Retiring MSPs (Updated)

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.

Read more...

Nat Gain?

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.

Read more...

The end of hegemony?

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.

Read more...

Several(?) dates with destiny

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.

Read more...

Cardiff & Edinburgh

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.

Read more...

Retiring MSPs

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.

Read more...