Articles By Andrew Morrison

Andrew is a sub-editor of Tory Hoose, with a keen interest in policy discussion and development. Andrew was previously No.3 candidate on the Glasgow Regional List, and candidate in Glasgow Pollok. Andrew has been selected to contest the Glasgow Linn ward for May 2012's Local Authority elections.

‘I DON’T AGREE WITH NICK’ – WE ARE THE PARTY OF SOCIAL MOBILITY

September 24, 2011   Andrew Morrison   No comments

 

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg used his main set piece at the Lib Dem conference to major on the themes of social mobility and equal opportunities. When critics feared the Liberal identity would over time be tainted us Conservatives in the Coalition, I had no idea the process would be so quick.

However, as the wider public know, just because a Liberal says something it doesn’t mean it is true. Conservatives have always been on the side of advancement, and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. A good barometer is the more forceful our arguments and indeed actions for social mobility are, the louder the howls from the Left become. Think back to the 1980′s.

Take the Right-to-Buy policy as a strong example: the single biggest and most successful transfer of wealth from the State to the masses, which took us from being in a position where dark corners of the country had home ownership levels on a par with the former USSR, to the position now where it is impossible to walk down a street in Scotland without there being an owner-occupier living within a mixed community. Far better than the ghettos of social housing versus pockets of privately-owned housing which existed before. Far more progressive, and far more socially mobile.

Where were the Liberal Democrats then?

When we took many state-owned industries and utility companies, and put them up for purchase by the wider public, creating a true property-owning democracy in the process and making many ordinary people shareholders for the first time, I again ask the question of you – Where were the Liberal Democrats then?

When one considers Grammar Schools – the deliverer of the best means of social mobility – what is the Lib Dem stance? No more – totally against. When parents wish to choose a decent school for their children so they can get a good start in life, irrespective of wealth, where are the Liberal Democrats? Nowhere to be seen.

Yes I agree, social mobility has ground to a halt during Labour’s term in office. The disparity between the income of the parents of people entering the professions now, compared to the average household, has increased. Increased beyond the disparity for people born in 1955 actually. This is a step backward, not forward.

Take our banks and finance houses as a prime example. We need the best talent possible at the helm of our major financial institutions – those with the technical expertise and numerical discipline to do a good job… not just he or she that can navigate the ‘Old Boys Network’ best. Not just because that is the fairer thing to do, but because it delivers the best outcome for the country at large.

In terms of policy, what does this mean we should do? Nick Clegg, to give him some credit, did make reference to unpaid internships, around which future prospects for many professionals are based. To a young man or woman looking to join a profession immediately after school, or after college / graduation, it just isn’t feasible to work for free. Living off Mum and Dad whilst working for free is though, and this is where social mobility hits a brick wall.

There are practical things we in the Conservatives could easily espouse to ensure it is potential and ability that determine success in life, not how successful one’s parents were. We can quite easily re-iterate the fundamental principles that made us successful in the past and assisted us in attracting support from all social backgrounds.

We did offer a useful policy at the May 2011 elections. We suggested introducing a graduate contribution, and setting aside tens of millions of pounds a year from that income to offer more bursaries to young people from financially-deprived environments so they could sustain themselves though University. After all, that is the main stumbling block for the poorer in society when considering Higher Education – it isn’t how to pay off the fees when one is earning a good wage – it is how to subsist themselves during studies.

Nevertheless, the opposition made a good job of tearing our policy apart, we never really espoused the virtues of what the additional revenue would let us achieve in terms of social mobility. The wider public thought because it was a Tory policy, there had to be a catch: in multiple polls, before the sample knew it was a Tory policy, the majority of the public supported it after all (figures quoted ranged from 63% to 67%). Yet when it came to the ballot box, they didn’t support us. Our message was lost in translation.

There are many professions one can enter now without a University education. Accountancy is a good example. The ACCA allows students entry after A-levels (or Highers). Between sitting the Association’s own exams, combined with work experience, one can become a Chartered Certified Accountant – without having to go to University. Because the end qualification is at a higher level than a bachelor’s degree, it is possible to obtain the degree easily afterward. The main barrier then is subsistence because trainees’ salaries are very low.

In that case, I propose in our next manifesto we should provide grants and bursaries to vocational trainees entering the professions in this manner – grants, bursaries and student loans on a par with those undergraduates at University would receive. If the end attainments are fundamentally the same, and we’re cutting out barriers for financially deprived young people – without a single ounce of dumbing down, as the professions regulate themselves in this regard – then where is the problem?

And where has Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, Labour or the SNP proposed a practical policy such as this?

Read More

Let’s ‘Call Time’ On Minimum Unit Pricing

September 21, 2011   Andrew Morrison   1 Comment

Scotland has a problem with the bottle… whether that is addiction, indirect harm through a friend or family member being addicted, or just not being able to afford any. Industry sales figures suggest that Scotland has the eighth highest alcohol consumption in the world. Some blame our miserable weather, some say we just like to enjoy ourselves (and cannot do that without a drink) – there is always an excuse for a cheeky pint or glass of wine.

There are questions of first principles around dealing with minimum unit pricing: what is the Government’s role in dealing with high levels of alcohol consumption? Is it to do nothing? Is it only to protect the innocent from harm? Or is it to, in effect, save people from themselves?

The SNP’s stance is, essentially, to save people from themselves. Well, sorry, the majority of drinkers who cause no harm to others do not need to be re-educated in this way. I know the risks already – and I certainly don’t want to live in a country where the State forces me to be fit and healthy. Those nations which went to great lengths to boss and order it’s people around to guarantee sporting success, for example, are totalitarian or former totalitarian nations, such as the GDR (East Germany), China, the USSR and North Korea.

That takes me nicely on to minimum unit pricing for alcohol. It is the social consequences of alcohol that the State must redress, not the health consequences for the individual. In short, the drinker consents to the harm done to the individual, but the child within their womb, or the family having to deal with drink-induced violence and abuse, have no say in the consent.

To my surprise, the SNP narrative on minimum unit pricing is that Scotland as a whole drinks too much alcohol, therefore a blanket price increase is a must to tackle our consumption levels. This is where I take issue. The concern is not directly for the social impact of alcohol consumption – it is merely the high level of consumption that they want to tackle. And their tactic is to kick people where it hurts – in their pockets.

The SNP say it will only be the cheapest of the cheap of drinks that will be affected. But hold on a minute here… think ahead to Christmas. How many supermarkets promote ‘3 cases of beer/lager/cider for £20’ around the festive period?
Now, here is an example – for 3 cases of a typical beer with a good brand name, the cost using many supermarket deals is £20. Using the SNP’s minimum unit pricing calculation, this could rocket to £34.43. People slam the supermarkets for selling alcohol so cheaply, but actually, I think they are amongst the most responsible retailers for alcohol. Most operate ‘Challenge 25’ policies to ensure they do not sell alcohol to minors, versus smaller ‘off sales’ retailers who can be rather more casual about selling alcohol to underage people.

This is where much of the anti-social behaviour that troubles our neighbourhoods is derived from. This is what should be tackled. This is what causes people grief, not the fact I may shave a year off my life because I like a drink or two. This is the natural realm of the State – whereas forcing healthy living routines down people’s necks is the natural realm of totalitarian dictatorships, such as China.

During the previous election campaign, the issue of minimum unit pricing came up at several hustings, and I gave the same answer each time: target the problem drinks, such as those laced with caffeine (apparently some tonic wines have a higher caffeine content than energy drinks sold for the specific purpose of giving a caffeine boost). It is the behavioural problems arising from alcohol that has to be tackled first and foremost, not the lifestyle choices of the masses. In terms of policy, this means a new category of alcoholic beverages for duty purposes, and hike up that level of duty. Then the Treasury, not supermarkets, will receive the extra proceeds.

Whether our own Dear Leader, Mr Salmond, would like to introduce compulsory exercise regimes in Scotland is a different matter. Yes, a hysterical claim to make at this stage… but the worrying thing is both the SNP and China have the same motivation towards public health: ‘if the people do not take the most extreme care for their own health, then the State must intervene.’

Scottish Conservatives must focus on dealing primarily with the social impact of alcohol, not health concerns for the individual with the social impact being secondary to that.

The SNP have their first principals wrong, so it naturally follows their policies in this field are flawed.

Read More

Does Scotland Build Things Anymore? Let’s Start With a Decent Education System…

September 16, 2011   Andrew Morrison   1 Comment

Who hasn’t heard, at some point, the statement ‘We don’t build things in this country anymore’?  The fact Britain is quoted as being somewhere between the fourth to sixth largest manufacturer in the world clearly illustrates this is not the case.  The British manufacturing base has remained stagnant over recent years, but this has been masked by a growing service sector, thus manufacturing appears to be in decline where it is not.  Indeed, in 2007 we manufactured more than twice as many cars compared to what we achieved in any year of the 1970s.  That doesn’t mean the manufacturing base we have at present is adequate, and the slow economic recovery following the banking crisis demonstrates this.

The downturn in the financial services sector here in the UK has left politicians across the political spectrum facing up to the fact we need to rebalance our economy and develop a wider industrial base, which naturally includes manufacturing.  Germany, the largest exporter of goods in the world outwith China, is driving the economic recovery in the Eurozone, with an estimated growth rate of 2.3% in the 2011 year.  Naturally this resilience can be attributed to German successes in the fields of science, innovation, engineering and manufacturing.

Germany’s manufacturing strength has not developed through sheer luck, but rather, as a result of a consistent and sensible education policy over the decades.  Whilst here in Britain we ploughed on into a ‘Brave New World’ of comprehensive education and a notion that one must graduate from University to make the most worthwhile contribution to society, Germany retained their specialist education establishments such as technical and vocation schools.

The ‘Hauptschule’, as the Germans call it, is one of five types of secondary school funded by the state.  Found only in former West German states – there are none in the former Socialist East Germany – these establishments put a large focus on technical and engineering training and I attribute German manufacturing success to their dynamic approach to educating young people, as compared to our dismal comprehensive approach.  Whereas, here in Scotland, if one cannot afford fees for independent school or buy a home within the catchment area of a desired school, then there is no choice of education establishment.  In deprived areas with lower stay-on rates after S4 (Fourth Year), there are fewer pupils to justify running wide ranges of Higher courses and perhaps too few to justify running Advanced Highers at all.

One of the main aims of comprehensive education is to reduce inequalities arising from differences in wealth, however, in my view it merely compounds them.  Those who can afford to live near a good state comprehensive buy homes there, and those who lack the wealth to do so have to accept whichever school is nearby.

Focusing on the German car industry as an illustration of the impact the education system has on manufacturing industries, it is no coincidence that quality German marques such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Porsche and Audi can be found on the streets of any reasonably-developed nation around the world.

Put simply, when it comes to manufacturing and engineering we in the West simply cannot compete with the Far East and BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India & China) on cost.  Purchase parity power and labour forces mean even if we have the most lax employment legislation feasible and if we worked as efficiently as possible, we still couldn’t deliver products to market at a retail price to compete with the East.

If the German example teaches us anything, it is we can still develop our manufacturing base, widen our economy and improve our trade deficit – but only through the innovations in the fields of science and engineering which will come through offering opportunity to all and improving all of our state secondary schools.

I was the Scottish Conservative & Unionist candidate in the constituency of Glasgow Pollok – home to BAe Systems, one of the last remaining shipbuilders in the River Clyde, which has recently been entrusted to build two new aircraft carriers as part of the Strategic Defence and Spending Review.  There are also new opportunities developing, especially in the field of renewable energy.

If we’ve to make the most of these future possibilities, we need a more flexible education system in Scotland to equip our future workers, researchers, scientists and researchers with the necessary knowledge and insight to identify opportunities and seize upon them, to assist in the development and manufacturing of unique products the East do not currently offer, and to produce high-quality and innovative products which are built to last and can compete with manufacturers in developing nations.

A ‘one size fits all’ education system across Britain – including Scotland – fits neither the individual nor the future needs of our country. 

Let’s learn some lessons from Germany, and re-evaluate the importance we put upon a university education versus learning vocational and technical skills at an earlier age.  We (Scottish Conservatives) were close at the last election, with the pledge to allow people to go to an approved, alternative education establishment at age 14, but we did not set out in our manifesto adequate clarity as to how this policy would work.

That vacuum left too much space for our political opponents to make hysterical claims and discredit what is fundamentally a sound concept used across the globe.  We need to develop the policy and point to Continental examples – something our high profile candidates utterly failed to do.  A prime example is the German model, as set out above.  If Germany can do it, I challenge the nay-sayers who lack ambition for Scotland to set out why we couldn’t here.

Read More

Labour’s Holyrood election massacre may be their blessing in disguise

September 15, 2011   Andrew Morrison   2 Comments

It’s hard to believe over four months have passed since the seismic shock of May’s Holyrood election.  It seems just yesterday Alex Salmond pulled off the unthinkable and took an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament, and cast aside the Labour Party in a country traditionally known as their home domain.  Scottish Labour are in a state of turmoil now, scurrying around in search for something secure to cling to in a period of absolutely no certainties -  just like ants scrambling for cover after a rock has been kicked aside.

Whilst it was a humbling night for many incumbent Labour MSPs, their Party’s regional list candidates were grinning inwardly with delight – they were going to Holyrood and the biggest challenges they faced on the night were trying to figure out where they could lay their hands on a tie, and what time Burtons opened at the next day.

Scottish Labour’s electoral defeat demonstrates how their MSP team failed in office and floundered out of it.  Being humiliated in a traditional heartland is a far fall from grace for those who were in government in 2003, kicked into opposition in 2007, and subsequently trounced in 2011.  But the future is not necessarily bleak for Scottish Labour if they make the most of what they’ve got.

Due to the massacre of their constituency MSPs in May, Scottish Labour obtained a wholesale clear-out of political dead wood: Andy Kerr, Frank McAveety, and Tom McCabe were among the Labour time servers thrown out with unforgiving punity at the hands of the SNP.  Gone is the notion of a safe Labour seat in Holyrood, and hypothetical ‘seats for life’ on the back of electoral inertia.  That means competition, and competition means more effort and a higher class of candidate.

Why should their party members accept the assumption every incumbent is superior in every way compared to every other prospective candidate?  Electoral selections should be based on merit and effort, not ‘it’s Muggin’s turn now’ or whoever is the flavour of the month within the Party/Trade Union hierarchy, or whoever on Earth calls the shots over in their camp.

So where do they stand now?  In came a raft of new Regional List MSPs who never really hoped to be elected, who represent practically every demographic: young and old, male and female, graduates of ‘The University of Life’ and higher education establishments alike.  Surely there is an independent thought process, a novel policy or two, within one of the new intake?  They sure weren’t amongst any of their fallen colleagues.  New talent and the ideas they bring to the table would help any political party reverse its electoral decline.

Reversing that decline requires a break with the previous leader’s failure to make headway, and that means it’s time for a new one.  This presents the Scottish Labour Party with a dilemma: do they break with the past and vest all hope in someone untested, inexperienced and ‘green’, or choose someone with an inclination of what has to be done, knows the ropes, yet leaves a trace of the stench of defeat?

With a diverse new intake, Scottish Labour will have the opportunity to cultivate a selection of potential future leaders to go forward from 2015.  After all, it is most unlikely the leader at the 2015 election will become First Minister; the best he or she can hope for is to bring the Nats into minority Government again, unless they achieve a movement even more shocking than May 2011 and there is no indication they can pull this rabbit from a hat.  To do so would be akin to conjuring up a hat out of thin air before pulling said bunny from it.  In that case, one of the newly-elected Labour MSPs this year could be the leadership candidate to be in real contention for 2019, and I’m being serious.  Which old-timer would be a) still alive, b) still compos mentis, c) of a viable age, at the election after next (2019)?

I’ll sign off by noting that some of you may be thinking “I thought this was a Tory-orientated blog?” and yes, I have given Scottish Labour perhaps more credit than they deserve.  My key point is “know thy enemy”, and more importantly, how do we get our own house in order?  The Sanderson report findings were implemented yesterday – all of it is good - particularly an amendment to ensure all elected parliamentarians are scrutinised through the use of annual appraisals.

We still need to ensure once the new structures which the constitution provided the framework for are utilised in the spirit Lord Sanderson intended, and the major overhaul we require now is how we overcome our own internal electoral inertia.  We must to get more of our new talent into Holyrood and Westminster in future.

Read More

The Case for Fiscal Autonomy

September 08, 2011   Andrew Morrison   2 Comments

The Scottish Parliament, so far, has been more good than bad for the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party. We have implemented our policies in Scotland for the first time in over a decade, have shaken off the hatred many sections of society used to hold against us, and our present leader Annabel Goldie commands fondness and respect across the political spectrum. Whilst Annabel is in the twilight years of her leadership, this demonstrates that a Scottish Tory can win the affections of the people, even if that does not necessarily transform into votes. Considering the Party was once wholeheartedly against the concept of devolution, we have rapidly turned a weakness into a strength.

The Scotland Act will make several major changes to the present devolution settlement. The fact that we Conservatives, as part of a coalition, can make changes to that settlement without cries of hysteria from Scots voters is a sign of how far we have really came from those dog days of the early 90’s.

The key change is to hand over more tax-raising powers over Income Tax to the Scottish Parliament. Following the SNP’s game-changing election victory in May, Alex Salmond called for autonomy over Corporation Tax also. There are already tax-varying powers bestowed upon the Scottish Parliament, whereby the basic rate can be varied up and down by a maximum of 3%, but this has been totally shirked by successive administrations.  Here is the opportunity to make the SNP more responsible for the good governance and economic stability of Scotland.  Who could they credibly blame other than themselves?

At long last, now the Scottish Conservative Party will be all it can be. We can tackle opponents in debate on the issue of tax rates, make the case of efficiency and value for money, and of course enlighten political opponents on the benefits of tax cuts. In short, rather than Scottish political discourse being merely how to best spend taxpayers money, we can now have dialogue about the longer-term benefits of a low tax base.

Members of the Scottish Parliament were once likened to ‘teenagers living on an allowance’ by The Economist, a comparison I’ve always found rather unfair on teenagers – certain positive and constructive behaviours are expected of teenagers for that allowance, and the SNP administration has not always demonstrated these behaviours to both the Coalition and the previous Labour governments.

We in the Scottish Tories cannot afford to be lagging behind Scottish opinion again, as we were on devolution. We have restored the political damage done to us by opposing the reinstatement of the Scottish Parliament, but if we were on the right side of that argument we would plausibly be ahead of our current thought processes, policy development and opinion poll ratings. The big question is do we commit the same mistake again with fiscal autonomy?

Our intellectual sentiments against devolution were sound but we misread the emotions running through the country at the time. This time around we can naturally fit into a supportive position of passing further economic powers to Holyrood because it makes intellectual sense. Giving elected representatives who are responsible for the governance of Scotland the responsibility of managing the finances they spend (or squander, depending on how one looks at it) is a conservative concept and we need to steal the initiative whilst Scottish Labour flounders.

Yes, as individuals we may not like what the SNP will do with more fiscal powers, but that is not a sound reason for us as a Party denying the Scottish people the powers they ostensibly want their Parliament to have.

The SNP may or may not learn from their mistakes in an economically-autonomous Scotland. They may fail to take on board the stability and respect the Coalition has won with sensibly managing the current UK finances, and they may fail to take on board the downgrading of the USA’s creditworthiness due to fiscal profligacy. We will just have to believe the Scottish people will recognise where the blame then lies change their voting habits accordingly.

After all, trust has to be earned, and how can the Scottish people ever trust us more fully if we don’t trust them?

Read More

  • Get Email Updates