Helen Eadie needs a deputy

It has been pointed out to me that I have been remiss in fulfilling Helen Eadie's dream to lead the Labour party to a memorable victory in Scotland.

Will Patterson has pointed out to me that I have failed to find her a deputy. In the spirit of co-operation and renewed vigour which is sweeping our country, Will has pointed me in the direction of the obvious candidate, a man who unites people, a man, in fact, who has managed to unite people from across the country and across the political spectrum.

He is a man who has become the very personification of Labour in Scotland, a man who brings unity wherever his gentle tread takes him - unity against him, right enough, but unity nonetheless.

Who is this colossus, this hero of the hour, this redeemer of lost virtues, this cleaner of Aegean stables?

Step forward councillor Terry Kelly!

In chorus, now:

El Tel Kel, el Tel Kel, el Tel Kel.

What a man, what a man, what a man

What a mighty good man

What a man, what a man, what a man

What a mighty good man

What a man, what a man, what a man

What a mighty good man

What a man, what a man, what a man

What a mighty good man

Down on the farm

This is Wendy Alexander scaremongering at Gorgie City Farm
This is a Jersey Cow
See any similarities?

It takes a real stroke of genius to get Wendy photographed beside a Jersey coo at the moment.

Take a bow Gavin Yates!

Catch the Hamster

We all have those days when we just want to protect something, don't we? I'm always cheering on those who are willing to go to the barricades to mount a sturdy defence of some animal less fortunate than themselves.

That's why, when I was reading the regular newsletter of Catherine Stihler MEP (Labour), I was delighted to find the headline

Confronting Hamster Hunting

Oh yes - you people may mock but this is a serious issue for the active hamster population in (as Ms Stihler has it) Hungry and Poland.

Aye, where do you go when you're Hungry in Budapest?

She's serious about defending them, you know -

Goddammit!

Not my work. Made me laugh though:

Bring it on back Wendy, Wendy, bring it on back to ...

Sorry, got carried away there. Much and merry have been the messages pouring in - comments on the post from yesterday, emails, text messages and a right strange phone call. Let me be clear, as the invisible man said, I'll fire these thoughts out into the ether and you can do with them what you will.

Ashflame
The Ashflame donation was declared to Parliament but not to the Commission (it was one penny under the limit for the Commission). Any politician who really did have honesty and integrity written through them would surely have declared it for the sake of clarity - even if it was a penny under. The Electoral Commission doesn't have the right to decide what it publishes and what it doesn't - declare a donation and they must publish.

Wendy Alexander - the donations and the Electoral Commission
On that point - Under Section 69(5) of PPERA (as applied by Paragraph 15 of Schedule 7), where any donation is reported to the Commission it shall cause details to be entered in the register in respect of the donation "as soon as is reasonably practicable". It still hasn't published the donations which Wendy Alexander claims to have reported to it when her donations scandal broke.

The Commission's obligation is to publish the details as reported to them under the donation report. It has no power to delay publication of the details of any donation. The phrase "as soon as is reasonably practicable" has been strictly interpreted by courts over the years. In this case, it simply recognises that there will be a very short delay between receipt of the report and the entering of the details from the report in the register.

Either Wendy Alexander lied about making the declaration or the Commission has failed in its statutory duty.

Dodgy Dinners
Labour sources claimed that the rip-off dinners were not direct fund-raisers for Ms Alexander, they were business networking dinners and, if they returned a profit, that money was used to help Labour candidates - so why has no-one else declared a contribution as a regulated donee?

Indeed, since the SIF was doling out dosh, why wasn't it a registered third party?

Intentional wrong-doing
I'm beginning to believe Labour about "no intentional wrong-doing". When Wendy Alexander gave her "Electoral Commission said I didn't do no wrong, George" press conference she did it in a Parliament Committee Room - which is against the rules. Maybe there is no intentional wrong-doing because Labour never bothers to think about the rules before ploughing ahead.

Buddhism
Ms Alexander claims to apply a Buddhist mantra of "is it true, is it necessary, and is it kind" - I think she misunderstands mantras and Buddhism - although I may be wrong.

A mantra is a spiritual lead, and it is the vibration of the sound that is important, it exists to help focus, not as a guide to right and wrong.

Maybe it's just the Buddhists I've met and spoken to and the writings I've read, but Buddhists don't seem to me to be much concerned with truth necessity and kindness. Buddhist concerns appear to be more about harmony on the road to enlightenment. Perhaps Wendy is the monk who did not physically lift the woman but is still carrying her, or perhaps she has a koan for all of us?

Working Mother
We were treated at the weekend to a long whinge from Ms Alexander about how hard she was finding being a working mother and a politician. Her husband only works part-time, so I'm sure she's in a better place than couples who both have to work full-time to make ends meet or single parents who have no-one else to rely on. She complains she has to employ a nanny for 40 hours a week as well as help to look after her house - I'm sure that there are some other mothers who would gladly swap places.

There are thousands of other parents in this country who just get on with it. Even among politicians there are plenty of parents who just get on with the job. There are parents in more senior positions than Wendy Alexander in Parliament who cope and there are plenty of parents around her who just cope. Most of those politicians who are parents also do everything they can to keep their children out of the public eye and would never dream of using their children as a shield - most of them would never mention the two twins.

She complains that she isn't always there for her children's bedtime. The same is true for parents who do things like clean Parliament buildings, work in pubs or garages, or even on the checkout in supermarkets.

Oh, the poverty
Ms Alexander claims that she is poorer now than at any time in the last 20 years. Like the little matchstick girl she can only look through the windows and marvel at the wonders. Aye, right.

The last eight years she was a member of the Scottish Parliament and so had an MSP's salary. OK, for some of that time she had a Ministerial salary as well, but that's the rub of politics - when you lose you lose - get over it.

Immediately before she was elected she spent a bit less than two years as a Special Adviser to Donald Dewar - less of a salary than an MSP.

Before that she had some time as a graduate recruit to Booz Allen & Hamilton - a grunt in an international consultancy which takes in about 1,200 recruits a year. That's only listed as being 1994-1997. We know that she was away by June 2007, so that might be three years.

There were two years before this when she was a student. A student better off than an MSP? I think not.

From 1988 to 1992 she was a researcher for George Galloway. Politicians' researchers really don't get paid very much - and certainly not more than an MSP.

So, in order for Wendy Alexander to be worse off now than at any time in the past 20 years she must have some devilishly expensive habits and her husband's part-time earnings as an academic must be terribly poor.

A high-flyer
Part of the claim about her genius is the constant assertion that she was a high-flying business consultant. She was a graduate recruit for three years - she never even got off the ground.

One of her erstwhile colleagues says "there was always a trail of destruction in Wendy's wake" - indeed. She has signally failed to achieve anything in politics - even when she was a Minister. The one thing she is remembered for is the section 2A debacle when she ignored all the principles of change management and rushed at it, determined to be the irresistible force, with the result that she raised the hackles of everyone on both sides, drove the issue into impasse and had to be relieved of responsibility for it.

There's some comment that she supplied the ideas for Donald Dewar's devolution dreaming. I have seen no evidence of any great intellect in Ms Alexander, but Donald Dewar was her father's friend for 50 years so perhaps he knew better.

Her performance leading suggests that she just isn't up to it, though, the budget nonsense was remarkable. She claims that what people will remember is the budget outcomes rather than the Parliamentary tactics - how the Dickens does she think those outcomes are reached?

Social Justice
Ms Alexander claims that she is staying in her job to deliver social justice for Scotland. Can I just point out her party's had since 1997 (at least) and has failed dismally.

Wendy Alexander herself was a student at the British-American Project for the Successor Generation - Baby Bilderberg - not exactly the beating heart of social justice.

Rant ends
To return to Buddhism for a moment, it is time for her to let it go and get on with the rest of her life.

Never forget, though - If you meet the Buddha on the road - kill him!

On the Trail of the Lonesome Eadie

In these times of trial and tribulation for the Great Wendy Alexander, we should never forget that other great leadership hopeful - yes, that's right, Helen Eadie, she of the tasteful floral blouse and rapier-sharp wit.

Word reaches me from Fife across a bridge with no tolls that Helen's been hard at it. Work I mean.

The hallowed columns of the Dunfie paper (The Dunfermline Press, donchano) indicated a veritable spat in its edition of Thursday January 17th 2008.

In the pale yellow corner (imagine a bad case of jaundice) were the doughty two - Willie Rennie and Jim Tolson like a latter-day Batman and Robin (was Robin Batman's batman?) came out snarling about the plan by the Scarborough Muir Group to develop land it owns at Rosyth waterfront - I think they want to build houses (are those nuclear submarine carcasses still stored at Rosyth? What a selling point that would be.)

In the floral corner is the heroine of the hour, MSP extraordinaire Helen Eadie. Who says:

“I think they have had to be brought kicking and screaming to the table to comment on this.
“It’s only when I have been so pro-active on the issue that they now have been forced to take a position.
“It’s a great pity that they didn’t join the discussions that the Rosyth Waterfront Liaison Group appealed for earlier in the year and it’s a great pity that they’re not having any regard for the people of Rosyth’s views either and are only looking at the business interests.”
“Very clearly at the public consultation events, the people have spelled out what their desires are and if they want to ignore the views of local people, I certainly don’t think that’s wise.”

Can't really argue with that, can you? No, I didn't think so.

On the 16th January, Helen Eadie had even gone to the trouble of arranging a wee do in committee room 6 of Parliament for supporters of Scarborough Muir's development.

That wasn't her finished, either. She also made sure that Chief Planner Jim McKinnon would be meeting the developers at the end of the month. Yes, that's right, in spite of all the nonsense, any MSP can get a meeting with the Chief Planner for major developers.

That's the way to do it, you show them Helen! Eadie for leader. I know where she can get funding for her leadership campaign - and from people who will be quite glad to be public about it.

I'm sure she will have forgotten, but in May 2006, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath Labour Party (Gordon Brown's constituency as well as Helen Eadie's) received a most generous donation of £1,350 from a company called Muir Homes and in August last year the Labour Party's Scottish branch received an equally kind donation of £2,500 from a company called Scarborough Muir Group Ltd.

I'm sure they'd be delighted to sponsor the Eadie to leadie campaign.

Wendy Alexander and the dodgy fundraising

The Scottish Industry Forum - what larks, eh?
As reported on the front page of today's Sunday Times, Wendy Alexander has been at the naughties (read it here). Excellent piece of investigative journalism.

Naughty as in "This way sir, table for two? Yes, it's a very worthy cause, it's perfectly alright, I'll look after your wallet for you. Pardon? Oh, yes, all about improving the local area. Thanks very much."

Slip to the hip and nothing left behind. If you're far too busy to read the article (written by Tom Gordon who will no doubt have a stalker by now), what she was up to was this - she had a Labour front organisation known as the Scottish Industry Forum (it used to come up with cracking wheezes like organising surveys which showed that nine out of ten unionists opposed Independence) and she used the SIF to organise a couple of fund-raising dinners. The dinners were fund-raisers for Wendibles but the guests never knew - the guests thought they were attending fund-raising dinners to help fund the regeneration of their area rather than slip £12,000 into Wendy's pocket. That's why members of the Conservative party and members of the SNP were there as well as others who don't support Labour. I'll have to check with m'learned friend but I believe that this is slightly outwith the usual run of fund-raising activities.
There are the usual question about why an MSP was in need of a £12k bung, but let's leave that on one side for a while (left side or right side, I don't really care, I'm not sure it matters) and take une petite peek at something that was mentioned only in passing in the Sunday Times article - Ashflame.

Actually, Ashflame was only in the paper edition rather than in the online edition. Here's what it says (in its entirety):

In 2004 Alexander's office received £1,000 from Ashflame, a local property developer in her constituency, but did not declare it. As the threshold is "more than £1,000", the donation was a penny below the wire.

Who or what is Ashflame? Well, let's zoom in a bit. Ashflame has six planning applications into Renfrewshire Council - applications to build on Phoenix Retail Park - some of the applications seem a little dated. Lovely development, I'm sure - 8.37 hectares I think, thousands and thousands of square metres of retail units.

How much will it be worth? Well, Ashflame paid almost £28 million for the place in 2005 - before any development, and the bits already leased out bring in rental income of £709,280 a year - so far. I do hope that all donations will be properly declared before the applications are considered or were properly declared before the applications were considered.

You would think, though, that a politician who had a development of this size in their patch and got a wee bung from the developer would want to declare it even though it was a penny under the threshold, wouldn't you? Just for the avoidance of any doubt and the desire to maintain a reputation for honesty, you understand ... How do I know all this? That would be telling, wouldn't it? Anyone who wants to unburden themselves about Wendy's doings and movings should feel free to drop a line or two to paisley.pattern@gmail.com - nothing to do with me, but I'm assured he'll do what he can to sort out politics in that area of the country.

A proper Renfrewshire Renaissance.

An interesting discussion

So there we were, m'learned friend, young grasshopper, Uncle Fester and I, in the club last night watching Newsnight, amazed that Wendy Alexander had taken to referring to herself in the third person (as in "well, Wendy has taken ...") as well as her strange delusion that she had done something good or actually achieved something by persuading the Electoral Commission that they didn't have enough evidence to refer her to the beak - she really needs to take a break for her own health and peace of mind.

Conversation after the programme turned in an interesting direction. Following on from the bit in the Electoral Commission's statement that said that prosecuting in this case wasn't in the public interest, I got to asking "how do they judge that?"

Not just in this case - other cases are deserted because prosecuting them further isn't in the public interest. How does a prosecutor (again, I'm assuming it's usually the proc fisc) decide which prosecutions would be in the public interest and which wouldn't.

M'learned friend tells me that the procurator fiscal has guidance from the Crown Office about the public interest test. I set off in search of that guidance - of which more later. The Electoral Commission, of course, doesn't have that guidance because it is not a prosecutor and really shouldn't be taking decisions about what is and is not appropriate for prosecution, but once an investigatory body like the Electoral Commission is set up such anomalies will occur.

Anyway - how to decide whether it's in the public interest to prosecute:

First, open the Prosecution Code
Turn to page 6 (8 of 16 in a viewer window)
You'll find things laid out there, not a flowchart or anything of that nature, but a list of things that have to be considered. There's quite a bit of detail, but these are the headings:

(i) The nature and gravity of the offence
(ii) The impact of the offence on the victim and other witnesses
(iii) The age, background and personal circumstances of the accused
(iv) The age and personal circumstances of the victim and other witnesses
(v) The attitude of the victim
(vi) The motive for the crime
(vii) The age of the offence
(viii) Mitigating circumstances
(ix) The effect of prosecution on the accused
(x) The risk of further offending
(xi) The availability of a more appropriate civil remedy
(xii) Powers of the court
(xiii) Public concern

There's very little that actually gets said in the document about what decision the procurator fiscal should make, most of it is couched in terms like this:

(xiii) Public concern
In assessing the public interest the prosecutor will take account of general public concerns as well as local community interests.
Arrangements can be made to enable local community representatives to discuss general matters of concern with the Procurator Fiscal although the final decision is the responsibility of the prosecutor.

Once the Procurator Fiscal has decided not to prosecute and advised the accused person accordingly or stated this publicly, there is no way to reverse that decision. Whether a decision of the Electoral Commission falls into the same category or not is an interesting question, but since the Crown Office has said today that there doesn't seem to be any basis for further inquiry it would seem that the case is dead.

Except that it isn't in the public domain yet. Justice must be seen to be done, after all - I'm sure some scribe of a great public organ is already beavering away.

A fine fellow is Tom McCabe

Oh yes he is. He got caught up in the Wendy Alexander scandal through no fault of his own and he'll have to declare those donations on his register of interests as a partner in that partnership, but he is a fine, upstanding member of the community.

That's how I know that the entry in his register of interests which reads

I own a flat in Edinburgh with a market value between £150,001 - £200,000 and receive gross income between £0.00 - £5,000 per annum.

couldn't possibly relate to the property he bought using public money as pointed out by -
Douglas Fraser in the Sunday Herald:

Tabloids seized on the story that the parliament minister and Labour chief whip had added to his £83-per-night Edinburgh hotel allowance with a £9500 allowance to pay for his own flat in the capital. And all this just 50 minutes' drive from his home near Motherwell, with a government-funded chauffeur at his beck and call.

Tom Brown in the New Statesman:

Tom McCabe, the minister for parliament (equivalent of the chief whip and leader of the house at Westminster), has scandalised Scots by negotiating himself a £9,500 annual allowance to buy a flat in Edinburgh - although his constituency home is only a 50-minute drive from the Scottish Parliament and he can claim an £83-per-night hotel allowance if unavoidably detained.

Tom Peterkin in the Telegraph:

An exception to normal rules governing expenses has been made for Mr McCabe, who has been criticised for being entitled to a £9,000 allowance towards buying a new house in Edinburgh.
Normally, the allowance should go only to MSPs who live more than a 90-minute drive from Holyrood. However dispensation was granted to Mr McCabe because of his ministerial workload. Mr McCabe was given the allowance on the basis that it would save on travel and hotel bills.
But yesterday it emerged that the cost of him staying overnight in the capital to work was much less than the £9,500 allowance. His bill for travelling from his Hamilton constituency and staying in Edinburgh hotels was £5,605.

And even the Daily Record said he should give the money back:

A HUGE 97 per cent of Record readers think perks scandal MSP Tom McCabe should hand back his pounds 9,500-a-year allowance for a second home

Budget

SNP budget passed.

With the budget now passed into law and the SNP spending plans being put into effect, Scotland is moving ahead again with progressive and far-sighted policies to encourage business growth, counter the poverty and disadvantage caused by the Labour Government in London. An excellent budget for Scotland.

Labour's voting was bizarre. The SNP Government accepted a Labour amendment because it neither added nor took away from the motion (in terms of impact), so the Labour amendment was passed. Then Labour refused to vote for the budget - Labour MSPs abstained (with the exception of Cathy Craigie who voted against).

Who, exactly, thinks it's a good idea to win your amendment and then not vote for the motion? It's like making your dinner and then throwing it at the wall instead of eating it. Iain Gray justified it by saying doing that meant that Labour won their amendment but didn't have to vote for the SNP budget. We can all only aspire to those giddying heights of intellectual supremacy ...

Helen Eadie must have taken over as leader and no-one told us.