you go!

Effective Government?

I am indebted to m'learned friend for alerting me to the presence of a very important commission operating under the auspices of the Westminster Government - the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, known as the National Debt Commissioners - a commission which, I hear you say, is coming not a moment too soon, it's about time the National Debt was reduced.

I thought so too, and I was about to applaud the institution of this fine and well-thought-out organisation until I realised that I would be roughly 224 years too late (we'll have no comments about my working practices, thank you!), the body was established in 1786, the year that Robert Burns published his first collection of works (Poems, Chiefly in the Scottish Dialect), the year that the first prison ship sailed for Botany Bay, the year that Mozart's Marriage of Figaro premiered, and the year that the Affair of the Diamond Necklace helped prepare the ground for the French Revolution and the creation of the First Republic - interesting times, indeed. This bit is from page 85 of the list of Ministerial responsibilities of the new Government:

COMMISSIONERS FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT
The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt (CRND), established in 1786, primarily manage the investment portfolios of a number of government and public bodies including HM Revenue & Customs (National Insurance Fund), National Savings and Investments (National Savings Bank Fund), Her Majesty’s Courts Service (Court Funds Investment Account) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (National Lottery Distribution Fund). It also manages some residual operations relating to the National Debt including Donations and Bequests and 3.5 per cent Conversion Loan Sinking Fund. The statutory functions of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt (CRND) are carried out within the United Kingdom Debt Management Office.

There are eight commissioners:

1. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
2. The Governor of the Bank of England
3. Deputy Governor of the Bank of England
4. The other Deputy Governor of the Bank of England
5. The Speaker of the House of Commons
6. The Master of the Rolls
7. The Accountant General of the Supreme Court
8. The Lord Chief Justice

How often do they meet? Well, back to the UK Debt Management Office:

Meetings of the Commissioners were at first held regularly, but the last recorded business meeting took place on 12 October 1860.

Move along, move along, nothing to see here! They leave the responsibility for managing down the national debt in the hands of two civil servants. I have no doubt that they are extremely competent civil servants but surely the elected politicians would want to be in control of such an important function? If you were hoping that the Government of the day in Westminster was keeping an eye on the massive debt then it's probably best you don't look at the other pages on the Debt Management Office site. I looked at the sections on accounts hoping to see some figures that I could ponder upon. Alas and alack, it would appear that I must seek such information elsewhere.

That'll be for another day, I think. Mind how you go!

McAveety is disgraceful

Frank McAveety has been in the news a bit for his tasteless comments about a member of the public during a Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee meeting. His comments were lewd, sexist, a tad colonial and imperialistic in tone, and, frankly, unprofessional.

This former Labour Culture Minister, though, should also hang his head in shame for this bit:

"She looks kinda . . . she's got that Filipino look.
"You know . . . the kind you'd see in a Gauguin painting. There's a wee bit of culture."

Gauguin in the Philippines? I think not! Tahiti and a couple of other islands in French Polynesia, yes - nowhere near the Philippines.

Sheesh!

Told you so

Following the realisation that Edinburgh now definitely, absolutely cannot afford the tram project, council officials and TIE representatives will meet with John Swinney soon to ask whether the money received from the Scottish Government will have to be paid back when the project is cancelled. Told you so!

Some time ago at a briefing in the Scottish Parliament we were told that investors were champing at the bit to get a slice of the Edinburgh Tram project but that TIE wanted to build it with public money (we were told that you could raise 100% of the dosh in London or Munich) - wouldn't that be a solution (he asked in all innocence). I still haven't had that other briefing ...

There's nothing worse than falling flat on your face and getting your nose stuck in a tramline (unless you fling your leg over the wire at the same time). Tramatic it is!

Mind how you travel ...

Let's support England in the World Cup

After all, they're our nearest neighbours and dearest friends, and they've never won it before, have they? No, no, laddie that was a Swiss referee and a Russian linesman. England is, after all, the greatest footballing nation in the world - although they are so modest about it you would hardly know - and they play beautiful and graceful football with good manners and great sportsmanship. Pip pip for our boys in white with the three scrawny leopards on their chests, and if we need any more inspiration, let's turn to their national bard:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height.
On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war.
And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start.
The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

The game's afoot indeed - mind how you go!

More Nats

There are Labour MSPs wandering around Parliament just now wearing badges that say "More Nats". En route to Damascus?

Holier than who?

Turn your back for two minutes and the Lib Dems are at it again, preaching piety and claiming superior probity and all the while they're dipping the till. Remember Clegg of Clegg Hall in the pulpit saying he was out to clean up politics, that MPs ripping off their expenses was a "symptom of a deeper malaise" and that MPs had been "abusing the system on an industrial scale". There was a new sheriff in town, though, a superhero - Nick would deliver "fair, decent, transparent politics". Of course, he'd need a few expenses to do the job - £83,824 should do it, including £160 a month for a gardener to prune his fruit trees and maintain his rose garden (no, honestly).

He had a damned fine rationale for it all, though, “It was in a state of complete disrepair, the garden was a complete eyesore, it hadn’t been touched for ages." Great reasoning - he bought a hovel so we should pay to clean it up - he can't be expected to wield a pair of secateurs by himself, after all, and it is "a modest semi-detached home" after all (you know, the kind of place that thousands of people aspire to have as their only home), not a palace... I wonder if he's stopped making claims on our money for his refurbishment of this white elephant he bought with our money?

And so to David Laws. He knew that he shouldn't have been paying rent to his partner since at least 2006, admitting that he and his partner should "probably have changed our arrangements". Probably? It goes further, though, the house was paid for partly by David Laws - and that was after the rule change that meant he was no longer allowed to pay his partner for accommodation. He was, in effect, paying himself rent for his second home using his Parliamentary expenses. Its different in detail but surely not in degree from Nigel Griffiths and his first office scandal or, for a more contemporary comparison, Elliot Morley's phantom mortgage.

David Laws has referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner - whoop-de-doo, I'm not sure I can contain myself. The behaviour to which he has admitted is criminal, he's committed fraud, he shouldn't be in the rector's office worrying about a bad report card, he should be in the police station worrying about a court case. Just to top off the ridiculousness of his position, Clegg and Cameron have both said that Laws might return to Government at some point in the future - I wonder who else they might be considering for a return to the fray?

We shouldn't be surprised, of course, the Lib Dems have a reputation for encouraging their MPs to use Parliamentary allowances in ways that were never intended.

Let's polish off wee Danny Alexander while we're at it (what is it with politicians with that surname) - there was a stooshie over his sale of his London home and not paying Capital Gains Tax. He was, of course, entitled to relief under the three year rule (as would Hazel Blears have been if she'd thought to claim it) and so not obliged to pay CGT. I can't help feeling that the biggest part of the story has been missed:

Mr Alexander bought his London home in 1999 when he was a press officer for the Britain in Europe campaign. In 2004 he got a job as press officer for the Cairngorm National Park (how did someone living in London get that job?), and in 2005 he was elected as an MP and immediately designated his London home as his second home in spite of not owning another home. He rented a place in Aviemore but the home he owned in London was what he called his second home.

Here's the thing, though - he'd owned the London home for six years before getting elected but as soon as he got elected he started spending money on doing it up, a new boiler, repairs to the roof, and so on - £37,000 worth in two years, then he sold it. Basically, he charged us for the costs of doing up a house he already owned and then he flogged it at a huge profit (about £150,000) and bought another (and charged us for the costs of moving as well) - I wonder whether he's been charging us for the refurbishment of this flat as well?

The Lib Dems - never knowingly underclaimed.

Mind how you go!

Is Labour bankrupt?

Leaving aside the question about moral bankruptcy, is the Labour party bust? It was twelve million quid in the red at the end of 2008 having sold assets and brought union contributions in early to reduce its massive structural problems. Given that it spent around £25 million on the 2005 campaign and that it had a bigger fight on its hands this year, it's a decent guess that its 2010 election spend was over £20 million (it's a party known for irresponsible spending, after all). Given that it only brought in £5 million during the campaign, it's a decent question to be asking - is Labour broke?

If, as I suspect, the answer is "awfy broke" and it is now out of power without a single leadership candidate looking like they'd be a credible alternative Prime Minister any time in the next decade, thereby affecting the possible business donations, will it have to fold? If it does, would that leave each of its members liable for a proportion of the debt as members of an unincorporated association?

If the Labour party is scooshed, how will it fight the next election?

Mind, now!

Jack's back!

Remember Jack McConnell? You might have thought that he had fled these verdant shores for pastures new and exotic given that he had his eye on a diplomatic post in Malawi (what do you mean he should leave diplomatic posts to diplomats?) - a post that his big buddy Gordon Brown had secured for him. He had the opportunity to copy his muse, Helen Liddell, and nip off to warmer climes and less intrusive politics - or so he thought. It all went wrong when Labour realised it didn't want a byelection in Motherwell and told him to stay as an MSP - part-time, of course.

It was thought at one stage that he'd step down at next year's election and take up the Malawi posting, even chatting up the Conservatives to try to secure himself a deal in spite of having already eyed up standing again and taking another pop at leading the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament. Now he's making sure he's noticed again, with public pronouncements and the 'human being, honest' revelations of this week. Why would he be seeking the limelight so blatantly now? I think it's straightforward, he thinks that Labour is in trouble, dispirited at its plight, that members and activists will drift off, and that there is little chance of Labour winning an election in 11 months' time.

I think Jack McConnell is positioning himself for the leadership battle when Iain Gray steps down after losing the election. Ironically, he's using the same tactics as Iain used when he sensed a weakness in Wendy Alexander. Lupus pilum mutat, non mentem.

Mind how you go!

Charlie Kennedy MP to join the SNP

Charles Kennedy (he prefers the proper name; he's a highlander) will join the SNP in the next couple of weeks. He hasn't said so yet - and probably hasn't considered it yet - but remember you heard it here first.

Priorities, priorities, priorities...

In spite of Lib Dem promises to the contrary, another child has been seized and incarcerated at Dungavel - a baby in prison - eight months old and a failed asylum seeker - quite clearly a threat to this great nation, eh?

Immigration Minister Damian Green said they hoped to "have plans agreed within the next few months" to stop putting babies in prison. See how fast this new UK Government acts? They have, of course, already allocated the grace-and-favour houses and stately homes that their Ministers will luxuriate in.

Priorities, priorities, priorities...

Lib Dems duplicitous? No, surely not!

Chris Huhne, Lib Dem MP and Energy Secretary in the Whitehall Government, has already started breaking Lib Dem election promises - he's signalled that he'll give the go-ahead to new nuclear power stations. The Lib Dem manifesto, though, said Liberal Democrats will reject a new generation of nuclear power stations (pages 58 & 59 - the list of pledges). Those much-vaunted principles sold for the chance of a Ministerial salary and car - most politicians want to get into power to use the offices of state to implement their policies - it's a sad thing to see politicians using their policy as bargaining chips to get into power. I presume we'll be in for a long shift of these u-turns and back-tracks as policies are tossed overboard like ballast in an attempt to keep the Libservative coalition flying.

Ach well, back to the barricades, mind how you go!