Malc in the Burgh

A New Beginning

2010-09-02T09:00:00.000+01:00

This post is serving two functions. Firstly, it is a thank you to everyone who has read my ramblings over the past three years and voted for me in the Total Politics awards. I'm not folding MitB entirely, but I am recognising that the rate of posting has withered a bit over the past few months, and in that sense, it is all but done.

However, I have a new project. Jeff (SNP Tactical Voting), James (Two Doctors) and I have decided the time is right to embark upon a joint blog project, which we're starting today. We've called it Better Nation and we hope it will be a collaboration of good quality work (well, each of the three of us made the Total Politics Top 10 - just!) which will also take a little bit of the pressure off of us to post as regularly.

So, if you liked our writing individually, stop past there for a read and debate our views. Equally, we're fairly open to guest contributors (we don't want it to be a closed project) so if you are interested, get in touch.

Thanks again - and see you on the other side!

Malc

Retiring MSPs (Updated)

2010-08-19T09:00:00.002+01:00

I wrote a post in June listing the MSPs who had announced they would stand down in May's Scottish Parliament election, along with a list of those who may be considering it. The list of those who had announced their retirement by that point was:

Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross - 2 June 2010)

Ian McKee (SNP, Lothians - 29 May 2010)

Bill Aitken (Con, Glasgow Region - 19 May 2010)

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians - 13 September 2009)

John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West - 2008)

Chris Harvie (SNP, Mid Scotland & Fife - 2007: one term)

Subsequently, the following MSPs have announced they will also stand down:

George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians - 18 August 2010)

Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife - 4 August 2010)

Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire - 4 August 2010)

Rhona Brankin (Lab, Midlothian - 7 July 2010)

Andrew Welsh (SNP, Angus - 10 June 2010)

Jim Mather (SNP, Argyll & Bute - 5 June 2010)

Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland - June 2010)

Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley - 17 May 2010)

Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston - May 2010?)

That, by my count, makes 15 MSPs retiring. Of those 15, I'd suggest age to be the predominant factor in 11 of the cases, with 3 leaving to pursue politics in other places (London) and one (Rhona Brankin) hoping to do something similar.

I still think there are a few more who may be considering giving up their Holyrood salary (as I mentioned in my previous post) including:

Jack McConnell (given peerage 29 May 2010)

Nanette Milne (Con, North-East Scotland - age 68)

Mary Scanlon (Con, Highlands & Islands - age 62)

Jamie McGrigor (Con, Highlands & Islands - age 60)

Helen Eadie (Lab, Dunfermline East - age 63)

Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South - family)

And, I assume, with boundary changes, there will be some, ahem, "enforced" retirements in the sense that some MSPs will not be re-selected by their branches. I have heard some rumours of this happening already, but no confirmation as yet. And there will be the inevitable scramble for list places as well, a favoured bloodsport of political journalists.

100 Days... and counting?

2010-08-18T10:15:00.001+01:00

In the immediate aftermath of the coalition agreement, I wrote that I thought the Tory-Lib Dem partnership was liable to continue for some time - a period of years, not weeks or months. I based that partly on the things that the Lib Dems had gotten out of the coalition (including practically half their parliamentary party in various government roles and some minor policy implementation) but also the weakness of the Labour party.

The latter part of that equation hasn't really changed in the last 100 days - Labour in no way look like a party of government in waiting - but the first part... well, there may be some movement.

I said at the time that the Lib Dem Cabinet appointments far outweighed what they were getting in terms of policy commitments. I think that has borne out. Fixed term parliaments are likely to pass - something the Tories were happy about anyway, ditto ditching the "Mansion Tax" and inheritance tax - while they managed to get agreement to move the threshold for income tax up. They've also got movement on Calman which, though I think it amounts to bugger all in the way of furthering devolved powers, it is an indication that the government recognises devolution - and more so that the Lib Dems are the ones pushing it.

However, the pills they have had to swallow I think far outweigh what they've gotten out of it. Being less pro-Euro, accepting a referendum for further transfer of power up to the EU, capping non-EU immigration (incredibly liberal that one) and, the biggie, accepting a referendum on AV.

Let me consider that last one for a second. The Lib Dems condition of entering coalition was changing the electoral system to something more proportional. What they've got is a commitment to hold a referendum on AV - an electoral system which is marginally (at best) better than FPTP in terms of making sure at least 50% of the electorate vote for a candidate. And they'll be the only ones campaigning hard for it - especially given its apparent scheduling on the same day as devolved elections in Scotland and Wales. The Tories are against it, as are Labour. The "smaller" parties (at UK level) are grudgingly in support, but given they'll have the more important election to campaign for, won't spend too much time campaigning for it.

And what if, in spite of this, they actually get a Yes vote for AV? It's a system the Lib Dems don't really like, and it isn't the STV that they wanted. So how long before they demand another referendum on that voting system? I think Dave saw Nick coming on that one - at least Dick Turpin wore a mask when he robbed people of their goods and dignity.

So, what does this mean for the coalition? Well, 100 days in, they are still too busy dealing with Labour's deficit to focus on much else. But soon these issues will come upon us. In nine months time, devolved elections and a split over campaigning on the AV referendum might start to reveal tensions in the coalition. And with the Lib Dem poll figures dropping considerably since they moved into government, the rose garden is the only thing that looks rosy for Nick Clegg at the moment.

100 days ago, in that rose garden, when David Cameron was asked about Nick Clegg being his favourite joke, Clegg himself feigned walking away. In nine months time he may just wish that he had kept walking.

Total Politics Blog Poll 2010

2010-08-02T16:15:00.000+01:00

I wasn't sure that I was going to post my nominations, but since I have every other year (2008 and 2009) here are the 10 blogs I voted for in the Total Politics Blog Poll 2010:

1. SNP Tactical Voting (2008 - #1, 2009 - #1)

For me, the undisputed king in Scotland (which he, sadly, no longer is in) Jeff's blog remains my number one for a couple of reasons - frequency and content are both high. Where does he get the energy? Maybe he's actually a Duracell rabbit...

2. Two Doctors (2008 - #7, 2009 - #2)

Although the frequency dipped after his candidacy in the 2010 election, James keeps his position mainly on the back of content - it's green politics with an international flavour. And that appeals to me.

3. J. Arthur MacNumpty (2008 - #5, 2009 - #3)

Sensing a pattern here? Will's detailed analysis of the week in Parliament and thoughts on electoral reform, coalitions and boundaries are a psephologist's dream. Long may it continue.

4. Lallands Peat Worrier (2008, 2009 - unplaced)

High-brow legal analysis written in a style which is unusual and, I think, unique in the blogosphere. Also done with a sense of humour, which I enjoy.

5. Planet Politics (2008 - unplaced, 2009 - #10)

I like Stuart's "criticise everyone" approach, which is refreshing. Highly non-partisan, almost anti-politics, I find myself reading it more and more.

6. Eric Joyce MP (2008, 2009 - unplaced)

For me, this is the best Labour blog in Scotland. Eric Joyce is partisan when he wants to be but fairer than some others with it. A former minister, he gives insights which are rare in this forum, and he has a writing style which resonates with the reader. I suspect Mr Harris will beat him out for "best MP blog"... but not by much.

7. DoctorVee (2008, 2009 - unplaced)

Duncan's blog is eclectic to say the least - he splits time between each of his interests - but I find plenty overlap between my interests and his (new media, politics and F1) which keeps by interest going. Equally, he deserves credit for his role in establishing the Scottish Round-up, which is still going strong (though he is looking for some help in that area - any takers?!).

8. Bethan Jenkins AM (2008, 2009 - unplaced)

See - I have broadened my reading slightly. Bethan Jenkins' blog gives me an up-to-date picture of what is going on in Wales, obviously with an overtly partisan Plaid slant. This one is on the up - and I'm glad, because she very kindly allowed me to interview her for my PhD.

9. Caron's Musings (2008 - unplaced, 2009 - #5)

What I said about Caron's eclectic blog last year remains true today. It does have a more political slant now I think, especially now that her party is in government. Though I'm not convinced she's sold on the coalition yet...

10. Stephen's Liberal (previously Linlithgow) Journal (2008 - #6, 2009 - #9)

I don't really know how Stephen maintains the frequency of posting, but it is fairly impressive - especially when you consider how much work he does for a certain ~~diddly wee no-hoper~~ junior government party. I hope (for his sanity) he doesn't land at #11 again!

So there we go, my top 10. Obviously by (small c) conservatism showing through, with many of my previous favourites maintaining their position in my vote. As usual, there are many more cracking reads in Scotland to keep an eye out for - I think time constraints have really cut down my blog-reading (though Google Reader is an amazing help on that score!).

Good luck all - you'll probably find out the results in about a month.

Five Days

2010-07-30T09:00:00.007+01:00

Like most others who fancy themselves as an amateur politico or psephologist, I watched Nick Robinson's documentary "Five Days that Changed Britain" last night (available on iPlayer here). On the whole, it was pretty decent fare - I mean, you can (as most people do) question Nick Robinson's politics and the choice of questions he asked, but on the whole, I thought he struck the right chord with most of the interviews.

Three things that really stuck out for me though, the first of which was Nick Robinson's conclusion that "coalition government might be here to stay". This is something I agree with - and wrote about 2 days after the coalition was finalised. I've gone further too, by saying that I don't think Labour will return to government for at least another 15 years.

Which brings me to the other two things that stuck out - Labour attitudes and personalities. It was an unedifying spectacle to see Ed Balls, a man who is a potential leader of the Labour party (though probably not on that performance) almost spitting venom when discussing the coalition negotiations. Labour's attitude towards the Liberal Democrats in particular appears to accuse them of selling out social democracy, despite the fact that wasn't quite what the country had voted for. "Screw the country - the other lot didn't get a majority, we can still govern unless you do a deal with them". Except, by last night's account, Balls was one of the main obstacles to an agreement, despite being part of the Labour "negotiating" team.

It is a worrying situation for Labour when, of all the Labour figures interviewed, the two who came across best were Lords Mandelson and Adonis. They seemed assured, smart enough to realise that Labour had to take their medicine of opposition for a while, to rebuild trust - they knew it was over. If Labour has any sense (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Peter Mandelson will be a guy they will listen to when the rebuilding project begins under the new leadership. Personalities play a big role in this, and his is one which will be fairly influential. Alistair Campbell too, though he seems somewhat more entrenched and Balls-like than the Lords pair.

On a further note, how disappointing not to have Gordon Brown interviewed. I don't know if he was invited, but it would be pretty strange if he wasn't. You can understand his reasons - the way it was described, he was the guy that was dragging all the negotiations, the block to any kind of Lab-Lib Dem pact; he was the loser, the vanquished. But by not appearing, he allowed that perception to be furthered. This was an opportunity to go in front of cameras again and say to the public "look, you voted us out, I'm sorry you didn't think we could provide the recovery this country needs but we tried." But again, his lack of media savvy shone through.

I'm sorry if it appears that I'm having a pop at Labour at the moment, given what I said about Richard Baker a few days ago. But I think these are worrying times for Labour I think, if Ed Balls is the standard of leadership candidate that they have. Labour supporters better hope he is not the new leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, because if he is... well, he might not be for long, but his successors will be.

Nick Clegg's scheming plan

2010-07-28T13:45:00.000+01:00

Nick Clegg thinks its "disrespectful" of 44 Tory MPs to think that voters in Scotland and Wales cannot vote on 2 issues on the same day - he said so yesterday at Deputy PMQs. He should probably tell that to Ron Gould and the 140,000 voters in Scotland who spoiled papers in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election as they were invited to vote on both it and the local authority election on the same day.

The Deputy PM's idea for holding the AV referendum on the same day as Scottish Parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections is supposedly about cost - with an apparent saving of £17m if it goes ahead on that day (as opposed to decoupling the two events and having them on different days). Strange for me, that Clegg's point of principle, a semi-proportional electoral system should be a matter for such penny-pinching.

Also, I don't suppose he has given much thought to the potential outcome of the vote and the fact that it will be held alongside two national elections in Scotland and Wales and none in England. Think this one through from a Tory perspective for a minute. Say people in Scotland and Wales ARE convinced of the argument for AV and vote, possibly 80-20% in favour on a turnout average for devolution of around 60%. Now consider England is predominantly not in favour, for argument sake, 80-20% against. But given there is no other election on in England at the time, turnout is merely 15% (less than the European Election in 2009).

What I'm trying to say is this: what happens if the electoral system is changed to AV on the fact that turnout in Scotland and Wales is high and in England it is low?

It's hardly fair that England gets saddled with an electoral system they don't want on the back of Scotland and Wales voting for it. Or is that Clegg's intention? Make the case in Scotland and Wales, ignore England and hope no one bothers to show up. Which they probably won't. He gets AV.

No wonder the Tory MPs are against the proposals.

A wolf in sheep's clothing

2010-07-27T09:00:00.001+01:00

With apologies to the predominantly Scottish readership but there's some more news from Wales which I've found interesting (and, which has potential relevance to Scotland as well). And it's this: How much are the Tories about to royally shaft Labour?

I shall, perhaps, have to put that in a slightly more socially acceptable format should it ever grace the pages of an academic journal, but I felt the terminology apt. Basically, I'm thinking about David Cameron's (and, to be fair, Nick Clegg's) plans to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and ensure constituencies of roughly equal numbers (75,000 voters).

The reason I'm interested? The reduction of Welsh representation at Westminster by a QUARTER - or from 40 seats at present to 30 after the reduction. In actual fact, Wales is, and has been for some time, over-represented at Westminster, so this would really be a simple bringing them into line with the rest of the UK in terms of representation. As far as I understand, Scotland would be in line to lose 6 or 7 seats while Northern Ireland would lose 3 and the remainder would come from England.

Anyway, three knock-on effects (identified by John Osmond as "unintended consequences") resulting from the changes. Firstly, the constituencies for the Welsh Assembly are tied to those for Westminster - meaning any reduction in seats for the House of Commons means a corresponding reduction in Cardiff Bay. If nothing is done to change that then Wales would have an Assembly of just 50 members - 30 constituency and 20 regional list. And given there are discussions at the moment to increase its powers (and the Richard Commission recommended in 2004 to increase members to 80) that might cause a re-think there.

Secondly, they could de-couple the constituencies. There is precedent here - Scotland's were tied too, but an amendment to the Scotland Act allowed us to maintain 73 Holyrood constituencies when we reduced the Westminster ones in 2005 to 59. However, Welsh Tories aren't keen on the idea - the Welsh Assembly already suffers from a lack of electorate enthusiasm, and confusing the constituencies may make that apathy worse. Which means that to maintain numbers, they could have an extra 10 list members, which would increase the proportionality of the system (and, one would think, the outcome of elections, the last of which was less proportional than the English local elections).

Thirdly, were the Assembly elected more by PR (with less reliance on FPTP) it would hurt Labour more, as they have benefited most from the only 1/3rd PR element - though, as I noted last week, their vote has been diminishing in Wales for the last decade. Wales remains the last of the devolved administrations led by a Labour figure - with Carwyn Jones, as Welsh First Minister, the highest elected Labour official in the country. It appears as though that position is under threat, as with diminishing vote numbers and a potential reduction in MPs, Labour's position as the dominant party in Wales is no longer guaranteed. In short, the institution which they delivered in 1997 in the expectation that they'd be governing - individually - for the subsequent two decades looks like it may end up as a further harbinger of doom for the party.

A final thought on that. In 1997, the Conservatives opposed devolution. Now, 13 years on, they've found ways to work with it and adapt the system to how it suits them after a damning defeat. PR, a system which they are not fond of, has saved them electorally in Wales and, ironically, might be the system that secures their position and weakens Labour further. Sea change indeed, and change that is fuelled by pragmatism on their part.

A little pragmatism goes a long way - a lesson the Tories have learnt the hard way. The question is - will Labour?

Baker's Dozin'

2010-07-26T08:30:00.000+01:00

The whole furore over the al-Megrahi release which has been opened up by David Cameron's visit to the States and the US Senate's desire to have Scottish ministers give evidence to their committee is a sad state of affairs. Plenty has already been written about why this is ridiculous - when will the US start to realise that it does not have jurisdiction over any more than its own shores? I'm still a bit annoyed (and that's putting it lightly) that Messrs Salmond & MacAskill didn't just tell them to f*** o**. But perhaps my political antenna isn't quite as in tune as theirs.

Anyway, I digress. I just wanted to point out the utter nonsense on the issue spouted by Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Baker. He told the BBC (who have called him "Labour's justice spokesman" which I think is a downgrade in title):

"It speaks volumes about the lack of confidence he has now in his own decision that he is running a mile from any scrutiny of it". Apparently in his view it is "perfectly legitimate" for American politicians to ask Kenny MacAskill to go to Washington because they can pretty well do what they like.

Okay, I may have paraphrased that last bit, but his point is daft anyway. Of course it is legitimate to for them to ask, but it is also legitimate for the Justice Secretary to decline (just as, incidentally, Baker's own colleague and former UK Home Secretary Jack Straw did). Wouldn't the Scottish Government be justified in inviting the US Senators (some of whom enjoy lucrative sponsorship from oil companies) to come and share their findings with a committee of the Scottish Parliament (who DO have jurisdiction in the matter? Of course - but they won't, because they recognise that the Senators do not have a constituency over here, and no place in our democratic system.

I think, thankfully, and hopefully, that the best outcome from this sorry media frenzy is that Richard Baker is unlikely to take his present role in opposition into government in the event he is re-elected in May and his party form the government - neither of which event is, thankfully, a certainty at this point.

Of course what he said is political point-scoring, an opposition MSP trying to paint the government as incompetent. But I wonder if Iain Gray realises yet that if he wants to run the Scottish Government next year he'll have to do better on the personnel than the amateurs he has running the show at the moment. But then, it isn't like he has much of a choice.

Big Society, Little Britain

2010-07-22T10:45:00.001+01:00

David Cameron got some points from me for his idea of a "Big Society". His idea is very much in keeping with my view of what I guess is often described as "civic nationalism". Leaving aside that the "nation" it encompasses is larger than I would like (being the UK and not just Scotland) I think the idea is bold and sensible, particularly in the times of financial difficulty which we currently find ourselves in.

"Dave" wants society to help itself, to let communities run their own (non-vital) services and pull Britain back from the big (sprawling) government it has developed. That to me is a laudable aim, particularly given that I have a "liberal" view of government as a "necessary evil" and that people shouldn't expect government to do everything for them. If anything, I don't think his Big Society goes far enough, but the idea is good, so as I say, points on that score.

But then he lost the points on arrival in the States when, in the words of the excellent Joan McAlpine, he "trashed" Scotland on the world stage by saying how wrong he felt the decision was to release Abdelbasset al-Megrahi, and clearly emphasised how he stood with the US against the Scottish Government on the issue. Whether you believe the decision to be correct or not, the way in which David Cameron has blown his "respect agenda" for the devolved institutions shows a clear disregard for devolution.

I expect he will announce a full UK-level inquiry into the decision in the coming days, further ignoring the fact that the decision was the Scottish Government's to make. The fact that he was not PM at the time of the decision probably makes this easier for him - both in a partisan and bi-lateral, UK-US sense. I made reference a few days ago to the UK (specifically Jack Straw, when he was Home Secretary) allowing General Pinochet to be released back to Chile on medical grounds, despite charges of torture and assasination against him. I guess the difference in that case is that he was a) backed by former US President George H. W. Bush (and the fact that his military coup was supported by the US) and b) the decision was made by a UK minister. I don't remember David Cameron (or indeed, anyone from the US Government) speaking out against that decision, and Pinochet lived 6 YEARS after his release. The truth of the matter is that we would not be talking about this again had al-Megrahi not survived 11 months (and counting) after his release. A sad state of affairs indeed that government ministers from both sides of the Atlantic are waiting for a terminally ill man to die.

So yes, the "Big Society" is a good idea. But Dave, your perception of devolution is small and petty, and the respect for it is non-existent. Must try harder old chap.

Florence and Precious

2010-07-20T10:00:00.000+01:00

I think I've missed the boat with the timing of this post - but the sentiment is there, so let's ignore the fact I've showed up late and embrace the fact I'm here.

Last night's vigil and blog-in supporting Florence and Precious Mhango got plenty support from Scotland's great and good in the blogosphere. Anne and Caron led the way, ably supported by Will and Alison while Jeff and Subrosa both chipped in with their views, all saying the same thing: they've got to stay. And I'm 100% behind them.

Each of the posts above makes the same point in slightly different ways. Will points out we've led genocidal murderers (Pinochet) and terrorists (al-Megrahi) live freely out of compassion but we can't see fit to extend that same compassion to a mother and daughter who have made Scotland their home after suffering domestic abuse among other things. And Jeff points out that David Cameron's warm words about a "Big Society" sound hollow when the Glasgow community to which Florence and Precious belong want them to stay and are being ignored by the political elites who think they know better.

Of course we should take immigration seriously, and the issue of asylum is a sensitive one - but this is a total no-brainer. If we send them back to Malawi, we're condemning them to a life without each other, Precious to become the "property" of her father.

I've never been one to call myself British, but if our government is doing this in our name... then I'm disgusted even to be associated with the concept. Come on Dave - you banged on about compassionate Conservatism enough during the campaign - now lets see it in action.

Nat Gain?

2010-07-15T09:00:00.000+01:00

Here's a thought for you: can you imagine Jim Murphy deciding that Labour don't quite cut it any more and standing for the SNP at the Scottish election next year? No? No, probably not. Perhaps he's not a good example to use for this. What about previous Scottish Secretaries - Des Browne, Douglas Alexander, Alistair Darling, Helen Liddell, John Reid? Any of those aspiring Nats do you you think? No?

Why do I ask anyway?

Well, it seems that former Secretary of State for Wales (and, indeed, architect of Welsh devolution it would appear) Ron Davies HAS decided that. Indeed, he decided that Labour weren't very good six years ago and joined Forward Wales, a now-disbanded left-of-centre Welsh regionalist party. Well, he has now gone further, and after campaigning for Plaid at the UK election in May, he is now the only nominee for the party to contest the Caerphilly seat in the Assembly election next year.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Of course the comparison with Scotland is crude, and doesn't work on any level. Each of the living former Labour Scottish Secretaries are still active in Labour politics, have recently retired from the Commons or are in the Lords. And none of them resigned from office in disgrace after a "moment of madness" on Clapham Common. And I suppose the best comparison (in terms of the person who steered devolution on the Labour benches in Scotland) would be Donald Dewar, and he is no longer with us (and, perhaps, even less likely to join the SNP than any of the aforementioned Labourites were he still alive).

But what is interesting, particularly for folk like me with more than a passing interest in Welsh devolution is the fact that the guy who practically designed devolution in Wales now wants more. And though that is a fairly common view among the Assembly politicians - they voted unanimously to move to a referendum on the topic - it is not exactly popular among current and former Welsh MPs. The fact that Ron Davies is ready to stake his political future on it by standing for Plaid - in the seat he held as a Labour MP and AM from 1983 until 2003 - made me think a little harder about it.

On the other hand, relations between Labour and Plaid are much more amicable than those between the SNP and Labour. They have to be, for the sake of the coalition. And in spite of tensions here, former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish has readily offered his support to the SNP on issues where he agrees with them while Susan Deacon has recently taken on a role in the SNP Government advising on Children and Early Years education. However, I would hazard that neither will be campaigning - or standing - for the party next year.

Of interest to electoral anoraks is if he wins. He'd have represented the constituency for two different parties if he did so. Betsan Powys points out that his former colleague in Forward Wales, John Marek could do the same, and represent 3 parties - he's just joined the Tories, having represented Wrexham for Labour between 1999 and 2003 and the John Marek Independent Party from 2003 to 2007.

Anyway, I'm not sure I can add much more to the analysis. Just interesting stuff.

Total Politics Blog Poll

2010-07-14T11:45:00.000+01:00

If I have any readers left, can I point you to the button on the sidebar that will take you to the Total Politics poll of best blogs 2010. As usual, this is being run by Total Politics and promoted by Iain Dale, Labour List and Lib Dem Voice. Some rules you may need to know:

1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and ranks them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

I finished fourth in Scotland last year, but was much more active than I have been recently, so I'm not expecting much. Indeed, I'm not even going to ask for your vote. All I'm suggesting is that if you read blogs, you may want to vote. Go on...

The end of hegemony?

2010-07-13T17:00:00.000+01:00

I was reading an interesting article by Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully today (it is this one here, though you'll have to pay to read it - I was at the National Library). Anyway, the article was entitled "The end of one-partyism" and looked at the electoral performance of Labour in Wales between 1997 and 2005.

I wanted to extend it and look at 2010 as well, and performance in Scotland and England too. So here's the info:

In Wales, Labour polled 54.7% of the vote in 1997. In 2005, that figure was 42.7% - a massive 12% fall. In 2010 they polled 36.2% of the vote - down a further 6.5%. Of course we have to recognise that 1997 was a high watermark, even for Labour in Wales, but in 13 years of government - which included delivering a form of decision-making to Cardiff - their vote has fallen by 18.5%. (Incidentally, despite being one of Labour's worst election results by share of the vote since 1918 in Wales, they still won 26 of the 40 seats there).

In England, the watermark was not so high in 1997 at 43.5% of the vote. In 2005 that figured dipped to 35.5% - down 8%. And this year it was down further - to 28.1% of the vote, down another 7.4%. Now England - with the exception of the North, Yorkshire, the West-Midlands and bits of London - is not exactly Labour's heartland it is true, but drop 15% of the vote is a rather large fall.

And so to Scotland. In 1997 Labour maintained their status as the dominant party in Scotland, winning 45.6% of the vote - not as high as Wales, but they faced a more competitive party system. By 2005 that had fallen to 38.9% - a fall of 6.7% - almost half of the slide in Wales. In 2010 they actually increased their share of the vote here, up by 3.1% to 42% of the vote. In terms of seats, all that did was maintain their level of 2005, with the only nominal gains those which had been lost in by-elections during the session and the seat of the Speaker, which was a notional Labour seat anyway.

Which means what? Well, I don't really know is the honest answer. Certainly if you look historically at Wales you see a Liberal hegemony from mid-1800s until 1920s and then a Labour hegemony from the inter-war years to the present. And recent trends (1997 on, as indicated above) show that hegemony waning, particularly in light of the four-party system at the National Assembly.

Historically, Scotland is a similar story - a Conservative dominance was arrested in the 1950s and replaced by a Labour hegemony which, though less powerful than it used to be, remains in place today. Obviously some Nats will take issue with the term "hegemony" and point to the SNP Scottish Government and Scottish and European Parliament results as evidence to the contrary, and that is a fair point. But I haven't used that in the case of Wales (nor England, for obvious reasons) so why use it for Scotland.

I think the bottom line is equally obvious - that we have distinctly different party systems - and party competitions - in existence at the multiple levels of governance that currently occupy our representatives. And though the SNP have been buoyed by winning Holyrood (2007) and European (2009) elections (and the Conservatives similarly with the European election in Wales) it is Labour who continue to dominate when it comes to Westminster elections, though that hold is loosening.

Several(?) dates with destiny

2010-07-12T17:00:00.000+01:00

I wrote at the tail end of last week about Nick Clegg's decision (well, okay, Nick Clegg's announcement of the decision) to hold the referendum to decide whether to adopt the AV vote on May 5th, the same day as the Scottish Parliament election next year. Cue expected stushie, with Alex Salmond writing to David Cameron complaining that this hardly fits with his "respect" agenda, and suggesting that the referendum would "undermine and overshadow" the Scottish Parliament election. I outlined some of the reasons for this in my previous post.

In theory, the Scottish Parliament can change the date of its election - up to one month either side of the 5th May date. Well, actually, no, that's not strictly true. The Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament can request that the Secretary of State move the election, and they must sign off on it. This is something, as Brian Taylor points out, which is being considered as a means of settling the other problem of the date - namely Westminster's change to fixed term parliaments, where the election dates would clash every 20 years starting on May 7th 2015. He wonders whether the PO might make such a request for next year - probably in the full knowledge that if he UK government has made its decision then such a request is likely to be politely declined.

Interestingly (and, I guess, obviously, since they follow the same electoral cycle as Scotland) the problem is the same in Wales - they face having their Assembly election conjoined with the AV vote on 5 May as well. There has been a similar reaction among elected politicians there as here, except for one, fairly notable exception. The Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, Dafydd Elis Thomas, who has no "constitutional objection" to holding both on the same day on the grounds that it would benefit turnout for both. However, what is really interesting is that he recommends holding Wales' other referendum - that which seeks to move the Schedule 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, bestowing in one move legislative powers to the National Assembly - on the same day. So you'd have the devolved election, the AV referendum and the powers referendum on 5 May.

Dafydd Elis Thomas has previously made clear his objection to holding the powers referendum in Wales until such a time as the result is not really in doubt, and is sceptical of holding it in March (as is currently rumoured to be the intention of Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan). So this seems a bold move - shifting the referendum to a date where there are a couple of other things going on would likely drive up turnout but at the expense of giving a clear campaign solely on the issue of the Assembly powers. So that is interesting.

Of more interest in Scotland, I guess, is the impact of such a scheduling. If this did go ahead - and the Welsh had all three votes on the one day - would the First Minister be able to argue that Scots are too stupid to be able to vote on two different issues (the Scottish Parliamentary election and the AV referendum) on the same day? I guess time will tell on that one, but if Wales did go ahead on that score, it may start to make things more difficult to decouple the votes here.

Cardiff & Edinburgh

2010-07-08T16:00:00.000+01:00

Apologies for the hiatus, I've been in Cardiff awhile, with no real internet to speak off (or time for that matter) doing some academic research for my thesis. And I seem to have missed out on a fair bit whilst away.

Take, for example, the UK Con-LD Government's decision to schedule the AV referendum on 5 May, the same day of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and English local government elections, ostensibly for reasons of saving the public money (£17m was the estimate I heard). Cue outcry from MSPs, AMs and, well, anyone who isn't a Tory or Lib Dem MP to be honest.

Their argument - it'll overshadow the devolved elections. And that, I think, has merit. Because - and this is more of an issue in Wales I think, than in Scotland, where our media is a little more focused on what happens at Holyrood - the media, generally speaking, sets the terms of reference for elections. You can quibble with my hypothesis if you like, but look at recently passed General Election - without the TV debates and the presence of the now Deputy PM Clegg, where would the Lib Dems have been? Answer: probably out of government, most likely with fewer seats. So the media matters - and if they are focused on the AV referendum then the devolved institutions will lose out.

Another argument, and one that has merit in Scotland after the fiasco of the 2007 Scottish Parliament election, is that we might confuse people. I know, it sounds patronising - trust members of the public to put a cross on two different bits of paper? But with that experience here - and the resulting democratic stooshie - I wouldn't be too willing to bet that people won't make a hash of it. So that one I think, has some merit - but just a little.

There is a case that it may actually help - by combining both votes you may drive the turnout up a little. This I'm more sceptical of. If people feel so strongly about changing the method of electing their MPs, they'll show up to vote on the day anyway.

But really, I think, what it comes down to is money - and a distinct lack of it. Parties are fresh from fighting a UK General Election. In Wales they have the added complication of holding a referendum to decide on the speed of extending the powers of the Assembly, probably in March, followed by the AV referendum and the Assembly election, both on May 5. The latter has a month's wiggle room and so could be held in June, but that's at the discretion of the Secretary of State... and if her government has decided to hold the AV vote on May 5 to save money, I doubt they'll shift the Assembly election to June, however valid their reason for doing so it.

No, money is the kicker - and political parties are lacking in it at the moment. So while in public they will whinge and moan about the AV vote being on the same day as the devolved elections, privately they are probably a little more pleased that campaigning for both can take place at the same time, thus saving them time and energy - and, more importantly, money - in the campaigns. Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Retiring MSPs

2010-06-02T11:30:00.000+01:00

As the battle for positioning on party lists for the next Scottish Parliament election starts to hot up, I thought it worthwhile making a note of the names of current MSPs who would not be on either the constituency or the regional ballot paper - those who have decided that their 4/8/12 years at Holyrood is enough, and that they will retire before the election.

Announced so far:

Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross - 2/6/10)

Ian McKee (SNP, Lothians - 29/5/10)

Bill Aitken (Con, Glasgow Region - 19/5/10)

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians - 13/9/08)

John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West - 2008)

Chris Harvie (SNP, Mid Scotland & Fife - 2007: one term)

Likely to stand down (given dual-mandates as MSPs/ MPs):

Cathy Jamieson

Margaret Curran

Possibility of standing down (given dual-mandate as MSP/ Lords):

George Foulkes (said he'd serve only one term - but see link)

Jack McConnell (given peerage 29 May 2010)

Other possibles (various reasons):

Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife - age 67)

Nanette Milne (Con, North-East Scotland - age 68)

Mary Scanlon (Con, Highlands & Islands - age 62)

Jamie McGrigor (Con, Highlands & Islands - age 60)

(see Will's excellent post for more on these three)

Malcolm Chisholm (Lab, Edinburgh North & Leith - age 61)

Helen Eadie (Lab, Dunfermline East - age 63)

Alex Fergusson (PO, Galloway & Upper Nithsdale - age 61/ PO)

I want to point out that in no way do I think that once you hit 60 you should retire from politics. All I'm saying is that if Bill Aitken is retiring at 63, then some of the others named above may also be considering it.

Also, when Nicol Stephen stood down as leader of the Scottish Lib Dems in 2008, he said it was because he wanted to spend more time with his four children. Is there a chance he might retire as an MSP as well?

So, I make that:

SIX definitely not standing again, four likely (dual-mandates) and 8 others (age/PO/ spending time with family) giving a total of 18 possible new faces at Holyrood. There may well be more too - with 11 months still to go, I'm really just speculating.

The First Cut is nowhere near the Deepest...

2010-05-25T10:15:00.001+01:00

Today's Independent shows the sheer scale of debt faced by the new UK government left by their predecessors.

The six small squares in the bottom right corner indicates the inroads made by George Osborne and David Laws in their cuts yesterday.

Savage? Aye right... they haven't even started yet.

Looking at that image, I'm really not sure how Labour types can sleep at night. The Labour party as a "moral crusade" for "social justice"?! Just don't ask them to balance the books.

(Life) time in opposition

2010-05-18T13:15:00.003+01:00

I read with interest Jeff's post yesterday, pointing out the truthfulness in Liam Byrne's joke of a note left to his successor David Laws. "Sorry, there's no money left" was the gist - and accurate too, as Labour left office having racked up a deficit of £163 BILLION.

And I agree with Jeff's assessment (to an extent): "New" (for how much longer?) Labour remains right-of-centre, talking about immigration instead of social justice. But Labour got whacked not for being right-of-centre, but for trying to be both right-of-centre and left-of-centre at the same time, resulting in a deficit Robert Mugabe would be delighted with.

But Jeff's conclusion - that in order to re-establish themselves Labour must ditch New Labour and return to their left-wing roots - is one that I think history teaches is one which will not be overly successful.

Evidence? Here:

In 1979, Labour lost a general election to the Tories, the first of four consecutive election defeats. They did so on the back of the "Winter of Discontent" - union strikes on the back of Labour economic policy.
In 2010, Labour lost a general election (and who knows if it will be the first of four or more defeats) to a Tory (and Lib Dem) government on the back of an economic mess - partly (if I'm being fair) brought about by Labour economic policy.
In 1979, Labour MPs believed that the party needed time in opposition in order to re-establish the party and examine what it stood for.
In 2010, Labour MPs and former MPs - including David Blunkett, John Reid, Andy Burnham, Dianne Abbott and Tom Harris and many more besides - argued against a "progressive coalition"/ "coalition of the losers" in favour of the Labour party leaving the Tories to govern and taking time to work out where Labour could go next.
In 1983, the general election immediately following 1979, Labour lurched to the left under Micheal Foot, producing a manifesto dubbed "The Longest Suicide Note in History" which saw the party take a drubbing at the polls, polling just 27% of the vote - only 2% ahead of the Alliance.
In 2015, Labour will have the opportunity to repeat that mistake. And it would be a mistake... but what choice do they have?

Obviously this is a simplistic historical comparison, but you get the point. As I've written before, I think the Tory-Lib Dem government is here for the foreseeable future, for several reasons: any potential change to AV (or STV) will only increase their potential majority and the fixed term parliaments indicate an intention to work cohesively together for the long term. But mainly, my reason for seeing this last is the lack of a real alternative.

Look at it this way. Labour's economic plans have been discredited - who leaves office with a deficit of £163 billion for others to clear up? (Incidentally, they did the same - though not quite to the same level - at council level in Aberdeen and Edinburgh). And what charismatic leader do they have coming in to restore faith in the party and their goals? Ed or David Milliband? Ed Balls? Andy Burnham? Jon Cruddas?! There's no John Smith or Tony Blair there.

No, Labour were right to prepare for opposition. It's just not clear that they'll ever need to prepare for government again.

Silver lining

2010-05-15T19:15:00.000+01:00

I'm not buying the "I'm suffering a Tory government, get me out of here" hysteria, for several reasons, not least that when Labour told us in 1997 that "things can only get better" they did for a while but it's not like 2010 is much more financially stable than 1997. In short, I'm not as scared as everyone else of the Tories being back in power.

But here's really why I'm not so bothered:

England won the FIFA World Cup in 1966.

England won the Rugby World Cup in 2003.

In 1966, Harold Wilson was the Prime Minister of a Labour government.

In 2003, Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of a Labour government.

In short, England have won World Cups - but always under a Labour government. So when Gordon Brown got so spectacularly thumped last Thursday, he didn't just lose an election and the opportunity to govern again. He lost England the World Cup as well.

So, even for the 84% of Scots who are mad that they didn't vote for the Tories and still got a Tory government, be comforted in the knowledge that it may just save us from 50 years of clips showing Rio Ferdinand parading the FIFA World Cup Trophy (as the new one is called). Silver lining indeed.

(Incidentally, before the comments come saying I should be supporting England at the tournament, I'll say now - I can't be bothered with the argument. If they win it, well done. If they don't, too bad. I won't really be that bothered either way. I just wish the media would calm down some).

A fixed term problem

2010-05-13T13:15:00.000+01:00

A few days ago, I was discussing with Jeff & James the idea that the Tory-Lib Dem coalition (or indeed the Lib-Lab pact, as it could have been at the stage we were talking) might last only a year, and that the next election to the UK Parliament could end up being in May 2011, on the same day as the election to the Scottish Parliament - the first Thursday in May.

Both James and Jeff thought this would be a smart move by whoever was the larger party (if it had been Labour, all the better for them) for they would be able to squeeze the SNP in the Holyrood campaign by making them "irrelevant" to the UK election. I argued that, given we've had to decouple Holyrood & Council elections because of difficulties interpreting where to put an X and where to put a number, AND ALSO that the boundaries were so different for Holyrood and Westminster elections (with the example of Edinburgh Central for Holyrood split 5 ways for Westminster) would make it near impossible, and that there was no way it could happen.

Well, while that might be the case in 2011 - assuming the Tory-LD government survives - I might not be that sure of my argument now.

The rules of the Scottish Parliament have stipulated from the very beginning that elections will take place on the first Thursday of May every four years from 1999. That happened in 2003 and 2007, and will happen next year (2011). It should also occur in 2015.

However, Dave & Nick's new happy band have decided that there will be 5-year fixed term parliaments for the House of Commons. Given the election last week was on the first Thursday in May, the next election would be schedule for the first Thursday in May 2015. The same day as the Scottish Parliament (and indeed, Welsh Assembly) election.

So, a problem on the horizon - and an example of how the new UK Government has already not taken into account the devolution dimension of UK politics.

The future is orange (and blue)

2010-05-13T12:30:00.000+01:00

As a follow up to my post a couple of days ago discussing how difficult the decision to take government office for the first time is, as well as yesterday's post analysing what the Lib Dems got out of the coalition agreement, I had a thought.

There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth across the UK, from the "progressive left" to the not so progressive (or left, for that matter) Labour party, from disgruntled Lib Dems unhappy with the "coalition for change" and, well, pretty much the whole of Scotland - who categorically did not vote for the Tories. Each have valid concerns about this "frightening" new form of government.

The "progressive left" argue that the majority of the electorate really voted for them - and still got lumped with a Tory-led government. Well, maybe if the "progressive left" were one party instead of seven, there may be a case. Labourites are mad because, although they got thumped in the election, the Tories didn't win outright but the Lib Dems picked them anyway - it's almost like they got ditched for what they see as an uglier member of the opposite sex - and are incredibly bitter about it. Disgruntled Lib Dems are, well, disgruntled - they didn't vote for a Tory government either, but they've got some of their own stuff in there... though it could be interesting to see how much of it passes. And then there's Scotland who, granted, did not vote Tory. But until Scotland is independent, a UK government with little mandate in Scotland is something that will have to be suffered from time to time. Just think how England would have felt if Labour had managed to form a coalition - the Tories managed a majority of English seats. So yes, it's unfair - but it's the way the system works. Scottish Labour MPs may need to realise this sooner rather than later.

But, I digress. There's something more important that has struck me. It may not matter how annoyed people are at the moment - and the wailing and gnashing of teeth may continue for some time yet. And then when it is finished, it may continue even longer. And though yesterday I was picking holes and arguing, perhaps harshly (and I did say that at the time) that the Lib Dems were only in it for the office jobs, I think this could be a long-term thing, for two reasons.

Firstly, the five year fixed-term parliaments. This is an indication that the coalition is in it for the long-haul. Fixed-term parliaments are much fairer - it means the election is not called when the sitting PM thinks he can win, and for this reason there is no real objection. But it is an indication that the Tories & Lib Dems are looking long-term - for a five-year term of office at least. Secondly, the proposal to change a vote of no confidence from a simple majority to 55% of the Commons voting in favour - which is more controversial (see Mr Harris this morning for a scathing post on the subject) but not less indicative of a government set on working together for the long term.

Together, these two changes to the Commons set-up - plus the potential for reform to the House of Lords, incorporating a PR electoral system for all members in a House that currently also has a Tory-Liberal/Lib Dem majority - suggest that Labour may be out of office for a considerable period of time.

Now I know I should let the dust settle - the election was only one week ago after all - but look at this the way I am. Yes, we still have to wait and see how this coalition holds up, how the policies fall, how agreements hold, personality clashes etc etc. But the plan is that they will still be there heading into the election in 2015. If they change the electoral system in anyway, it is likely (depending, of course, on how the electorate feel about them) to increase the number of Lib Dems, always maintaining a Tory + Lib Dem majority though unlikely to provide any single party with a majority. Which means the parties could form an electoral pact, as seen in Germany with the CDU/CSU & FDP, and the SDP & Greens previously - a notion that would have been unthinkable a week ago.

Obviously I'm getting ahead of myself a little. But there is some logic there - for both parties. The world will change much in the next five (10?) years. Tory policy on the EU may soften. The economy may (hopefully!) recover. The two parties may find themselves agreeing on more and disagreeing on less. An agreement to keep both in power - at the expense of Labour - for the foreseeable future would be in both parties interests.

I wonder if that is playing on the mind of any future candidates for the leadership of the Labour party.

UPDATE - I just read Alex Massie of the Spectator on the very issue, and it seems he's equally speculative regarding the future - but paints an equally bleak picture for Labour.

Bought & sold for Lib Dem Gold

2010-05-12T13:30:00.004+01:00

With the coalition now agreed and the government posts being handed out like sweets, there's some analysis of the Lib Dem position to be made.

Firstly, the list of Cabinet (and sub-Cabinet) posts they have gotten. Five Cabinet seats and FIFTEEN junior ministerial roles, if rumours are to believed. Those announced thus far:

Nick Clegg - Deputy Prime Minister

Vince Cable - Business Secretary

Chris Huhne - Energy/ Climate Change Secretary

Danny Alexander - Secretary of State for Scotland

David Laws - Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Plus the junior positions too.

Secondly, policy. According to the BBC, as part of the deal the Lib Dems have:

Secured fixed term parliaments - for 5 and not 4 year terms.
Dropped plans for mansion tax.
Got Tories to drop changes to inheritance tax.
Changes to threshold for income tax in line with LD policy.

But they have also agreed:

Not to push to adopt Euro.
To accept a referendum on transfer of power to EU.
A cap on non-EU immigration.
Tory recognition of marriage in tax system.
To DROP OPPOSITION to Trident.
To accept a referendum on Alternative Vote - a non-proportional electoral system to replace FPTP, a non-proportional electoral system.

As I mentioned yesterday, a decision to take power - particularly for the first time - is a difficult one to take. Basing it, as Muller & Strom did, on the Policy-Office-Votes triumvirate, there are some conclusions to be drawn. We can't evaluate it on votes yet, since that will come at the end of the parliamentary term/ fall of the coalition - and the electorate will deliver that judgement. But from what has emerged of the coalition agreement (policies) marked against the rumoured Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions (office) we can (or at least I can) see a clear winner.

If you asked someone in the immediate aftermath of the TV debates to tell you what the Lib Dems stood for, you'd probably get an answer that resembled "pro-Europe, pro-immigration, pro-political (electoral) reform and anti-Trident". And yet, in the coalition agreement, they've accepted limits on non-EU immigration, a referendum (which would likely respond negatively) to any future transfer of powers upwards to the EU, a referendum on a new electoral system that is no more proportional than the current one and will accept the Tory plan to renew Trident while they drop opposition to it. Sure, they've got some policy concessions, but those were KEY policies and they've been ditched or watered down. So, policy considerations for taking office look rather weak.

On the other hand, the Tories were so keen to form a government that they've allowed the Lib Dems to have a large hand in running departments, replacing five Tories who had been shadowing departments in opposition with Lib Dem Cabinet Secretaries and giving plenty of junior portfolios to the Lib Dems. In other (and perhaps rather harsh) words, the Lib Dems have put the spoils of office ahead of policy concerns.

If that is indeed how it transpires, how will the electorate respond after five years (or, indeed, five months - however long this lasts!) to these Lib Dem considerations of how to form a coalition government?

Questions answered: Questions remain

2010-05-12T12:00:00.001+01:00

So, it looks will be a Tory-Lib Dem coalition. David Cameron will be PM. And Nick Clegg will be Deputy PM, while the Lib Dems have FIVE seats in the Cabinet and another FIFTEEN Ministerial jobs. Still rumoured, but if so - that's some impressive negotiating by the Lib Dems.

But with the answer to one question (that is, who will be running the country, and the form of government it will take) several more arise.

One of the most prominent: whither the nations of the UK? For the first time since devolution was delivered no party that is in government at Westminster will be in power in any of the devolved institutions. A CON-LD coalition at UK level is added to a LAB-PLAID deal in Cardiff Bay, an SNP minority administration at Holyrood and an all-party power-sharing deal at Stormont. How will partisan clashes shape the future of devolution in the UK? And will how will each nation react to what look like huge cuts from Westminster to their funding settlement?

This is particularly relevant for Wales, where the two parties in opposition in Cardiff - a distinct minority in the National Assembly - will now have an effective veto over Legislative Competence Orders from the NAW on devolving further powers, given that they are now the UK government. This may bring forward the need for a referendum on extending devolution to Wales or it may scupper it entirely.

For Scotland, how will the (yet to be confirmed) appointment of Danny Alexander as Secretary of State impact on Holyrood-Westminster relations? Previously we talked of the Tories taking the position from their sole Scottish MP David Mundell, but handing it to "Lord" McLetchie. And it does appear that PM Cameron doesn't think Mundell was up to the job - either personally or due to the fact that the Tories only have one seat in Scotland. But - here's the kicker - WHY would the Lib Dems accept the position, knowing how unpopular the Tories are in Scotland, and knowing that they will have to defend an unpopular Tory-led government? Even stranger... why put Alistair Carmichael up for the Scottish "leader" debates then ignore him when you get the corresponding Cabinet seat?

Another, how much has each party compromised in their negotiations? William Hague says it is "the bulk of the Tory manifesto and the best of the Lib Dem one". But is it secure? Can a party who supports more integration into the EU really back a party who is primarily sceptical about Europe? Can a party who wants an amnesty on EU immigration stay quiet when the coalition puts a cap on these figures? Can a party resolutely opposed to renewing Trident actually sit on its hands while its coalition partner votes through legislation on that subject?

There are plenty more questions, but this is long enough already. Where do we go from here? Time will tell... we will (apparently) have a fixed five year term to see how it pans out.

Working with the numbers

2010-05-11T14:00:00.000+01:00

Just to put on screen (for my benefit more than anything else) the possible options of an outcome to the election in which we gave no party a majority.

Figures to note: Conservatives are probably +1 from Thirsk & Malton (which is still to vote) and though Speaker John Bercow has been included in some Tory numbers, he will (likely) be Speaker and the Tories will finish on 307 (probably). But for the moment, it is 306. Second, Sinn Fein MPs are unlikely to take their 5 seats, which reduces the majority needed from 326 to 324.

Option 1:

Conservative minority government

CON - 306

Opposition:

LAB - 258 LD - 57 DUP - 8

SNP - 6 PLAID - 3 SDLP - 3

GREEEN - 1 ALLIANCE - 1

TOTAL - 337

Option 2:

Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government

CON - 306 LD - 57

TOTAL - 363

Opposition:

LAB - 258 DUP - 8

SNP - 6 PLAID - 3 SDLP - 3

GREEEN - 1 ALLIANCE - 1

TOTAL - 280

Option 3:

"Progressive Alliance"/ "Coalition of the Losers" government

LAB - 258 LD - 57

TOTAL - 315

Plus SDLP - 3 who probably take Labour whip

Plus ALLIANCE - 1 who probably take Lib Dem whip

TOTAL - 319

Plus support/ agreement not to vote down government from:

SNP - 6 PLAID - 3 GREEEN - 1

TOTAL - 329

Opposition:

CON - 306 DUP - 8

TOTAL - 314

Option 4:

Saying "bugger this, we can't agree - give us something we can work with" and going to the polls again (which may happen sooner rather than later if any of the above agreements come to fruition).

There are obviously other models (confidence and supply) but they seem to have been ruled out now that Gordon Brown has stepped down and the Tories have offered coalition (and, presumably, Cabinet seats) to the Liberal Democrats.

Who would be Nick Clegg?

2010-05-11T11:00:00.000+01:00

And breath!

Well... interesting doesn't begin to cover events since the end of the election. Tories and Lib Dems speaking to each other from Friday on - Nick Clegg saying he'd speak to the largest party first. Clegg (apparently) speaking to Labour behind Cameron's back. Negotiations ongoing (and still ongoing) between the Tories and the Lib Dems. And then, the Brown bombshell - Clegg speaking to Labour and Brown announcing he'd stand down as PM, start a Labour leadership contest and offering potentially more to the Liberal Democrats than they perhaps would like - in turn, forcing David Cameron to offer the Lib Dems more than he would like to.

What is ~~hilarious~~ tragic to watch is the unedifying spectacle of senior (and not so senior) Conservative and Labour figures wetting their pants about any potential deal. Tories on most fronts are pissed that they didn't get a majority, and even more pissed than Clegg is considering what they call a "coalition of the losers". But what they are even more annoyed about is the fact that Nick Clegg has a) been talking to Labour as well and b) has forced the Tories to offer much more - a full coalition deal AND a vote on PR - than they wanted to. Similarly, some Labour MPs and former Labour MPs are fuming that Labour are considering trying to stay in power over the wishes of the electorate - feeling a) that the party were trounced in the election and b) that any Labour-led government would have to pander to the whims of "minor" parties.

As for the Lib Dems - well, they are in rock and hard place territory. Decide to work with the Tories, and they are pilloried - and will be whacked by the electorate at the next election for supporting a party that did not win a majority. Work with Labour (in what would still be a minority coalition) and be pilloried for forming a "coalition of losers", propping up a government that was rejected by 70% of the electorate - and they will be whacked by the electorate next time out. A third option - to ignore the courting of both Tories and Labour and to sit out government, backing the Tories in votes of confidence as they run a minority government - is equally unappealing, given one of the primary reasons to vote Lib Dem was to put them in a position to influence government, a point that voters would not let them forget if they were to ignore that opportunity.

For me, I think, the Lib Dems are screwed electorally, unless they can get PR not only on the table but through the statute books. Think about it. In Scotland the electorate would punish them for joining the Tories in government. They'd suffer in the likes of Devon & Cornwall (where they are the main competition for the Tories) if they supported Labour. And if they sat back then no one would listen to them when they said "well, here's what we would do if we got an opportunity in government". PR gives them an opportunity to get at least a proportional number of seats to their vote, something which would further slide under FPTP if they went into coalition.

I'll be honest - for me this is fascinating territory. It's the stuff I study, and the idea of the Liberal Democrats facing a decision that would take them into power for the first time is worthy of much further discussion. If any of you are interested, Kris Deschouwer's book "New Parties in Government - In Power for the First Time" is well worth a look, detailing as it does the decision-making process here. Obviously, some caveats - it is focused on Europe, where this sort of thing is fairly common, and primarily on Green parties, who tend to be the new parties taking power. But the decisions are the same. Equally, Muller & Strom's "Policy, Office or Votes" covers the same ground, but provides a decision triangle of trade-offs: is the party's interest in taking office, delivering policies or securing votes, and how will the delivery of one or more of the aspects affect the others.

This is the prism through which I'm looking at the Lib Dem decision. Personally, I don't have a preference for what they do - I don't buy the "democratic deficit" crap that frightened Tories (and indeed, former Labour ministers Blunkett, Reid & Harris) are spouting in the event of a Lib-Lab pact with an "unelected" PM. The only way we get an unelected PM is if Lords Mandelson, Adonis or Sugar take over the Labour party, and though I believe they can be stupid, they are not that stupid. So enough about this unelected PM business. I also don't buy that because Labour lost the election they don't have a right to form a government. Talks between the Tories & Lib Dems pretty much stalled. Memo to Dave: if you can't get an agreement, they will walk away. Progressive alliance or coalition of the losers? It's really up to the electorate. If it provides a "stable coalition" (and I'm not sold that it will) they will deliver their verdict in four years time. If not, we may get our say again sooner.

One thing for me is clear - we gave up our right to decide who the government should be when we provided no party with a comprehensive mandate to run the country. Now we wait until they sort it out - it happens right across Europe. In the immortal words of Mr Gary Barlow, just have a little patience...

BBC Interview #2

2010-05-10T12:30:00.001+01:00

As a follow up to my pre-election interview with the BBC, Auntie Beeb has interviewed me again for my reaction to the election. You can read it here, soundbite and all.

"... while this was an election for a United Kingdom government, there is nothing united about the way in which its component countries voted."

2010 General Election: Analysis

2010-05-10T08:30:00.003+01:00

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

So, since 2005 we've had a new Prime Minister, a new party leader for each of the three "big" parties. We've had a Scottish Parliament election which saw the SNP take power at Holyrood and change the complexion of political competition in Scotland. We've had 3 years of minority government in Scotland, and nationalists also in power in Wales. We've had a European election which saw the Labour party heavily beaten and the SNP win the vote in Scotland. And we've had TV debates, a campaign that seemed to be about change. And what happened?

59 seats out of 59 in Scotland stayed with the party who won them in 2005.

It is difficult to get your head round exactly why this is. Gordon Brown became a fairly unpopular Prime Minister, the country was in recession under his leadership and arguably partly due to his policies as Chancellor. And yet, Scotland voted in considerable numbers for him and his party. Across Scotland, Labour scored 42% of the vote, more than double any other party. More than 1 million Scots cast their vote for them - a clear indication, if one were needed, that Scotland has cast its face against David Cameron's Conservatives.

That, for me is, I think, they key to this result. Labour's campaign was, to all intents and purposes, a very negative one. "If you don't want a Conservative government, vote for us - we're the only ones who can stop it" proclaimed Jim Murphy at almost every opportunity, claiming that the SNP were "irrelevant" to this election while a vote for the Lib Dems would let the Tories in by the back door. And it worked too - Labour scared people into voting for them, returning 41 out of the 59 Scottish MPs.

The problem for Labour is that their ability to stop a Conservative government from taking office did not rest with their ability to win seats in Scotland. No, they needed to stop the Tories from winning the marginal constituencies in England. That they failed to do so has meant that even though voters in Scotland bought that message, it was essentially a false one. For even if they had won every single one of the 59 Scottish seats, they would still have finished as a smaller party than the Tories - and we'd still be looking at the likelihood of a Conservative government.

So yes, in Scotland, the song remains the same. But come the next election - whenever that may be - I'm not convinced that we'll be taken in by the same message again.

General Election 2010: Liveblog

2010-05-06T20:45:00.069+01:00

13:20 The final Scottish result to be announced - Argyll & Bute - maintains the pattern in Scotland by also being a LIB DEM HOLD, making it 59 holds out of 59. That's it.

06:31 Just to keep this up to date, Orkney & Shetland has just announced, a resounding victory for Alistair Carmichael. Perhaps the most obvious LIB DEM HOLD in the entire election. Only Argyll & Bute to go - which will likely be the same.

State of the parties in Scotland:

LAB 41 LD 10 SNP 6 CON 1 (with one to announce). The SAME result as 2005.

06:05 State of the parties at the moment, with around 120 seats to declare:

CON 264 LAB 208 LD 40 OTHERS 27...

Projections put the Tories at 306, with Labour on 262 and Lib Dems 55... which means that even a Lab-LD coalition wouldn't be a majority. I'll stay with this a little while longer.

06:00 And news which is almost as good. Nick Griffin fails in Barking - Labour hold, increasing majority to 16,000. Back to Brussels with you.

05:52 I STAYED UP AND SAW HISTORY MADE! Amazing stuff - Caroline Lucas MEP makes Brighton Pavillion a GREEN GAIN. Awesome.

05:22 Not much happening at the moment. Greens fail to take Norwich South but the Lib Dems do, ousting Charles Clarke in the process. The Tory Gains keep coming in England and Wales... I make it about SIXTY now.

04:55 Labour majority in Edinburgh South goes from 450 last time round to 316 this time. Tight. All that money spent on an election, and no bloody changes.

04:50 After a couple of recounts, it looks very much like Edinburgh South is also a LAB HOLD. I think I can confidently predict NO CHANGES IN SCOTLAND. Utterly bizarre night here!

04:45 LIB DEM HOLD Ross, Skye & Lochaber. Charles Kennedy back in. Just the three left - Edinburgh South, Orkney & Shetland and Argyll & Bute - which won't announce until 12.00noon.

04:36 LAB HOLD Aberdeen North. Only 4 seats left in Scotland for any to change hands.

Quick trip down south to Redditch, where Jacqui Smith is in trouble. She's lost the seat to the Tories and looks like she's ready to greet. Former Home Secretary - GONE. She won't be claiming porn on the taxpayer any more!

04:22 Malcolm Bruce returned in Gordon - a LIB DEM HOLD. Looks very like if we're getting a seat changing hands, it will have to be Edinburgh South - and even that doesn't look a guarantee.

04:17 LAB HOLD Ochil & South Perthshire - the SNP's #1 target. Sizeable majority too. Majority of 5,000+. I saw that one coming, and stuck a fiver on Labour at 3/1 today. Covered the rest of my bets, so even if I get nothing else (still waiting for a Cabinet casualty - and the Tories having less than 300 seats) then I've broken even.

04:14 Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey up next. Comfortable LIB DEM HOLD.

04:08 West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine: LIB DEM HOLD. But not by that much. Tories put in a big effort here. Majority is 3,684. Actually not that tight - I misheard Tory figure as 16,000 instead of 13,000. Lib Dems down 8% though.

04:05 Dumfries & Galloway announced now... and another LAB HOLD. Majority of around 7,000. David Mundell doesn't get a Scottish colleague here. I hear Ochil stays Labour too... but that is not confirmed yet.

03:55 SNP HOLD Banff & Buchan - the first female SNP MP elected since Annabelle Ewing lost her seat in 2005. Vote share down in the absence of Salmond.

0352 Hearing Edinburgh South has gone to a second re-count, with Labour ahead by 400 votes. In the meantime, LAB HOLD Ayrshire North & Arran.

03:47 David Mundell's defence of the sole Tory seat in Scotland... sees him returned with 17,000+ votes. Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale. CON HOLD. Scotland is NOT a Tory-free zone.

03:41 Aberdeen South is a LAB HOLD. Not even close - another big target for the Lib Dems but they just didn't get close enough.

03:38 LIB DEM HOLD in Berwick, Roxburgh & Selkirk, Michael Moore returned - 22,232 votes cast for him. Majority of over 5,000.

03:35 Edinburgh West is a LID DEM HOLD.

03:30 LAB HOLD in Ayrshire Central. And Aberdeen South is just coming. Big Lib Dem GAIN in Burnley though.

03:20 LAB HOLD my own constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith. Bit of a surprise, as I though the Lib Dems had done enough to gain it, but the swing wasn't big enough. Same story across Scotland.

03:15 East Dunbartonshire stays as a LIB DEM HOLD. Good for Jo Swinson. Majority of 2,184, but down 4% of the vote. And Willie Bain, returns from the by-election as a LAB HOLD in Glasgow North-East. Majority of 15,942.

Terrific night for Labour in Scotland. Bad night for SNP, LD and Tories here. But - a question I'm asking myself now. IF (and its a big IF) the Tories take power at Westminster on the back of an English majority - where does that leave Scotland - with a massive Scottish Labour presence at Westminster and an SNP Scottish Government. Divided Britian? You bet your ass!

03:11 Glasgow North-West is yet another LAB HOLD. Dull stuff. No gains yet...

03:08 Chancellor Alastair Darling returned as LAB HOLD Edinburgh South-West. Rumours that Labour will hold Edinburgh South as well... Lib Dems were confident of gaining that one, but not looking likely now.

02:58 SNP HOLD Moray, returning Angus Robertson - presumably as SNP Westminster leader. And Tom Harris is back as LAB HOLD Glasgow South.

02:49 LAB HOLD Dunbartonshire West. LAB HOLD Glasgow South-West. LAB HOLD Edinburgh East. No figures... but do they really matter. We know the story now!

02:40 LAB HOLD East Renfrewshire. Massive win for Jim Murphy - he got around 25,000 votes. Massive. Tories had this down as a target, but they were nowhere.

02:36 SNP HOLD Perth & Perthshire North in the face of a fairly substantial Tory challenge. Majority of 4,379, so maybe not as close as I thought it was to begin with. Glasgow North next up - big Lib Dem target... but Ann McKechin holds on for another LAB HOLD.

02:26 "Pants on fire" McGuire gives another LAB HOLD in Stirling - again, not unexpected, but a majority of around 8,000 is huge. Lab swing from Tories 3.5% - and the turnout at 71%. Labour getting the vote out, presumably by telling people they can stop the Tories taking power. LAB HOLD Midlothian. And LAB HOLD Linlithgow & East Falkirk. And LAB HOLD Paisley and Renfrewshire North... big holds - but they are losing seats in England.

02:19 Anas Sarwar keeps it in the family, providing a LAB HOLD in Glasgow Central. Sensing a pattern here...

02:15 Stewart Hosie increases SNP majority in Dundee East in a big SNP HOLD. The Tories have gained Aberconwy in Wales, maybe significant. And LAB HOLD Airdrie & Shotts.

02:13 LAB HOLD Cumbernauld & Kilsyth. LAB HOLD Livingston (an SNP target - and an SNP seat in Holyrood). A massively bad result for the SNP. LAB HOLD Paisley and Renfrewshire South. Dougie Alexander back.

I only had the SNP gaining Livingston and Dundee West, both of which have remained with Labour, by a considerable margin. Which means, I suspect, that they'll stay on six.

02:06 LAB HOLD Glasgow East (again, having won it in 2005 and lost it in by-election). John Mason gone. Margaret Curran becomes Labour's second MSP-MP of the evening. Massive majority again - no political earthquake here tonight.

02:03 SNP HOLD Angus - big Tory target. Dunfermline & West Fife, which was won by Labour in 2005 and won by LD in by-election is a classed as a LAB HOLD. Not sure I thought that would happen. LD vote sliding in Scotland - what happened to Clegg-mania up here?!

01:58 LAB HOLD Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellshill, previously safest seat in Britain. LAB HOLD Falkirk. I'm sensing a pattern here.

01:53 Laptop crashed so I missed getting some results in. Recapping: LAB HOLD East Lothian - a good result given the civil war there. LAB HOLD Dundee West - by a considerable margin from the SNP, in what was a target seat for the Nats. LAB HOLD Kilmarnock & Loudoun - Cathy Jamieson MSP now becomes an MP too. Maybe Salmond will start mocking Labour for the dual-mandate stuff. Both the latter 2 held by the SNP in Scottish Parliament.

Also, Tom Harris reports Labour look like winning all Glasgow seats - including a whooping for John Mason in Glasgow East. Not confirmed yet - but good assumption to make.

01:38 SNP HOLD Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Western Isles to you and me). Again, no shocks there.

01:32 LAB HOLD East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow; LAB HOLD Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath; LIB DEM HOLD North East Fife. No shocks.

01:21 Ynys Mon is a Labour Hold in Wales. Plaid's challenge falls away there.

01:20 Gordon Brown says he wants to try and form a coalition. Who wouldn't? But if the exits are close to being right... he'd need some Nats as well as LD.

01:16 LAB HOLD Motherwell & Wishaw, not a shock there either. Majority of 16,806. Lab up 3%, 1% swing from SNP to Labour.

01:09 First Scottish Result: Rutherglen LAB 28,566, SNP 7,564, CON 4,540, LD 5,636, UKIP 665. As expected. 21,002 majority. Lab up 5%. Swing 1.5% SNP-LAB. LAB HOLD. Not much to draw from that I don't think.

01:03 Rumours on Twitter: Labour "officially hold" East Kilbride; Sky have UNCALLED Edinburgh South. And a proper result - the Tories make their first GAIN of the night in Kingswood, from Labour. Majority of 2445.

00:59 In Wales, Plaid Cymru GAIN Arfon from Labour.

00:54 Allan is blogging too - here. Missed it earlier - sorry!

00:51 Big story in N.Ireland - First Minister Peter Robinson loses Belfast East to Alliance. Big shock (kind of) though there was some scandal around. No real impact on overall UK result I don't think.

00:45 Sources: "definite" Labour hold in Stirling.

00:30 Give me something to ANALYSE!!!

00:15 There's NOTHING happening. Time for a nap?

23:55 Better news for Lib Dems - they look like they'll take Labour-held Edinburgh South. And news from down south - the Greens will "probably" take Brighton Pavillion.

23:50 Lib Dems talking up coalitions now... as are Mandy and Al Jo. But on the exit poll figures, they don't quite have enough to get over the 326... (ps - I've fixed the big space at the top - finally!)

23:41 I hear from a couple of sources that Labour WILL HOLD Edinburgh North & Leith. Apparently the Labour vote is hardening up. Don't want to believe that.

23:28 Lab hold Washington... Obama goes nuts! But seriously... swing of over 11% to the Tories. Thing to note though - big boundary changes so figures from 2005 notional to an extent.

23:20 There will be a brief intermission while there is bugger all happening!

On a related note... quelle disastre regarding the old stopping people from voting. Makes the 2007 Holyrood election look less stupid.

22:55 Unsurprising Labour hold in first seat (Sunderland) but down 12%... and Tory vote up 5,000. Not sure there's too much to read into it, but they'll try anyway. Long way to go though. 8.4% swing to the Tories!

22:40 Holyrood Patter and J. Arthur MacNumpty will be liveblogging too. Subrosa has a fancy gadget thing for liveblogging too.

22:30 A few other things I'm looking out for (couple of bets on!):

Tories win 250-274 seats (14/1)
Tories win 275-299 seats (7/2)
LD win 90-99 seats (4/1)
UKIP win a seat (7/2)
1 Cabinet Minister loses seat (4/1)
2 Cabinet Ministers lose seat (5/1)
Labour hold Ochil & South Perthshire (3/1).

I wait with baited breath!

22:25 A couple of days ago I predicted this for Scotland:

Labour - 34 seats

Lib Dems - 14 seats

SNP - 8 seats

Conservatives - 3 seats

I actually think that the SNP may not rise above their 6... and the Tories may be lucky if they get their three. Nevertheless, here's my predicted seat changes:

Aberdeen South - LD gain from LAB

Berwick, Roxburgh & Selkirk - CON gain from LD

Dumfries & Galloway - CON gain from LAB

Dundee West - SNP gain from LAB

Dunfermline & West Fife - LD gain from LAB (from 2005)

Edinburgh North & Leith - LD gain from LAB

Edinburgh South - LD gain from LAB

Glasgow East - LAB gain from SNP (from by-election)

Livingston - SNP gain from LAB

22:15 BBC exit poll: CON 307 LAB 255 LD 59 - Result as Hung Parliament. Have to say, I think that doesn't really tally with what I think, and my years(!) of experience.

MITB prediction: Con 280ish, Lab 250ish, LD 90ish.

20:45 I'm not really starting blogging until polls close at 10pm, but I saw this on Twitter - a list of when each constituency is likely to announce its result. Useful for later. You can see the list here.

Check back later for (much) more analysis of the results.

Voting may be bad for your health

2010-05-06T17:00:00.004+01:00

Well, that's that done.

My participation in the democratic process of a state I don't agree with is over for another 4 or 5 years (or less, depending how badly they screw it up).

I have to say, being an undecided isn't easy. Even though I was 90% sure who I was voting for, I still took a full 2 or 3 minutes looking at the paper before I put a cross in a box. And walking home (which took less time than I spent in the polling booth) I considered what I'd just done. And felt a little sick in the stomach

Voting is underestimated in its importance. I mean, yes, people fought battles, people died to allow us to vote freely and fairly - and of course people shouldn't take that lightly - and most don't. But my point is more about democracy itself.

Churchill said democracy was the worst system, except for all the others that had been tried. And its true - it is by no means perfect. Rousseau was not a fan of representative democracy, of people taking an active interest and role in politics only once every four or five years, of instilling their trust in one person to represent their views, to vote on legislation in their place for a period of time until a further plebiscite should take place.

As I reflected on my way home that 62 million (or even 5 million in Scotland) is probably too large for direct democracy, I thought about what I had just done. I had given my vote not to someone whom I believed would vote the way I would on legislation (though, in hindsight, he probably will) nor to someone with whom I identified fully. No, I'd actually given my vote to someone who, like Churchill and democracy, was the "least worst" candidate.

And I was disappointed with myself. Not for my choice - I've agonised over this one for weeks, months even. I was disappointed with the choice presented to me, the system within which my voice was to be heard (and, ironically, one of the main reasons I voted the way I did).

The least worst option my choice may have been. But it was not the best, and that proves to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that reform is needed.

When I got home, I washed my hands.

Choices?

2010-05-06T14:00:00.001+01:00

A guy called Matt (who appears to have the surname "Money") sent me this link and asked me to post it - he thought those of you who haven't yet voted may be interested. But given my readership is 20 people, and 15 of you are likely party people, its impact my be minimal.

Nevertheless, I'm an obliging sort. So here's the link:

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1005269-are-we-all-like-lambs-to-the-slaughter.htm

601st Post: Liveblogging later

2010-05-06T11:45:00.002+01:00

I have decided to liveblog the election, probably until around 4-5am, depending when we get some good results. Maybe even 6am if I end up being hardcore. I will be tweeting too - but 140 characters is just not enough for any kind of analysis, so I'll be adding that here too.

Important to note - I won't be "breaking news". I'm just not that sort of guy - I don't have the amount of sources required for that. But when results break I'll break them down - hopefully in a more balanced way than the talking heads on TV later.

I should be more balanced too - I'm a member of party X, campaigned for party Y and will probably vote party Z. And none of the three of them is likely to provide the PM on Friday (or next week, or whenever we find out who it is!).

So, I'll be back around 10pm. Join in the debate.

BBC Interview

2010-05-05T08:30:00.000+01:00

Malc in the Burgh - featured on the BBC!

Short interview for BBC on election, parties, issues and the media. Let me know what you think.

Predicting the unpredictable...

2010-05-04T16:00:00.001+01:00

I mentioned this morning that I was working on a prediction for the 59 seats in Scotland come Friday morning. So here we are - polling data, majorities, vague knowledge of candidates and local issues, and the occasional bit of blind guesswork has led me to this:

Labour - 34 seats

Lib Dems - 14 seats

SNP - 8 seats

Conservatives - 3 seats

Which, on the face of it, would keep each of the parties fairly happy. Yes Labour will have lost 5 seats, but it wouldn't be the disaster they'd expected. The Lib Dems, a few short weeks ago, were probably looking at a few losses, and less than 10 seats, so 14 would be a big win. The SNP, though nowhere near their (ridiculously ambitious) 20 seat target, would be happy with adding a couple of seats to their 2005 total in an election they've been squeezed out of by parties and media alike. And the Conservatives would be delighted with two Scottish colleagues for David Mundell, with the fears that they have over another wipeout in Scotland.

So, here's the few seats I see changing hands:

Aberdeen South - LD gain from LAB

Berwick, Roxburgh & Selkirk - CON gain from LD

Dumfries & Galloway - CON gain from LAB

Dundee West - SNP gain from LAB

Dunfermline & West Fife - LD gain from LAB (from 2005)

Edinburgh North & Leith - LD gain from LAB

Edinburgh South - LD gain from LAB

Glasgow East - LAB gain from SNP (from by-election)

Livingston - SNP gain from LAB

The remainder will, I think, stay the same as 2005. This includes seats like Ochil & South Perthshire, with a small majority; the four-way marginal Argyll & Bute; Labour holding off Tory & SNP charges in Stirling and East Renfrewshire and what I think will be a stonking fight in East Lothian. The "vogue" pick amongst my friends and colleagues is a Lib Dem win in Glasgow North, but I'm not sold on it.

Of course, as I said before, this is entirely guesswork, and based on nothing more than an amateur psephologist's instincts. Feel free to systematically de-construct this on the basis that you think I have no idea what I'm talking about because I'm not out talking to "the people". And let me know what you think.

But you know I'm right... right?

May the fourth be with them...

2010-05-04T11:25:00.000+01:00

So, we're nearly there. 2 days to go. My current election bumpf count stands at:

Lib Dem 14

SNP 5

Lab 2

Con 1

Green 1

TUSA 1

Lib 1

No prizes for guessing who is really going after my vote, in what should be a keenly contested Lab-LD marginal.

I guess I have to be careful what I say now, with only two days to go - apparently because I'm writing on a blog I have some kind of influence.

However, given that the only election literature that I have had my hands on has been in my flat, I haven't had any other dealings with anyone connected to any political party (other than pestering candidates electronically - I mean by email and twitter of course, but how about next time we fit them with electronic tags?!) and I haven't talked about, much less seen, anything to do with postal votes, I might be okay to indulge in a little educated (I'm a politics student and amateur psephologist) guesswork surrounding the constituencies.

So, disclaimer out of the way (ie - that this is guesswork based solely on my own logic and reading of the election, predominantly through the use of opinion polling) I'll try to put together a guess at the 59 seats in Scotland later today. I'll also pick a few that I intend to stick a fiver on - thereby putting my money where my mouth is.

As a general outcome - I suspect we may well be in the territory whereby the Conservatives may get the largest amount of votes... and possibly even seats, but due to the convention that the outgoing PM gets to try and form a government, we may well see a Lab-LD pact/ coalition... but perhaps with Nick Clegg as PM? Is that a really outside bet - I mean, have I been drinking too much Clegg-ade? Perhaps... but one thing I am pretty sure about: this won't be decided by Friday morning.

Electoral Reform?

2010-04-29T16:00:00.003+01:00

Interesting debate in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament this morning on proportional representation. There will be a vote on it at 5pm this evening... I suspect I know what way that will go. Anyway, worth a listen.

Apparently the video is having some difficulty working, but you can see it here.

All things bright and bigoted

2010-04-29T09:39:00.000+01:00

I don't think it is overstating yesterday's events to say that this might be the key point of the campaign thus far. Sure, Nick Clegg's performance in the first Leaders' Debate earned him his place at the top table and spiked the Lib Dems poll numbers to make this a genuine 3-way tussle (and a genuine 4-way in Scotland). But "Gordon's Gaffe", as it will be known for generations to come, is probably the point at which Labour's opportunity to turn the poll figures around ended for good.

Of course it was a private thought spoken aloud to an aide in a private moment. Of course no one was supposed to hear it. And of course anyone can make a mistake, and I think the public does have some sympathy with that. But the media storm that has ensued, the PM's reaction - on camera - when he heard what he'd said, his multiple apologies (45 minutes in Mrs Duffy's house!) and the fact that what the woman asked wasn't the least bit bigoted, merely a question that plenty of voters would like an answer to have turned this from private mistake to catastrophe for the PM.

Giving Gordon Brown his credit - he did appear absolutely mortified about what he'd said and the upset that he had caused. And you can take into account the situation - a tough campaign trail, tough questions (though what appeared a pleasant conversation) and what he thought was a private moment. But, ultimately, for a man who wants to return as PM, this was Bush league. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to have thoughts like this about voters. Actually, maybe I am. The politician who discounts what the electorate thinks of an issue as unimportant or bigoted... well, he doesn't deserve to represent the people who he claims to champion. And - according to Iain Dale - Brown has refused to meet the people in his own constituency, ignoring EIGHT hustings invitations. Perhaps this new "meet the people" strategy doesn't stretch to getting himself re-elected.

So - probably the best day of the campaign for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, and they really didn't do much at all. They certainly got very little coverage for it anyway - and they'll be happy enough with that. My problem though, and its one I've had for a long time, is that candidates are not doing enough to convince people to vote for them. Brown's gaffe yesterday underlines this point in more ways than one. In engaging with the public in the way he has, all he has done is give the electorate one more reason not to vote for his party... or not to vote at all. And many more are leaning towards the latter.

Election Manifestos

2010-04-22T10:30:00.001+01:00

Having proved a few days ago how indecisive I am about voting, I thought there must be some in the same shoes. So, in order to help those like me, here are the manifestos of parties standing in Scotland that I could get hold of online in pdf format (listed alphabetically):

British National Party (no online manifesto)

The Liberal Party (no online manifesto)

Pirate Party UK

Scottish Christian Party (no online manifesto)

Scottish Conservative Party

Scottish Green Party

Scottish Labour

Scottish Liberal Democrats

Scottish National Party

Scottish Socialist Party

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (no online manifesto)

United Kingdom Independence Party

Hope this is useful. I'll probably try to get through the seven that are standing in my constituency.

PS - I read today that Nick Clegg is under fire from the Daily Mail for an article he wrote lambasting British attitudes towards Germans EIGHT YEARS ago whilst he was an MEP. I've read the article and I agree with Nick (which was last week's soundbite I know). Britain remembers German's expansionist ambitions but not the travesties carried out in the name of Empire. He's right - even 8 years on - the British air of superiority is lame.

Will people get what they want?

2010-04-21T11:30:00.013+01:00

Quick post on how the system works, because it has been messing up my head for a few days now.

A couple of days (18 April) ago, an ICM poll had the parties at the following levels of support:

CON - 33%

LD - 30%

LAB - 28%

Not one to put that much stock in opinion polls (though I don't quite go along with Lord Foulkes idea that we shouldn't have them during elections) I'm taking everything they say with a pinch of salt. There are, after all, 650 elections going on - not just one. And yes, I know there have been a multitude of polls since then - by many different companies - but this poll is interesting for a particular reason.

Putting those poll numbers into Electoral Calculus, you get the following result:

LAB - 263 seats

CON - 254 seats

LD - 101 seats

And that, for me, is what is incredibly interesting. Ignoring the million caveats about polling companies' methods, margins of error, national swing etc, there's a larger point to be made if this happens and it is this:

Despite polling just over 1 in 4 of the eligible votes in the election - and having polled considerably fewer votes than either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats - Labour would remain the largest party in the House of Commons, albeit a long way short of a majority.

This emphasises the shortcomings in the electoral system - and the institutional bias against the Conservatives, emphasising the truth in a post I wrote in October.

Two things of note. Firstly, if this is indeed how the public vote - indicating a minority preference for the Conservatives - how will they react if Labour end up winning a fourth term in office? And secondly, and perhaps ironically for the Tories, it probably puts electoral reform on the table (if there was indeed a Lab-Lib coalition) which is something they are resolutely opposed to.

Interesting stuff. Doesn't help me any - but interesting nonetheless.

What matters?

2010-04-20T11:00:00.005+01:00

I have a problem. Its getting difficult to hide it now. I'm embarrassed about it. I walk down the street and see other people who don't look like they have the same problem and I feel like I'm the only one. I've decided I have to just come out and say it:

I'm a genuine undecided.

I have a problem on so many levels. I'm pro-independence - both at national and individual level - which makes me a liberal and conservative nationalist. I'm green too. I preach to my students that a General Election is just that - 650 different elections on the same day so it strikes me that I should look at the candidates in my own constituency. But then this is going to be a close election, fine margins will make the difference and therefore the bigger picture matters too. Who will form the government? Will it be a majority or minority - or a coalition? Will my vote matter?

And so my choice takes stock of the UK level, the leaders, the policies, the TV debates. But then, not all of what they say is relevant to me - health, education, transport policies are true for England, but not for Scotland. I'm impressed with "Dave" - though others are not, I find him genuine and fresh - a 2010 Tony Blair (though we know how that ended). I was impressed too with Nick Clegg in the debate - though he was not challenged too much on policy, he could only play the opponents who were against him. Less impressed with Gordon Brown - I think he's really had his chance, and made a bit of a mess.

But should impressions of these three matter? I mean, yes, one of them will be PM, but I'm unlikely to ever meet them, much less have any reason to write to them. Yes, they will shape the country for the next 4/5 years (or 6 months if it is that tight). But they won't shape my local area, and that matters too.

I'm currently represented by a Labour MP, who has - occasionally - voted against his government, but not as often as I would like. According to the multitude of Lib Dem leaflets I have collected over the past few weeks, only they can beat Labour here. Which is true - to an extent, but only if people vote for them. I'm really not a huge fan of the SNP candidate here, and while I appreciate some of what Cameron says about the Tories, I haven't heard anything from their candidate. I also have the choice of a Green candidate here, and if it were a PR election undoubtedly they would get more consideration, but they are probably squeezed out of my thinking on the back of how tight the whole thing is going to be.

So, I'm asking - what should matter more? Local or national (or international)? Individual or collective? Policy or projection? Style or substance? And will it make a difference either way?

I'm in dire need. Please take some time out of your day to help.

Yours truly,

Confused, Edinburgh

PS - this supposed to help you decide to vote... and they are all right - it is time to make your mind up. Easier said than done though!

An election you say?

2010-04-07T08:15:00.001+01:00

Well, well, well.

It's finally been announced. Four weeks tomorrow we (and I use "we" loosely - around half of us) will go to the polls and vote for a new MP and, consequently, a new government. Those that want change will vote for someone different and hope they have enough support to be elected. Those that want to stick with the devil they know will hope enough of their fellow voters agree with that sentiment. Everyone has the choice to vote (even those in the 382 constituencies which are classed as "safe" seats - though in those cases the choice will probably be between the sitting MP and beating them).

Anyway, I know I haven't posted much - and probably won't improve that record over the next few weeks - but I thought I better put on record my predictions for May 6th. So here goes.

David Cameron will become the next Prime Minister. The Conservatives, despite all the recent chat about opinion polls tightening and hung parliaments, will end up with a majority of around 40. The polls will tighten - but only in as far as cutting the Tory lead from the 10-11 points it currently is to 7 or 8.

In Scotland, the SNP will win the national share of the vote, but will get scant reward. They'll make two gains - in either Dundee West, Livingston, Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Edinburgh East or (more doubtful but still possible) Stirling or Ochil & South Perthshire. But they'll lose Glasgow East back to Labour and have to fight off Tory challenges in Angus and Perth & North Perthshire.

The Tories will turn the borders blue, with wins in Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk, Dumfries & Galloway... as well as 2 potential surprises in Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock, Argyll & Bute, West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, Edinburgh South and Edinburgh South-West as Scotland returns (vaguely) to the Tories, giving them 20% of the vote and 5 MPs north of the border.

The Lib Dems will, I think, lose their position that the Iraq war gave them in 2005 and won't make any real gains but losing Michael Moore in the borders and potentially West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, Argyll & Bute as well as the opportunity of a gain in Edinburgh South make it a tough night for Tavish. I still expect them to hold on to around 8 or 9 seats, making them the second party in Scotland in seats but likely fourth on vote share.

And what of Labour? Well, a night to forget. They'll gain back Glasgow East from the SNP but most of the night will be a rearguard action, fighting tough battles across Scotland - and the rest of the UK - and several current Cabinet ministers are in danger of leaving the Palace of Westminster for the last time. I reckon to see 37 Scottish Labour MPs, down two from 2005 - probably in the shape of 2 losses to the SNP and one to the Tories - which, on the face of it, would not be a disaster, and they'd have the electoral system to thank for it.

So there. I reckon some people may have better predictions (and advice on tactical voting) but I don't think I'll be far off. Kind of makes the point the Electoral Commission is making - only a hundred or so seats will be proper contests, and only 6 or 7 seats in Scotland will (in my view) change hands. But I guess that's what the next four weeks are about. Onward!

Six Nations Week 5 - Predictions

2010-03-20T10:15:00.005Z

For the final time this year:

Wales 24-17 Italy
Ireland 23-18 Scotland
France 30-15 England

No shocks, I reckon.

Conference Paper

2010-03-18T10:15:00.005Z

Been a bit busy recently, so I've been quiet on here. Inevitable consequence of trying to do a million things at one time.

One of those things I'd like to point you in the direction of is a conference paper which I've jointly written with my PhD supervisor, Dr Peter Lynch. I will be presenting it (alone - Peter is out of the country!) at the PSA conference in Edinburgh on the 30th March.

The paper is entitled:

"From National Conversation to Independence Referendum?: The SNP Government and the Politics of Independence"

You can read it on the PSA Conference website, along with the other papers which appear on the same panel.

For those of you who don't really want to wade through 6,000 words of research, the abstract is below. But you know you want to...

This paper will examine the political background and activities of the SNP Government’s National Conversation to promote independence ahead of a referendum in 2010. It will set the process in the context of similar constitutional reform exercises in other countries (such as statute reforms in Spain) and look at the level of public and pressure group engagement with the National Conversation through assessing the range of events and media coverage of the process. The paper will argue that the National Conversation process has had little apparent effect on the popularity of independence – in terms of opinion poll support - but has allowed the SNP government to engage with community organisations across Scotland, boost its own popularity and play an agendasetting role over the issue of constitutional change more broadly.

Six Nations Week 4 - Predictions

2010-03-13T10:27:00.008Z

Ireland 32-18 Wales
Scotland 12-17 England
France 41-13 Italy

Haven't really had time this week to get a grip of the teams etc (I've been in Rome on holiday) but here's what I think. Wins for Ireland, England and France, the latter to set up a Grand Slam opportunity at home against England next week.

++ Blog Exclusive: Green Candidate ++

2010-02-25T16:30:00.000Z

My sources have pointed me in the direction of a scoop.

The Scottish blogosphere's very own James MacKenzie, of Two Doctors fame, has been selected by the Scottish Green Party to contest the constituency of East Lothian at the upcoming Westminster election.

Unlike the news article above, I'm going to try and report this news without any mistakes (one Green MSP? Robin Harper still leader?! I ask you! And they have James down as 37 - he's not a day over 25!). That's him on the right in the photo above.

Anyway, cracking news. James will be an excellent candidate for the party - and, given the difficulties some parties (Labour in particular) have had in the constituency, he may fancy his chances there - though it is a big ask.

Best of luck to him - and indeed to the other potential blogosphere MPs.

Consider the lily

2010-02-25T15:15:00.002Z

Consider the Labour party at the moment - likely defeat at the next UK election, already in opposition in Scotland, MPs jumping ship left, right and centre, (arguably) a distinct lack of talent left on the benches and staring at a future which looks decidedly against them.

On that basis, I have a question for Yousuf. And, well, all Labour-types really who purport to be "social-democrats". It's about Labour, the next election, preferences, social democracy and conservatism. Actually, from that previous sentence, you can probably make the question yourself.

Why would the Labour party in Scotland prefer to see Scotland governed by a Conservative government at Westminster - and, in turn, the Tories roll back ~~all~~ any of the good, social democratic policies delivered by Labour in the past 13 years - when they could have an independent Scotland which, in all likelihood, would see social democracy as the norm?

This question - put in a fairly similar form - was put to the author of a different blog but I can't for the life of me remember which blog or who asked it so I will very much apologise for not sourcing it. If it is any consolation, I thought it an excellent question, and one I've been thinking about since.

Labour's campaign for re-election in Scotland purports to ignore the SNP as irrelevant, focusing solely on the Conservatives. Perhaps that is smart - it is a UK election, where the SNP are on the fringes after all - but for me, it smacks of desperation. The SNP form the devolved government of Scotland - people are not going to forget who they are. But by setting up the election as a battle between themselves and the Tories, Labour are drawing the battlelines - and identifying their real enemy. And apparently it isn't nationalism - its conservatism.

Now that makes sense - "social democracy" (as New Labourism likes to self-define as) has always been opposed to conservatism. The outlook on the individual, on society, on the role of government is all different - in short, they stand for different things. I guess Labour will tell you they want a "fair" society, with "equality of opportunity" for all while for the Conservatives, the focus is on law and order, and on encouraging enterprise. Obviously these concepts are not mutually exclusive, but it is the way in which the parties focus - and prioritise - which provide the biggest differences.

Priorities. Preferences. The key concepts in this debate I think. For if Labour, as they purport to be, really are about promoting equality and improving standards of living, then surely that could be achieved better on a smaller scale? And their opportunity to do so on a smaller scale would also be bigger - that is, political competition in Scotland is focused on the politics of the centre-left, with only the Conservatives and their 15-20% of the vote residing outside the dominant political discourse.

What is my point? Simply this - Labour's core principle, social democracy, is one which is easier to achieve on a smaller scale. In Scotland, Labour's core principle is in tune with the electorate (arguably it is across the UK, but only really in cycles). Labour's visceral behaviour towards the SNP is predicated upon a threat not to that principle but to their electoral prospects and their ability to enact these principles. If the party were not so blinkered, they'd see in the SNP a party with principles remarkably similar to their own. Yes, the SNP are a broad church of opinion - with independence the glue that holds it all together - but predominant policy in the past 25 years has been guided by centre-left values. Combined, the two parties dominate Scottish politics. Why would that be any different in an independent Scotland?

So, I'll put the question to the Labour types again:

Why would the Labour party in Scotland prefer to see Scotland governed by a Conservative government at Westminster when they could have an independent Scotland which, in all likelihood, would see social democracy as the norm?

If the SNP are smart, they'll start asking Iain Gray and Jim Murphy this very question.