Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Avatar
|
McConnell has issued an unprecedented warning to ministers | Quote: | JACK McConnell has issued an unprecedented warning to ministers not to brief against him or anyone else in the Executive, it emerged last night.
The First Minister was forced to act after at least one minister briefed journalists and condemned Mr McConnell's choice of Rhona Brankin as the new communities minister.
Click to learn more...
One minister was quoted anonymously describing Ms Brankin as "incompetent" and deriding Mr McConnell for appointing her to his Cabinet. One apparently said the First Minister had "lost the plot".
It is understood Mr McConnell summoned all his Labour colleagues, full and junior ministers, to a private meeting on Wednesday during which he made it clear he would not tolerate any unauthorised briefing of this sort.
A Labour source said the First Minister had been "furious" with the attacks on Ms Brankin and had hinted that anyone found responsible would be sacked.
The source said: "Jack laid down the law. It was as simple as that. He said that this had to stop and he would not tolerate it any more."
A spokesman for Mr McConnell confirmed that he had spoken to Labour ministers but stressed that the meeting was private. He added, somewhat cryptically: "He talked about the leadership that Labour ministers need to show over the next few months."
Mr McConnell is thought to have been completely taken aback by the criticism of Ms Brankin's appointment earlier this week.
He did not know some of his colleagues had such strong views on Ms Brankin that they were willing to brief the press against her. And the First Minister was aware that such unauthorised briefing was, if anything, even more damaging to him than it was to Ms Brankin.
It showed that not only do some ministers not respect his decisions but also that they are willing to challenge them - anonymously - in the media.
Mr McConnell knew he had to act quickly to reassert his authority, which is why he issued his stark warning to his Labour ministers.
The saga has caused problems for Mr McConnell ever since the resignation of Malcolm Chisholm as communities minister just before Christmas.
Mr Chisholm left the Cabinet after voting with the SNP against the replacement of Trident. He resigned but made it clear afterwards that he had been left with no option but to do so.
Mr Chisholm's departure was an embarrassment in itself for Mr McConnell, but it was compounded by the fact that, without the Edinburgh North and Leith MSP, there were no Labour ministers left in the Cabinet from anywhere other than west and central Scotland.
Stung by the criticism that his Cabinet was unbalanced and unrepresentative, the First Minister knew he had to try to get someone into the Cabinet from outside the west of Scotland.
For that reason, Ms Brankin, the MSP for Midlothian, seemed an ideal choice, but Mr McConnell did not know, or had not been told, how poorly she was regarded by some of her colleagues.
Mr McConnell then had to endure public taunts from Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP's Holyrood leader, in the Scottish Parliament yesterday.
She wanted to know why Mr Chisholm had been forced to resign over an issue, nuclear weapons, which was reserved to Westminster.
Referring to the criticism of Ms Brankin's appointment, Ms Sturgeon added: "According to yesterday's newspapers, senior members of the First Minister's own party now think he has completely lost the plot." |
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=58662007
|
Aventinian
|
She's a terrible choice of minister, but if a government minister makes statements against the government, then they deserve the sacking they will received.
If McConnell doesn't take the Scottish Parliament with a reasonable majority over the Nats, he'll be the one who is going though. Who'll replace him though... I can't think of one suitable person. Maybe Wendy Alexander on reflection, but that's about it.
|
Economist
|
| Quote: | | If McConnell doesn't take the Scottish Parliament with a reasonable majority over the Nats, he'll be the one who is going though. Who'll replace him though... I can't think of one suitable person. Maybe Wendy Alexander on reflection, but that's about it. |
More like Andy Kerr, Tom McCabe or some of the rest of the McConnell clique. And I think that would be worse than McConnell himself.
|
SLG
|
I don't understand why one or two of the bigger hitters from Westminster have never stood for Holyrood to up the quality somewhat (I'm not including Baron Foulkes  ). Is it as simply that none of them will lower themselves to work in a second rate regional assembly? Or are they so confident that even the limited quality of the Labour group in Holyrood will be enough to hold on to power? Or both?
Can they really expect to hold on to power indefinitely with what's on offer?
|
Aventinian
|
Because Holyrood is a dire, miserable pit, a blotch on the landscape, a talking shop full of idiots and a purgatorial training ground for over-ambitious, jumped up arseholes.
I certainly wouldn't want to work there.
Meanwhile go and have a tour of the Palace of Westminster... then you'll see the contrast right away.
|
SLG
|
But Labour wanted it. Yet now they neglect it. Doesn't make sense to me.
You might not want to work there, but surely as a Unionist you recognise that unless the Unionist parties up their game, the SNP could end up the biggest party. Surely that is enough of a threat to make some of them sacrifice their Westminster job, no?
|
Aventinian
|
| SLG wrote: | But Labour wanted it. Yet now they neglect it. Doesn't make sense to me.
You might not want to work there, but surely as a Unionist you recognise that unless the Unionist parties up their game, the SNP could end up the biggest party. Surely that is enough of a threat to make some of them sacrifice their Westminster job, no? |
Well I think they either detach themselves from thinking about the matter - the Westminster bubble is alive and well - or simply are fairly confident in the Scottish parliamentary party to deal with such threats, as you suggested.
Either way, there's often a great void between someone being concerned about something and actually making a negative change in their own lifestyle to protect it.
|
Aventinian
|
Was just reading BBC news, came across a very interesting article on this very subject:
| Quote: | Dewar 'feared MP challenge' claim
Donald Dewar did not encourage Labour MPs to stand for the Scottish Parliament because he feared competition, it has been claimed.
Labour peer Lord Foulkes suggested Scotland's inaugural first minister, who died in 2000, feared too many Labour MPs moving to Edinburgh.
The claim was questioned by Mr Dewar's former spin doctor, David Whitton.
But former Labour MP Dennis Canavan said Mr Dewar actively tried to prevent some MPs going to Holyrood.
'Not good enough'
Lord Foulkes' comments came in an interview with broadcaster Lesley Riddoch to be broadcast on Tuesday on BBC Radio Scotland.
When the Scottish Parliament began in 1999, five MPs made the move with Mr Dewar - Sam Galbraith, John Home Robertson, Henry McLeish, Malcolm Chisholm, and John McAllion.
They were joined by Lord Watson, the former Labour MP Mike Watson.
Two MPs, Mr Canavan and Ian Davidson, failed to win places on Labour's list of Holyrood candidates.
Mr Canavan, whom Mr Dewar was said to consider "not good enough" for the Scottish Parliament, then won election to Holyrood as an independent.
Lord Foulkes said in the interview: "To be honest, Donald Dewar didn't encourage too many people to come up with him to Scotland.
"I think he didn't want too many people around competing and challenging him."
He said: "Donald has a great deal to commend him and everyone does that.
"But he also wasn't the greatest enthusiast for us all coming up and making our mark in Scotland, otherwise I think some more people might have done."
Lord Foulkes, formerly Scotland Office minister George Foulkes, plans to stand at the Holyrood elections in May.
'Rigged selection'
He said: "Now that the opportunity has arisen and Jack McConnell is keen to see people like me standing for the Scottish Parliament, I was very enthusiastic to take up the offer."
Mr Canavan said: "Donald conspired to stop certain MPs from standing for the Scottish Parliament by setting up a rigged selection system headed by mediocre stooges.
"Their job was to weed out anyone who might challenge the Labour leadership and as a result the Scottish Parliament was unfortunately deprived of some good experienced parliamentarians."
Mr Whitton, who like Lord Foulkes is standing as a Labour Holyrood candidate in May, said: "I don't think Donald actively encouraged anyone to stand as he felt it would be a personal decision for the individual.
"However several Labour MPs and one peer did make the move." |
Now that might have worked, if Donald hadn't made the mistake of dying.
|
SLG
|
I like the way that Foulkes seems to consider himself one of the MPs that Dewar was scared of.
Interesting article though. Was Dewar really that lacking in self confidence that he didn't think he could cope with any of those who would want to move to a Scottish Parliament?
|
|
|
|