YouGov gives Labour major Holyrood lead (and good news for Goldie's boys too)

A Yougov opinion poll of 1200 base has given Labour a huge lead going into Holyrood campaign season; in stark findings to earlier polls this month

Why? How? Really?

When you have pollsters coming up with such stark differences; YouGov yesterday handing Labour a 13% lead versus the earlier poll a week ago showing the battle neck and neck; you know something ain't right.

Don't get me wrong, the voters may be just that unsure, but I don't buy that. The SNP have made a fair hand of their minority, and Labour's leader isn't an inspiring character who can make a 13% gain of support in a week. Something else is going on and it's obvious what: weighting.

No, it isn't glamorous. But serious. The YouGov poll didn't weigh voters party loyalties differently from Westminster ... so ... erm ... no wonder Labour's lot gained 13% seemingly overnight!

However, the poll did reliably show that the winner will be the Party best able to appeal to the disintegrating LibDem vote north of the border. The poll shows exactly what all others have going into this May GE: the LibDem vote is splitting off, and the winner is the one best placed to capitalise on them. This poll, and others as yet do not to my satisfaction convince me that they are all heading Labour's way. At this point I will name-drop MacWhirter; who has been proclaiming that this YouGov poll shows the SNP losing touch with what the splintering LibDem voters wan. He is wrong. In fact, that man is about as impartial as I am pro-Labour (i.e. for those of you not familiar with me, I surely am NOT pro-Labour).

But the numbers from YouGov are interesting, it does show a Scots Tory optimism. On these numbers they would move up from 17 to 19 Holyrood seats, gaining Eastwood (but losing Edinburgh Pentlands, so watch out McLetchie!). This is almost certainly due to a number of competing issues, most obviously the vast majority of popular rage at the coalition is being directed against those pesky LibDem human shields. But also positive boundary changes and Goldie's own personal popularity.

All I'm saying is this:

1. Labour are surely NOT 13% ahead on regional lists; that is due to YouGov failing to account for Holyrood's radically different party loyalty and public voting habits.

2. Goldie is leading her troopers out the starting blocks in good shape

3. Its all to play for, and the Greens are one to watch (Liebore's coalition partners after the Holyrood election?)
4. Goodbye Tavish.

Enjoy your new week folks ;)

Gaddafi compares himself to the Queen?

It seems the case that someone is completely certifiable when they compare themselves to the Queen, talking of their 'moral authority' as they gun down their own populace...

While Gaddafi compares himself to the Queen, perhaps someone ought to tell him that HRH rules in accordance with the approval of the people. The day when more republicans outnumber the good, honest, decent monarchists, is the day she goes. Her moral authority incidentally rests in her presence being above politics; whereas colonel is Libyan politics; at least for the last three decades and more.

Besides, HRH Queen Elizabeth has something else the colonel lacks, sound judgement, decent statecraft and an ability to wear dresses. Is it just me or is Gaddafi truly certifiable if he thinks that his socialist revolution; green book and all; is working when he thinks himself an equal of the Queen? I wonder if he meant dresses and all?

But in more serious matters, here is a spot of criticism for Cameron et al. When you go and make radical speeches about the need to start supporting democracies in the middle east; about ethical foreign policies; leave the businessmen at home. Camerons' speech in my book was as important as MacMillans 'winds of change speech' all those years ago; the difference is that Cameron forgot that those arms dealers he had brought along should have been left at home. I mean come on, these are the men who say they only sell munitions to states for self defence...but we find millions of pounds worth of UK tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets being sold to Libya - to the man who would be Queen. Equipment for national defence? No, that would be aircraft, armoured vehicles, anti-aircraft etc, not anti-crowd munitions.

So Dave, next time you do make a historic speech about changing UK foreign policy and those winds of change; don't think that those arms dealers need you to hold their sweaty little handies on the way there eh?

Goldie is right: cut the council tax burden for OAPs

Iain Gray wants to abolish the council tax freeze, adding over £200 on ave to every household budget, the SNP pledge to maintain the freeze, and Goldie announces her intention plan to introduce a £200 council tax cut for pensioners ... Iain and Scottish Liebore begin to look hopelessly isolated on this one

Whats on offer as Holyrood 2011 kicks off for council tax?

The battle lines for the three main Scottish Parties in this Holyrood battle are forming up, for council tax anyway. The SNP maintain their pledge to keep to the council tax freeze, if they continue to fail to achieve its abolition. Naturally this is a long held SNP position which they are sticking to, and one likely to resonate with voters up and down the council wards of Scotland; and it contrasts sharply with Scots Liebore (sorry, Labour, bad habit).

Iain 'whitshisname?' Gray introduced Technicolour to the contrast last year when he (stupidly) announced his plan (you know, like Baldrick) to get rid of that pesky NAT tax freeze. Only one problem for him and his brigade ... that means an extra £200 per household on average, for many vulnerable pensioners that is too much to cope with. Put it directly, it means £200 less food, heating, trips out of the front door. But wee Iain doesn't get it, why would he? If it was an SNP policy, its obviously bad (he thinks).

But Goldie, up until now happy to support the SNP position for a tax freeze wants more. She has unveiled her desire to see a £200 council tax cut for pensioners. That's a bold first strike for the Scottish Tories, and it is likely to strongly resonate with the pensioners who can be said to represent their core vote. But it will appeal wider than that, so its hardly a core-vote strategy, it will be good for grassroots support but may nick some OAPs from the Liberals or SNP in some of the key list battles.

All I know is, while costings are yet to be announced by anyone, we can already see a sharp difference between the big three. SNP, more of the same, Labour, upping your tax (tax and spend, did they learn NOTHING from PFI?!), Scots Tory, cutting your tax burden.

Let the horsetrading start early!

Merkel faces defeat

Following the trouncing her Christian Democrats received in Hamburg last night, questions are now being asked about a post-Merkel Germany

Angela Merkel is the sort of leader who would have been leader in Berlin even had the wall not fallen; this rather sums up her great strength: pragmatic. So why then has she made such a number of enemies in the electorate?

Well, first lets realise that local results are just that, local and translating this into national German politics (i.e. Federal level, rather than state level) can be difficult. Yet, given that Merkels Christian Democrats have not just lost Hamburg; but it seems they suffered a 20% drop in support. The social democrat opposition has got over 50% of the vote there, can may be able to form a majority government in its own right; very rare in German politics. So, with such huge losses, and more scheduled for this "super election year" Merkel may be forced to call a snap GE. Thus, this is national politics.

I is probably clear why she has lost large swathes of support, her cackhandling of the Euro crisis coupled with her decision to keep nuclear power plants operational (despite a pledge to close them down) has smashed her personal appeal.

So the question becomes 'who will be German chancellor by next year?' If it is Merkel, that proves her reputation as a tough survivor; but if its some else, maybe that mightn't be such a bad thing? After all, Merkel has been one of the key obstacles on the road to fiscal integration in the eurozone...

There is much for the SNP to smile about

Good polls and good policies shall help keep the SNP smiling

Alex has been smiling like the metaphorical cheshire cat for a good week now, and from the last weeks news; he has good reason to.

To start, following the first major poll of the Holyrood GE it indicated that far from trailing the Labour lot - his executive is actually on course to hold onto its minority government mandate. Additional good news came-a-calling with polls also showing that Alex was (much, much) more popular than Iain 'who?' Gray. But then came the biggest goodie of all; recent unemployment numbers came out which showed unemployment falling in Scotland but rising south of the border. That last piece of news shall warm the hearts of all separatists out there because it will aid them in their gripe-and-grievance politics and validates their economic agenda of investing in construction (opposed by whitsisname ... Gray).

Then came the revelations that Labour under Brown, far from being removed from the release of the Lockerbie mass-murderer, were really implicated right up to the neck (and more so than that!). This shall in all likelihood neutralise any Liebore playground politics over the bombers release. More good news then.

But there is another side to this seemingly pro-SNP flow of events.

First, no matter what I, you or the wider public may think of Iain 'idiot' Gray, the fact remains under his Holyrood lead (and Browns in Westminster) Liebore managed to pull a good haul at the 2010 GE up here in Scotland. Add to that, Labour are hardly the same bleating, chanting travesty of an opposition they were under Bendy Wendy; they have managed to pull themselves up slightly from that all-time low following the 2007 rout.

But far more interesting to me is whether or not the SNP have another little gimmick like the one in 2007. They won 26 of the 56 regional seats on offer last time - thus we can say that their gimmick of 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' paid off handsomely. But this isn't allowed this time (you can't cheat with the same tactic twice). So my question is this: what little secret do they have up their sleeve for this Holyrood battle? Lets wait and see ...

First Opinion Poll of the Holyrood election

As the Holyrood election campaigning kicks off across Scotland, a recent poll suggests an SNP upsurge as Labour fall to second place in the polls

Obviously a word of caution must be echoed with just one poll result, however it is still worth pointing out. According to the Ipsos Mori poll, the SNP are ahead of Labour 37% to 36% (constit). Naturally, with such a tiny lead it is effectively neck and neck given margins of error. The interesting thing remains, the closer the election day comes the more Scottish voters are actually waking up to the danger of having Labour in power.

On the one hand, the seeming rise in SNP polling numbers, up quite handsomely, may have something to do with their strategy. The strategy? Play on the personalities. If there is one thing they still have is Salmonds personal superiority to Iain Gray. He may be condescending, aggressive, rude, economical with the truth - but he still makes a far better prospect as First Minister than Iain Gray and his failed time in opposition.

As the Holyrood GE kicks off, we still don't know if there will even be a AV referendum at all ... as the Labour Lords continue to defy the elected lower chamber. Interestingly, Tory numbers are holding on 13% both constit and regional; which is exactly where they were during the opening of the last Holyrood battle in 2007.

If this is as good as it can get; with Jabba the Salmond and Iain 'idiot' Gray ... dearie me.

Big Society requires big spending

If the Big Society is to work, Cameron needs to be prepared to spend big to make it work. This means pushing past the cuts agenda

Civic Society and Non-state interests

If by 'Big Society' we mean NGOs like charities, Trades Unions, equality groups so forth then excellent - they form the basis of civic society. These organisations in themselves need to be strong, and capable in order to among other things, hold the state to accountable. From my dissertation research on equality policy in Hungary one thing immediately stands out as a barrier to progressive politics - weak NGOs. Thus, if the Cameron agenda aims to strengthen the abilities of these non-state activists to campaign, to provide services, to conduct studies and research into current and future policies then excellent. To my mind it is clear that non government organisations form a residual basis for good governance, strong administration and transparent state policy. The Big Society proports to seek to strengthen these such groups, but surely a bigger civic and NGO society demands bigger spending?

Take Liverpool Council. Among the first to sign up to the proposed Big Society agenda, and enthusiastic too. Now they have pulled the plug, citing a general lack of funding capabilities. And while Pickles may have a point, that Labour councils have been playing politics with local government reforms; it is unavoidable that in cases such as Liverpool they do actually need money to conduct Big Society programs.

If a local council is being squeezed from the centre and is without getting local sales tax powers for example to perhaps enable it to cope better - is it any surprise Big Society suddenly becomes just Big Talk?

I read in the Guardian that Cameron intends to push more money into the schemes up and down the country, and good too. The problem has been where he has short-changed his own agenda in the name of fiscal conservatism (i.e. sado-maso cutting). The passion of the man (Cameron) for the Big Society seems obvious; and any plan to radically localise government in the UK is worth calling and fighting for. But as he says, it is more than just a localising agenda, it purports to be a way of enhancing NGOs, like charities, Trade Unions so forth. But this radical and bold agenda cannot function without money and investment into it.

Perhaps that is why there is to be an extra £100m for hardpressed charities? I know that is more like it, that is more what the Big Society ought to be about - supporting and helping. What is more, I liked the sounds that Cameron is prepared to take £200m from the high street banks to introduce money to Big Society plans.

It does seem to be an idea slowly becoming fleshed out, more than just a vague term and name but a clear program for government.

Prison for Gilmour

The son of Pink Floyd guitarist must be made an example of, for daring to desecrate the Cenotaph

No half measures

The riots on the streets of London demonstrate the need for examples to be made of the anarchists. A good candidate; as well as deserving; is the son of Pink Floyd guitarist Charlie Gilmour. He attacked the royal couple in their car, and whether you approve of the royals or not, attempted assault is attempted assault. He broke shop windows, threatened shop owners and worst of all; he desecrated the cenotaph - the memorial to all those brave sons who died for his right to demonstrate peacefully.

We are a nation of laws, or we are nothing. The rule of law must be upheld over and above the anarchy, syndicalism and chaos of the radical leftists; like young Gilmour who endanger our entire way of life.

His case shall go to the Crown Court, and I hope they lock the filthy little cretin up.

FMQS: Gray has his day

To my huge surprise (and I do mean huge), it seems that Alex has lost his touch as FMQs reveal a stronger opposition leader than initially thought

Obfuscation

Iain Gray made a reasonable inquiry about the potential plans for qualified teaching staff to be replaced by unqualified volunteers in East Renfewshire schools. To any objective person, such a proposal is unacceptable; not least as it compromises teaching standards in the council area and is most likely illegal.

However, rather than deal with the question, and say whether or not he approved of such a proposal, Alex Salmond; much to my disappointment; failed to even answer the questions put to him. He is asked about an East Renfrewshire council plan regarding teachers and qualified teaching in schools, and he rants on about North Ayrshire? I may well agree, on a personal note, that Scottish Labour are hypocritical, but FMQs is certainly not the platform to obfuscate like a ballet dancer on smack.

But even Salmond's failure to actually answer the questions put (a regular feature of FMQs) is shaded into irrelevance by the mans gall to inform his opposition MSPs what they ought to be asking him. Either Alex already sees a number 'IV' after his name or this is arrogance on a breathtaking scale. Last time I checked, opposition parties can ask the First Minister whatever they liked; and I'd say the future of school teachers in Renfrew is damn relevant.

I am not used to praising Iain Gray on this blog, but in this case I have to conclude - Labour's leader smacked Alex around the playground that unfortunately likes to pretend itself a grown-up seat of Scottish governance.

The importance of marriage

Iain Duncan Smith has been leading calls for the coalition to do more to restore the reputation of marriage as an institution - about time too

Broken homes, broken hopes

The cycle of poverty is disgusting. In my own hometown of Glasgow poverty, anti-social behaviour, social disenfranchisement and low voter participation and engagement is a lodestone around the neck of the fair city. I intent to argue that at the root of all of these problems; but by no means alone; is broken homes.

Parents divorce, not all marriages can succeed, or do succeed. This is true for many British people today, and for my own parents also true. However, the statistical evidence seems to illustrate all too clearly that marital breakdown is a central piece in the jigsaw in why we see such serious social problems - such as that described.

As an example, let us run through the frankly shocking statistical evidence for life chances for kids not brought up in two-parent households:

• 75% more likely to fail at school
• 70% more likely to be a drug addict
• 50% more likely to develop drinking problems
• 40% more likely to have serious debt problems
• 35% more likely to experience unemployment/welfare dependency

But don't take my word for all that, check the Centre for Social Justice Green Paper findings here for yourself.

Given these recent academic findings, it would suggest that if we are to fight back against our societies serious and engrained social challenges, we need to focus not just on job creation (absolutely vital, and manufacturing typed too) - but also on resolving the broken home crisis criss-crossing Britain today.

The benefits of growing up in a two-parent environment is evidentially proven, but let us realise that not every marriage is always a happy one free from troubles. All too often a husband or wife (or both) go through the charade of happy marital bliss; out of the (generally correct) belief that their kids futures will be boosted if they stay in wedlock. The answer to these type of problems again does not seem to be automatic divorce, the capitalistic culture of 'quick fixes' and 'easy money'. IDS has turned his attention on from emphasising the tax systems habit of punishing marriage; and now advocates the need for greater long term investment in marriage councilling services, in citizens advice bureau. He is right, marriage needs more than just monied support by ending the bias against it in the tax system; it also needs resources to help couples get through those tough patches - much better than leaving married families to sink or swim in a sea of anxieties, depressions, fears and melancholies. Especially when faced with the risks posed to society, and to our next generation if we fail to resolve the issues surrounding broken british homes.

I hope that IDS continues to work in this area, he has found his calling and is making very real principled changes to government; it seems that to date, over 60% of his Centre for Social Justice academic policy papers have made it onto coalition policy tables. Just hope he holds firm, in face of boy-Georges cuts and slashing - our kids need him to fight his corner in government.

Cerebral Palsy is no laughing matter

When Conservative MP for Blackpool North Paul Maynard stood to speak in the Commons, it was for obvious reasons a proud moment for a new arrival - but the politics of the playground saw his fellow MPs on the other benches use his cerebral palsy against him

I do not usually dive in for a 'naming and shaming' policy, all too often it is entirely counterproductive; but this case is different for me. It seems that Labour MPs, as yet unnamed by Commons authorities, used Paul Maynard's condition against him, pulling exaggerated faces and jerking head movements as he spoke up in defence of his constituency on the floor of the chamber. In my book, these people need naming and shaming, as we did with the expenses scandal.

Equal opportunities

The HoC is hardly all that representative, not a cross section of the nation, given the educational background and income-status of the current new crop of MPs; but cases like this force us to raise some difficult questions about the kind of culture the HoC creates for our politicians.

Women are cheered at, often lured scenes are enacted on opposition benches to put them off their stride. Indeed, until Labour arrived in power in 1997, there was not even legislation to enable disabled people to sit as MPs (as until the reform, the law insisted that one had to stand and bow to the speaker upon entry and exist - no exceptions). And now we see this 'new politics' so much trumpeted by Mssers Clegg and Cameron  preside over mockery of serious illnesses like cerebral palsy.

Our politicians are hardly representative as it is, and the culture of playground bullying only serves to put off minorities, women, those with disabilities. Additionally, examples like this; first reported in the Times on Saturday only serve to undermine popular support in the democratic system itself; already suffering from all time lows of participation.

Name and shame these MPs who think mocking cerebral palsy is a fine debating tactic - for all our sakes, not just for Paul Maynards - a man who deserves our respect more so than these wrong-doers.

Has 'state multiculturalism' failed?

Last year Angela Merkel announced that in Germany 'state multiculturalism' had failed, that society had become fragmented and divided; now David Cameron echoes her calls

Integration vs 'Multikulti'

April last year Angela Merkel argued that Germany, faced with rising anti-immigrant feelings, had to adopt a new strategy for social cohesion. She said that the concept of 'multikulti'; that is multiculturalism' as practiced by the state, had failed to achieve social integration, cohesion and stability. And back then she did have reason to be concerned, as some German polls had up to 30% of people saying they felt "overrun" (actual word used in poll) by "immigrants". Merkels response was to begin promoting a new, integration-focused policy aspiring to encourage greater up-takes of 'core essentials' such as speaking German.

Now, with the UK suffering similar problems with popular sentiment swinging away from immigrants - with the election for the first time of two fascist MEPs. Cameron has moved to argue, as Merkel did, that a state practised multiculturalist doctrine where communities live in complete tolerance side by side had failed. Again, he seemed to promote the Merkel solution of emphasising the need for key basics to allow for inter-community interaction to occur; such as English and British history.

Building up

Cameron seems to be making a fair point, it is hard to pretend that the UK has become a more cohesive, united country over the last decade and a half. New Labour may or may not have caused some of the problems, but they also began to touch on the solution that Cameron has picked up on. Brown did introduce a new immigration process, where learning English was a key test for entry; this was sensible but years too late. The question is now, if multiculturalism has failed to realise inter-community harmony, how do we introduce an integrationary program going forward?

For a start, integration should seek to promote basic British values, such as language, history and contemporary political knowledge. This is not out of a desire to undermine minority community identity however, just the opposite, it is to improve their ability to safeguard it by enhancing their capacity to interact with the society and body-politic around them.

Providing this however is not enough in of itself. It is simple fact that there has been a process of self-segregation in the UK today, perhaps it was always there in some kind or another. But this must change, and one key requirement is mass-expansion of basic necessities such as affordable homes, jobs, infrastructure modernisation. Why? Because the youth of self-segregated communities could have the opportunity to move away from their local area if more affordable homes and employment opportunities opened up across the UK. It is simple fact that if your under 30 years old, employed or not, you won't be able to move out of your home town and into the property ladder elsewhere. In short, economic and social hardship - poverty, in its various guises, has also become a critical underlying factor for the failure of multiculturalism among domestic and newly arrived communities.

So while I totally support David Cameron raising this challenge, I still await anyone; opposition included; coming out with any solutions to actually solving this new dilemma.

Solidarity with the Protesters

The bloodshed of last night is expected to continue, it is time to emphasis solidarity with the protesters of Liberation Square

Freedom without USA

Where is the Obama leadership in all of this chaos? While he has poor Hilary out to talk of 'transition' politics, the people of Eqypt are dying on the streets; dying from bombs with 'USA' printed on them. The clear failure of US leadership in the pro-democracy struggle across the Eqyptian land is most likely due to the total and complete lack of moral standing they have. It is no secret that Washington has been a long time supporter of Mubarak, and the various other despots in the region.

Any forward progress can only be won by the people themselves, for the West has been only too happy to sit back, and deal with dictators. Our western rhetoric of freedom it seems is only supposed to apply to ourselves; not the actually oppressed around the Arab world.

According to Al Jazeera English, over 1500 people were injured last night in the street fighting, as pro-Mubarak plain clothed police officers and interior ministry aparachiks threw molotov cocktails into the peaceful demonstrators.

No army protection then, no Eqyptian government stance until the morning after. No Obama protests until this afternoon.

Anyone who subscribes to the democratic internationale must stand united behind the pro-democracy warriors in Liberation Square. Sign a solidarity petition here, and join the facebook group demanding Mubarak goes here.

Coalition economic policy is wrong

As fanatical right-of-centre journalists like Janet Daley howl in the winter winds about the need for deeper and (seemingly) ever faster cuts from Whitehall, isn't it time for a Conservative to defend Keynesianism, and walk in SuperMacs footsteps?

Maintain demand

Osborne wasn't received as well as he had hoped in the DAVOS gathering, instead of praise he received a bombardment from all sides and forms of global rich. The bankers moaned about him being too tough on them (chortle!), the corporations of London screamed about the VAT increase and the 50% rate of tax. Yet, at no point did anyone connect the dots of all this. They said at DAVOS that the coalition lacked an economic agenda for growth, however they failed to direct criticism where it is mostly deserved - that is, the coalitions monetarist economics.

Put simply, the real problem right now is the economic instincts of this coalition; not necessarily any single policy so much as the entire direction advocated. Someone wonders what spooked the markets? Could I suggest that its probably less the debt levels; though they are a serious problem; and more withdrawal of state spending?

You see, anyone with any brains would realise we need MORE STATE SPENDING at the current time! Why? Because during a recession the state must spend more money, borrowed money, to maintain demand levels, to preserve jobs and hold down welfare benefit burdens surging up with the new-unemployed.

It is all basic Keynesian theory: the state spends more money in order to stimulate economic activity. And the growth that results from this injection of public funding is supposed to produce more tax revenues which will in turn allow governments to pay off their debts.

So why is everybody so surprised to see our economy contract the last quarter? Even discounting the weather (some lame excuse), we are still at best STAGFLATING thanks to boy-George and coalition economic policy. We need keynesianism, and not this slash and burn coalition philosophy of the monetarist right-of-centre (economically).