Next Challenge for Jack is to win over Westminster
Your next challenge, Jack, is to win over Westminster
Douglas Fraser
December 01 2005
The new era began for Jack McConnell with D-Day's 60th anniversary – a hard landing, even by his standards. It was a low point, but also a new start. Now 18 months behind him, and in light of this week's reflections on St Andrew's Day, it is acknowledged as a mistake, but it was also a valuable lesson and a substantial shift in devolution's evolution.
The calculation that the first minister should leave foreign policy, defence and Second World War graves to the Whitehall authorities whose turf they were – instead going to a golf club dinner in St Andrews – misjudged the public expectation of what a first minister should do. Even among those who, then and now, have a default "who does he think he is?" reaction to Jack McConnell's leadership pronouncements, his role had moved beyond the confines of devolutionary delineation.
From war veterans then, to asylum-seekers and their schoolgirl friends in Drumchapel now, the first minister is required to take a representative leadership role, even on issues over which he has no control. Westminster MPs may not much like it, but political power can be as much about such perception as about a strict interpretation of schedule five of the Scotland Act, listing devolved and reserved powers.
The challenge now is how to use that role – to leverage public expectations in the absence of the levers of power, by harnessing instead the power to persuade. Politics, after all, is usually more about persuasion than about the raw material of power. A self-confidence about his extraordinary persuasive power is the attribute that marks out Tony Blair, rather than the power he wields. Even the US president has constraints on all sides. Stripped down to the basics, the only real power in the Oval Office depends on the ability to change people's minds.That is now at the heart of defining Jack McConnell's relations with London.
On Monday, he was talking there at a conference about Britishness, arguing that metrocentric institutions still need to adjust to emerging diversities within Britain. The only such institution he named was the media, reflecting his frustration that Fleet Street/Canary Wharf does not offer him a conduit to London power-brokers' breakfast reading. Editionising of London papers means the stuff Scots might see in the Times or Telegraph is stripped out for English readers.
The Guardian and Independent don't produce Scottish editions, preferring an occasional Caledonian caricature for all readers. The Financial Times remains the New Labour ministers' paper of choice, which is why it attracts Jack McConnell.That is where he made the rash boast last year that his efficiency drive would out-perform Gordon Brown's – a claim since exposed as having no sound basis to it. The first minister returned to the pink last month with an interview trumpeting his role on the world stage and his "best small country in the world" mantra, along with a new, even less catchy slogan: "Edinburgh and Glasgow: two of the best middle-size cities anywhere in the world."
Given the contempt in which his administration is often held in Whitehall, establishing its credibility is vital to getting the leverage he needs if he is to move beyond rows about devolved and reserved powers. The first minister has learned this the hard way, by giving the impression that he could get the Home Office to give Scotland special status on airgun law, relaxed work permit conditions for immigrants and, most recently, softening the blow of dawn raids on failed asylum-seekers. The botching of all three issues required crisis management rather than persuasive skills.
Learning those lessons, both Westminster and Holyrood need to move on to a more mature level of lobbying and persuasion. In other countries with devolution and different layers of government, including European institutions in Brussels, politics is about use of such skills; deal-making, building alliances and consensus rather than shouting loudly from the parapets – a style of operating that is alien to too many British politicians. Applied in Britain, that could include more work between devolved authorities.
There is scope for better co-operation among Edinburgh, Cardiff, the London assembly, other English regional assemblies and, eventually, Belfast. Scotland is the natural leader. Such an approach might challenge the Westminster mindset of listening to Scotland only when there is a political threat, usually meaning a surge in support for the Scottish National Party. And in London they can afford to be underwhelmed by the independence convention launched yesterday, inadvertantly advertising just how disparate the movement has become.
In leading the largest, but no longer the only, pro-independence party, Alex Salmond has this week signalled a couple of small but significant shifts towards making it less of a threat to potential Scottish supporters.
One is that he is now presenting the move to independence as a negotiation by the Scottish Executive merely to amend the Scotland Act, as if no new legislation would be necessary.The other is that he is talking up an independent Scotland's role in the so-called British Isles Council, comprising representatives of Belfast, Dublin, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London.
It is now, quietly, becoming acceptable for the SNP to talk about Scotland being part of something British, whereas previous such talk saw free thinkers drummed out the parliamentary party for heresy.
That may be part of a growing incrementalism creeping into SNP thinking, as it seeks to position itself in the constitutional mainstream. It knows there is a growing consensus for extending the powers of Holyrood, a cause embraced last weekend by Rupert Murdoch's main Scottish mouthpiece, the Sunday Times.
He is not first into the debate, but Mr Murdoch has a reputation for an astute sniffing of the political wind before taking his papers in that direction. However, Mr Salmond is stretching it to pretend that opening up the debate means independence is an inevitability. Most of those engaged in the debate are using it to ensure the opposite is the case.
The SNP must signal if its intention is to confront Westminster by assertion of rights and powers, or to use Mr Salmond's persuasive skills for an amicable parting. If the latter, he has more going for him than the first minister, whose advocacy skills are not a strong point. Look at his treatment of Scottish Labour, and you find the politics of the fix and the deal, trusting only his loyalists, ruthlessly shutting down threats and minimising risk. It requires a different skillset to prosper in this new era for home rule.
The behind-closed-doors manifesto-planning and positioning for the 2007 election is now entering a crucial phase. Labour faces difficult timing, being mid-term at Westminster. Party strategists want to campaign on public services delivery, having been told from London there is no prospect of added devolution powers. But Jack McConnell cannot let others set and control the constitutional agenda. He has more persuading to do – starting with his Westminster colleagues, his party and his country – that he is the right man for the job.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/51764-print.shtml
Douglas Fraser
December 01 2005
The new era began for Jack McConnell with D-Day's 60th anniversary – a hard landing, even by his standards. It was a low point, but also a new start. Now 18 months behind him, and in light of this week's reflections on St Andrew's Day, it is acknowledged as a mistake, but it was also a valuable lesson and a substantial shift in devolution's evolution.
The calculation that the first minister should leave foreign policy, defence and Second World War graves to the Whitehall authorities whose turf they were – instead going to a golf club dinner in St Andrews – misjudged the public expectation of what a first minister should do. Even among those who, then and now, have a default "who does he think he is?" reaction to Jack McConnell's leadership pronouncements, his role had moved beyond the confines of devolutionary delineation.
From war veterans then, to asylum-seekers and their schoolgirl friends in Drumchapel now, the first minister is required to take a representative leadership role, even on issues over which he has no control. Westminster MPs may not much like it, but political power can be as much about such perception as about a strict interpretation of schedule five of the Scotland Act, listing devolved and reserved powers.
The challenge now is how to use that role – to leverage public expectations in the absence of the levers of power, by harnessing instead the power to persuade. Politics, after all, is usually more about persuasion than about the raw material of power. A self-confidence about his extraordinary persuasive power is the attribute that marks out Tony Blair, rather than the power he wields. Even the US president has constraints on all sides. Stripped down to the basics, the only real power in the Oval Office depends on the ability to change people's minds.That is now at the heart of defining Jack McConnell's relations with London.
On Monday, he was talking there at a conference about Britishness, arguing that metrocentric institutions still need to adjust to emerging diversities within Britain. The only such institution he named was the media, reflecting his frustration that Fleet Street/Canary Wharf does not offer him a conduit to London power-brokers' breakfast reading. Editionising of London papers means the stuff Scots might see in the Times or Telegraph is stripped out for English readers.
The Guardian and Independent don't produce Scottish editions, preferring an occasional Caledonian caricature for all readers. The Financial Times remains the New Labour ministers' paper of choice, which is why it attracts Jack McConnell.That is where he made the rash boast last year that his efficiency drive would out-perform Gordon Brown's – a claim since exposed as having no sound basis to it. The first minister returned to the pink last month with an interview trumpeting his role on the world stage and his "best small country in the world" mantra, along with a new, even less catchy slogan: "Edinburgh and Glasgow: two of the best middle-size cities anywhere in the world."
Given the contempt in which his administration is often held in Whitehall, establishing its credibility is vital to getting the leverage he needs if he is to move beyond rows about devolved and reserved powers. The first minister has learned this the hard way, by giving the impression that he could get the Home Office to give Scotland special status on airgun law, relaxed work permit conditions for immigrants and, most recently, softening the blow of dawn raids on failed asylum-seekers. The botching of all three issues required crisis management rather than persuasive skills.
Learning those lessons, both Westminster and Holyrood need to move on to a more mature level of lobbying and persuasion. In other countries with devolution and different layers of government, including European institutions in Brussels, politics is about use of such skills; deal-making, building alliances and consensus rather than shouting loudly from the parapets – a style of operating that is alien to too many British politicians. Applied in Britain, that could include more work between devolved authorities.
There is scope for better co-operation among Edinburgh, Cardiff, the London assembly, other English regional assemblies and, eventually, Belfast. Scotland is the natural leader. Such an approach might challenge the Westminster mindset of listening to Scotland only when there is a political threat, usually meaning a surge in support for the Scottish National Party. And in London they can afford to be underwhelmed by the independence convention launched yesterday, inadvertantly advertising just how disparate the movement has become.
In leading the largest, but no longer the only, pro-independence party, Alex Salmond has this week signalled a couple of small but significant shifts towards making it less of a threat to potential Scottish supporters.
One is that he is now presenting the move to independence as a negotiation by the Scottish Executive merely to amend the Scotland Act, as if no new legislation would be necessary.The other is that he is talking up an independent Scotland's role in the so-called British Isles Council, comprising representatives of Belfast, Dublin, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London.
It is now, quietly, becoming acceptable for the SNP to talk about Scotland being part of something British, whereas previous such talk saw free thinkers drummed out the parliamentary party for heresy.
That may be part of a growing incrementalism creeping into SNP thinking, as it seeks to position itself in the constitutional mainstream. It knows there is a growing consensus for extending the powers of Holyrood, a cause embraced last weekend by Rupert Murdoch's main Scottish mouthpiece, the Sunday Times.
He is not first into the debate, but Mr Murdoch has a reputation for an astute sniffing of the political wind before taking his papers in that direction. However, Mr Salmond is stretching it to pretend that opening up the debate means independence is an inevitability. Most of those engaged in the debate are using it to ensure the opposite is the case.
The SNP must signal if its intention is to confront Westminster by assertion of rights and powers, or to use Mr Salmond's persuasive skills for an amicable parting. If the latter, he has more going for him than the first minister, whose advocacy skills are not a strong point. Look at his treatment of Scottish Labour, and you find the politics of the fix and the deal, trusting only his loyalists, ruthlessly shutting down threats and minimising risk. It requires a different skillset to prosper in this new era for home rule.
The behind-closed-doors manifesto-planning and positioning for the 2007 election is now entering a crucial phase. Labour faces difficult timing, being mid-term at Westminster. Party strategists want to campaign on public services delivery, having been told from London there is no prospect of added devolution powers. But Jack McConnell cannot let others set and control the constitutional agenda. He has more persuading to do – starting with his Westminster colleagues, his party and his country – that he is the right man for the job.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/51764-print.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment