Will Wendy ever resign?

[Rolfe]

OK, she is the "regulated donee", whatever that means, for Pete's sake, what's wrong with plain English "recipient"? She was apparently told last August by the Electoral Commission that she would be held personally responsible for all donations to her leadership campaign. One of her minions decided to solicit a donation from an impermissible donor. The minion actually suggested that the amount given should be £950, to bring it below the threshold for open publication.

Donor duly questioned whether this donation was actually allowed, given that he was not on the UK Electoral Register (as he lived in tax exile in Jersey). Minion assured him it was all OK. Donor duly sent personal cheque for £950.

Dear Wendy then sent him a personal letter of thanks, addressed to him personally at his Jersey home, and signed by her.

The donation was reported to the Electoral Commission not as being from the individual who gave the money, but as being from a UK-registered company. Apparently donor had a connection with this company, but as a client, not a director or shareholder. Company denied any intention to give money to Wendy's non-campaign, and that they had ever done so. Donor confirmed that he sent a personal cheque, and (especially as his only connection with the company named was as a client) expressed total bafflement as to how it had been registered as a corporate donation.

Minion accepted that his actions had broken the law, and resigned his Shadow Cabinet position (though not his parliamentary seat, oh no, that would be going too far!).

Reading between the lines, it seems pretty obvious that the amount of £950 was designed to avoid publication of the donation, so that it could be reported as coming from the (permissible) company and not the (impermissible) individual, without any serious chance that either party would get to know about how it had been recorded and point out that this was not correct. (Pity someone got digging....)

It also seems probable that Wendy knew all about it, given the personally-signed thank-you letter, sent to the Jersey address.

But Wendy clings to her position, announcing aggressively that she is confident that she "will be cleared of any intentional wrongdoing". Well, even if by some amazing skill she managed to sign the thank-you letter in her sleep, what if she didn't know about it? She is the responsible person, and I don't know of any other area of the law where saying "Oh, Lord, I didna ken" is a valid defence.

And if in fact she genuinely "didna ken", I'm the proverbial Chinaman's auntie.

So the Electoral Commission is still deliberating on this, at least four weeks on. While they mopped up Peter Hain in a fortnight. This is very weird, as all they are supposed to do is establish whether there is any case to answer. It seems blindingly obvious that there is a case to answer! But then there were interesting tales of just who Labour has been stuffing the relevant committee with, to make sure Wendy gets off. And a couple of posts on newspaper web pages pointing this out were "deleted by moderators", how convenient.

Now Peter Hain has resigned because the Electoral Commission decided he had a case to answer. Which he did. Even though none of the donations he failed to report was impermissible, he didn't report them and that is an offence. The face-saver is that he's resigning "to allow him the time and space to clear his name", and this is the "honourable" thing to do.

So where does this leave Wendy? Her questionable donation was in fact impermissible, and it has already been admitted (by minion) that the law was broken. The circumstances suggest that there was a deliberate plan to break the law, in that the donation was solicited, it was her office who suggested keeping it below the £1,000 publication threshold, and the decision to report the personal donation as a corporate one (unlikely to be discovered for a donation of less than £1,000) seems to have happened in her office.

But still no decision has been announced - not about whether she's guilty, but just about whether there is any case to answer! When the pressure rose with the reporting of the Peter Hain affair, Wendy's faithful ventriloquist dummy (Jackie Baillie) announces that Wendy should not resign even if the Electoral Commission finds against her. What happened to "honour" and "having the space and time to clear her name"?

This stinks.

Rolfe. Waiting to see this thread sink beneath the waves, as nobody knows what it's about.

[Francesca R]

Waiting to see this thread sink beneath the waves, as nobody knows what it's about.

Wendy Alexander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Alexander)

Wendy Alexander donations ruckus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7123980.stm)

:)

[biomorph]

Well it just goes to show you how desperate our political parties are for cash, seeing as they all are in debt.
And we elect these goons to run the country's finances?

good article......got my blood going around a bit quicker.......

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Wendy can't go. If Wendy goes, then Harman has to go too.

Labour will use every dirty trick in the book to keep them in their roles. They have lost one minister to a donations scandal which is bad enough. The political fallout of losing three (or more) would be devastating.

[Rolfe]

Yes. So how come they couldn't save Hain? Is he somehow not a domino?

Did you see the great cartoon the Herald had a few weeks ago, with them all balancing on the actual dominoes, and the precariousness getting worse and worse as it went on?)

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

And how come Des Browne already knows the Electoral Commission will decide (in the teeth of the evidence) that there is no case to answer?

Reoprts that Labour have sewn up the relevant committee seem suspiciously plausible.

Rolfe.

[Boo]

Politicians are the same regardless of name, nationality, dialect or language. They do stupid stuff, admit to doing stupid stuff and then gaze at the camera with all the bafflement of a two year old with their hand in the cookie jar that they 'didna ken'. :rolleyes:



Boo

[Darth Rotor]

And the Beach Boys sang

Wendy
Wendy what went wrong?
We made donations for so long . . .


DR

[Rolfe]

Wasn't it Harman's husband who was in bed with Berlusconi, and they had to have a "divorce of convenience" when he was about to be prosecuted for fraud or something?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Politicians are the same regardless of name, nationality, dialect or language. They do stupid stuff, admit to doing stupid stuff and then gaze at the camera with all the bafflement of a two year old with their hand in the cookie jar that they 'didna ken'. :rolleyes:


I'm very much afraid you may be exactly right there.

The really stupid thing here is that Wendy was elected unopposed. She didn't need that money for an election campaign (but she spent it anyway on some sort of triumphal procession). So why go to such lengths, jeopardising her position, for money she didn't need? I think it's a spinal reflex.

It reminds me of an incident, the day of the devolution referendum in 1997. I had flown to Glasgow Airport in order to vote, arriving late afternoon on the actual voting day. My mother had arranged a taxi to pick me up - and as a result this was not an airport taxi, the guy was from Motherwell. Deepest low-hair-line knuckle-dragging Labour apparatchik territory.

I was wearing black trousers, a bright yellow sweatshirt, and possibly an SNP badge. I was not exactly subtle. As soon as I got into the taxi the driver started talking about the referendum. He intimated his intention to vote yes (to devolution)/no (to the tax-raising powers). At the time I was concerned (needlessly as it turned out) that many people might be of that view. It would have been a bit of a disaster if that had happened, because the second question was Tony Blair's "wrecking amendment". Not that the parliament really needed these powers (they still haven't been used) but that a no to that question would have been used forever more as evidence that the Scots don't want fiscal autonomy.

I expressed my opinion that if you were going to elect a parliament you'd better give them some responsibility for money, otherwise why elect them at all, if you don't trust them with money? Taxi driver launched into a rant about the corruption of politicians and the gravy train that was politics, and announced that he had no intention of letting these illegitimates get their hands on a penny more of his money than he could help. So far, so much typical taxi-driver rant. But.

As he continued it became clear that he had inside knowledge of the extent of political corruption and gravy-train-riding, because he was a member of the Motherwell Labour Party. Not only a member, an activist, and a committee member, and in fact he had his own plans to join the gravy train. He intended to get nominated for a safe Westminster seat and go there to get his own share of the contents of the trough. I wish I'd got a good look at him, or even better, got his name, but I didn't.

I was just sitting there with my jaw on the floor. In years of membership of the SNP I'd never heard anyone express any such opinions or ambitions, even in closed meetings or intimate party social gatherings. All I'd ever heard was conversation about how we could do our best for our country, and the best way to work towards independence. And yet here was a Labour apparatchik spilling this out to any old member of the public - and one who in this case was hardly concealing an alliegence to a rival party. It was a bit of an eye-opener.

So far, there have been no significant financial scandals involving the SNP. Or sex scandals either, come to that. It's pathetic, listening to the opposition parties trying to pin the "sleaze" label on perfectly normal political activities, which even if you don't think they were entirely wise, have no whiff of self-interest or nest-feathering about them.

But I'm afraid all that will probably change. Until very recently there has simply been no incentive for anyone to join the SNP and work their way up the ranks motivated by general ambition. If what you want is political office and a seat on the gravy-train, that was not the party to go for. In addition, a desire for independence is a bit more of a motivator than general right-wing or left-wing political leanings, or so I think anyway. But now the party is in government, it's likely human failings will prove to be human failings the world over. Which is sad.

Rolfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Wasn't it Harman's husband who was in bed with Berlusconi, and they had to have a "divorce of convenience" when he was about to be prosecuted for fraud or something?

Rolfe.

Nope the "divorce" was the Jowell's. For as long as it took for the newspaper stories to stop at least.

Harman is the former party chairwoman (in which role she was responsible for fundraising) who worked day to day with general secretary Peter Watt. He knew that Abrahams was donating illegally through other people, she claims not to have.

She is married to Jack Dromey, Labour Treasurer, the head of party spending abd funding. He also claims to have known nothing about Abrahams illegal donations. Apparently Peter Watt didn't tell him either. Some would suggest that this story is a shade hard to believe - neither the party Treasurer or the person in overall charge of fundraising were told that a significant part of the parties income was dodgy, despite the general secretary knowing.

Especially when you consider that Dromey went public about being kept in the dark over "loans for peerages" and called for an urgent inquiry to be set up to ensure that "never again are elected officers of the Labour Party kept in the dark".

[Rolfe]

Nope the "divorce" was the Jowell's. For as long as it took for the newspaper stories to stop at least.


Sorry, I had a nagging suspicion I'd got the wrong husband!

Rolfe.

[Beerina]

News flash! Wendy resigns! (http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/lifestyle-money/article/wendys-ditches-redwig-advertising-campaign_453542_20.html)

You read it here first!

[Rolfe]

I wish!

Rolfe.

[NoZed Avenger]

Who's that walking the streets of the City,
Smiling at everyboby she sees?

Reaching out to grab a check from a donor,
Everyone knows it's Wendy

[Darat]

Was about to start a thread about politicians having to be prised from office kicking and screaming inspired by this story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7224739.stm and found this thread.

I'm just waiting for her to chain herself to her desk!

[Rolfe]

Was about to start a thread about politicians having to be prised from office kicking and screaming inspired by this story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7224739.stm and found this thread.

I'm just waiting for her to chain herself to her desk!


I picked this lot up off the doormat this morning. "Wendy: case sent to fiscal (http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2014952.0.0.php)". The pic in the actual paper was less flattering. And every picture of Jackie Baillie makes her look like John Prescott's evil twin. (Oh, I shouldn't have gone to the web page, 191 comments and counting....) But if anything the inside article by Iain MacWhirter was even harder-hitting. "For the sake of Scotland's democracy, Alexander must go (http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2014953.0.0.php)".

Every hour, on the hour, BBC Scotland has been broadcasting her assertion that this is nothing, and she has no intention of resigning.

It's certainly less than the original deal, as recounted above. This one is only about her not registering the donations as "gifts" with the Parliamentary Standards watchdog. Wendy of course had all the cheques made out to "The Wendy Alexander Campaign", not to hersalf personally, and claims to have taken official advice that these did not have to be declared as gifts.

For some reason Jim Dyer has decided that they do have to be declared, and told Wendy so on Friday (1st February, two days after I started this thread). Wendy appeared on TV that evening saying that this was no big deal, as soon as she'd been told to declare the donations in that way, she had done that. (And the list was no surprise as the Sunday Herald leaked it several weeks ago, prompting legal threats from Labourites accusing them of breaching privacy.) She appeared to shrug the whole thing aside. But she already knew at that point she'd been reported to the fiscal. As one of the articles asked, "did she think it wouldn't come out??"

Now this is less of a big deal than the whole Paul Green/CPM carry on. But it looks to me as if Jim Dyer is tired of waiting for the Electoral Commission to do what it surely has to do with that one, and has taken this action as Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to force its hand. Now, if the Electoral Commission (allegedly due to report on Wednesday) lets Wendy off, there will be an even bigger row about corruption.

As several people are saying, now that Hain has established that resigning "to clear his name" is "the honourable thing to do", then where does that leave Wendy's attempt to chain herself to her desk?

Wendy dug herself in even deeper at the end of the week. She challenged senior politicians in other parties, by name, to publish details of their own leadership campaign donations. Now any sympathy she was getting from fellow-parliamentarians has evaporated. And as these people didn't receive or solicit donations for their campaigns, she has come out looking even worse.

Standing for election as your party's leader isn't that expensive. Most politicians pay whatever expenses they incur out of their own pockets. But Team Wendy solicited a total of about £17,000 - to fund a campaign to fight an uncontested election! She actually was elected unopposed! So why the need for all that money, and where did it go? Allegedly it was spent in a sort of triumphal procession round the country, but I'm beginning to wonder.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Oh yes, and Charlie Gordon is getting into even bigger trouble. He it was who solicited the Paul Green donation, and he it was who apparently thought of declaring it came from CPS when it was discovered. He resigned his front-bench position, and was thought to be about to resign his seat - but then he didn't. Possibly because it had been pointed out to him that a by-election was the last thing Labour needed right now, when they're so unpopular in Scotland it would be tantamount to trebling the SNP's majority from 1 to 3.

He said, almost in passing, that he thought he might have made the same wee mistake over a donation from Paul Green at the time of the election. Now we hear that that donation was simply registered as being from Paul Green, nothing at all about CPS at all. So, very, very illegal, and not even a whiff of a suggestion that any UK company was involved.

By-election, anyone?

And if Andy Kerr is also implicated (yet another SH story today, he didn't declare some corporate hospitality from McDonald's, of all people), then who is left to succeed Wendy when the inevitable happens.

(Please, God, Foulkes???)

Rolfe.

[DanishDynamite]

Rolfe. Waiting to see this thread sink beneath the waves, as nobody knows what it's about.
Gotta admit I have no idea. Is this big in the UK?

[Rolfe]

No. It barely raises a ripple in the "UK". I'm mildly surprised Darat was on it.

It's bloody HUGE in Scotland.

(Actually that's not entirely true. There are repercussions for the UK Labour Party, which is mired in financial scandals of its own right now. It is widely believed that Wendy is being shielded by her bosses in London because if she goes, Harriet Harman and others will also be in danger.)

Rolfe.

[JonWhite]

Gotta admit I have no idea. Is this big in the UK?


Not really and certainly not big enough.

It came amidst a flurry of allegations of political funding incompetance/crookery and since has pretty much fallen away with promises of the usual enquiry smokescreens and the latest mantra of the need for "greater transparency".

Until there's some sort of event/result it seems to have become pretty much old news.

ETA: as Rolfe says above, it may well be huge in Scotland but from the London perspective it's barely making the radar any more than Harman, Abrams, etc are at present.

[DanishDynamite]

No. It barely raises a ripple in the "UK". I'm mildly surprised Darat was on it.

It's bloody HUGE in Scotland.

(Actually that's not entirely true. There are repercussions for the UK Labour Party, which is mired in financial scandals of its own right now. It is widely believed that Wendy is being shielded by her bosses in London because if she goes, Harriet Harman and others will also be in danger.)

Rolfe.
Sorry, I don't have enough data to comment meaningfully.

Hope it all works out.

[DanishDynamite]

Not really and certainly not big enough.

It came amidst a flurry of allegations of political funding incompetance/crookery and since has pretty much fallen away with promises of the usual enquiry smokescreens and the latest mantra of the need for "greater transparency".

Until there's some sort of event/result it seems to have become pretty much old news.

ETA: as Rolfe says above, it may well be huge in Scotland but from the London perspective it's barely making the radar any more than Harman, Abrams, etc are at present.
My very best wishes that this is resolved in a manner befitting the crime.

[Darat]

Not really and certainly not big enough.

It came amidst a flurry of allegations of political funding incompetance/crookery and since has pretty much fallen away with promises of the usual enquiry smokescreens and the latest mantra of the need for "greater transparency".

Until there's some sort of event/result it seems to have become pretty much old news.

ETA: as Rolfe says above, it may well be huge in Scotland but from the London perspective it's barely making the radar any more than Harman, Abrams, etc are at present.

Well it is on all the Radio 4 news reports and just checked on the BBC website and it's one of the 2 second tier stories (the top being the allegations that an MP was bugged by police/security forces). So I hardly think it can be fairly said that it isn't getting coverage. As for is it getting enough - well that's always going to be a subjective call. For me I'd like to see it getting attention (along with all the other similar stories) Since I'd like a reform nationwide of all representatives renumeration and how parties are funded I'd like it to get more as I think it will help create a climate that will push our representatives to review the current systems and reform them.

[JonWhite]

I've just watched the Channel 4 news and yeah, the Wendygate development did get a brief mention after pieces on the bugging of an MP and a new maternity proposal. It's the first time in a while though, as party/MP funding sleaze seems to have been replaced by MP employment nepotism practices instead.

If it ain't one sleaze it's another. :D

[quixotecoyote]

Can someone explain to me why this is a big deal? It seems like she got a donation from one guy that she shouldn't have and it wasn't even big time money. Not to mention that as he was an individual in New Jersey, it's highly unlikely his <1000 donation would have created a conflict of interest.

I realize there are rules and she broke one, but why is this such a bad thing?

[Rolfe]

"New" Jersey? Really?

It's a big deal because her party made the rules and passed the laws specifically in order to put a spoke in their rivals' wheels, but now seems to believe none of it should have to apply to them.

It's a big deal because it wasn't a mistake, the Green donation was solicited, the amount specified in order to keep it secret, and then when it got out anyway, a bunch of porkies were told to try to pretend the donation was legal.

Paul Green, tax exile living in St. Helier (look it up some time, coyote, why don't you), has bigtime property interests in Glasgow, and looks to Labour Party councillors to keep his planning applications sweet. He now seems royally pissed off with them, after the way the donation landed him in the public eye, but there's no doubt he was tapped for money because he was someone who would be looking for favours at some point.

And so it wasn't a huge amount of money. Precisely so, in order to keep it off the public books. So it's OK if our politicians take illegal money, so long as it's not huge sums? I think I'd get in big trouble for stealing £995, I could hardly say, look, it wasn't much. It would pay a few single mothers' rents for a month or two!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

The slightly odd thing is that it's the relatively minor bit about not reporting donations of over £520 as "gifts" that has made the English news, rather than the much smellier ongoing scandal about the illegal Paul Green / CPS donation.

Though the £520 bit is more than I first thought, as Wendy only asked if she had to declare these after the deadline for declarations has passed. And although she says she was told, no, it's OK, others have remarked, yes but what sort of a leading question did she ask to get that reply?

Rolfe.

[quixotecoyote]

"New" Jersey? Really?


Sorry about that Rolfe, I read 'tax-exile' and assumed he was out of the country, tax-haven style. Should've guessed it was the other way around.


It's a big deal because her party made the rules and passed the laws specifically in order to put a spoke in their rivals' wheels, but now seems to believe none of it should have to apply to them.

It's a big deal because it wasn't a mistake, the Green donation was solicited, the amount specified in order to keep it secret, and then when it got out anyway, a bunch of porkies were told to try to pretend the donation was legal.

Paul Green, tax exile living in St. Helier (look it up some time, coyote, why don't you), has bigtime property interests in Glasgow, and looks to Labour Party councillors to keep his planning applications sweet. He now seems royally pissed off with them, after the way the donation landed him in the public eye, but there's no doubt he was tapped for money because he was someone who would be looking for favours at some point.

And so it wasn't a huge amount of money. Precisely so, in order to keep it off the public books. So it's OK if our politicians take illegal money, so long as it's not huge sums? I think I'd get in big trouble for stealing £995, I could hardly say, look, it wasn't much. It would pay a few single mothers' rents for a month or two!

Rolfe.Maybe I'm just jaded from American politics, but it seems like attempts to limit the donation/contribution aspects of campaigning have all been failures. There's always a loophole or or alternative way to get money to politicians, whether its employees of corporations making donations because the company cannot donate anymore or PACS coordinating with the campaigns to spend unlimited funds because they can't contribute more directly. To me, this seems like a trivial battle in a war that's been lost for decades, but maybe you in the UK have managed to keep a better handle on things.

[Acleron]

The slightly odd thing is that it's the relatively minor bit about not reporting donations of over £520 as "gifts" that has made the English news, rather than the much smellier ongoing scandal about the illegal Paul Green / CPS donation.

Though the £520 bit is more than I first thought, as Wendy only asked if she had to declare these after the deadline for declarations has passed. And although she says she was told, no, it's OK, others have remarked, yes but what sort of a leading question did she ask to get that reply?

Rolfe.


More odd is why Radio 4 is repeating it continually with her sound bite of 'the commission told me it was OK'. I thought the calls for resignation were a little extreme with her robust reply. Without your post I was totally unaware of the more serious problems. Power to the internet :)

[geni]

So far, there have been no significant financial scandals involving the SNP. Or sex scandals either, come to that. It's pathetic, listening to the opposition parties trying to pin the "sleaze" label on perfectly normal political activities, which even if you don't think they were entirely wise, have no whiff of self-interest or nest-feathering about them.

Private eye are generaly based in london. The SNP isn't. Any halfway competant investigative journalist is going to be looking for bigger stories than the scotish parliment. Sure if something obvious such as the scotish parliment building running over budget by a factor of ten happens it gets noticed but below that not a vast amount will be noticed. Rather like the EU in fact.

[Darat]

The slightly odd thing is that it's the relatively minor bit about not reporting donations of over £520 as "gifts" that has made the English British news, rather than the much smellier ongoing scandal about the illegal Paul Green / CPS donation.

...snip...

Corrected your mistake - I know how you dislike people using English as a synonym for British.... :p

Seriously isn't the reason for that because the "new" in the news is the referral to the procurator fiscal?

[Rolfe]

Yes, you're right of course. However, it seems as if the far more serious stuff that was coming out before Christmas has barely had an airing.

Another reason it matters, by the way, is that Labour (I'm not sure if this is just in Scotland or the entire party) spent a £180,000 grant - taxpayers' money - to educate its officials and fundraisers and general apparatchiks about the nuances and application and proper observation of the rules governing electoral donations.

Sounds to me as if the taxpayers should be asking for their money back!

Even if Wendy knew nothing at all about it, she was the "regulated donee", and had been told in advance that she'd be held responsible for all donations to her campaign. We're always being told how she has a brain the size of a planet, and is such a great micromanager and so on (so great that two spin doctors walked out on her within weeks of her taking the job....), so how come she coudn't put the fear of God into her fundraisers and make them absolutely certain that any funny stuff was off limits?

If she did know nothing about it, how come she sent the guy a thank-you letter?

And her fingerprints are all over the cock-and-bull story about the donation being "under the auspices of" CPS, false assertions that Green had a controlling interest in the company so it was OK just to decide it was a company donation and so permissible (in fact Green had no interest in the company and was merely a client) and so on. It's quite hysterical that a script given to Labour party spokesmen about how to deal with the issue was leaked a couple of days ago (we're all right behind Wendy, sick of all this fuss, let's get on with looking out for the underprivileged 2-year-olds and it's all the SNP's fault anyway), and this was precisely what she and others came out with right on cue.

I feel the Labour Party has tendrils everywhere - certainly Murray Elder in the Electoral Commission, and it has appointed many of the current law officers - and may feel it can get this brushed under the carpet, but I wonder if the stink is now too great to hide.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Private eye are generaly based in london. The SNP isn't. Any halfway competant investigative journalist is going to be looking for bigger stories than the scotish parliment. Sure if something obvious such as the scotish parliment building running over budget by a factor of ten happens it gets noticed but below that not a vast amount will be noticed. Rather like the EU in fact.


I'm not expecting a London investigative journalist to root this out. But when a Scottish one does (or in this case, when a mole appears to be leaking like a seive in the direction of a Scottish newspaper), you'd think maybe the British papers might pick up on it a bit. If they weren't actually English, that is.

And anyway, why is the Scottish parliament building so much bigger a financial issue than Portcullis House, or even the Olympics? It didn't even run over budget by a factor of ten - there was never a serious budget saying it would cost £50 million, that was just someone talking rubbish before any plans had been made at all. I think it actually over-ran by about a factor of three. But ten sounds so much better.

Not that it was great value for money, or even in the right place, but it was never the disaster it was played out as being, by a press desperate to turn the Scottish people against any expression of their own sovereignty.

Rolfe.

[geni]

I'm not expecting a London investigative journalist to root this out. But when a Scottish one does (or in this case, when a mole appears to be leaking like a seive in the direction of a Scottish newspaper), you'd think maybe the British papers might pick up on it a bit. If they weren't actually English, that is.

Scotland has a lower population than greater london. Thus at best scotish parliment issues will be third behind westminister and the london assembery.


And anyway, why is the Scottish parliament building so much bigger a financial issue than Portcullis House, or even the Olympics?

Olympics will rack up more coverage give it a few years. Portcullis House was only 1.4 times over budget.


It didn't even run over budget by a factor of ten - there was never a serious budget saying it would cost £50 million,

True the primary cost projection provided by the Scottish Office was 10-40 million back in 1997.


that was just someone talking rubbish before any plans had been made at all. I think it actually over-ran by about a factor of three. But ten sounds so much better.

There is no published estimate that would give you a factor of three. 1999 estimate would give you 3.8 and 2000 estimate would give you 2.1.


Not that it was great value for money, or even in the right place, but it was never the disaster it was played out as being, by a press desperate to turn the Scottish people against any expression of their own sovereignty.


Rather than evoking conspiracy theories I think the press just saw it as an easy target. One of the few recent goverment overspeads that is easy to pick up.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Sorry about that Rolfe, I read 'tax-exile' and assumed he was out of the country, tax-haven style. Should've guessed it was the other way around.

You picked it up right. He is out of the country, tax-haven style. Jersey is not within the UK tax net.

[Rolfe]

You picked it up right. He is out of the country, tax-haven style. Jersey is not within the UK tax net.


Exactly. But it's still part of Britain, and close enough to carry on business dealings in Britain from residence there. Hence the assumption that there was no influence going on being incorrect. He is in fact big in property development in Glasgow and dependent on the Labour councillors there for planning permissions.

Geni, if you want conspiracy theories, try this for size. I'm not saying I agree with it, it seems a bit far-fetched, but it's gaining currency.

The Electoral Commission has taken more than two months to report on what seemed to many to be an open-and-shut case. Charlie Gordon admitted that the Paul Green donation was illegal. As it clearly was. That alone should be enough to constitute "a case to answer". Add to this that the donation was solicited, that Charlie himself, when soliciting it, suggested the sum of £950 (to keep it under the radar), that when Paul Green questioned the legitimacy of his donation Charlie told him not to worry it was OK (this is now being morphed by the Labour Party into Paul asking Charlie to ensure that the donation was permissible, but that's not what Paul said), that Wendy sent a thank-you letter to the Jersey address with no mention of any company, that only when the donation was questioned did the cover-up of trying to pretend it was actually from Combined Property Services begin, that Charlie falsely asserted that Paul Green had a controlling interest in that company (when he was in fact only a client), and that there is a paper trail proving all of this, then the inference that there was deliberate attempt to solicit and conceal an illegal donation becomes fairly compelling.

But still, after two months, the Electoral Commission has not reported on the case. Why not?

CT says that the EC is desperate to let Wendy off the hook, prompted principally by its Labour-sympathising members, expecially Murray Elder, because Wendy is Gordon Brown's blue-eyed girl and she Must Not Go. CT says the commission has not reported yet because it is hoping for some vague shred of a reason to come along so that they can actually do this.

This may actually be true. But then it gets a bit more far-fetched.

Suddenly, out of left field, comes Jim Dyer, Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, reporting Wendy to the Fiscal over a different, essentially unconnected irregularity regarding the same election donations. On the face of it this is not nearly such a serious allegation. Its seriousness is currently being madly played down by the Labour-supporting press. It is quite possible that the Fiscal might well decide not to proceed on that point.

CT says that this is depiberate. The idea is that the Fiscal will not proceed over the (essentially unrelated) matter of not reporting donations over £520 as "gifts" to the Parliamentary Standards Commission. This will allow the Electoral Commission to declare that the Fiscal has already decided that there's nothing in it, so they are just following suit. Ignoring the fact that they have been asked to look at a completely separate matter which involves admitted illegality.

I think this idea is rampant paranoia. I don't think Jim Dyer jumps to order like that. And I really don't think Team Wendy enjoyed themselves much over the weekend on the back of all the publicity surrounding the Dyer referral to the Fiscal.

The point that is currently being soft-pedalled like mad (read, entirely omitted by all the Labour press) is that Wendy did absolutely bugger-all about declaring any donations as "gifts" to the Parliamentary Standards people until after the proverbial hit the fan in respect of the Paul Green situation. Then she enquired regarding reporting of these "gifts" - but by then she was already in breach of the law, as she was at least six weeks past the deadline for declaring them. So even if the answer had been yes, declare them, she wouldn't have been off the hook.

This is almost certainly why Jim Dyer said he had no alternative but to report her to the Fiscal regarding the matter. It was not the case that she enquired in good time regarding the declaration of donations over £520 and then didn't declare them when she was given the "advice", she was already well in breach before the enquiry was made.

But it gets better. Remember I said above that it might be interesting to know exactly what question Wendy asked? Well, that has apparently been leaked too, now. She asked, "Did party leaders in previous leadership contests declare any election gifts/donations" under the over £520 rule. The answer was no. Well, of course not, because none of the other party leadership contenders had any such donations to declare! Such leadership campaigns are usually funded out of existing party funds and the private pockets of the contenders. This was the case with all three of the other parties - so no donations required to be declared. So none were declared! She did not ask whether the donations she did receive had to be declared! And she asked some lowly pen-pusher, not Jim Dyer himself, or anyone who might have had the nous to add the rider, but if any such donations had been made then they would have had to be declared. Jim Dyer has indeed said publicly that nobody in his department gave any incorrect or misleading advice (of course it was the question which was misleading).

Devious, anyone?

However, the whitewash seems to be proceeding unhindered, with copious sypmathy for poor Wendy, who is being allowed to get away with the assertion that she asked for advice and followed that advice, with none of the journalists highlighting what she did ask, and when she asked it.

It may well be that, planned or not, the effect of this will be that the Fiscal decides the over £520 thing was just a minor oversight, and that once he has dropped that case, the Electoral Commission will grasp at that straw to announce that since the Fiscal has already looked at it then there's no reason for them to take the matter of the illegal £950 from Jersey any further.

They seem to be able to do what they want, so long as they can find a form of words to hide behind, and that may well be it. But then, judicial review?

A poster on the Herald's article on the matter (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2018269.0.New_blow_for_Wendy_Alexander _as_key_aide.php) this morning has summarised it nicely.

Oh yes [Wendy has done something wrong]: lets rehearse the admitted facts:
- she sought donations from a property developer who needs to get planning permissions thru the Labour controlled councils, principally Glasgow: any possibility of a conflict of interests?
- the donations were designed to be of an amount that would avoid the need to declare them: why dont they want the public to know who is giving money?
- the donation was illegal being from a non-resident: this was known and not an oversight
- the source of the donation was changed to conceal the identity

This isnt a small oversight of an "impermissible" donation: this is planned criminality, with intent before and after the fact, as part of a system of sleaze.

Exactly what the law was supposed to prevent.


But if the Fiscal decides she is not liable for the "oversight" of not recording all the £995 donations as "gifts" over £520, then she may wriggle out of this one completely.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

There's a rather good (if longwinded) light bulb joke on the same page.


How many Labour spin doctors does it take to change a light bulb?


There is nothing wrong with the light bulb, and it will not be changed. Although the bulb does not glow when switched on, this is not intentional behaviour on the part of the light bulb. The light bulb was selected for its present light-giving role and has indicated that it will remain in place to continue this work. We are confident that it will be exonerated from all accusations of failure, and Gordon Brown has almost expressed personal and unequivocal support for the bulb.

Even if the bulb has failed, which we of course refute utterly, it would be unjustified to take further action as the amount of additional darkness caused thereby is entirely negligible and trivial. It was only a 40-watt bulb.


Rolfe.

[geni]

The Electoral Commission has taken more than two months to report on what seemed to many to be an open-and-shut case. Charlie Gordon admitted that the Paul Green donation was illegal.

Not his decission to make


As it clearly was. That alone should be enough to constitute "a case to answer". Add to this that the donation was solicited, that Charlie himself, when soliciting it, suggested the sum of £950 (to keep it under the radar), that when Paul Green questioned the legitimacy of his donation Charlie told him not to worry it was OK (this is now being morphed by the Labour Party into Paul asking Charlie to ensure that the donation was permissible, but that's not what Paul said), that Wendy sent a thank-you letter to the Jersey address with no mention of any company, that only when the donation was questioned did the cover-up of trying to pretend it was actually from Combined Property Services begin, that Charlie falsely asserted that Paul Green had a controlling interest in that company (when he was in fact only a client), and that there is a paper trail proving all of this, then the inference that there was deliberate attempt to solicit and conceal an illegal donation becomes fairly compelling.

But still, after two months, the Electoral Commission has not reported on the case. Why not?

Limited manpower and busy with the westminister mess. Priorities.


CT says that the EC is desperate to let Wendy off the hook, prompted principally by its Labour-sympathising members, expecially Murray Elder, because Wendy is Gordon Brown's blue-eyed girl and she Must Not Go. CT says the commission has not reported yet because it is hoping for some vague shred of a reason to come along so that they can actually do this.

This may actually be true. But then it gets a bit more far-fetched.


Brown is not short of people he replace her with.


Suddenly, out of left field, comes Jim Dyer, Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, reporting Wendy to the Fiscal over a different, essentially unconnected irregularity regarding the same election donations. On the face of it this is not nearly such a serious allegation. Its seriousness is currently being madly played down by the Labour-supporting press. It is quite possible that the Fiscal might well decide not to proceed on that point.

Standards watchdog for Scotland. No westminister stuff to worry about.


But it gets better. Remember I said above that it might be interesting to know exactly what question Wendy asked? Well, that has apparently been leaked too, now. She asked, "Did party leaders in previous leadership contests declare any election gifts/donations" under the over £520 rule. The answer was no. Well, of course not, because none of the other party leadership contenders had any such donations to declare! Such leadership campaigns are usually funded out of existing party funds and the private pockets of the contenders. This was the case with all three of the other parties - so no donations required to be declared. So none were declared! She did not ask whether the donations she did receive had to be declared! And she asked some lowly pen-pusher, not Jim Dyer himself, or anyone who might have had the nous to add the rider, but if any such donations had been made then they would have had to be declared. Jim Dyer has indeed said publicly that nobody in his department gave any incorrect or misleading advice (of course it was the question which was misleading).

Devious, anyone?


Doubtful. People who ask legal questions invovleing areas of law they don't know much about have a tendancy to ask the wrong question. When trying to ask a question to get specific answer they tend to be more hypothetical.


However, the whitewash seems to be proceeding unhindered, with copious sypmathy for poor Wendy, who is being allowed to get away with the assertion that she asked for advice and followed that advice, with none of the journalists highlighting what she did ask, and when she asked it.


Because those questions will not shift much in the way of newspapers. A fairly minor scandle (there are local councilers causeing far more significant issues) outside london. Press releases may be useful for padding collum inches in the political section. And what if you do go after her? Labour can ultimately drop her with little national damage and the story ends.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Not his decission to make

He didn't "decide" anything. The facts, which he as the person who solicited the donation is in a position to know, demonstrate the donation is illegal - no "decision" needed.

Limited manpower and busy with the westminister mess. Priorities.

BS. It would take no more than 15 minutes to review the evidence and conclude there is a case to answer from the ADMITTED facts of the case.

Brown is not short of people he replace her with.

If you are going to comment on a subject, should you not at least have made an effort to understand it? Why do you think this is being considered by the ELECTORAL commission? Why do you think she was raising funds - to bribe Gordon to give her a job?

Her post is ELECTED, not appointed by Gordon. The fact she was elected unopposed should give you a clue about the shortage of people available to replace her.

Standards watchdog for Scotland. No westminister stuff to worry about.

Relevance?

Doubtful. People who ask legal questions invovleing areas of law they don't know much about have a tendancy to ask the wrong question. When trying to ask a question to get specific answer they tend to be more hypothetical.

I have a bridge you might be interested in....

Seriously, if you want to know if you are obliged to disclose donations above £520 you ask exactly that question. You do not ask if previous donations had been disclosed.

And if it is an innocent misunderstanding you certainly don't then misrepresent the question you asked by claiming to have asked about donations to YOUR leadership campaign:

"Ms Alexander said parliament officials told her donations to her leadership campaign did not have to be recorded in her MSP register of interests."

Because those questions will not shift much in the way of newspapers. A fairly minor scandle (there are local councilers causeing far more significant issues) outside london. Press releases may be useful for padding collum inches in the political section. And what if you do go after her? Labour can ultimately drop her with little national damage and the story ends.

Really? You don't think that a senior Labour politician being forced to resign because she accepted illegal donations to her election campaign fund has any implications for anyone else in the Labour party.

Have you never heard the name "Harman"?

[Rolfe]

Geni, I wasn't talking about the English papers, I was talking mainly about the Herald and the Scotsman. In fact, though I haven't read the English papers, I've seen a few comments to the effect that what coverage there has been in these has been more penetrating than that of the Scottish organs, who are (with the exception of the Sunday Herald, which seems to be under different editorial control from the daily version) whitewashing Wendy shamelessly.

The more I think about it, the more reprehensible this "relatively minor matter" seems to be. What seems actually to have happened:

Team Wendy is caught up in what has hit the fan regarding the illegal Paul Green donation and the Electoral Commission. They are also conscious that they probably should have declared all these £995 donations to the Parliamentary Standards as "gifts" six weeks earlier, under the over-£520 rule, but they'd chosen not to do that at the time. (Interesting, from Wendy, who once used to declare every bunch of flowers she was given, with an estimate of the value!)

It is realised that the question of the over-£520 rule might well be raised by someone now that the whole thing has been blown apart. But how to address this, since the deadline for these declarations is now well past? OK, here's the scenario. We ask a question relating to this matter, so that if challenged we can say we asked, and were told no these items don't have to be declared. But what to ask? It's vital not to be told that yes, they do have to be declared, as we are already in breach of the law if that is the case. I know, let's ask if anyone else has ever declared anything in this category. Betting (or knowing) that the answer to that will be no!

The real deviousness here is that, if indeed this question is raised, then we can immediately turn the tables and say, look, at least we asked, but what about all the other parties who have had leadership elections, these people must also be in breach because they didn't declare anything! Checkmate! This is exactly what she did. However, it backfired, because the reason no other declarations had been made was simply that no such donations had ever been solicited or made. None of the other parties runs its internal party elections on specifically-earmarked outside donations.

This was a bit of a setback for Wendy, as the immediate attempt to smear the other parties got her some bad press, and really really put the backs up of her parliamentary colleagues from the other parties who might have been inclined to cut her a bit of slack, but dog isn't supposed to eat dog quite so blatantly.

Nevertheless, she seems at the moment to be getting away with the tale that she did ask the office of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner and was told no, these donations did not have to be declared. Even to the point where Jim (it's ma ba and A'm no playin) Sillars thinks Jim Dyer should issue a public apology to her.

However, Jim Dyer has said publicly that it does not appear that any of his staff has ever given Miss Alexander misleading information. Let's hope whatever enquiry is going on has the integrity to ask the two vital questions here. Wendy, what exact question did you ask, and when exactly did you ask it?

Wendy was brought up with Gordon Brown and Donald Dewar as close family friends. She seems to have learned the black art of political machinations from the experts. Unfortunately the most important question is often, "what conclusion does the watchdog want to come to?" If the will is to exonerate Wendy, then all they need is a form of words which they can hide behind. This applies both to the Electoral Commission regarding the Paul Green illegal donation, and to the Fiscal with regard to the over-£520 "gifts". We'll see.

Rolfe.

[Nogbad]

Wendy has had a relatively easy ride so far. She has appeared on the front pages (her remarkable rubber faced girning is very photographable) and questions have been asked but not very aggressively in my view. The main sellers (Record and Sun) were 100% behind Labour at the last election (rather embarrassingly so - nooses and what not) and seem to be a bit at sea with where to go.

The Government side (SNP) have also given her a pretty easy ride. Salmond and co have, it seems to me, have decided to let the show run on and largely keep out it. Wendy is hardly an effective opposition leader whilst watching her back all the time for a dagger amongst her own support. I do think at some point Labour will have to take stock. The damage of unseating Wendy after her recent coronation will have to be assessed against the slow drip of support from Labour to the other parties. What is apparent is that no one is grasping any nettles on the Labour side. That said I am surprised Brown didn't rush across the Commons and hug Conway with a cry of "Yah beauty!".

[Jaggy Bunnet]

That said I am surprised Brown didn't rush across the Commons and hug Conway with a cry of "Yah beauty!".

Indeed. Am also surprised Cameron didn't take the opportunity to immediately withdraw the whip from Conway, to clearly illustrate the difference in the way he deals with sleaze to what Brown has allowed in the Labour party - although he eventually withdrew it I think he left it too long to gain any benefit from doing so.

[Rolfe]

Paradoxically (and off topic while we wait to see if the EC will rule today), I'm a wee bit sorry for Conway. I think he's a standard business-enterprise Tory who is used to how things are done in small businesses. There, it is standard accountancy advice to maximise use of the tax allowances of your immediate family by paying them salaries for small/nominal duties like weekend telephone answering. We certainly did this in our business, though there were limits - my partner said he didn't think he could balance the payments to his wife by putting my mother on the payroll because of the distance involved, something which doesn't seem to have worried Peter Hain.

What the MPs seem not to have understood is that while this is fine in a real business, where the partners have earned the money and are free to do with it as they choose within the tax law, MPs' situations are quite different. Yes, again they are technically self-employed, but unlike the business owner they have not earned the money they are distributing this way. It is an allowance paid in order for them actually to have the secretarial or other assistance they need. If they choose to appoint a family member to do the job then that's one thing. But to pay a family member and leave the job undone (because you're a lazy bastard who doesn't need all that much secretarial assistance anyway) is misuse of public funds.

I think this is why Conway still doesn't understand what he's done that is wrong.

Rolfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Paradoxically (and off topic while we wait to see if the EC will rule today), I'm a wee bit sorry for Conway. I think he's a standard business-enterprise Tory who is used to how things are done in small businesses. There, it is standard accountancy advice to maximise use of the tax allowances of your immediate family by paying them salaries for small/nominal duties like weekend telephone answering. We certainly did this in our business, though there were limits - my partner said he didn't think he could balance the payments to his wife by putting my mother on the payroll because of the distance involved, something which doesn't seem to have worried Peter Hain.

What the MPs seem not to have understood is that while this is fine in a real business, where the partners have earned the money and are free to do with it as they choose within the tax law, MPs' situations are quite different. Yes, again they are technically self-employed, but unlike the business owner they have not earned the money they are distributing this way. It is an allowance paid in order for them actually to have the secretarial or other assistance they need. If they choose to appoint a family member to do the job then that's one thing. But to pay a family member and leave the job undone (because you're a lazy bastard who doesn't need all that much secretarial assistance anyway) is misuse of public funds.

I think this is why Conway still doesn't understand what he's done that is wrong.

Rolfe.

No sympathy at all. How you choose to spend your money (or the money of a company where you are the only shareholders) is up to you. How you spend public money is not.

I don't believe for a moment that he doesn't understand this. If he does then hopefully he will shortly have a spell where his distractions are removed and he can concentrate on understanding what the problem is, meals and accommodation provided.

[Deetee]

Sorry, I had a nagging suspicion I'd got the wrong husband!

Rolfe.

That's what they all say.

:(

[Rolfe]

No sympathy at all. How you choose to spend your money (or the money of a company where you are the only shareholders) is up to you. How you spend public money is not.

I don't believe for a moment that he doesn't understand this. If he does then hopefully he will shortly have a spell where his distractions are removed and he can concentrate on understanding what the problem is, meals and accommodation provided.


I agree entirely, I just think I may have a marginally softer heart than you! I hope he soon comes to a clear understanding of exactly what was wrong about what he did.

Rolfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I agree entirely, I just think I may have a marginally softer heart than you!

Most people seem to.

What he did was, to me, far worse than someone fraudulently claiming benefits. Maybe we need a few TV ads running to let our MP's know that there are no "ifs" or "buts" when it comes to knicking taxpayers cash?

[Rolfe]

Seconded.

Rolfe.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Ah, but Conway has friends! Step forward, Bruce Anderson:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/bruce-anderson/bruce-anderson-parliament-should-think-twice-before-changing-the-rules-on-mps-allowances-777698.html

I particularly enjoyed the bit about Conway being the last man to take money that didn't belong to him...

[geni]

He didn't "decide" anything. The facts, which he as the person who solicited the donation is in a position to know, demonstrate the donation is illegal - no "decision" needed.

No he is in a position to know if he thinks it is legal or not. Not if it actualy is.


BS. It would take no more than 15 minutes to review the evidence and conclude there is a case to answer from the ADMITTED facts of the case.


Confession does not always mean a case to answer.


If you are going to comment on a subject, should you not at least have made an effort to understand it? Why do you think this is being considered by the ELECTORAL commission? Why do you think she was raising funds - to bribe Gordon to give her a job?

Her post is ELECTED, not appointed by Gordon.

The fact she was elected unopposed should give you a clue about the shortage of people available to replace her.

If gorden had suggested that he did not like the idea of her being elected do you think she would have been unapposed?


Relevance?


Means they are more likely to do their job.


I have a bridge you might be interested in....

Seriously, if you want to know if you are obliged to disclose donations above £520 you ask exactly that question. You do not ask if previous donations had been disclosed.

You do if you have a confused idea about legal precedent.


And if it is an innocent misunderstanding you certainly don't then misrepresent the question you asked by claiming to have asked about donations to YOUR leadership campaign:

"Ms Alexander said parliament officials told her donations to her leadership campaign did not have to be recorded in her MSP register of interests."


That may well have been her reading of the answer.


Really? You don't think that a senior Labour politician being forced to resign because she accepted illegal donations to her election campaign fund has any implications for anyone else in the Labour party.

Have you never heard the name "Harman"?

None that couldn't be delt with through a swift amputation.

[geni]

double post

[geni]

Indeed. Am also surprised Cameron didn't take the opportunity to immediately withdraw the whip from Conway, to clearly illustrate the difference in the way he deals with sleaze to what Brown has allowed in the Labour party - although he eventually withdrew it I think he left it too long to gain any benefit from doing so.

Withdrawing the whip creates a precedent. 24 hours to check no one else has been pulling the same stunt is reasonable.

[Rolfe]

Fair point, that last one.

Now, back on topic.

This newspaper headline (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/A-total-triumph--and.3752359.jp) was splashed all over Newsnight Scotland about 45 minutes ago. The paper version has photos of Alex Salmond and Wendy Alexander, the latter in an expression of deep gloom, and allowing no doubt whatsoever who the second half of the headline refers to.

We didn't hear a cheep from the lady herself all this historic budget day, but her spokesman was chewed up and spat out by Gordon Brewer. She's supposed to be their leader, and they are right now a laughing stock. She may well have to go irrespective of the EC's verdict - which still seems to be lost in the post, despite rumours of its appearance today.

Rolfe.

PS. Look at the Herald (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2024936.0.Opposition_humiliated_as_30b n_Budget_is_passed.php), oh best beloved!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No he is in a position to know if he thinks it is legal or not. Not if it actualy is.



Confession does not always mean a case to answer.

BS - do you really think that if someone walks into a police station and says "I have defrauded my employer" the police go "I'm sorry sir but there is no reason to believe there is any case to answer therefore we are not going to investigate your confession"?



If gorden had suggested that he did not like the idea of her being elected do you think she would have been unapposed?

No. Of course this question is totally irrelevant to what you previously posted which is that Brown could easily replace her. That is simply incorrect as she holds an elected post therefore replacing her would mean the need to run a new election, following all the procedural requirements which means it would run over an extended period of time and every time it was mentioned in the media the report would start with something along the lines of "The process to elect a new leader of the Scottish Labour party to replace Wendy Alexander, who was forced to step down due to failure to declare donations to her campaign funding,......."

Makes having a "swift amputation" kind of difficult.

You do if you have a confused idea about legal precedent.

No, you do if you are i) of below normal intelligence (she isn't despite sometimes appearing that way) or ii) have some other motive for doing so.

That may well have been her reading of the answer.

No, it is a lie. She was never told that and she knows it.

None that couldn't be delt with through a swift amputation.

Paxman:

Mr Brown, Wendy Alexander was dismissed because she accepted illegal donations to her campaign fund although she claims that she had no intention to break the rules. Harriet Harman accepted illegal donations to her campaign fund although she claims that she had no intention to break the rules - when will you be sacking her?

It could be Brown's "Did you threaten to overrule him?" moment (or to be more accurate, moments!)

[Nogbad]

Fair point, that last one.

Now, back on topic.

This newspaper headline (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/A-total-triumph--and.3752359.jp) was splashed all over Newsnight Scotland about 45 minutes ago. The paper version has photos of Alex Salmond and Wendy Alexander, the latter in an expression of deep gloom, and allowing no doubt whatsoever who the second half of the headline refers to.

We didn't hear a cheep from the lady herself all this historic budget day, but her spokesman was chewed up and spat out by Gordon Brewer. She's supposed to be their leader, and they are right now a laughing stock. She may well have to go irrespective of the EC's verdict - which still seems to be lost in the post, despite rumours of its appearance today.

Rolfe.

PS. Look at the Herald (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2024936.0.Opposition_humiliated_as_30b n_Budget_is_passed.php), oh best beloved!


Labour have had a long run of dominance in Scotland (50 years or more) and it is apparent they just can't quite grasp the mind set needed to be an effective opposition. The Tories had a similar problem when Blair took office in 97. One might argue that it is only since Cameron that they have shown any cohesion as an opposition. Conway was a bit of set back but the possibility of large numbers of MPS doing similar limited what Cameron could do. He needed to see the scale and extent of the problem before he acted because he could have potentially ended up withdrawing the whip from rather a lot of MPs.

We live in interesting times.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Withdrawing the whip creates a precedent. 24 hours to check no one else has been pulling the same stunt is reasonable.

I would agree with you if that had been what he did.

However the FT, Telegraph, Guardian and Mirror all report him as having "stood by" Conway on Monday, only to change his mind and withdraw the whip the next day.

To be clear, the mistake was not the delay (as you say it would be common sense to make sure nobody else was at it), the mistake was letting it get out that you were standing by him.

[Rolfe]

Well, why am I not surprised about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7232516.stm). I still think she may not last long after yesterday's deplorable performance.

Rolfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Have you read the full text of the Commissions statement? It is truly astonishing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7233005.stm

They refer to s56 which requires "all reasonable steps must be taken forthwith " and conclude that "Wendy Alexander did not take all reasonable steps". Yet somehow they manage to conclude it is not in the public interest to report what they have found to be a breach of the law.

Their justification for this is that when she got caught she gave the money back - I wonder if they will apply the same standard to shoplifters, burglars and other fraudsters from now on?

A sad day for the integrity of Scottish politics.

[Nogbad]

Well, why am I not surprised about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7232516.stm). I still think she may not last long after yesterday's deplorable performance.

Rolfe.

I think after yesterday Big Eck will be wanting her to stay at all costs.

[Darat]

You mean the budget vote? Whilst I think she should have already resigned over the issues raised in this thread I don't see how you can hold her responsible in any way for Salmond's deplorable behaviour.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You mean the budget vote? Whilst I think she should have already resigned over the issues raised in this thread I don't see how you can hold her responsible in any way for Salmond's deplorable behaviour.

Care to expand?

Reading the articles that Rolfe linked to earlier, none appear to find anything deplorable in Salmond's actions while most think that Labour looked like eejits, led by a crook.

[Darat]

His grandstanding with his "threat" of resignation and "taking it the people".

[Jaggy Bunnet]

His grandstanding with his "threat" of resignation and "taking it the people".

What do you think he should have done if they could not pass their Budget?

Can you give an example of any government who have failed to pass a Budget that did not then resign and call an election?

[Nogbad]

His grandstanding with his "threat" of resignation and "taking it the people".

Minority Governments use that tool - without a budget there would have been no Government and the minority administration would have had to step down. I think he pre-empted the situation by making the announcement - effectively saying to Labour do you want an election right now, well do you?

The Labour tactic of asking for an amendment, getting it and then not voting for it is just plain weird. I am not sure if it was incompetence, confusion or petted lip. In the end the budget was passed and Labour have another year to get their act together. However, they have been very closely controlled by and linked to Westminster. Their fortunes are therefore somewhat linked to the UK Labour Party, which is not in the best of shapes at the moment. However, these things can and do change quite quickly.

One thing is certain an election at this point would not favour Labour but one in two years might.

[Rolfe]

There is a school of thought now saying that the threat of resignation was unnecessary. However, only someone with a lot of inside knowledge they're not revealing could possibly know that. All we know was that the threat was made, and the eventual outcome was extremely positive.

The vote (64 to 1) may look like a walkover but it was anything but, and it wouldn't have taken a lot for it to be very close or even deadlocked - at which point the Presiding Officer had made it clear he would vote the budget down. There are several permutations which the threat to resign might have influenced - from the simple possibility that Labour had already agreed to let the budget pass and were preparing a triumphalist press statement claiming the "credit" for this, to any number of people being forced to have a long hard look at what a vote against might actually lead to (an election when the SNP is way ahead in the polls), causing them to back hastily away.

I don't have any inside information, all I can say is that judging by the results, Salmond played a blinder. And Wendy's performance as the leader of her party was frankly disastrous.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Here's the Herald article about the Wendy whitewash (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2027618.0.Wendy_Alexander_cleared_by_E lectoral_Commission.php), with the usual mix of sensible comment and trollish insults in the comments.

Rolfe.

[geni]

BS - do you really think that if someone walks into a police station and says "I have defrauded my employer" the police go "I'm sorry sir but there is no reason to believe there is any case to answer therefore we are not going to investigate your confession"?

That is not a legitimate comparison.


No. Of course this question is totally irrelevant to what you previously posted which is that Brown could easily replace her. That is simply incorrect as she holds an elected post therefore replacing her would mean the need to run a new election, following all the procedural requirements which means it would run over an extended period of time and every time it was mentioned in the media the report would start with something along the lines of "The process to elect a new leader of the Scottish Labour party to replace Wendy Alexander, who was forced to step down due to failure to declare donations to her campaign funding,......."

You are under the impression that the election of a leader of the scotish labour party is news?


Makes having a "swift amputation" kind of difficult.


Do you recall much about the UUP leadership election after David Trimble stood down.


No, you do if you are i) of below normal intelligence (she isn't despite sometimes appearing that way) or ii) have some other motive for doing so.


So why do I see such badly formed questions about law comeing from people I have no reason to suspect on such a regular basis?

I tend to see people useing rather different techques when fishing for an answer (for example in this case the question might be along the lines of "are their situations under which such donations could be legal" technicaly the answer is yes but not in a meaningful manner)


No, it is a lie. She was never told that and she knows it.


Prove it.


Paxman:

Mr Brown, Wendy Alexander was dismissed because she accepted illegal donations to her campaign fund although she claims that she had no intention to break the rules. Harriet Harman accepted illegal donations to her campaign fund although she claims that she had no intention to break the rules - when will you be sacking her?
"Dismissed"? Resigned perhaps.


It could be Brown's "Did you threaten to overrule him?" moment (or to be more accurate, moments!)

You realise the answer to that question was in fact no?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

That is not a legitimate comparison.

Just because you dislike it does not make it illegitimate.


You are under the impression that the election of a leader of the scotish labour party is news?

Do you recall much about the UUP leadership election after David Trimble stood down.[/quote]

You want to talk about illegitimate comparisons? Can you tell me what scandal caused Trimble to resign and how that scandal had a link to a national party? Thought not.

So why do I see such badly formed questions about law comeing from people I have no reason to suspect on such a regular basis?

I tend to see people useing rather different techques when fishing for an answer (for example in this case the question might be along the lines of "are their situations under which such donations could be legal" technicaly the answer is yes but not in a meaningful manner)

I am amazed that you continue with this point. She could have asked "Do I have to declare these donations", until you come up with a vaguely plasuible reason why she asked anything else, there is nothing to discuss.

You realise the answer to that question was in fact no?

You realise that is irrelevant? Nobody remembers the issue, or indeed the answer, they only remember the evasion.

[Soapy Sam]

Let's face it- "Scottish Labour politician found with podgy paw in cookie jar" ranks alongside "Dog bites man" in the shocking headline stakes.

And to be honest, it ain't just Labour.
I've been away. What's the latest Tommy Sheridan scandal?

[Rolfe]

Um. Scottish Socialist politician believed to have had paw somewhere other then the cookie jar? (Possible prosecution for perjury, I think.)

BBC Scotland's view was that Wendy has been "criticised" by the Electoral Commission, and that to say she has been cleared or exonerated is over-egging the cake. The most interesting point was put by (I think) Iain MacWhirter. The law that was admittedly broken is an offence of strict liability. In other words, no excuses like "Lord, A didna ken". However, the EC's decision to let the matter drop in spite of accepting that there had been a breach of the law now negates that point, and such offences can no longer be regarded as strict liability. Which has a lot of implications for other cases.

And as someone else said, Peter Hain must be feeling a bit sore about this.

What is not clear is why it all took so long. That ruling could have been reached in a few days. Surely the suggestion that the Labour place-men in and associated with the EC (Murray Elder, anyone?) let it run on so that it could be announced the day after the successful SNP budget, while they were enjoying unprecedentedly favourable headlines is pure CT. Must be....

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Well, after that evening web-piece in the Herald with the headline claiming that Wendy had been "cleared", the actual published paper today was singing a very different song - evidently as a result of people actually reading what the Commission said, rather than listening to Wendy's triumphalist crowing.

"I am bruised, I am sorry, but I will not walk away (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2028971.0.I_am_bruised_I_am_sorry_but_ I_will_not_walk_away.php)"
"Mistake was made, but I will fight on (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2028958.0.Mistake_was_made_but_I_will_ fight_on.php)"
"Alexander's mistake (http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/editorial/display.var.2028882.0.Alexanders_escape.php)"
"Report to Procurator Fiscal 'not in public interest' (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2028961.0.Report_to_procuratorfiscal_n ot_in_public_interest.php)"
"Grip on leadership is still in question (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2028968.0.Grip_on_leadership_is_still_ in_question.php)"
There is also a good blog from one of the political journalist staff -

[Oh hell, while looking for that I found "Bluetongue protection zone set up (http://www.theherald.co.uk/national_news/index.var.182399.0.bluetongue_protection_zone_set_ up.php?)", now that's all we don't need....]

Political blogs (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/politicalblogs/) - see Robbie Dinwoodie's entries for today ("I find it disgraceful that Alexander can have deemed herself to be cleared", 8th February) and yesterday ("[Labour] ridiculed and laughed at for failing to back a motion they had successfully amended", 7th February).

Wendy made a complete fool of herself on Newsnight Scotland last night, even though Gordon Brewer missed several tricks (he had the opportunity to get her clear confession to a cover-up, and blew it), she looked like a naughty schoolgirl being taken to task by the headmaster. Apparently earlier in the evening she was interviewed live on STV, and after the interview (with the mikes still live) turned to Jackie [the Hut] Baillie, her brown-nose supporter, and said "was that OK?" (Making her sound again like a schoolgirl seeking approval.) Jackie replied "It was [rule-10]-ing fabulous!" The clip is supposed to be going up on YouTube any time now. There's also a lot of undignified screeching and cackling between the two of them. Not the sort of language or behaviour you really expect from your elected representatives, especially when they've just been declared echnically guilty of a strict-liability offence. (Yes, it was the f-word.)

This morning the entire country seems to have got the message that Wendy was indeed guilty and the report says so, but then the Commission decided to let her off for reasons undisclosed. ("Not in the public interest" - as if holding politicians to the laws they themselves passed isn't in the public interest?) Her refusal to publish any of the email evidence she used to persuade the Commission to let her off isn't going down too well either, nor is the Commission itself refusing to give any further detail of either deliberations or evidence.

I don't think she'll last too long. I suspect some "big hitter" will be parachuted in from London to replace her and put these uppity nationalists in their place. Which is a shame really, as after her recent performance I'm beginning to realise the SNP were really serious when they said they didn't want her to go!

Rolfe.

[Nogbad]

I think they will be heart broken if she goes now - not sure a John Reid or Adam Ingram would be that keen to take up the mantle - although stranger things have happened. Given their antipathy to the Scottish Parliament it is also questionable whether they would cut convincing figures.

[geni]

You want to talk about illegitimate comparisons? Can you tell me what scandal caused Trimble to resign and how that scandal had a link to a national party? Thought not.

Not really relivant. You don't recall much because that level of detail of northern irland politics is less relivant than it used to be. Name recognition for just about any SMP other than Alex Salmond isn't very high.


I am amazed that you continue with this point. She could have asked "Do I have to declare these donations", until you come up with a vaguely plasuible reason why she asked anything else, there is nothing to discuss.


People could ask me "is this image a copyvio?" but they tend not to. SMPs must know something about law. Likely enough to cause problems.


You realise that is irrelevant? Nobody remembers the issue, or indeed the answer, they only remember the evasion.

No they remeber the spin not being good enough.

[Rolfe]

You are under the impression that the election of a leader of the scotish labour party is news?


Geni, sunshine, as a Scottish nationalist I don't really care hugely about coverage of Scottish news in England. Or not any more - when I lived in England there was a huge sense of isolation, at least apart from the Internet, but that was my problem, not theirs. It's the lack of coverage in Scotland that is a concern.

Print media doesn't really have the problem. All the English papers publish "Scottish" editions, and one half doesn't really know what the other half is reading even if the titles of the papers are the same. And in the quality press they're an irrelevance anyway, with the Herald having the lion's share, and the Scotsman mopping up most of the rest. (I'm told that the P&J is practically nationalist and the Courier today made the Herald look like the Wendy Alexander fan club, but they are relatively local dailies.)

But broadcasting is a real problem. Wednesday night I get home about seven, and I've heard a little bit about the budget being passed that day. This is a really big deal in Scotland. It was held out by the journos as the huge hurdle the new government had to clear, but it was doubtful if they would succeed.

I had to sit through reams and reams of "story" about the pre-pre-election shenanigans going on in a country far far away of which we already probably know more than we need to. Eventually we got about 90 seconds of what was actually happening here in our own country. The previous evening I knew from a radio report I caught that our First Minister had announced he would resign if the budget bill was not passed. This was scary stuff. But if I had relied on the hour-long C4 news bulletin for that information, I'd still be in the dark.

If Geni thinks that's OK just because he doesn't want to sit through any Scottish news, then I'd say that's one of the best arguments for independence I've come across. (No, not really, there are lots better arguments, but allow me some rhetorical slack.) To be told that your own country's vitally impotant news is not to take up any of your own TV news time because the English aren't interested is quite a slap in the face, don't you think?

How pleased would you be if your budget day got so little coverage in your own country?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Oh, I meant to mention this one. Don't know if CiF articles even make it into print, or if this would only have been in the "Scottish" edition or what, but this is a good article.

"Swinney's herding (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/iain_macwhirter/2008/02/swinneys_herding.html)" [of cats, presumably] - Thanks in large part to the Scottish Nationalist finance secretary, the party achieved a budget victory yesterday. It was a truly adept display

.... This is what the SNP achieved in the most adept display of legislative game-playing Scotland has ever seen. They now have a highly populist budget - including a freeze on council tax, abolition of prescription charges, student fees and bridge tolls - on the statute book despite the Treasury in London imposing the tightest spending round in a decade.

The approval ratings for Salmond's administration were already high - now they will be stratospheric. The Scottish press has praised Swinney (http://www.theherald.co.uk/mostpopular.var.2024942.mostviewed.how_swinney_pas sed_the_budget_test.php) like a football star, and portrayed Labour as a bunch of turnips. The Scottish Labour party as now allowed the first nationalist government in history to consolidate its hold on Scottish politics. It will be much more difficult to dislodge the nats next time.


I think a tide is turning somewhat.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Geni, sunshine, as a Scottish nationalist I don't really care hugely about coverage of Scottish news in England. Or not any more - when I lived in England there was a huge sense of isolation, at least apart from the Internet, but that was my problem, not theirs. It's the lack of coverage in Scotland that is a concern.

Print media doesn't really have the problem. All the English papers publish "Scottish" editions, and one half doesn't really know what the other half is reading even if the titles of the papers are the same. And in the quality press they're an irrelevance anyway, with the Herald having the lion's share, and the Scotsman mopping up most of the rest. (I'm told that the P&J is practically nationalist and the Courier today made the Herald look like the Wendy Alexander fan club, but they are relatively local dailies.)

The names of the papers isn't that important. The critical factor is do AP care? How you get your AP reports repackaged is mearly spin.


If Geni thinks that's OK just because he doesn't want to sit through any Scottish news, then I'd say that's one of the best arguments for independence I've come across. (No, not really, there are lots better arguments, but allow me some rhetorical slack.) To be told that your own country's vitally impotant news is not to take up any of your own TV news time because the English aren't interested is quite a slap in the face, don't you think?

Vitally impotant? Who is going to die?


How pleased would you be if your budget day got so little coverage in your own country?

There is no english and welsh budget per se.

However that is what the Financial Times is for (although the lack of Scottish Parliament power over corporation tax would likely lower the interest of any scotish equiv). Since the tax raiseing and lowering powers are not being used the scotish budget is of less importance than the UK one. When those powers are used I think there will be some pretty solid UK wide coverage.

[geni]

I think a tide is turning somewhat.

Rolfe.


Sort term populalism is dicey mind. Freeze on council tax gives you the problem that sorting out the free care for the elderly mess is going to have to involve the scottish parliament. On the other hand scotland doesn't have a houseing shortage to the same degree as the south east so some secondary issues should be avoided.

[Rolfe]

Hah! Regarding free care for the elderly, that's a Labour legacy problem. It's ironic. Every positive point the SNP put forward during the election campaign was countered by Labour getting someone to figure out what was the most expensive that policy could possibly get, adding 50% for luck, dividing by the number of families in the country, and announcing that the SNP were a high-tax party because this would cost every single person thousands. In the end we had full-page adverts telling the masses that a vote for the SNP would cost them £5,000 a year, assuming that every single policy would be 100% implemented on day one, even those the devolved government could not influence, and were simply presented as aspirations for independence.

But it was Labour themselves who introduced free care for the elderly, without any idea how much it would cost, and then just let everyone get on with it.

To their credit, the SNP have never came back in kind with this one. It is recognised that the policy is overwhelmingly popular, and the SNP has pledged to make it work. I think it can be done, frankly nobody could be as incompetent as Labour anyway.

There is one possibility to improve the cash flow. The money for the free care comes from the Scottish budget. Which is a fixed handout from Westminster, more's the pity. However, every infirm elderly person is entitled to about £40 a week "attendance allowance", which comes from the DSS in London. It is believed that when Labour did its sums (assuming it did any), it was assumed that this money would still be available. However, in what seemed like petty revenge, Westminster decided to withhold this money from everyone benefiting from the free care package. Yes, it's true that those people do not need that money personally once they are receiving the free care. However, Westminster's decision means it is lost to the Scottish budget as a whole.

Scottish Labour were basically told to shut up about it and not to make waves. However, it may be possible to challenge that ruling and get the money reinstated.

By the way, this one's a keeper.

Why Salmond laughed all the way to the budget (http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.2032011.0.0.php)

Rolfe.

[Nogbad]

I have to confess to being a trifle apprehensive the day after the May election and finding the SNP the biggest party. I have been surprised at how well it has all gone since. Either the SNP are really good or the last lot were really *****.

It might a little of both.

Edit: This board's rules on language don't half discriminate against the natural flow of good Scots. :( Cultural imperialists!

[Rolfe]

The day after the May election, after having turned up to vote in an SNP rosette just in case anybody was in any doubt about it, I had decamped to stay with some Tory friends in Yorkshire. I was biting my nails up to my elbows as it was, I don't think I could have stood the suspense of knowing what was actually going on. (Of course the news blackout south of the Shap was total.)

You see, I already knew the SNP could do it, probably, unless someone really dropped their rifle. The party has been thinking about little else other than what would be best for Scotland, and how to show to the people of Scotland that that's the real agenda, and eating English babies is only a minority sport. I barely dared believe it would happen, and the wheels could still come off, but so far so good.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Oh, look at the latest! And this isn't even from a Scottish paper!

Labour Chief in New Funding Row (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3334740.ece)

I told you. There is a God!

They can let her off again if they like (though the last verdict was compared to "not proven", which is traditionally "go away and don't do it again" - if she has indeed done it again, they may be less amused). Eventually, pressure of public opinion or just of sticking mud will do the trick.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Hey, two threads on Scottish politics in this forum! My cup runneth over!

However, for current thinking on Wendygate, the place to be is
Wendy's in the clear but the current winners are the SNP (http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2032935.0.0.php)
(no she's not! - ed.)

Rolfe.

[Architect]

Oh, look at the latest! And this isn't even from a Scottish paper!

Labour Chief in New Funding Row (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3334740.ece)

I told you. There is a God!

They can let her off again if they like (though the last verdict was compared to "not proven", which is traditionally "go away and don't do it again" - if she has indeed done it again, they may be less amused). Eventually, pressure of public opinion or just of sticking mud will do the trick.

Rolfe.

I can confirm that it VERY briefly made the English and Welsh news last week. They used the picture of her with that "simpering" look you would have thought she'd have learned to avoid, the pair lassie.

[Rolfe]

I can't find a word about it anywhere but the Sunday Times. I wonder if it's a total storm in a teacup.

The most popular picture of Wendy in the Herald last week looked as if she was in the process of laying an egg. I don't think there is a pleasant picture of her in existence.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Apparently this is in the News of the World. I wouldn't touch that rag with a ten-foot pole, but someone reproduced the whole thing in the Sunday Herald comments section. Here be choice excerpt.

A FEW weeks ago, Wendy Alexander, below, was being touted as the cleverest smarty-pants in Scots politics.

She was sold to the electorate as a bit of a one-off — a Davros among the Daleks. Einstein in a dress.

In fact, she was going to do all the thinking so we didn’t have to.

“Aye, she’s a bit weird and can’t hold a conversation with anyone but herself. And no one likes her. And she’s boring. But, wow — what a brain!”

Well, if Wendy Alexander’s the smartest cookie in Scotland then we must be down to our last pack of Ginger Nuts.

Because she’s long since left the house with her dress tucked in the back of her knickers.

She’s 4-0 down after 10 minutes and still not sure which way she’s supposed to be kicking the ball.....


Dearie, dearie me.

Rolfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

"EMBATTLED Labour leader Wendy Alexander is in more trouble after she laid a motion praising a shopping centre that gave her donations of £1600.
She had already declared the donations, but not indicating such an interest when publishing the motion is a breach of the Scottish Parliament’s code of conduct.
If found guilty of this, it would be the third breach she’s been reported for since taking over as Labour leader at Holyrood."

"Since she has a registered declaration of interest, she should have informed Parliamentary clerks at Holyrood and the motion would have been marked to indicate this.
In the Scottish Parliament’s guidance on motions for MSPs it states clearly, “Members with a registerable interest in a motion are required to declare their interest when lodging it."

http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/MAGS/POST/news1.htm

I don't know which she should be more ashamed of:

That she has breached the rules on donations / disclosure for the THIRD time since taking over as Labour leader; or

That, despite all of the headlines, commentary and coverage over her failures to follow disclosure rules, she manages to breach them again within a week of being let off by the electoral commission. Did it not occur to her that it might be a really good idea to be extremely careful about abiding by the rules, at least until the whitewash had dried?

Maybe she should just get a season ticket for the Electoral Commission as it seems she is trying to make sure she is on the agenda every time they meet.

[Darat]

It does make me wonder do MSPs get an allowance or expenses to defend themselves in an investigations by the EC.... her behaviour would then seem to make some sense, you know rack-up her expenses before her fingernails eventually do give way and she is dragged screaming from anything like an official position in public life!

[Rolfe]

According to the Herald today (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2051310.0.Brown_says_there_is_a_strong _case_for_the_review_of_Holyrood_powers.php):

The Prime Minister also gave fulsome support to Wendy Alexander, Labour's leader at Holyrood, who is a driving force behind the commission, saying she would "turn out to be a great leader". He added: "She has had my support, has my support, will continue to have my support. She's doing a very good job in difficult circumstances."


More U-turns than a learner driver in the fog, this lot. I think GB is up to something sinister with his meddling in the Wendy commission/review/working party whatever. Taking back powers from Holyrood? Like the ones that might stop Trident being renewed at Faslane? And so on?

The more we see of Wendy the less the "brain the size of a planet" is in evidence. She comes over like a schoolgirl eager to please her teachers. She frankly has No Idea what she's doing.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

Damning with faint praise.

I though he said yesterday that she wasn't really the leader of Scottish Labour, just the Labour MSPs?

I'd have thought if you were in charge of the members of parliament it made you the leader, but silly me......

[Rolfe]

You'd think, wouldn't you? But then she's only "leader at Holyrood". She doesn't lead the Scottish Westminster MPs and perhaps more tellingly she doesn't lead the Labour councillors in Scotland. And she isn't leading the constituency parties either. So she isn't in any sense the "Scottish Labour Leader". She has Des Browne for the closest thing to that. (In contrast the SNP is homogeneous, with Alex Salmond leading the entire party. It does help the street cred a bit.)

Previous leaders of the Labour group at Holyrood had the added cachet of being First Minister, so their lack of status didn't really show. With Wendy, it does.

The SNP (no longer Alexander's one-man band, we note - too few names among too many people here....) have been very smart with the councils. They've spoken directly to the council leaders, including the Labour ones. They've given them what they wanted - real power to set their own budgets. No more ring-fencing, no more central control. They've negotiated a council tax freeze, which many councils were planning anyway, and given them the sweetener of a 3%+ increase in funds to do it. Of course Labour councillors are feeling a bit vulnerable anyway because they lost so many seats with STV, but they're well pleased with the settlement from the SNP government.

Then Wendy started sounding off about how local services would suffer, vulnerable two-year-olds and poor homeless cows and so on, because these nasty councils would of course cut their funding now the ring-fencing was gone. The councillors, including the Labour ones, were very put out by this, which didn't help Wendy in the slightest.

Nice strategy.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

They're going through Labour leaders like a knife through hot butter.....I give her a month. What do you think? Will she see Easter?

[Rolfe]

Wendy Alexander resigns (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Wendy-Alexander-resigns.2323840.jp)!

You heard it here first!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Or maybe not quite first.









Sorry. Couldn't resist that.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

They're going through Labour leaders like a knife through hot butter.....I give her a month. What do you think? Will she see Easter?


I have officially No Idea. I mean she's useless. She's a liability. She simply hasn't a clue. She hasn't the presence or the bearing or anything. (And what was that about Armani clothes - I mean, that pale blue maternity smock thing should have been taken out and shot.) Her constant seeking for approval is pathetic. ("Was that OK?" to Jackie Baillie of all people, to an open mike! - just a pity Jackie's blue-pencilled reply of "F[rule-10]cking fabulous!" grabbed all the glory....) If the budget abstention was her idea, then she should be taken out and shot.

But then I'm beginning to wonder how long Brown will last. I've been quite shocked by how incompetent he is, even though there were isiders hinting as much before he took over. Has he got it together enough to get rid of her? And if he did, who will he put in her place?

It's farcical, frankly. And I'd like to know who's calling the shots at the Herald because the pro-Labour spin on some recent stories has been blatant.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

It's still all about Wendy. She has a new spin doctor (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2054093.0.New_spin_doctor_to_help_Alex anders_fightback.php).

Meanwhile they're carrying on removing the tolls at the Forth Road bridge, and the work will soon start on completing the M74, and the council tax freeze seems to be a done deal....

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Or maybe not quite first.









Sorry. Couldn't resist that.

Rolfe.

:rule10

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Has he got it together enough to get rid of her? And if he did, who will he put in her place?

While he can get rid of her (in practice if not in theory), he cannot replace her. She holds an elected position (remember the difficulties started with her accepting illegal donations to her previous election campaign) so Broon cannot put someone in her place.

It may be that he doesn't fancy even an internal election at the moment, for a couple of reasons:

- the pool of "talent" available to replace her is looking a little shallow to say the least;
- probably not the best time to be encouraging Labour party members to be raising funds to run election campaigns (would you trust them to have read the rules this time?)

[Rolfe]

While he can get rid of her (in practice if not in theory), he cannot replace her. She holds an elected position (remember the difficulties started with her accepting illegal donations to her previous election campaign) so Broon cannot put someone in her place.

It may be that he doesn't fancy even an internal election at the moment, for a couple of reasons:

- the pool of "talent" available to replace her is looking a little shallow to say the least;
- probably not the best time to be encouraging Labour party members to be raising funds to run election campaigns (would you trust them to have read the rules this time?)


I would have thought he can replace her just the same way he appointed her in the first place. By arranging it so that his favoured candidate runs unopposed. She was only "elected" in the Labour sense of the word - the £17,000 worth of donations for her election campaign financed nothing more than a victory procession round the country as far as we can discover.

There have been speculations that Brown might parachute in a Labour big hitter from Westminster, but it's hard to see who would be prepared to do the job. Unlike the SNP, all the real Scottish talent in Labour wants to be in Westminster. Foulkes was supposed to be in line for that position, but I think it's become too obvious even within Labour circles that he's a liability. Kerr is a bit tainted in the corruption line as well.

Jackie Baillie for Queen!

Rolfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I would have thought he can replace her just the same way he appointed her in the first place. By arranging it so that his favoured candidate runs unopposed. She was only "elected" in the Labour sense of the word - the £17,000 worth of donations for her election campaign financed nothing more than a victory procession round the country as far as we can discover.

Indeed, but his troublesome party rules mean that there is a risk of a contested election (only six MSP's are needed to ensure a nomination, last time the left of the Labour party could only get four signatures - I am not sure he would want to take the risk they could get another couple now given events since then).

There have been speculations that Brown might parachute in a Labour big hitter from Westminster, but it's hard to see who would be prepared to do the job. Unlike the SNP, all the real Scottish talent in Labour wants to be in Westminster. Foulkes was supposed to be in line for that position, but I think it's become too obvious even within Labour circles that he's a liability. Kerr is a bit tainted in the corruption line as well.

How?

He would need one of their existing constituency MSP's to retire and hold a by election. Short of bumping someone to the Lords (stop laughing!) then I think he is going to struggle to find a volunteer (maybe he could lean on Union Jack McConnell to make his Malawi job full time?).

However, does he really want a by-election given the polls at the moment?

And (I think) the last Labour MSP to be elected in a by election has not exactly covered himself in glory since:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4295762.stm

[Rolfe]

Oh, I entirely agree. However, that's the sensible take on it. And just what about GB's recent performance has suggested to you that he might be relied upon to do the sensible thing?

By the way, this is from the above comments page (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2054093.0.New_spin_doctor_to_help_Alex anders_fightback.php).

Wendygate Episode Guide

Wendygate I. 17th November 2008.
Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor of the Sunday Herald, reveals that Wendy Alexander's leadership campaign had received a number of payments of £995, £5 under the limit requiring a declaration to the Electoral Commission. This is the begining of the "Wendygate" affair. On the 7 th February 2008, the Electoral Commission issues a statement that it does not have sufficient evidence to be able to recommend prosecuting Wendy Alexander for accepting an illegal donation.

Wendygate II. 16th December 2008.
The Sunday Times reveals that Wendy Alexander and her senior colleagues have given thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to a company owned by the Labour party for services which are provided free of charge by the Scottish Parliament.

Wendygate III. 1st February 2008.
Wendy Alexander is reported to the procurator fiscal in Lothian & Borders by the Holyrood Standards Commissioner for breaking Scottish Parliament rules by failing to register ten leadership campaign donations of more than £520.

Wendygate IV. 10th February 2008.
The Sunday Times reveals that Wendy Alexander is facing an investigation by the Electoral Commission into a claim that she channelled £12,000 through a Labour front organisation to fund her constituency office. The police have also been asked to investigate.

Wendygate V. 17th February 2008.
The Sunday Post reveals that Wendy Alexander is facing an investigation concerning allegations of paid advocacy after she failed to declare a financial interest when proposing a motion in the Scottish Parliament praising a shopping centre that had made donations to her totalling £1,600. The Scotland Act specifically prohibits paid advocacy and the penalty is a fine of up to £5,000.


You couldn't make it up! That, plus some people googling this new spin doctor, and discovering a whole bunch of embarrassing stuff the New Guy has written about Wendy in the past. For a start, he once referred to her as "Gruppenfuhrer", and it goes on.

Embarrassingly, a string of Mr Pia's newspaper columns lampooning his new boss has now emerged.

Apart from the "Gruppenfuhrer"jibe, he also mused she might be "two sandwiches short of a picnic" and accused her of "Stalinism". In another column, he suggested a senior Labour MP and Researcher seen chortling as they read documents could have been laughing at "another one of Wendy Alexander's policy papers."


And this one, source doesn't seem to be cited.

There is widespread disillusionment with devolution because MSPs, mesmerised by newfound power, made ambitious announcements which have failed to materialise. Ask the 56,000 pensioners who were promised free central heating in their own homes by Wendy Alexander in September last year. Scotland’s budget has been put in deep peril by the botched care-for-the-elderly scheme. This has a £20 million hole still unfilled, set to grow into a £300 million hole within five years.


And this is the guy who has just accepted the poisoned chalice of being Wendy's latest spin doctor, about the fourth since she won the non-election. Did they forget to check his CV or what?

Rolfe.

PS. Calum Cashley's blog for today (http://calumcashley.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html). Ouch!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Maybe Wendy is not quite out of the woods over her donations problems just yet:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3452649.ece

"He added that there was protocol in existence for the handling of inquires into alleged abuses of parliamentary rules, which is understood to state that the Standards Commissioner will pass all matters of alleged wrongdoing by MPs to Scotland Yard for its consideration."

Wonder if there is something similar in place with the electoral commissioner? If there isn't then I can see some tricky questions as to why not.

[Rolfe]

She's in fairly deep doo-doo actually (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/29/do2906.xml).

That was appalling. Wendy Alexander's performance at First Minister's Question Time plumbed new depths of ineptitude yesterday.

She not only failed yet again to leave a mark on Alex Salmond but was left looking as if she never would lay a glove on him. [....]

.... the unhappy fact remains that Ms Alexander is just not cutting the mustard. And it's not just this observer saying so. Several of her senior colleagues now despair of her ever leading the Scottish Labour Party effectively. [....]

As a result she must be aware of the whispering campaign amongst her colleagues about her performance. At its simplest, she simply cannot handle Mr Salmond. [....]


That article is in fact scandalously biassed against the SNP. As some of the comments point out. Here is the Scottish Government's news release (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/02/28130726) yesterday with the FoI information about what actually happened.

However, that's not the point. When UK papers, even Tory supporting ones, take the trouble to be this nasty about Wendy, it does rather suggest the nail is becoming even more shoogly.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

Let the Telegraph write with such inexactidude and bias.....it will but hasten the day of our departure! ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

Is that the spelling? "Shoogly"?

My professor for German in college started our first class by saying "I see tha slats are ow ata tha windas. Ba if yool all shoogle abow' till ya cn see, wayl be fine."

I always wondered about the spelling.


And how my German sounds.

[Rolfe]

Nope, still not resigning (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2100470.0.Alexander_prosecution_threat _lifted.php).

I see that "it would not be appropriate to prosecute for this breach of electoral law" has been translated into "Wendy cleared!" by the Herald.

See journalists? See card-carrying Labourites?

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Nope, still not resigning (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2100470.0.Alexander_prosecution_threat _lifted.php).

I see that "it would not be appropriate to prosecute for this breach of electoral law" has been translated into "Wendy cleared!" by the Herald.

See journalists? See card-carrying Labourites?

Rolfe.

I don't think you have to ascribe any particular political ideology to the journalists to explain such a headline.


All I can say is that I hope scientists research into the strength of her fingernails - imagine if we could make glue that strong!

[Architect]

I use her greetin' coupon as a warning to the kids about the wind changing direction, myself, but perhaps the extreme pain in the fingernail direction might also explain her perpertual anguish....


...I give her 6 months, tops, then something about "spending more time with her family".

[Darat]

What have you got against her family?

[Architect]

Twins. Surely you'd be looking for more time away in order that you could actually get some rest?

[Rolfe]

I don't think you have to ascribe any particular political ideology to the journalists to explain such a headline.


To be fair, I don't really suspect Robbie Dinwoodie of being a Labourite. If you read Murray Ritchie's The Battle for Scotland, you'll see a passage where he describes Robbie, then his deputy junior reporter, going competely native on the Home Rule campaign, and I think there was blue face-paint involved.

Now, Murray (who was the more circumspect one at that time) has retired and come right out of the closet as a nationalist, while Robbie, as he gets more senior, is more and more mealy-mouthed.

I just get fed up with this "Wendy cleared" stuff, when she has been no such thing.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

...snip...

I just get fed up with this "Wendy cleared" stuff, when she has been no such thing.

Rolfe.

On this we disagree since I do think it has been cleared up.

Cleared up as in "It's been made abundantly clear that she is a walking disaster area and if she was sincerely so confused about what she had to do or not do, and/or had so little control over what people working on her behalf did or did not do, then who would trust her to pay the electricity bill on time never mind govern Scotland?"

[Rolfe]

Oh, I think you exaggerate the extent of our disagreement!

The laugh is that we were all told what a towering intellect this woman is, brain the size of a planet and so on, and also that if she had a fault (perish the thought!) it was too great a tendency to micromanage detail.

If this is the Labour party's idea of a towering intellect, I think it gives us some idea of their standards. Saving your presence, Darat.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Poll gives Salmond a 75% lead over Alexander (http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2123327.0.0.php).

That comes out a bit Irish, but it refers to the fact that Alexander Salmond polled +53% while Wendy Alexander polled -22%.

Yes, MINUS 22%. Not sure how you manage that, but it obviously takes skill.

How long do we give her?

Rolfe.

[Nogbad]

Poll gives Salmond a 75% lead over Alexander (http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2123327.0.0.php).

That comes out a bit Irish, but it refers to the fact that Alexander Salmond polled +53% while Wendy Alexander polled -22%.

Yes, MINUS 22%. Not sure how you manage that, but it obviously takes skill.

How long do we give her?

Rolfe.

I vote she stays until the next election :D

It looks like she won't have the backing of the Government by 2011 if English opinion polls are anything to go by though.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Why should she possibly resign? After all she has been perfect as Labour leader.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7317115.stm

"During the web chat, driven by questions from BBC viewers, listeners and online users, she was asked to score herself out of 10 for her performance since being elected leader unopposed in September last year.

"Rising all the time, I think is the answer," said Ms Alexander, adding: "Ten out of 10, 10 out of 10." "

If this is the best she can imagine doing, the worst would be something to behold!

From later in the same article:

"Ms Alexander also dismissed claims of arrogance against Labour politicians..."

You couldn't make it up, in the same article she awards herself full marks despite her repeated legal problems, embarassing herself over the budget vote and being seen as one of the SNP's most valuable assets, she dismisses claims of arrogance.

Long may she remain in post.

[Darat]

I suspect it's the SNP's fault, she's probably overheard SNP MSPs saying "You have to give her 10 out of 10 for helping us."

[Rolfe]

Someone on the Herald comments pages suggested it was ten out of ten for "getting away with - well - everything".

Rolfe.

[RandFan]

Rolfe. Waiting to see this thread sink beneath the waves, as nobody knows what it's about. When I read the thread title I thought to myself, "Wendy? Who the F is Wendy?"

Now I know.

[Architect]

After all she has been perfect as Labour leader.



Said Alex Salmond, live from the Parliament.....

;)

[Darat]

Followed by: "We couldn't have asked for a better leader for Labour in Scotland."

[Complexity]

I was wondering what Rolfe has against Wendy of the Wendy's franchise.

That could have been a bit more coherent.

[Darat]

Well this Wendy is the leader of the Scottish Labour folk and whilst Rofle has a political opposition to Labour folk since they do not want to destroy the UK (as a party policy)in this instance Rolfe's comments regarding Wendy are spot on, whether politically motivated or not. (But I don't buy into what I would consider the more "conspiracy theory" comments.)

The woman is a disgrace to the Scottish Parliament, never mind her own constituents and fellow party members.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

She was being interviewed on the radio on Friday during Labour's Scottish conference. Answering a question about her commission on constitutional reform, she remarked something along the lines of "we now have an opposition in Scotland who want the break up of the UK".

Newsflash for Wendy - you LOST the last election, consequently you ARE the opposition. You have had nearly a year to grasp this concept. Perhaps part of the reason you have been such an inept leader of your party is because you have forgotten this fact. You have no divine right to be in power - until you understand that, you won't be.

[Darat]

...snip...

Newsflash for Wendy - you LOST the last election, consequently you ARE the opposition. You have had nearly a year to grasp this concept. Perhaps part of the reason you have been such an inept leader of your party is because you have forgotten this fact. You have no divine right to be in power - until you understand that, you won't be.

Don't be so cruel - she's been a member of the Scottish Parliament for what 10 years now(?) and she still hasn't grasped the rules of that position - and you are expecting her to grasp that she is now the opposition after only a year! That is just asking too much of her.

[richardm]

I can't help but wonder if she's in the position as a cynical move. The party can use her to soak up the SNP's honeymoon period where almost anyone would struggle, safe in the knowledge that they're not wasting anyone capable.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I can't help but wonder if she's in the position as a cynical move. The party can use her to soak up the SNP's honeymoon period where almost anyone would struggle, safe in the knowledge that they're not wasting anyone capable.

That would make sense.

But only if I could think of anyone capable that could come in to replace her.

[Darat]

I've heard that this bloke (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/gordon_brown/kirkcaldy_and_cowdenbeath) is likely to be looking for a new job in a couple of years time - perhaps he will be interested?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I've heard that this bloke (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/gordon_brown/kirkcaldy_and_cowdenbeath) is likely to be looking for a new job in a couple of years time - perhaps he will be interested?

But only if I could think of anyone capable that could come in to replace her.

[Giz]

Apparantly you guys are just misogynistic oppressors (According to Comment is Free/Jackie Ashley):

Isn't it irritating when they open their mouths and start to yak away? Isn't it horrible when you get some older, and dumpier women appearing on telly as ministers, or opposition spokeswomen? It's a man's world. So can we just rewind that whole suffragette thing and go back to politics by the boys, of the boys and for the boys?

...

Ah, you don't like Harman? Fair enough, plenty don't. So how about Wendy Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, whose clothes sense, style and competence have been so savagely ripped apart in the media? She seems perfectly normal to me. Or Jacqui Smith? I may not like her attitude to civil liberties, but she's at least as good a performer as any of her recent male predecessors at the Home Office. Glance over the water where Hillary Clinton is now being ordered to give up her presidential ambitions by a male group of Democratic fixers. Like or loathe her, she's shown extraordinary guts and staying power, yet she seems to get not an ounce of credit for being a better fighter than any man. There is a quiet but strong misogynist current flowing just now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/31/women.gender



Ah, Comment is Free. Unintentionally, all to often like a left wing mirror of Stephen Colbert rather than intelligent commentary.

[Giz]

duplicate post

[Giz]

Duplicate post

[Rolfe]

Did you see Wendy in that baby-blue felt maternity smock thing?

It was just embarrassing. Even more embarrassing than Jack McConnell in the pin-stripe kilt, and that's saying something.

R-olfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So how about Wendy Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, whose clothes sense, style and competence have been so savagely ripped apart in the media? She seems perfectly normal to me.

Funnily enough I don't recall hearing her clothes sense or style criticised. Probably because there is so much to say about her lack of competence.

Or Jacqui Smith? I may not like her attitude to civil liberties, but she's at least as good a performer as any of her recent male predecessors at the Home Office.

Lets see, her recent male predecessors at the home office:

David Blunkett - resigned after being caught abusing his position to get his ex-lover's nanny a residence visa.
Charles Clarke - axed after failing to ensure that foreign prisoners were considered for deportation at the end of their sentence. When he left his successor described the Home Office as "not fit for purpose".
John Reid - presided over full prison crisis and failure to act on information provided of Britons committing offences abroad.

If all she aspires to is to be as good as that lot, she has very, very low standards.

Of course I'm probably just being anti-blind, anti-beardie and anti-catholic in criticising them.

[Rolfe]

I too have never heard Wendy's clothes sense or style criticised. Except in the context of the words "Gucci" and "Armani", which might conceivably be seen as critical when referring to a self-appointed "socialist".

Actually, I find this astonishing. See earlier comment about the powder-blue felt maternity smock.

[Edited to add: I just went looking for a picture of said powder-blue smock, but could find none. I did find a picture of Wendy actually pregnant with twins, in which she looked a lot less pregnant than she did in the outfit I'm referring to - which I hasten to add she was wearing earlier this year, when not (so far as anyone knows) in any way gestating.]

R-olfe.

[Architect]

Well this Wendy is the leader of the Scottish Labour folk and whilst Rofle has a political opposition to Labour folk since they do not want to destroy the UK (as a party policy...

Except, of course, that Wendy isn't actually leader of Scottish Labour, only the Labour Group in the Scottish Parliament - an important difference. She's no wider power. Bit of a slap down from Gordon, eh?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I am almost convinced there is a conspiracy at foot to give the Scottish, Northern Irish & Welsh governments easy targets. The latest is the Royal Mail with the new coin designs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britannia-banished-as-coins-get-a-makeover-803983.html

Lets see, we are going to have four quarters on the coat of arms - OK, we'll start with 3 lions guardant for England, then maybe a lion rampant for Scotland, next one's a bit tricky but lets see if we can get away with a harp for Ireland without offending the unionists too much. That just leaves one more - what else could we put in? Oh I know, lets have another three lions guardant for England. What's that you say? Wales? Well, err... Look its too late to change it now. Anyway it is based on the Royal Coat of Arms so stop whinging.

What do you mean there are different versions of the Royal Coat of Arms for use in different parts of the country? Really? Well it is far too much hassle to have more than one version and would cause confusion if we did. Well yes, technically we have had a number of different designs in issue for the same denomination coins for a large number of years and you are right, the economy does seem to have just about scraped along but we aren't doing it again, ok?

So to summarise the outcome of the design process:

We will upset some of the Northern Irish by using a harp, which is more closely associated with the Republic of Ireland than the North.

We will upset some of the Welsh by not including any symbol at all to represent Wales, choosing to have the English one twice instead.

We will upset some of the Scots by ignoring the fact that there is a separate Royal Coat of Arms for use in Scotland.

Well played all round!

[Architect]

Oh, I don't think it's willful. What upsets me is that it probably never occurs to them that it might matter.

Mind you, I live in a country where the only two post boxes with EIIR on them are listed because they're so rare.

Note to Americans: Scotland has never had a Queen Elizabeth II. We're still on number one.

[Darat]

Oh, I don't think it's willful. What upsets me is that it probably never occurs to them that it might matter.

Mind you, I live in a country where the only two post boxes with EIIR on them are listed because they're so rare.

Note to Americans: Scotland has never had a Queen Elizabeth II. We're still on number one....snip...

Really? When did Scotland have a Queen Elizabeth I?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

...snip...

Really? When did Scotland have a Queen Elizabeth I?

The current Queen Lizzie is the first Queen of Scotland to have had that name.

[Darat]

Well that is a grey area but even so that's got nothing to do with her title.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Well that is a grey area but even so that's got nothing to do with her title.

I can think of a simple way to resolve the problem both currently and going forward. ;)

[Darat]

Just a comment regarding the new coins (couldn't make one earlier hadn't seen them).

I really like the new designs as a design. My only problem is that of course what is chosen to represent the UK YET AGAIN!? Royalty!

As regarding the comments "oh nothing to commemorate X, Y, Z region" - well that's the problem about being hung-up with this royalty issue, and the idea that somehow Wales was overlooked by the Royal Mint and the designer is a a bit hard to swallow. The Royal Mint is based in Wales and the designer is apparently Welsh....

But why did the official launch have to be at the Tower of London? What was wrong with it being at the Royal Mint - oh I know, the Royal Mint isn't in London!

[Rolfe]

Dragging this thread back to its original topic,

BUMP.

Rolfe.

[Nogbad]

She is entertaining so in that respect I am content for her to stay. I guess it is really for Labour supporters to determine whether she is representing them adequately.

[Rolfe]

Oh, I love her dearly. I think she is currently every SNP member's pin-up girl.

But BBC1, Radio Scotland, Reporting Scotland and Radio 4 (in approximately that order and within the space of about 30 minutes) were all pretty much writing her obituary.

We'll see.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Just read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7389459.stm

...snip...

Mr Chisholm went on to say that Mr Brown "holds Wendy Alexander in the highest regard and trusts her political judgement".

...snip...




So that's it she's gone! :D

[Architect]

I hope she stays, and for obvious reasons. Pair lassie, on a hiding to nothing!


(and to think I was going to change my avatar)

[Rolfe]

I hope she stays, and for obvious reasons. Pair lassie, on a hiding to nothing!

(and to think I was going to change my avatar)


I hate to break it to you, but it looks as if Alex's valentine is on the way out.

‘She has to go’: Labour MPs call on Alexander to resign (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2261951.0.She_has_to_go_Labour_MPs_cal l_on_Alexander_to_resign.php)

WENDY Alexander was called on by Labour colleagues last night to step down as leader of the party at Holyrood as her brother, Douglas, made clear he supported Gordon Brown and the UK Government's line on an early independence referendum.

After a bad week for Labour, talk among MPs is that it is time for Ms Alexander to go. One told The Herald last night: "For someone who is clearly a very good friend of Gordon Brown's of many years' standing, it's time she went in his best interests."

One view on the Labour back benches is that with two years to go before the next General Election and three before the next Holyrood poll, now would be the right time for a new leader in Scotland to take the helm. The Herald was told there would be a lot of support for a challenger. One Scottish Labour MP insisted: "She has to go." [....]


I agree with you. When I started this thread I genuinely thought she was on the way out, and that taking the scalp of the Labour leader at Holyrood would be good for the SNP. Lots of people said no, leave her, she's the SNP's best asset where she is. I was't totally convinced.

I never in my wildest, most optimistic fantasies imagined she would do what she did on Sunday. Thank you, Electoral Commission, from the bottom of my heart.

Who knows what might still be to come if she stays in post? As one poster on the Herald keeps saying, "Wendy for Queen!" Unfortunately, Labour at Westminster seem finally to have figured this out.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

By the way, this is hilarious.

My Week: Wendy Alexander (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3904917.ece)

You know, I watched Have I got news for you because Mum said Wendy was bound to be lampooned, and I wanted to see it. Not a syllable.

OK, it's understandable that they wanted to have a go at Boris, but really, Wendy was a gift on a silver platter with an apple in her mouth.

I call racism.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Sorry, here's another one.

Wendy Alexander's leadership under fire as Labour hits all-time low in polls (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3904248.ece)

An opinion poll published yesterday in The Sun showed Labour plummeting to its lowest level in Scotland for 90 years, with support at 26 per cent compared to 32 per cent for the SNP in voting intentions for Westminster.

If the findings of the YouGov poll were replicated at the next general election the SNP would win 23 seats to Labour's 21.

The Scottish breakdown of the UK-wide poll is based on a sample of just 141 people, well below the level needed to give a representative picture. However, it fuelled anger in Labour ranks over the handling of the decision to back an early referendum Bill.

One Labour MP said: “Wendy might think she is cleverer than everyone else on the planet but she should not treat us with such contempt. This madness has got to stop.”

He added: “This was unadulterated selfishness. It is unforgivable that we were not consulted. We do not want to fight the next general election on the constitution — but now we don't have much choice.”

The Labour peer Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan also urged Ms Alexander to draw a line under the events of the last week, during which the Prime Minister distanced himself from her plan to call Alex Salmond's bluff.

He said: “As Denis Healey said, when you're in a hole stop digging. Someone needs to take the spade from her.”


The attached cartoon is particularly fine.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

By the way, this is hilarious.

My Week: Wendy Alexander (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3904917.ece)

You know, I watched Have I got news for you because Mum said Wendy was bound to be lampooned, and I wanted to see it. Not a syllable.

OK, it's understandable that they wanted to have a go at Boris, but really, Wendy was a gift on a silver platter with an apple in her mouth.

I call racism.

Rolfe.

Parochial southern English, London based media.......after all, what's the Union when BoJo the Buffoon is in charge of the Underground. :p

We watched HIGNFY too on the same basis, funnily enough, and I'd been meaning to work away on some projects too......(sigh). There goes today!

[Darat]

By the way, this is hilarious.

My Week: Wendy Alexander (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3904917.ece)

You know, I watched Have I got news for you because Mum said Wendy was bound to be lampooned, and I wanted to see it. Not a syllable.

OK, it's understandable that they wanted to have a go at Boris, but really, Wendy was a gift on a silver platter with an apple in her mouth.

I call racism.

Rolfe.

Or perhaps its just a topical 30 minutes comedy programme and they can only fit so much into?

[Architect]

Well, I always liked the longer repeats later in the week. Do they still do that?

[Rolfe]

Yes, but I don't think they introduce completely new topics. If there had been an item on Wendy at all, I think we'd have got at least some of the exchange.

Yes, there's only so much they can fit in. And of course there was Boris (and this isn't coincidental, as Boris getting in was part of what triggered Wendy's loose cannon). But it was still an awful waste.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Actually, there's a rumour circulating that Wendy will resign on Wednesday, so that the news is buried by the UEFA cup match.

That timing also has the advantage that she won't have to get involved in next week's seal clubbing.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Wendy resigning? On the one hand I do want to say "No don't" because she has provided so much entertainment, on the other-hand for politics as a whole it's a good thing, as I've said a few times in the past the woman is a disgrace. (And that has nothing to do with policies.)

[Rolfe]

In many ways I agree with you, Darat. Her whining, schoolgirlish jibes are a disgrace to the Scottish parliament and to politics in general. While she's certainly playing right into the SNP's hands, she's a thoroughgoing embarrassment.

The trouble is, she was sold to us as a great intellect. Brain the size of a planet. Only fault that maybe she was a bit too stuck on detail, could delegate more (and then look what happened over the donations!). We were told that her incredible eggheaded ability to grasp the minutuae of a brief would be more than a match for Alex Salmond and his more broad-brush approach.

As far as that goes, Alex has wiped the floor with her with monotonous regularity. The journalists have dubbed FMQs "the seal clubbing". When Alex had a stomach bug a couple of weeks ago, Nicola stepped in and in the words of once columnist papered the walls with her as well. She has such great grasp of minutuae that she started a TV interview insisting that even if she was in favour of a referendum, she certainly wouldn't announce it first on TV, then got carried away and did. She then announced her intention to table an opposition bill to call a referendum without realising that in fact she couldn't (prevented by two different procedural rules).

The really horrible bit is that she really does seem to be the best that Labour in Scotland has to offer. If not her, then who? All that bunch of jumped-up town councillors? The trouble is that while the SNP have their best candidates clamouring to stand for Holyrood, Labour are fielding the little league.

I don't know what they're going to do.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

This has advanced a bit more. She Parliamentary Standards Committee declared yesterday that she broke the rules in respect of not declaring donations.

Wendy Alexander broke Parliamentary rules over donations (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2363786.0.0.php).

They are deciding on her punishment right now, I understand. The place to watch (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7474475.stm). Consensus is that if she's suspended, she'll have to resign as Labour group leader. However, we've been there before I think.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Labour leader faces one-day ban (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7474475.stm).

The LibDems were pressing for a week. Sounds like a bit of a fudge to me. It will be interesting to see if she can survive this one.

Rolfe.

[richardm]

Looks like she's bowing to the inevitable (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7478913.stm).

Who's going to replace her, I wonder?

[Darat]

I've heard that her sponsors are devastated: http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=26&pictureid=137

I've been studying the qualities that Wendy has shown in her career, culminating with her recent outstanding contributions to the success of Labour in Scotland today and using this as a criteria I realized that there really is no single candidate that could combine her skill-set. So I am proposing her role should be split between these two outstanding candidates:

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=26&pictureid=139 and http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=26&pictureid=138

[Rolfe]

It's official (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7478913.stm).

I started this thread on 30th January. I never thought it would take so long, but considering all the "bring it on!" saga, I'm eternally grateful that it did.

Her resignation speech is bitter and resentful, and of course it's all the fault of that nasty SNP. (Yes, Wendy, we all realise that if Alex Salmond had been caught with his hand in the dodgy donations till, you'd have backed off like a lady and not made a fuss about such a minor indiscration - NOT!) Read it and weep (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2369250.0.Wendy_Alexander_quits_as_Sco ttish_Labour_leader.php).

This page here ("Wendygate (http://www.scottishpolitics.org/wendygate.html)") is very revealing about her entire, chequered career, though it currently hasn't been updated for over a month. Warning - it's a huge download, full of pictures. I hadn't realised quite how bad she'd been in Jack McConnell's cabinet, as I was living in England during that episode.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Oh please Rolfe - all this is clearly the result of a vexatious campaign orchestrated by the SNP to remove such an outstanding leader because they were scared of having such a talented person leading the opposition against them. Don't forget this woman only recently received a 10 out of 10 rating!

[Rolfe]

:D

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

You wait months for a Scottish parliamentary group leader to resign, then two come along at once (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2376490.0.Stephen_quits_as_LibDems_Sco ttish_leader.php)....

Rolfe.

[Architect]

Whit? Nicol Stephen too????? Can't I go on holiday without things getting interesting back home ??????!??