David Maddox: Things that should not be done with parliamentary equipment

Labour MSP Karen Whitefield (pictured top left) has been landed in a spot of bother today by her parliamentary researcher who put out the following e-mail:



From: <Karen.Whitefield.msp@scottish.parliament.uk>
Date: 27 October 2009 10:22:46 GMT
Subject: Telephone Canvassing for Glasgow North East
Dear Colleagues
Just a reminder that Usdaw have agreed to open their Edinburgh Office on Wednesday night for MSPs/ MSP researchers to help with telephone canvassing for the Glasgow North East by election.
The office will be open between 5.30pm and 8pm.
If you can spare an hour or so to help out, please let me know ASAP - a voting button is attached.
Usdaw will also be opening up next Wednesday evening so if you could help then, please let me know.
Thanks
Cara
Cara Hilton Parliamentary Researcher to Karen Whitefield MSP for Airdrie & Shotts



Unfortunately Ms Hilton managed to send this e-mail not only to Labour MSPs and researchers, but every single one in the Scottish Parliament, including all the other parties. In fairness Ms Hilton did realise her mistake and try to recall the e-mail but too late.
For those who do not know this breaks the code of practice, which is that MSPs must not use their staff during work time or parliamentary facilities for political campaigning of this nature.
The reason for this rule is that tax payers' money should not be used for party political activities.
Naturally, complaints were made and Ms Whitefield has had to give the authorities assurances that her office has not done this before nor will it do it again.
But there was an interesting lack of public complaining about and parties calling the media to cry foul, which suggests that this sort of thing may be more widespread than this one indiscretion.

But this is not the only indiscretion to come my way today. I note that Lib Dem Dunfermline and West Fife MP has been a bit sulky about the beeb on his Twitter.
He wrote: "is not impressed by Radio Scotland's Scotland@10 - I did them a favour by staying late but then got cut out half the slot."
I guess worse things happen, even to sulky MPs.

Eddie Barnes - The Great Debate....Barnes v Maddox

In series 5 of the Wire there's a great comment from the news editor at the Baltimore Post that, at their best, newspapers "are places where people constanly disagree with one another". In that spirit, I'm going to go head-to-head with my esteemed colleague David Maddox (and this is risky; he sits behind me) on the subject of the general election TV debate debate, as he calls it.

The story so far.....the broadcasters have said they want a debate, and the Conservatives, the Liberals and Labour have all agreed. Last weekend, the SNP - which will not get a podium place - said it would be taking legal action. In a previous post, David declared with typical panache that the SNP was getting its knickers in a twist. He said it was hubristic of that SNP to insist that they got involved, and that it would be absurd for non-Scottish viewers to have to watch the views of Alex Salmond being aired when none of them had the chance to vote for his party.

Well, clearly that would be strange. But I don't see how you can argue that having a debate screened in Scotland involving only Messers Brown, Cameron and Clegg is anything other than anti-democratic. If these debates do go ahead, let no-one be in any doubt about the importance they would hold (there will be 3 of them under the plans being considered by the BBC, ITV and Sky). We in the media would go predictably nuts and they would become easily the most important part of the election schedule. Ofcom recognises the SNP as one of the a main party in Scotland, along with Labour, the Tories and the Liberals. Are we seriously suggesting that in Scotland one of the main parties is going to be excluded? Why not exclude the Liberals instead? Or the Conservatives? Or Labour?

I've spoken to broadcasters in Scotland about this debate idea and they are pretty sceptical about the whole thing meeting the strict rules which cover election coverage. Frankly, the SNP seem to me to have a hard and fast case. Labour has suggested that we have a kind of Division Two clash involving all the leaders of each party's Scottish Westminster group. But would you dash home from work for the chance to watch David Mundell take on Alastair Carmichael? Thought not.

Personally, I would like to watch a TV debate take place. So what to do? I have no idea. Maybe there should be three more debates, to be broadcast in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - in which the UK party leaders stand alongside the leaders of the SNP, Plaid and Ulster parties respectively. It's not exactly likely to happen, I admit. Incidentally, I'm not at all convinced that Alex Salmond should be the person representing the SNP, given that he isn't standing for the General Election.

But I'm not here to provide answers. I just think that to exclude one party which represents the views of a substantial part of the electorate from such a high-profile occasion -an occasion which could decide the votes of thousands - is plain wrong.

Over to you David.

David Maddox: Fielding at silly point again

It's good to see that I have returned from a fortnight's holiday and the great Scottish cricket debate has a bit more life in it still than England's bowling attack had today at Edgbaston against the Ozzies (as evidenced in this picture on the right of England all-rounder Andrew Flintoff).

When I left bouncers were still be aimed at the head of Nationalist Glasgow list MSP Sandra White (pictured below left) for putting down a motion calling for the sport to be removed or at least reduced on Scottish television.

The furore seems to have been the reason for a visit by SNP Sports Minister Shona Robison to an under-15s game to show that the Nationalists are not prejudiced against the summer game and SNP ministers even welcomed an idea by Labour's Richard Baker of getting Neds to play the game as a distraction.

However, it appears that Ms White, whose name at least reflects the proper colour of cricket attire, has not been stumped.

Instead she has sent down another googly in the form of another motion backing the BBC Trust's demands for sports to be returned to terrestrial television.

The following is the text of the irate e-mail I received which more than explains it.

"It's interesting to note that Sandra White welcomes the inclusion of the Scotland World Cup games and Commonwealth Games 2014 but fails to mention in her motion that the BBC Trust also recommended the inclusion of England Home Test Matches and the Cricket World Cup Final and the 20/20 cricket final. She really doesn't like cricket does she !!!"

I don't think anything needs to be added.

David Maddox: For Foulkes Sake (10)

Labour have deployed their weapon of mass distraction in the MP expenses row.
Yes Lord George Foulkes, Baron of Cumnock, First Lord of the Twittery, MSP to the Lothians and interviewer of Jack McConnell, has been let loose on BBC journalists, who you may remember are among his favourite targets.
No stranger to the odd expenses row of his own - £54,000 I seem to remember (as revealed by my colleague Tom Peterkin) - he has been sent in to defend the indefensible on the TV.
This interview is worth a look as he harasses a publicly paid BBC presenter into admitting that she gets £92,000 off the British public for sitting their wearing lip gloss or "harrassing politicians," as the good Lord put it.
Amazingly, despite earning that wage she had not thought of actually doing any research to counter Foulkes on his various jobs and expenses.
It was a classic example of sinners and casting the first stone, but in these times of austerity maybe a warning shot across the bows of the BBC.
After all, as Lord F pointed out, that particular presenter is one of the lower paid BBC presenters paid at the public's expense to "sneer at democracy."

BBC and Barack - Eddie Barnes

Like most people, I instinctively turn to the Beeb for big events like the Obama inauguration, but after the waffle-fest which we endured yesterday, I'm not so sure.
Apart from an excellent background documentary about Obama's rise to power presented by Clive Myrie on BBC 2, I waited in vain for some decent analysis of the day's events. All we seemed to get were dozens of reporters running around the Mall asking people "did you ever think you'd see this day?" (three cheers to the black guy who said "yes") and a stream of guff from the supposed in-house experts as they sought to fill in time. Even the Great Paxo was reduced at one point to asking some random academic: "Did you cry?"

I suppose I would say this wouldn't I, but if you want some good analysis of yesterday's events, buy a newspaper.

David Maddox: For Foulkes Sake (4)

Never let it be said that the good Baron of Cumnock - Lord George Foulkes MSP of the Lothians region - does not know how to win friends and influence people.
Having managed over the last couple of weeks to have found almost every way possible to insult BBC Scotland - "pretty poor," "parochial" and "pro-SNP" were among his more tender remarks - I gather Lord Foulkes has been invited to a drinks do this evening with BBC Scotland staff by the Corporation's Scottish chief Ken MacQuarrie. What's more the noble lord has accepted the offer.
Far be it for me to give advice to a seasoned politician, but he might want to check what's in his drink.

David Maddox: For Foulkes Sake (2)

By George he's at it again. As promised the regular contributions of Foulkesisms from Lord George Foulkes, Baron of Cumnock, one of Holyrood's most colourful and straight-talking MSPs.
Not satisifed with his destruction of BBC Scotland in a broadcasting debate on Thursday describing it as "parochial" and "pretty poor" amongst other things, but he has had another go at the Corporation in the Sunday papers.
Now he says that the BBC is "SNP biassed." This has puzzled the SNP somewhat.
This is the same BBC Scotland which has a prominant employee married to Scottish Lib Dem leader Tavish Scott and a presenter who used to be a Labour councillor, the Nationalists have privately pointed out.
Admittedly John Swinney is also married to a BBC employee, but SNP members have long made plain their feelings that BBC Scotland and Labour are too cosy by far.
All this is just further evidence on how high the stakes are becoming in Scotland in what now must be seen as the long run-up to a general election.
Most political journalists in Holyrood are getting increasing numbers of anguished calls and e-mails from the parties as they try to put pressure on us to put their message above others.