Lord Pearson resigns from Ukip leadership

The peer says he is “not much good” at party politics, as Nigel Farage refuses to rule out running a

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who defected from the Conservatives in 2007, is to step down from leadership of the UK Independence Party after less than a year in the job.

In his resignation statement, Pearson said that he was "not much good" at party politics and that Ukip "deserved a better politician . . . to lead it".

Few would argue with that, after a generally poor election campaign. Pearson's credibility was damaged particularly badly in a disastrous interview with Jon Sopel, in which he appeared to be unfamiliar with his own manifesto:

 

 

 

The 68-year-old was elected to the position after the previous leader Nigel Farage stepped down to focus on contesting the Speaker John Bercow's Buckingham seat at the general election.

Farage, who suffered severe injuries in a plane crash on polling day, did not rule out throwing his hat back into the ring. Speaking on the Today programme, he said:

I'm not going to say I'm absolutely not going to do the job again, but I've got to decide in the wake of that accident whether I'm strong enough to take the job on.

The other problem is I'm still leading a group in the European Parliament in Brussels, can I do that and lead a party in the UK?

In an overlooked aspect to this story, Pearson has given some indication of what he will do next: he wants to spend more time with his dogs and family, and focus on his "wider interests". This rather random list of interests includes -- wait for it -- "the treatment of people with intellectual impairment, teacher training, the threat from Islamism and the relationship between good and evil".

Pearson's preoccupation with Islam has been well documented (click here for more details of his unpleasant rants on the subject). But intellectual impairment? Treatment?! I, for one, eagerly look forward to seeing how Pearson pursues these goals.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How a small tax rise exposed the SNP's anti-austerity talk for just that

The SNP refuse to use their extra powers to lessen austerity, says Kezia Dugdale.

"We will demand an alternative to slash and burn austerity."

With those few words, Nicola Sturgeon sought to reassure the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland last year that the SNP were a party opposed to public spending cuts. We all remember the general election TV debates, where the First Minister built her celebrity as the leader of the anti-austerity cause.

Last week, though, she was found out. When faced with the choice between using the powers of the Scottish Parliament to invest in the future or imposing cuts to our schools, Nicola Sturgeon chose cuts. Incredible as it sounds the SNP stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories to vote for hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cuts to schools and other vital public services, rather than asking people to pay a little bit more to invest. That's not the choice of an anti-austerity pin-up. It's a sell-out.

People living outside of Scotland may not be fully aware of the significant shift that has taken place in politics north of the border in the last week. The days of grievance and blaming someone else for decisions made in Scotland appear to be coming to an end.

The SNP's budget is currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament. It will impose hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts to local public services - including our schools. We don't know what cuts the SNP are planning for future years because they are only presenting a one year budget to get them through the election, but we know from the experts that the biggest cuts are likely to come in 2017/18 and 2018/19. For unprotected budgets like education that could mean cuts of 16 per cent.

It doesn't have to be this way, though. The Scottish Parliament has the power to stop these cuts, if only we have the political will to act. Last week I did just that.

I set out a plan, using the new powers we have today, to set a Scottish rate of income tax 1p higher than that set by George Osborne. This would raise an extra half a billion pounds, giving us the chance to stop the cuts to education and other services. Labour would protect education funding in real terms over the next five years in Scotland. Faced with the choice of asking people to pay a little bit more to invest or carrying on with the SNP's cuts, the choice was pretty simple for me - I won't support cuts to our nation’s future prosperity.

Being told by commentators across the political spectrum that my plan is bold should normally set alarm bells ringing. Bold is usually code for saying something unpopular. In reality, it's pretty simple - how can I say I am against cuts but refuse to use the powers we have to stop them?

Experts - including Professors David Bell and David Eiser of the University of Stirling; the Resolution Foundation; and IPPR Scotland - have said our plan is fair because the wealthiest few would pay the most. Trade unions have backed our proposal, because they recognise the damage hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts will do to our schools and the jobs it will cost.

Council leaders have said our plan to pay £100 cashback to low income taxpayers - including pensioners - to ensure they benefit from this plan is workable.

The silliest of all the SNP's objections is that they won't back our plan because the poorest shouldn't have to pay the price of Tory austerity. The idea that imposing hundreds of millions of pounds of spending cuts on our schools and public services won't make the poorest pay is risible. It's not just the poorest who will lose out from cuts to education. Every single family and business in Scotland would benefit from having a world class education system that gives our young the skills they need to make their way in the world.

The next time we hear Nicola Sturgeon talk up her anti-austerity credentials, people should remember how she did nothing when she had the chance to end austerity. Until now it may have been acceptable to say you are opposed to spending cuts but doing nothing to stop them. Those days are rapidly coming to a close. It makes for the most important, and most interesting, election we’ve had in Scotland.

Kezia Dugdale is leader of Scottish Labour.