A Patsy – And Everyone Kens It

It’s not been a good week for the Lib Dems, but spare a thought for their Orkney and Shetland MP, Alasdair Carmichael. On Monday afternoon, his party leader Menzies Campbell decided to call it quits. Later that evening, Carmichael was to be found snarling and spluttering his way through a Newsnight Scotland interview, lashing out left right and centre at those whom he deemed responsible for the end of Ming’s Dynasty.

His repeated shouting down of presenter Glenn Campbell was inexplicable. However, most extraordinary of all was his attack on fellow interviewee, Scottish Editor of The Times, Magnus Linklater, whom he accused personally of undermining Campbell on the grounds of age – an utterly risible suggestion given Linklater’s own vintage, well-known Lib Dem sympathies and long-standing personal friendship with, er, Menzies Campbell!

However, there’s another story involving Carmichael, this time relating to Foot and Mouth which emerged only late last night. As such, it is not covered very extensively in today’s papers, so please bear with me, while I set out the background:

On 10 October, given the plight of Scotland’s ‘light lambs’ following the foot and mouth movement restrictions, the Lib Dems were urging Scottish Ministers to ‘stand up for Scottish farmers’. When First Minister Alex Salmond did exactly that, revealing that an £8.1m compensation package intended for Scottish farmers had been withdrawn by Westminster over the weekend, the Lib Dems then complained that the SNP government was ‘grandstanding’, and that by publicising Westminster’s change of heart, what they were doing could only ‘harm government links’.

You can see how the Lib Dems were hoping that this story would pan out: ‘Typical SNP, always picking fights with Westminster for their own partisan ends… only the Lib Dems can be trusted to….. blah, blah, blah’. So to try and reinforce the point, Carmichael decided to arrange and put himself at the head of a cross-party and farmers’ delegation to Hilary Benn and DEFRA, which would ‘repair the damage done by the SNP in Edinburgh, and bring about an early resolution of this critical issue, which will benefit Scotland’s crofters and farmers’.

His initiative was greeted enthusiastically by a Labour Party feeling the heat over the SNP’s refusal to cover up a blatant attempt at electoral bribery. In particular, it was embraced by Scottish Secretary Des Browne, who went out of his way to reciprocate the love-in at Scottish Questions yesterday. It was all set up - the SNP would be made to look like constitutional wreckers, while the Lib Dems would be allowed to pose as an effective voice of reason, and would come away with some beads and knives for their trouble.

What a shame, then, that no-one told Agriculture Minister Hilary Benn, who according to James Withers, the Deputy Chief Exec of the National Farmers Union Scotland, told the delegation that the problem facing farmers north of the border was "not big enough" to merit any compensation, and effectively “washed his hands” of the problem. As one MP allegedly put it to Benn during the meeting, “As a unionist, you’re not leaving me with much”. But really, what more did they expect?

So, despite all the posturing and politicking, Carmichael too has been told to get lost by Westminster. The difference is that Carmichael and his party, through their naivety and willingness to grandstand against the Edinburgh Government, have shown that when it comes to a choice between standing up for farmers, or standing up for Labour, their priorities certainly aren’t with the farmers.

So – leaderless, directionless, guileless… the charge sheet just keeps growing. Meanwhile, Scotland is kept waiting for Westminster to face up to its constitutional responsibility to offer compensation. Having walked away from government in Edinburgh and Cardiff, after the events of the last week it seems that the Lib Dems are walking towards irrelevance at Westminster as well. Really, what purpose do they serve any more?

Menzies Campbell Statement

Rumours sweeping Westminster that there's to be a statement in the hour about Menzies Campbell's future as Lib Dem Leader. More soon.

UPDATE 18.35: He's gone. And the press conference is being led by Simon Hughes and Vince Cable, who is to act as interim leader. The process for electing a new leader will be announced tomorrow.

Both have just exited stage left, refusing to answer questions of "Did you wield the dagger?". Given Campbell's role in Charles Kennedy's eventual departure as Lib Dem leader, it reinforces the proverb that 'you can build a throne of bayonets, but you can't sit on it for long'.

Trouble At T'Mill

I posted earlier in the week about the respective performances on Thursday of Wendy Alexander and Menzies Campbell, where I was fairly kind about Wendy and pretty scathing about Campbell. For the sake of a snappy headline, though, I suggested that this might have been Campbell's last outing as Lib Dem leader, something which seems to have raised at least one set of eyebrows - in retrospect, quite rightly as well.

My reaction to Campbell's speech has been pretty much at odds with the rest of the world, which was either rabidly favourable (most Lib Dems); gave the benefit of the doubt (the MSM); or completely ignored it (everyone else) - but such is life. Of course, the Lib Dems would never be so daft as to ditch a leader when everyone suspects an election only weeks or months away. However, there is still dissent there. I still reckon that if we do have an autumn or spring election, providing either Chris Hune or Nick Clegg holds their seat and is in a position to challenge, we've almost certainly seen Campbell deliver his last conference speech as Lib Dem leader.

One thing which I didn't forsee was the hebdomas horribilus which was about to befall Wendy Alexander. In common with some others, I actually thought her delivery at FMQs was OK, even if the topic she chose and the 'facts' behind it were somewhat off-beam. I even resisted the temptation to intrude on private grief when the ludicrous George Foulkes slated her newly appointed Head of Communications, Brian Lironi, as "an idiot", and said of former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish that he was a "strange guy" who should "shut up".

But then, I really didn't need to, since there are plenty others around to do that. According to a 'senior Labour source' in today's Sunday Mirror: "Foulkes is a self-important buffoon fast becoming a liability in Scotland", who "seems to think he is licensed to shoot his mouth off at every opportunity regardless of consequences".

"He could be got rid of without a by-election and it could be portrayed as him having to go back to London because of his terror work in Lords. But the reality would be that the party wanted rid of him quick."

Now, Henry Mcleish can look after himself, but Wendy had a duty to slap Foulkes down for his attack on a party employee. She ducked that responsibility, and Lironi has apparently gone off sick. For what it's worth, I've been a party official myself, which is why I sympathise. If someone attacks you, professional etiquette demands that you maintain a diplomatic silence and rely on others to stand up for you - if that doesn't happen, then you might as well pack your bags, which according to the Sunday Herald's Paul Hutcheon and Scotland on Sunday's Eddie Barnes, he plans to do this week, after just two months in post.

But the problems don't end there. According to the same Sunday Herald piece, Labour MSPs are now complaining that she is shutting herself away with a wee clique of advisers. One Labour MSP commented: "Wendy's had a disastrous first week in charge. The party's more split than I can remember, while another weighed in with "Wendy said she'd changed. She said motherhood and marriage had made her a more sympathetic person. That's bollocks."

That sort of discontent and bile usually takes months, if not years to build up. Much was made about the inability of the left to mount a challenge to her, but in an economically, politically and socially conservative movement like the Labour Party, that really shouldn't have been a surprise. Never mind the standard posturing that emanates from the 'Campaign for Socialism' every so often - my suspicion is that these dissenting voices come from the moderate mainstream of Labour - the constituency which was supposed to be happiest with Wendy's elevation.

As I said, I've been wrong a couple of times this week. However, if I'm right and these dissatisfied voices are those in the mainstream who lacked the courage to mount a challenge when they had the chance, wouldn't that represent the most most dangerous political cocktail of the lot?

A First, And Perhaps A Last Outing As Leader

Some thoughts on Wendy Alexander's first appearance at FMQ's:

Not a bad performance, even though it was somewhat scripted and she was clearly a little nervous. Concentrating on abstruse points of detail is fine in small doses, but in devoting all her questions to the government central heating programme, she needed to explain why it was so wrong for the new government to be trying to 'improve' the scheme.

That she failed to do, and while her final 'zinger' about spending money on rebranding the Executive as a Government(£100k) and the funds for a broadcasting commission (£500k) was passable, it was still a bit of a damp squib. Contrary to expectations, the First Minister was restrained throughout. It looks like if there's going to be sharp exchanges, they're going to be initiated by Wendy. Alex can do emollience when it's called for - the question is, can Wendy?

Some thoughts on Menzies Campbell's speech to the Lib Dems:

This is dreadful. Utterly unconvincing, he resorted to shaking at one point to try and convey passion. Every joke greeted with nervous laughter, the silky advocate reduced to cringeworthy rhetoric about fighting - it's excruciating to watch.

"I want to be a voice for the disposessed, the marginalised, those whose voices aren't heard". You're addressing them, Menzies, you're addressing them. And the classic: "It doesn't have to be like this". Indeed not - but isn't that what your detractors have been saying for months?

Oh, he's finished. I only noticed because Andrew Neil took the microphone. Piss-poor perorations R us, anyone?

Scottish Questions, Devine Interventions And Lib Dem Intrigue

It was Scottish Questions today at Westminster, not that you would have noticed from reading the BBC website. If Scottish Questions was a waste of time before devolution - being largely clogged up with home counties Tories asking puffball questions designed to extoll the virtues of the Union - it has even less relevance today, what with there being an SNP government sitting in Edinburgh.


A few MPs were enjoying their first outings following last week's party reshuffles. Des Browne and David Cairns have been promoted to Scottish Secretary and Minister of State respectively. Ben Wallace also popped up on the Tory benches as the new sidekick to fellow ex-MSP David Mundell. But to show that some things never change, Livingstone MP Jim Devine again made a fool of himself, slating the SNP for imposing single status agreements at West Lothian Council, when they were actually set in train by Devine's council colleagues from the outgoing Labour administration. Oops...

However, perhaps the most surprising and least remarked upon change, was the Lib Dems' replacement of Jo Swinson with Orkney and Shetland MP Alasdair Carmichael. For all that I've said some pretty harsh things about the Lib Dems in the past, I genuinely don't have a bad thing to say about either Jo Swinson or Alasdair Carmichael. Sure, some of Ms Swinson's contributions could be a bit earnest and predictable at times, but I can't think of anything she's either done or not done over the period she held the post to merit her demotion.

That said, Alasdair Carmichael has an easy, fluent manner, and comes across very well indeed. He is clearly head and shoulders above many of his Scottish Lib Dem colleagues, including at this point in time Jo Swinson. However, that was also the case at the time Jo Swinson was appointed, so why change things round now?

Trouble behind the scenes, or further evidence that Menzies Campbell just doesn't really have the stragegic and managerial skills needed to build a decent team? Any Lib Dems prepared to have a go at explaining this one are cordially invited to the comments section for a discussion :-)

A Memorandum and a Misunderstanding?

So. The UK government has reached a 'memorandum of understanding' with their Libyan couterparts, which will see both sides "commence negotiations" over prisoner transfers, extradition and mutual assistance in criminal law.

Let's be clear - this is unexceptional in itself. However, given the sensitivity of these issues as they pertain to the justice system in Scotland, where a Libyan national is currently serving a life sentance for the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 in December 1988, it is a subject which you might think would have been raised in advance with Scottish Ministers.

Alas, no such consultation ever took place, either with the outgoing or the incoming Scottish government. The outline deal was struck on 29 May, yet it took until Monday 4 June for details to be revealed to Scottish Ministers. While incidences of cock-up tend to outnumber those of conspiracy where government is concerned, it's still a massive discourtesy, and a huge embarrassment at best.

In spite of this, the Scottish Government's response has been remarkably restrained so far, with Alex Salmond writing to Tony Blair to seek an explanation. This, together with the measured tone he has adopted, must come as a bitter disappointment to those determined to find the first evidence of the SNP Executive picking a fight with London. Indeed, that was the approach taken by Newsnight, which led with the story this evening on the UK-wide section of the programme. Bizarrely, despite Salmond having already taken part in the UK programme, the later Scottish opt-out seemed able to take umbrage at his not appearing to be asked the same questions by them ("he never writes, he never phones", was their take on proceedings. Don't they get phone calls from their colleagues in London either?).

But back to the main event. Presenter Kirsty Wark took up a line of attack which even the most rabid and partisan attack dog would have struggled to sustain. And struggle to sustain it she did, repeatedly shouting Salmond down and trying to cut him off mid-sentence at the end when there was little time pressure to conclude the interview. It was an approach which seemed very out of character for a presenter who ordinarily manages to generate far more light than she does heat.

Now, Alex Salmond knows how to handle himself, and certainly doesn't need anyone's help to defend him in an interview. If it had been me, though, the temptation to tell her to away and bile her heid would have been overwhelming, so kudos to him for keeping his cool, and reminding her that not only did he accept that Westminster had the power to do what it had done, but that her supposedly 'killer revelations' that no formal deal had yet been signed, or decision made regarding any individual prisoner, were ones that he himself had already placed on record earlier in the day in Parliament.

To show how extraordinary the Newsnight approach was, here are responses from other leading figures to the revelation of the existence of the memorandum:

Labour leader Jack McConnell: "As former first minister I would have expected and demanded no less than prior consultation on such a memorandum.

Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie: "Tony Blair has quite simply ridden roughshod over devolution and treated with contempt Scotland's distinct and independent legal system."

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell: "The Government's ineptitude in handling this matter has given Mr Salmond precisely what he wanted. Westminster and the Labour Government have given the impression of disdain for the Scottish authorities.

Labour MP Tam Dalyell: "Surprisingly I am sympathetic to Mr Salmond. The only way that Megrahi can prove his innocence is through the Scottish legal system."

And from long-time spokesman for the Lockerbie victims, the dignified Dr Jim Swire, whose lost his own daughter in the outrage, we have: "Incredibly it seems that we are being asked to believe that this concerns other Libyan nationals, but not Megrahi. No mention of any discussion was given to us, the Lockerbie relatives. Mr Salmond should indeed remain indignant: Scotland has been insulted."

You can see the First Minister's statement to Parliament here.

Age Shall Not Weary Him

'What is the point of Menzies Campbell?', is a question with which I've been wrestling for quite a while now. In many ways, it's a question I never thought I'd ever be asking myself, since I'd long had a kind of sneaking regard for him. Sure, whenever matters SNP reared their head, I'd always found his knee-jerk patrician sniffiness to be absolutely insufferable. Otherwise, though, he earned my respect for both looking and sounding like a thoroughly competent MP who knew exactly what he was talking about.

I see in retrospect that mine was quite a rose-tinted view. That sure-footedness, demonstrated in matters of home and international affairs, has never quite been there when it comes to the equally important arenas of economic, health and education policy. In fact, it seems that the very qualities that made him appear so well cut out to be a Home or Foreign Secretary - his dispassionate aloofness and cultivated appearance of somehow being above the vulgar posturing of lesser mortals - are the very same qualities which are now rendering his stewardship of the Lib Dems such a becalmed and uninspiring affair.

Oddly, he seems to have diminished in stature since assuming the Lib Dem leadership. His perceived lack of support for Charles Kennedy tainted him from the start, as did his many fluffed appearances at Prime Minister's Questions. But never mind the recent fuss about whether he'd dump PR to get into government with Labour. To me, it is his apparent inability to connect with voters or to articulate any kind of coherent policy agenda, which should be causing the most discontent in Lib Dem ranks just now.

They are dropping, slowly but surely, in the polls. Where people liked Charles Kennedy even if they didn't necessarily respect him, Campbell seems to suffer from the reverse. Concerns about his age are raised, to which he now responds with an unbecoming prickliness. Watching him try to address this irrelevant jibe is becoming an increasingly painful sight. Like Gordon Brown trying to convince Middle England that he would make a good Prime Minister, the more Campbell tries to stress his youthfulness, the less it convinces.

Let's be clear, his age is largely irrelevant if we regard it as being an attitude of mind rather than a physical characteristic. In fact, I get the feeling that Campbell was probably middle-aged by his early twenties. And as one of the many politicos spawned by the Glasgow University Union Debating Society in the 1950s, it would have been surprising if he'd turned out any other way.

For all his protestations of having grown up in a Glasgow tenement, Campbell is a politician from the upper-middle classes, imbibed with a paternalistic and slightly patronising sense of noblesse oblige. But what once reassured about Campbell now just grates. And it is this, I think, which is what is hampering him and his party, rather than any questions about age. Like Gordon Brown, a section of voters has decided that they don’t particularly like him. And while voters cite Brown’s ‘Scottishness’ as being his prime draw-back (something which doesn’t seem to affect John Reid), it is Campbell’s age which is being held against him.

Highlighting the most obvious perceived flaw of someone we dislike is an instinct we develop in the playground. It might not be fair and it might be as base as it gets, but as Neil Kinnock, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith all found out, if the voters won’t take to you then electorally-speaking, both you and your party are toast.

The Lib Dems, while often confounding the pundits, have for the past while seemed like a party in search of a role. The charisma of a Paddy Ashdown or a Charles Kennedy has always in the past allowed them to escape the scrutiny they deserved for being all things to all people. With a revitalised Tory Party in England under David Cameron, also no slouch at appearing to be all things to all people, the days of the Lib Dems being able to hoover up the votes of the disenchanted now look to be numbered.

Scorching the Earth

Well, at least we can't say we weren't warned...

McConnell Starts Dirty War

"There is nothing that Labour can say that will change peoples' minds about Labour. There is no point in having a positive campaign because it doesn't wash. There isn't a bit of evidence to suggest that going positive will make any difference. They don't know Jack and they don't like Labour." - Labour Campaign Source.

Sir Menzies hits out at opponents

The Liberal Democrat leader questions Gordon Brown's "courage" to lead and attacks David Cameron.

So there you have it. Since Labour and the Lib Dems (the original Labour saving device?) have little good to say for themselves, they'll try and scare people away from their opponents; play the man rather than the ball at each opportunity; drive down the turnout and then hope for the best. Anyone fancy a sweep on how long it is before Lakshmi Mittal is paying for posters round Scotland of Alex Salmond with 'demon eyes'?

UPDATE - just found this excellent post by Will Patterson, saying much the same as me, but with far more eloquence than I feel like attempting just now. Read and enjoy.