Scottish Referendum

Glasgow City Council and New Labour a Systematic Transfer of Finance and Assets From the Public Purse to the Wallets of Friends of Labour




imgid38478222  McAvetty


cash_2285410b       imgid50709322-jpg-galleryPurcell

These two Guys Led Glasgow City Council




The Empire That Was – Glasgow & the Labour Party

Steven Purcell, leader of Glasgow City Council, (GCC) quit office without warning amid increasingly fevered allegations of drugs, corruption and sleaze. The Labour Party, “shut up shop” and said nothing. The Scottish Labour party’s control of life in the West of Scotland is wide reaching across civic life.

This has always been accepted as, “that’s just how it is”. That familiarity, which at times can feel too close for comfort, can also be a benefit but a much darker side was exposed. Politicians, businessmen, media and the law were so interlinked in this tale that it is difficult to see the wood for the trees.

Blair once hailed Purcell as a, “visionary civic leader”, and his rise from, “deprived” Yoker, to leader of the Council at the City Chambers seemed to personify the Blairite fantasy of meritocracy.







But the entrepreneurial narrative is implicitly an individualizing discourse: being, “excluded” is at least partly one’s own fault for having the wrong skill set, the wrong character traits or the wrong kind of family life.

In this context, alternative, and more importantly collective models for dealing with one’s personal situation, (workplace or community organizing, grass-roots campaigns, etc.) become inconceivable. To disagree is to be, “against aspiration”, to be recalcitrant and against change, to want to keep people, or one’s self, in the ghetto.

The positivist aspects associated with this discourse have unravelled of late with Purcell quitting his posts amidst cocaine and alcohol confessions; the quoted strain of running the local authority; the pressures of planning the Commonwealth Games; and controversies over Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. The recession has also worked to de-legitimise the modus operandi of the market calculus personified by Purcell’s administration, though hardly as much as it should have.







Following Purcell’s fall, the dominant Labour Party within the Council quickly sought to distance themselves from his once venerated Leadership, concerned that, “everything the council achieved during Mr Purcell’s time as leader has somehow been devalued”.

This acute reversal suddenly averred that the, “City is not just about one man”, that the, “transformations” were, “not because of the person who was in charge but because of the hard work and dedication of you and your colleagues” at the Council.

But recriminations over Purcell’s personal life shouldn’t obscure the fact that he’d been heading a local authority caught up in a web of, “cronyism” and an, “elaborate system of political patronage”. The real issue – that which, “scandal” obfuscates – is the restructuring of local government along lines of market largesse at public expense.

Purcell’s, “State of the City Economy” address in 2008 is an exemplary document in that it expresses quite clearly his, “vision” for the city. Regurgitating the dull rote of neo-liberal convention, he promised that, “Team Glasgow” (a self elected cabal of business leaders purporting to represent the wider interests of ‘Glasgow’) would do everything they could to help businesses, “cope with the downturn”, “The first thing that all public bodies, including my own Council, must do, is to examine where we can help business by being more flexible and willing to do things differently.

This is no time for unnecessary rules and processes; this is a time to do everything we can to help”. The message couldn’t be clearer, “My main priority is helping business in the city through the economic difficulties ahead”, he said.







Purcell’s, “vision” included a, “flexible” land disposal policy that gave away, “empty” commercial premises owned by the Council to new businesses rent free, so that they can do without, “the burden of rent costs”.

Purcell argued that this showed how Glasgow City Council is, “willing to do things differently, willing to be flexible to help businesses”, willing to, “relax” rules in order to promote development and safeguard businesses. “We are willing to look at deferred payment arrangements, profit sharing, joint ventures and greater risk taking on the part of the Council”, he promised.

One beneficiary of this largesse at the public’s expense are the developers of the Commonwealth Games Village, who obtained the site rent-free, alongside an undisclosed, “profit-sharing agreement” with the Council.

As a commercial property market magazine concluded in March 2010 (under the headline, “Loss of council’s, “Team Glasgow” is huge blow for property’), the scandal surrounding Purcell may grab the headlines but the loss will also be felt by a feather bedded property industry.

Another means by which the City Council has shown its willingness to prioritize neo-liberal enclosure and restructuring has been in the privatization of basic services run previously by the authority.








Since the council housing, “stock-transfer” in 2003 (the largest transfer in the UK), there has been an acceleration of Council functions carved off to arm’s-length external organisations (ALEOs): care services, culture and leisure, catering, construction and maintenance services, parking, community safety and city marketing.

Against a backdrop of diminishing terms, conditions and salaries for those employed by ALEOs, the, “cronyism at the heart of Purcell’s council” ensured friends and allies – sitting on the boards of these companies which met just a few times a year – were being paid enhanced salaries for doing what the Council was already paid to do.

“Political patronage”, at work? Willie Haughey (a good friend of Purcell, key member of, “Team Glasgow”, and the largest Scottish donor to the Labour Party) received £680,000 (plus VAT) for a plot of land in Rutherglen from Clyde Gateway Developments, an ALEO run by Purcell’s former political advisor, Iain Manson.

Haughey had leased the land from the then-Glasgow District Council but bought it outright in the mid-1990s. Despite an independent valuation of £7.4 million, Haughey also received a £17 million compensation package for his business premises, which had to be relocated due to the construction of the M74 motorway.

” a nation of sheep results in a government of wolves”, “For evil to flourish, all that is needed is for good people to do nothing.” “The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.”








Another ALEO, City Building, was awarded two large contracts to Haughey’s City Refrigeration Holdings, worth £11.2 million, despite his bid being significantly higher than other competitors.

Clyde Gateway’s board includes four Councillors, all Labour, including George Ryan, Mr Purcell’s right-hand man when he became council leader in 2005. The head of City Building is Willie Docherty. His wife, Sadie Docherty, is a Glasgow Labour Councillor. Garnering further accusations of cronyism, Scottish Labour’s former general secretary Lesley Quinn was recruited as City Building’s first business development manager.

City Building’s £20,000-a-year chair, Gerry Leonard, is also a Labour councillor in Glasgow, as are three other board members. Just one board member is an SNP Councillor as with Culture and Sport Glasgow, whose Chief Executive is Bridget McConnell, partner of former First Minister Jack McConnell.

Glasgow’s Labour-dominated Council was also found to be passing public money into party political funds via at least one ALEO run by Labour activists, in the form of buying tables at party fundraisers. City Building treated Labour grandees, including Scottish leader Iain Gray and his wife, to a £2,000 dinner at a party fund-raiser.

David Miller, at Strathclyde University, helped disclose Purcell’s free use of public cash as he used Encore catering service, one of the authority’s spin-off companies, to host lavish dinners for fellow Labour politicians.









Within days of Purcell resigning lawyers and a PR company arrived on the scene attempting to gag his former colleagues who sought to distance themselves and their Party from Purcell’s personal peccadilloes.

But what exactly, behind the morality tales, might they wish to distance themselves from? It was offered that ALEOs had not been established for the sole purpose of buying loyalty, they, “provided a convenient vehicle for purchasing patronage”.

But to personify the system of largesse in Purcell alone is to erroneously perpetuate the story of, “one bad apple”. Polite press commentary consisted primarily of emotive stories of Purcell’s personal habits, obfuscating the high degree of institutional aggregation at work in Glasgow in marketing the, “success” of Glasgow’s urban renaissance.

What was perceived as a dearth of mainstream media reporting led bloggers to speculate on west-coast failure to hold power to account.

The Sunday Herald, driven to comment, reacted defensively to, “suggestions of a network of powerful figures working behind the scenes to influence the workings of the city … that this so-called network included leading figures from the media [and] threatened to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the Scottish press”.

Responding to, “hints” that some Scottish newspapers had, “pulled their punches on the controversy because editors had been too close to Mr Purcell or, worse, they had been cowed into submission by Peter Watson and PR firm Media House”, these allegations were rebutted but unconvincingly, “Glasgow is a large city but its political and business centre is small. Personal and business relationships meld together, contacts extend and overlap, boundaries blur. Business dinners become social occasions, colleagues become friends”.







Herald and Evening Times editor-in-chief Donald Martin told his sister-paper the Sunday Herald: “I was glad to play a role in Team Glasgow along with other individuals who believed in co-operating for the good of the city. Our aim was to encourage actions which would help the city. As a newspaper editor it is an important part of my job to make contacts in the political, business and other spheres and I also believe it is part of my job to work for the good of Glasgow and indeed Scotland”.

This suggests, even confirms, an all-too-cosy political compact between Glasgow governance and certain sectors of the crisis-riven Scottish media. Indeed, Martin was part of a regular Friday afternoon drinking date, dubbed, “The Ritz Club”, which, Holyrood magazine spilled, “included the editors of rival red tops [David Dinsmore], the Herald’s departing editor-in-chief [Donald Martin] and Purcell himself”.

That Martin could be so open about these relationships suggests not a conflict of interests but a convergence of interests, effacing any significant debate of the underlying economic antagonisms in Glasgow. None of the above points to any, “conspiracy” of course, just politics as usual: the same old revolving doors network of legalized looting avid viewers of, “The Wire” have become accustomed to.

No laws, moral or otherwise have been broken – no matter how much money has been channelled into the Labour Party via publicly owned companies, or how many members, relatives and friends are employed in senior positions in such companies.







As for multi – million pound contracts and shady land deals being awarded to Party donors, well, that just shows that an entrepreneurial spirit is rewarded in an age of entrepreneurialism. What is perhaps remarkable about Glasgow’s economic policies and system of political patronage is that the dis-juncture between the myth of market provision and, “urban renaissance”, and the reality of a city with 40 per cent of it’s residents living below the poverty line, hasn’t been more consistently and effectively exposed. (Composed by Neil Gray & Leigh French)








Probably the main reason the Labour Party is against Independence. Scotland, free of Westminster control will be able to address the excesses of the ruling Labour Cabal in Glasgow and adjacent Councils of similar ilk.

The UK Taxpayer’s Alliance recently published a list of UK Town Hall top earners. Glasgow employed 27 members of staff earning over £100,000 p/a. Of these 5 featured in the top 10 highest paid executives.

Commenting the, ” Alliance”, said, “Residents won’t be impressed when their council pleads poverty then demands more and more council tax, (Glasgow’s annual operating budget is around £3 Billion) only to spend it creating more town hall tycoons.”

1. In second place. Linda Hardie. South Lanarkshire Council, £543,538, (Retired April 2011.)

2. In third place. Thomas McDonald. Former Assistant Director of Land and Environment Services, £520,590 total remuneration inclusive of £342,957 in pension contributions, (Retired.)

3. In fourth place. William Docherty. Glasgow Council (subsidiary company) City Building, £485,698.

4. In fifth place. Steven Kelly. Glasgow Council (subsidiary company) City Building, £481,166.

5. In ninth place. Robert Booth. Former Director of Land and Environment Services, £382,789 total remuneration inclusive of 171,929 in pension contributions, (retired.)

6. In tenth place. Kenneth Harkness. Ex Head of Service development, £371,610.

7. The largest pay package overall, excluding larger than usual, one-off payments, was that of John Sharkey, group chief executive of SEC, (a private company whose majority shareholder is Glasgow City Council) which owns and operates the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre. He received £314,553.

The residents of Glasgow and the West of Scotland, (45%+ of whom live below the poverty line) need to abandon the past and seize the opportunities for a much better standard of life independence will bring. Vote, “yes” in the referendum.







One reply on “Glasgow City Council and New Labour a Systematic Transfer of Finance and Assets From the Public Purse to the Wallets of Friends of Labour”

So why are the, “Scottish”, Main Stream Media, and, Radio “Scotland”, and BBC “Scotland” so very silent on such matters?

Can you imagine that such a studied silence would have happened if an SNP Council had behaved in such a manner?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.