Responding to criticism the Pete Wishart way.

Yesterday I wrote  about how SNP MP Pete Wishart had taken to Twitter to throw some personal insults around about Mike Moore and Jo Swinson. Ok, so he didn't actually use any sweary-words, but  suggesting a panda, which sleeps 20 odd hours a day and chomps bamboo the rest of the time, would be a better Secretary of State for Scotland can never be construed as polite. And his extraordinary press release the other day described Mike as attention seeking and pointless and painted a picture of a man desperate to save his job. They clearly have a quality control problem in the SNP Media Centre.

When the supporters of independence have a growing cybernat problem, you would think it would be sensible for their elected representatives to behave with a bit more decorum.

Anyway, he didn't much like being criticised.

First came the "sensitive wee flower" tweet mentioning this post I wrote about Tory MSP Murdo Fraser retweeting an insult of Willie Rennie:

And then this:

Yip, he's blocked me. Although it did take him two attempts.

I think I might have hit a nerve.

I assume it's because he wants to continue behaving badly without me telling the world about it. I tend to do that with anyone who behaves rudely or unpleasantly towards other people. I supported Eilidh Whiteford completely over the way Ian Davidson behaved towards her, for example.

I can't see Pete Wishart's timeline, but if you see anything from him, or anyone else behaving disrespectfully towards opponents, diminishing and dumbing down the quality of debate, screengrab it and send it to me. It's time to name and shame those who drag our political environment into the gutter.

There's always an excuse..... #lordsreform

Remember the Labservatives? That was the brilliant Liberal Democrat advertising campaign which satirised how Labour and the Conservatives collude to prevent meaningful reform.

We saw it with the AV referendum. Much as though I'd prefer we just hadn't gone there, the nasty and vitriolic no campaign, backed by rich, powerful vested interests, fuelled by a collusion of people like Tom Harris from Labour and Tory Nadine Dorries emphasised that politically and socially conservative forces would stop at nothing to hinder even the most modest of reforms. Ed Miliband's half hearted support for the Yes campaign and his reluctance to work with the Liberal Democrats did no favours for either him or his party.

And now we have it again over Lords Reform. Ed Miliband's Labour Party, which went to the country promising:

Further democratic reform to create a fully elected Second Chamber will then be achieved in stages. At the end of the next Parliament one third of the House of Lords will be elected; a further one third of members will be elected at the general election after that. Until the final stage, the representation of all groups should be maintained in equal proportions to now. We will consult widely on these proposals, and on an open-listproportional representation electoral system for the Second Chamber, before putting them to the people in a referendum.

Nick Clegg's House of Lords Reform Bill gives them pretty much what they want. Not all, but closer to what they want than the status quo by a long chalk. Why on earth they are intending on walking into the voting lobbies behind the likes of Nadine Dorries and Eleanor Laing and other right wing Tories is beyond me. For a party that's supposed to believe in democratic accountability, this is a major betrayal of the British people. Do they really think defeating the Programme Motion gives the Bill a better chance of scrutiny? Really? By giving the floor to the Tory right to pontificate for hours on how much they hate Nick Clegg   how giving power away brings them out in hives. Structure to the debate is always preferable to that sort of anarchy.

Every Tory MP stood on a platform of building a consensus on a democratically elected second Chamber. Nick Thornsby has had a good look at their recent history on this. In terms of consensus building, the Liberal Democrats have been prepared to compromise and so should they.

Now, let's face it,  there are elements of the House of Lords Reform Bill that make me foam at the mouth. Why on earth we are keeping in an albeit small number of places for Bishops is beyond me. Nobody should sit in a Parliament by rights because of their religious position. If they want to be in Parliament, they should stand for election like everybody else. I'd also rather see the Chamber 100% elected rather than 80% and I think there should be the option for people to re-stand. Having said all of that, I'd happily vote for the Bill as it stands. There is no way, in a modern democracy, that members of a parliament should be appointed by the political leaders of the day for life with no way of ever getting rid of them whatever they do. It is a major change to ensure that 4/5 are chosen by the people.

You can always find an excuse not to do what you know needs doing but you really don't want to. I know that more than most. There's always an excuse not to give up overeating unhealthy food (well, I'm going out for dinner 3 weeks on Saturday, no point in starting now) or go to the gym, even though I know perfectly well that, however much I don't want to, I'll be a lot healthier and happier even if I managed it half the time.

Labour needs to stop being so precious and decide whether it's for greater democracy or against it. It failed to deliver Lords reform in 13 years when it had a parliamentary majority so we know their heart isn't in it even though on paper they accept it's the right thing to do. If Ed Miliband follows Peter Bone and Nadine Dorries into the no lobby tonight, he'll be saying that his Labour party is no different to its predecessor.

The Guardian, not exactly the Liberal Democrats' best friends, has strongly urged Labour to get a grip and seize the opportunity to reform this arcane institution.

If Labour cannot bring themselves to agree such a motion, then they are not being true to their history as a party of reform. Neither dislike of the coalition nor frustration at its proposed timetable justifies going into the lobbies with Tory MPs whose only concern – as they made clear in a torrent of reactionary interventions and speeches yesterday – is to preserve the Lords as it exists today. To vote in a way which effectively abandons the bill to filibuster and delay would be a shameful decision for Labour, with its fine record, ancient and modern, on Lords reform. Keir Hardie and Robin Cook would turn in their graves.

So, what will Ed Miliband do?

Also in the Guardian, our Charles Kennedy says:

There are only two reasons to oppose this bill: to defend the establishment and the status quo, or to give a bloody nose to the coalition generally and Nick Clegg specifically. Progressive politicians can have no truck with the former, while the latter is cynical short-termism of the most counterproductive kind.

Labour politicians for generations have fought to bring democracy to the House of Lords. Most recently Jack Straw made a valiant effort to try to end the hereditary principle. He did so with the support of the Lib Dems. But the establishment kicked back and his reforms, while progress, were minor and piecemeal. And at the last general election, reforming the House of Lords was included in the Labour manifesto by its author, Ed Miliband.

I actually feel quite fearful and sad this morning at the way vested interests and conservative forces are trying to hold us back, to stamp all over the dreams and rights of others. In Scotland we have a Cardinal, the head of the Catholic Church, basically telling LGBT people that he's coming to get them.  We can't allow a Church to threaten the democratically elected Government of the day when poll after poll shows that a significant majority of people back equal marriage. It's not for me to set the Catholic Church's priorities for them, but surely any war chest of £100,000 would be better spent on helping the poor and vulnerable than funding a campaign of hatred against people who simply want to marry the person they love. It's not even as if the Catholic Church is going to be forced to conduct same sex marriages so why they should feel the need to prevent others from exercising a basic human right is beyond me.

Liberals have to stand up to this sort of pressure from vested interests, whether it comes from within the Westminster Bubble or from the churches or from large corporations. It will be very clear, looking back on all of this, that the Liberal Democrats were unwavering in their quest to give power away, to tackle the establishment, to argue for the freedom and tolerance that is so important for any society. If the arguments over Lords Reform and equal marriage prove anything, it's that the Liberal Democrats are badly needed. Labour and the Tories definitely can't be trusted to challenge the established order of things. We'll see how far the SNP will go on equal marriage and whether they will stand up and how, or if, they vote tonight on Lords reform. Their Angus McNeil made a lot of interventions yesterday but didn't actually tell us very much. There's a surprise.

I'm finding the whole atmosphere of politics really difficult at the moment. It's poisonous, polarising and not helpful for proper development of ideas and debate. Politicians generally need to do better. It's hardly surprising people just aren't engaged in the debate or think that politics or politicians can do anything to help them.

Mr C and Alex Fish give politics and the media a wake up call

Last night I went to see Anna's drama group's annual performance for parents and friends. The play was one the kids had entirely produced themselves. I may be a little biased here, but I honestly think it could hold its own on the Edinburgh Fringe. It combined satire, comedy, drama and tension almost seamlessly as it explored issues around drugs.

The most powerful scene in the whole play was when drug dealers, who'd picked up a vulnerable young girl from the street, threatened her and her family unless she acted as their mule. It as a tense scene, exceptionally well acted by the three girls.

Interspersed with that frightening tale was the backdrop of celebrities and politicians running an anti drugs campaign. The politicians, Mr C and Alex Fish (and I feel I should point out that Mr C is the PM, not his deputy for the avoidance of doubt) were every bit as vacuous and shallow as the celebrities. They were also guilty (in the play) of blatant hypocrisy as well as criminal moves on the dance floor.

I would never expect my daughter to take anything less than a questioning attitude to authority. However, it worries me that a group of the brightest, most talented teenagers have such a cynical view of politicians, portraying them as entirely narcissistic and unpleasant. The last thing you'd ever want is for them to be deferential but the edge to what they'd produced is a cause for concern.

In my experience of almost 30 years in and around politics, I've found that most people in all parties are decent folk who want to change people's lives for the better. There is disagreement in philosophy and approach, but most are in it for the right reasons. The culture and perception, especially in the wake of the expenses scandals, that they are all out for themselves, is false. There are plenty valid reasons to criticise them, from naivety to incompetence to lack of intellectual rigour and also reasons to cut them a bit of slack, too. People make mistakes and learn from them. It's a fact of life. Yet, when a politician does it, even if it's not that serious, it can be terminal. I'm not talking about the obviously self serving mistakes, but instances where they've tried to do their best and it hasn't worked out. The more time spent suggesting solutions and the less pumping vitriol into the atmosphere, the better in my view.

It strikes me that both politicians and the media need to up their game. Where does the perception of self obsession come from? Well, sometimes from the proponents themselves, in the way they conduct themselves. Even those of us in politics watch the circuses that are FMQs and PMQs with an undercurrent of despair. Those pantomimes take up in total half an hour a week, yet the angry exchanges they contain are most likely to be all people see of what goes on in Parliament. Nobody wants to hail people actually getting on and working together and getting the job done.

The media loves to talk about splits and fallings out and politicians kicking lumps out of each other. Working together? Not so much. Hopefully the Leveson Enquiry will open people's eyes to the tactics and lack of ethics in journalistic practice and will make them more aware of the agenda behind the stories in our papers.

Politicians need to take a long, hard look at the public perceptions of them. They may not be true, but they are there and they are influencing people. The bright young people on the stage last night had something to say about the issues of the day. They showed knowledge, creativity and emotional intelligence. They are exactly the sorts of people it would be great to have in politics but they'd probably reject it.

I'm not suggesting that people should go into politics expecting deference, or not to be laughed at. That's never going to happen and nor should it. Surely it's not too much to ask, though, that our politics is conducted in an atmosphere of a little more mutual understanding and empathy. With the European economy on the brink, with the future of Scotland at stake, surely it's not too much to expect quality debate and not mudslinging.