What if Labour win?

Recent conjecture surrounding the upcoming General Election has centred upon two possible outcomes: A Conservative victory large enough to allow them to govern fairly comfortably or a Hung Parliament. But there is a third possible outcome, however unlikely it may seem:

A Labour win.

Think about that for a second. Speculation regarding the end of the recession, the end of Brown, the SNP in the Scottish Government and their referendum - everything making the news at the moment - all that is predicated on the expected outcome, a Conservative victory and David Cameron as Prime Minister. But what if - IF - Labour can squeeze out a win?

Would Gordon stay on? What about the doubters & plotters? Would Harriet make her move? What about the Miliband of brothers (D-edward to some)? Would they continue to back Brown's leadership? And how long would a fourth term in office last for Labour? A few months or a full term?

Think of the knock-on effect though. Brown's plan to fight the recession would have to be enacted. The Calman proposals too, would have to be worked out. Jim Murphy (assuming he retained his seat) would probably remain as Scottish Secretary, strengthening his position (and weakening Iain Gray's). The SNP - well, they probably don't care either way. A weak Labour government with a small majority would be just as good for their ends as a strong Conservative government with no mandate in Scotland. Would a referendum pass? Who knows.

The big question for me though is how Labour would react to returning to power. All signs at the moment point to the party preparing for a defeat - and if they don't get trounced that would be a victory in itself. But should they confound expectations - with an unpopular leader - would the poisonous plotting disappear or come to the fore?

Many questions, with no real answer at the moment. The coming election should provide a few answers, and perhaps a few more questions. Whenever it is held.

Read more...

A hypothetical vote

Hypothetical situation (on which someone with experience of tactical voting may wish to shed some light).

You live in constituency S. There are 5 candidates in upcoming general election (candidates AA, BB, CC, DD & EE). They represent parties V, W, X, Y & Z.

The constituency you live in is currently represented by AA (of party V) whose party are currently the governing party but who look like they are going to lose the coming election. While AA is a member of the governing party, they have shown themselves to be somewhat independent-minded and occasionally voted with their conscience. You don't have a problem with them at all, but don't particularly like the party they represent.

Candidate BB's party W were 2nd in the constituency last time out, and have constantly told you that "only they can win here", despite the last 2 elections in the constituency pushing the party's vote down in the area. You are not keen on these kind of games, don't like that tactic and are generally underwhelmed by the party.

Candidate CC's party X finished 4th here in the last UK election but have proved stronger across Scotland. They have performed creditably in government and look like a party on the up. You strongly support the party's goals but have a particular dislike for their chosen candidate.

Candidate DD's Y party look likely to be the next UK government, but remain a way off winning this seat. While you recognise the strength of some of their arguments (and the charisma of their leader) you are loathe to support them and a local candidate who also rubs you up the wrong way.

Finally, candidate EE's party Z look like facing a struggle to return their deposit, though they showed fairly strongly in the previous (European) election in the area. You appreciate the party's intentions - and have voted for them in the past - but you recognise the difficulties facing them in what is not a PR election and feel that voting for them this time may be a wasted vote.

So, here's your choice reader. Do you:

A) Appreciate the work of your current MP (of party V) and, in your concern that the constituency may be represented by the wishy-washy party (W), lend your support to the incumbent.

B) Vote for the wishy-washy (W) party in the hope that your vote is enough to win the seat for them over the incumbent.

C) Go with the party you strongly support (X) and ignore your feelings about their candidate (increasing their share of the national vote by a minor percentage).

D) Recognise that there is a bigger picture, become a glory-hunter and vote for party Y who won't win this seat but will probably win the election - giving you the opportunity of telling people that yes, you voted in the government.

E) Ignore the fact that your second choice party (Z) have little chance of winning the seat and try to help them secure their deposit.

F) Stay at home on election day.

So there you are reader. The choice, as they say, is yours. Answers on a postcard (or in the comments).

Read more...

Leading Labour

Like him or loathe him (and I know plenty on the latter side of that) Jim Murphy has done a fairly good decent job as Secretary of State for Scotland - from a political perspective at least.

No really. A number of commentators and academics had concerns about the informal nature of intergovernmental affairs between Westminster and Holyrood under the Lab-LD coalition. Decisions were taken on an "I know so and so from conference" basis, and toes were not stepped on when an issue was contentious (civil partnerships is probably the best example). With Labour in government at both levels, it was easy to see why they wished to avoid conflict - and the easiest way to do so was to avoid formal negotiations.

However, with the election of the SNP in 2007, the potential was there for more explosive relations. Indeed, most media outlets had the SNP pointedly fighting with Westminster over everything before they'd even set foot in Bute House. This proved unfounded. The SNP were keen to get intergovernmental relations back into the formal sphere, and tried to rebuild the Joint-Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council... albeit with some resistance from Westminster (and limited success).

Nevertheless, appointing Jim Murphy as Secretary of State for Scotland - and making the position full-time again - has been a successful move for the UK Government for several reasons. At a perception-only level, it has made it appear that Scotland is on the agenda and represented at Cabinet. More than that though, the position has acted as a buffer between the two governments - and more particularly, between the First Minister and the Prime Minister. Any time Alex Salmond has called for a meeting between governments, Gordon Brown has said "speak to Jim, he's responsible for Scotland". And that has worked - it has kept the First Minister as an unequal to the PM, on the same level as Jim Murphy. Crucially, it has allowed Gordon Brown to avoid entangling himself in every Scottish issue of the day.

But perhaps the best outcome for Labour in Scotland is that it has allowed a Scottish MP to regain some control over Labour's message in Scotland. Rather than leaving the leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament (LOLISP) to appear as a leader, Jim Murphy has, to all intents and purposes, assumed a leadership role - challenging the FM to debates, speaking at conferences alongside Iain Gray and generally getting quoted as the Labour spokesperson in Scotland. And, to a great degree, he has done so relatively successfully - keeping Alex Salmond at arms length from Westminster and acting as Salmond's equal.

Question is though, what happens after May? I mean, even though I expect Jim Murphy to survive a tough election (both the Tories and the SNP will be after him hard after finishing ahead of Labour there in the European election) Labour may not. In fact, I'd go as far to say I think the game is up - and we'll have a Tory Government with a majority of around 60 after the election. Which means a Tory Secretary of State for Scotland... and Jim Murphy out of his high profile role.

Granted, if that happens then Labour have bigger problems to deal with than losing Murphy as a spokesperson. But the real point is this - how will Iain Gray cope? If Labour are out of government at Westminster AND Holyrood, Iain Gray - being the higher elected official in Scottish Labour - will be the de facto Leader of Labour in Scotland.

What would that mean for Labour? And Labour MPs? What would their role be under a Tory Government and a leader who wouldn't sit in the same parliament? Would Jim Murphy continue to do the job as Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland? Or would Iain Gray have to up his game?

I guess we wait...

Read more...

20 SNP MPs? Don't think so

A few days ago - prior to the SNP conference starting - Jeff made a list of potential gains for the SNP in the coming Westminster election. No doubt over the course of the weekend he drank in more optimism from the gathered masses in Inverness and feels pretty good about his prediction. Makes sense - conferences are meant to recharge the batteries, invigorate the activists to campaign and deliver some seats. Even so, I still think his list may be somewhat... optimistic. Saying that, I'd love to have some of what he is drinking!

Jeff's list of potential SNP gains (in order of ascending swing required to win):

Ochil & South Perthshire (0.75%)

Livingston (4.55% - from by-election)

Dundee West (7.3%)

Kilmarnock & Loudoun (9.8%)

Argyll & Bute (10.55%)

Aberdeen North (10.6%)

Edinburgh East (11.5%)

Stirling (11.7%)

Edinburgh North & Leith (12%)

Linlithgow & Falkirk East (12.1%)

East Lothian (14.2%)

Gordon (14.5%)

Falkirk (14.75%)

East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow (15.4%)

Plus an extra shopping list of:

North Ayrshire & Arran (12.95%)

Paisley & Renfrewshire North (13.45%)

Midlothian (14.25%)

Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East (14.8%)

Inverclyde (15.55%)

Glasgow Central (16.7%)

Anyway, I'm not sure what kind of national swing Jeff's predictions are based on, but by my reckoning only something in the range of a massive 14% LAB-SNP national swing would see some of the higher ones on the list go. And given the UK level is a straight fight between Labour and the Tories, I'd expect the latter to muscle in a wee bit on the fight in Scotland, grabbing a wee bit of the swing from Labour. In short, I can only see something like a 7 or 8% national swing at absolute best to the SNP from Labour. That isn't to say they won't win a couple of other seats which require a larger swing (as happened in 2007 - they failed to win Cumbernauld on a minor swing but grabbed Gordon & Stirling on massive swings) but I don't expect the "extra list" to come into play... or indeed much of the first list beyond Argyll & Bute. Saying that, there may be a couple of surprises (Gordon?).

Now the main criticism of my analysis here is that the swings are based on an election which will be five years old by the time the election comes round. And that is fair - we've had a Holyrood (2007) and European (2009) election since then, in both of which the SNP have polled remarkably well. Indeed, if the we transpose the European Parliament vote onto the Westminster constituencies, the SNP would end up winning more seats than Labour - from memory, everything north of Stirling, most of Edinburgh and some surprising bits of Glasgow (potentially goodbye to Glasgow South's blogging MP). So yes, there is potential for some shocks - and some big SNP gains.

But I'll return to the reason I'm suggesting some of them are not going to fall to the SNP, and that is that it is a Westminster election. While the party appear to be winning round people in Scotland - at least for Holyrood elections - this is their first real test of popularity as a Government. And I think they'll do fine - just perhaps not quite as well as some people think they will.

Coming off the fence, I'd give them 6 of 7 the seats they currently hold (minus Glasgow East) plus 6 or 7 more... but no more than 13 SNP MPs after the election. And here's a tip - the constituency where they need less than a 1% swing from Labour may be more difficult than you'd think. If Ochil and South Perthshire slips from Labour control, it might just be a Tory Gain rather than a Nat MP for the constituency.

Thoughts?

Read more...

Labour election posters 2005

Found these online - A celebration of Labour's achievements and warnings about the consequences of a Conservative victory in the 2005 General election:

Yeah, I see what you are saying. Something like "vote Labour and avoid rising unemployment and recession" right?

Hmmm... unemployment to June 2009 increased to 2.47 million, and last time I checked, Chancellor Darling was still calling this a recession.

Oops.

Read more...

Stat of the day

On the bias at the heart of the First Past the Post electoral system:

1992: Tories had a lead of 7.6% over Labour in the popular vote, but won a majority of just 21 seats.

2001: Labour's lead over Tories is 9.3% - majority is 167.

In the next election, if the two parties had a similar share of the vote (around 30% each), Labour would win 111 more seats than the Tories. For the Tories to win the same number of seats as Labour, they would need to beat Labour by 6.4%.

So, lucky for them they have a rather large poll lead at the moment.

How does that work? Two reasons:

1) Average electorate in "Labour" seats is smaller than in Tory ones.

2) Labour wins a lot of seats with small majorities, the Tories stack up huge majorities in the seats that they win, meaning Labour get a better return of seats for smaller national votes.

Democracy... it's all about how you get elected eh?

Read more...

The TV Debate debate

Legal action, Mr Salmond?

I'm not sure what I think of this development. I mean, I can see both sides of it.

On the one hand, Sky want to tap into the idea of "Presidential politics", the sense that the leader of the party IS the party and answers for them. They want to make it a personal thing - a one-on-one (okay, a ménage à trois) with the men (it's always bloody men eh?) vying to be Prime Minister. They want to allow a clear debate between the leaders of the parties, giving their viewers a clear idea of the differences between them and an opportunity to judge the best candidate for the job of PM. It's a kind of political X-Factor - complete with public vote and everything (though the vote won't be for some time after the show ends).

However, Sky's bright idea doesn't cater for devolved politics. It doesn't take into account that Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish audiences interested in health or education issues may be misled by statements from the candidates on show, who can do nothing about those policy areas. It doesn't allow for regional variations, for parties of government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have a voice in the debate. And it reinforces the dominant Westminster political culture by excluding smaller parties - and not just those from the "Celtic fringe".

The question of fairness is the one which is being pursued by the SNP. They argue, legitimately, that while the UK election is basically a two-horse between the Tories and Labour (which makes Nick Clegg's invitation all the more questionable), the fight in Scotland is likely to be a straight Labour-SNP battle (though the Lib Dems do currently have more MPs than the SNP in Scotland, their share of the vote in opinion polls is going in the opposite direction). In Wales, the situation is further muddied by the fact that, although Plaid Cymru are in coalition government with Labour, the Tories (!) actually won the European election there, making it a genuine three-way battle. Northern Irish politics, with its division between nationalist and unionist communities, brings with it an extra element which also requires consideration. And those are just the parties that have representation at the moment - what about UKIP, the Greens and (dare I say it) the BNP?

The principle that Sky have (loosely) been adhering to, is the idea that they should invite the realistic candidates to be Prime Minister. That means limiting their invitations to the leaders of the three main parties on a UK level. However, were this principle to be taken to its logical conclusion, David Cameron would have a solitary invitation. So they've widened it to include the also rans - incumbent PM Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, whose Lib Dems have 62 seats and would need to make over 250 gains at the next election to make him PM. Just a thought, but Sky could invite me, Jeff and Caron to the debate - we'd have as much of a chance of being PM after the election as Nick Clegg does. And possibly just slightly less of a chance than Gordon Brown.

So really, Sky's own guidelines are based on loose ideas anyway. I guess it is a case of whether they want to accommodate the SNP (who, I think, are the only ones making any real noise about it) or not. But the legal guidelines regarding political coverage at elections are clear (as Jeff points out - in the case of Iraq!). The televised media has to provide equal and balanced coverage. So what can they do?

Well, I guess there are a couple of options. They can go with Salmond's suggestion and have "regional" debates, with Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Salmond in Scotland, Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Wyn Jones in Wales and... well, I guess they'd figure out something for Northern Ireland. Or, they could ignore Salmond and his legal fight, and have their original debate with Brown, Cameron and Clegg. But where would that leave Alex Salmond?

Kind of reminds me of (yet another) West Wing moment, appropriate really given the US-style TV debate. Freedonia, an episode in season 6, sees candidate Matt Santos struggling to get into a local debate - the invitations have gone only to the two lead candidates. Other events take over, but his original idea is to host his own debate and invite the other candidates to come which (eventually) comes to fruition. I wonder if Salmond invited Brown, Cameron and Clegg to a debate, if they would go? Or would Jim Murphy, David Mundell and Alastair Carmichael be sent instead? Or Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott?

Mind you, isn't that supposed to be what A National Conversation was supposed to be - an invitation to debate? Problem with that was, not one of the opposition parties showed up.

Read more...

Too many tweets make...

a twat trouble for a Tory.

I follow some random aspiring politicians on Twitter. For the moment, I'll ignore Tory Bear's foul-mouthed rants about the release of al-Megrahi in order to point out something else. Though I will say that if he aspires to anything more than a Guido Fawkes-esq blogger, his language might need toned down somewhat.

Anyway, Conservative candidate for Edinburgh North and Leith Iain McGill is on holiday in Albania at the moment. I know, because he told us on Twitter. He also told us that he watched the Arsenal-Celtic match last night from this tweet:


Now I know that the Old Firm are not everyone's cup of tea, and that the guy is standing in an Edinburgh constituency. But parasites?

Was that really the smartest use of language to describe what is potentially 1/3 of the Scottish electorate and, indeed, probably a sizeable chunk of the electorate in North and Leith? And what does it say about the man's concerns regarding the shocking state of Scottish football that he is not willing to ignore whatever petty bitterness he holds towards Scotland's top two football sides and support them in Europe for the good of the Scottish game?

In the style of a good twitter hashtag, #epicfail.

Read more...

Another Lib Dem leaflet

Like every politico, I do love a good Lib Dem leaflet. They never fail to disappoint, and their most recent one is no exception.

I got the "Edinburgh North & Leith Liberal Democrats Resident's Survey" through my door the other night. (Un)fortunately I was out training when their Westminster candidate, Kevin Lang, delivered the leaflet himself.

I do note that, despite the mess of Edinburgh's streets at the moment as a result of a dispute between the unions and the Lib Dem-led Edinburgh Council, there is no question on the survey regarding refuse collection.

However, I digress. It is a cracking effort at a textbook Lib Dem leaflet though. Rogue capitals, a couple of candidates featured that aren't standing in your area and, inevitably, the dodgy bar chart. Let's look at the graph, shall we?


Mmmhmm. I see what we're looking at here. 2005 UK General Election result in Edinburgh North and Leith (with slightly skewed positions on the chart I think). I guess that's a fair comparison - same boundary, same-ish population. But 4 years ago? Surely there are some more recent numbers we can look at?

Ah yes, the 2007 Scottish Parliament Election. We're working with a fairly similar boundary here (with a couple of minor changes) and obviously electing to a different parliament, but you'd expect that would give a decent barometer of support for different parties in the constituency. This was the result:

Labour 35%
Lib Dem 27%
SNP 25%
Con 13%

I see why we're not using that result - the Lib Dems have dropped a couple of points from the UK election result while the SNP more than doubled their vote share in, granted, what was an exceptional election for them.

But what's that you say? There was another election in Edinburgh North and Leith this year? Just 2 months ago? Oh yes, the European Parliament election. I seem to remember George Lyon's leaflet telling me that "Only the Lib Dems could win here," despite the whole of Scotland being a single constituency for that election! Anyway, the results in Edinburgh were broken down by constituency, so we know the result in North & Leith. And here it is:

SNP (4965) 20.5%
Labour (4324) 17.9%
Lib Dem (4201) 17.4%
Con (4199) 17.4%
Green (4014) 16.6%

Ah yes... again, I see why we're ignoring the most recent poll figure for the constituency. The Lib Dems poll figured has fallen by 10%, and they were THREE VOTES away from slipping behind the Conservatives in the constituency. And with the Greens on the march, they've almost made it a five-way marginal (with the usual caveats about European elections, PR and turnout of course).

So there were go. "It's a two horse race here in Edinburgh North and Leith." Well, if it is, the Lib Dems probably aren't one of the horses...

Read more...

What is good for the goose...

The election for the new Speaker of the House of Commons takes place today. There are 10 candidates for the job:

Margaret Beckett (Lab)

Sir Alan Beith (Lib Dem)

John Bercow (Con)

Sir Patrick Cormack (Con)

Parmjit Dhanda (Lab)

Sir Alan Haselhurst (Con)

Sir Michael Lord (Con)

Richard Shepherd (Con)

Ann Widdecombe (Con)

Sir George Young (Con)

There are 646 MPs. Subtracting the 5 Sinn Fein MPs who don't take their seats, the one vacant seat (that of Labour MP Ian Gibson, who resigned as an MP) that leaves 640 MPs (at the very most) to vote. Assuming they are only allowed one vote each, how long do we thing that will take? An hour for 600+ MPs to file through voting lobbies? Maybe two?

Nah, don't be daft. It's expected to take all day.

The reason? It seems that our MPs think they've got the be democratic in electing their own Speaker, that the person who sits in that chair must have more than 50% of the MPs voting for them in order for them to have any legitimacy as Speaker. If no one does win 50% of the vote on the first ballot, the person who comes last will be eliminated from consideration and they will vote again. And again. And again - probably - until there are only 2 candidates remaining and one of them wins more than the other (and, thus more than 50% of the vote). This may take until 8pm this evening.

Which raises an interesting question. Why do MPs feel it is necessary that the person who keeps order in the House must have a mandate of more than 50% of the vote when some (most? I can't find figures) of them do not have that very same mandate?

Take this, most celebrated, example of the flaws in the First Past the Post electoral system - the 1992 result from Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber:

Sir Russell Johnston (Lib Dem) - 13,258 votes (26.0%)
D. Stewart (Lab) - 12,800 (25.1%)
F.S. Ewing (SNP) - 12,562 (24.7%)
J. Scott (Con) - 11,517 (22.6%)
J. Martin (Green) - 766 (1.5%)

The Liberal Democrats won the seat on barely a quarter of the vote. In fairness to the Lib Dems, this is one (the only?) instance where they have benefited from a system which is hugely unproportional. In 2005, they won 22% of the vote but only 9.6% of the seats and routinely get screwed by the system. It is one of the reasons they are vehemently pro-PR. The other, of course, is that PR is inherently more proportional and more democratic.

Labour's other MP for the blogosphere (no, not that one, he LOVES First Past the Post), the former minister Tom Watson, recently wrote about why he thinks the Alternative Vote electoral system needs to replace FPTP. He reckons (with some justification) that retaining FPTP is simply a sop to vested interests (read: MPs who are scared of losing their seats under a proportional system). Which is understandable. But if there is one thing the expenses scandal has taught us is that MPs sometimes put their own interests before those of their constituents. And that is not the way it should be.

So, I return to my original question. Why do MPs think the Speaker needs to be elected with over 50% of the vote? To have legitimacy. To have a mandate. To have authority. Call it what you want. But it is exactly the same thing that MPs (and, indeed, Governments) lack under a First Past the Post electoral system.

You can say what you want about the Speaker, the job he/ she will do and the candidates for the job. But the way in which they are elected to the post provides them with the authority to do the job. Unless, of course, the Labour Government Whips have anything to do with it...

Read more...

Don't ban the BNP - debate them

Been a wee bit quiet on here despite there being lots to write about over the last few days. Unfortunately, I've been a wee bit busy with an important engagement and things have been a wee bit busy to blog...

I'm actually on holiday at the moment anyway, but I wanted to take a minute to discuss the result of the Euro election.

A friend of mine (a natural Tory voter I think...) pointed out to me that he thought it rather ridiculous that there was such a difference in votes between the 2004 & 2009 elections in Scotland and yet the end result (with the exception of the reduction in total seat numbers from 7 to 6) was the same. He wanted to know why the SNP could win nearly 100,000 votes (or 8% of the vote) more than Labour and still only get the same reward - 2 MEPs.

The answer, of course, is the D'Hondt electoral system. It's all about PR. At the end of the day, Labour hung onto their second seat by around 8,000 votes.

My Gran asked me about the BNP. She wanted to know how they'd won two seats when (she thought) less people voted for them in 2009 than in 2004. In fact, in 2004 they won 800,000 votes while this year they got 940,000. Nick Griffin won his seat in the North-West by only 5,000 votes while Andrew Brons got his by the same margin in Yorkshire and the Humber.

That's statistically how they did it. But how did they secure these votes? My Gran asked me if it was Labour's fault. And I thought about it for a minute. I ended up saying no, but qualified it somewhat. Extremist parties like the BNP feed on the anxiety, the fear and the anger that comes from recession conditions. They play on this fear for jobs, concern about "foreigners coming here, taking our jobs" etc etc. And they play down the dark side of their politics in order to appeal to a wider audience. So in that respect, Labour have to take some of the blame - though you can argue whether it is them or the global financial situation that is responsible for the recession.

But equally I think the other parties have to take some responsibility for the rise of the BNP too, for two reasons. Firstly, as many commentators have argued, the state of mainstream politics at the moment - particularly with the expenses scandal - and that has made voters less likely to cast their vote for the mainstream parties. That, for me, is a short-term theory.

In the long-term, parties have invited support for the BNP by ignoring the threat that they pose to democracy. Let me explain that. Rather than taking on the BNP's radical, discriminatory and racist views in public they run away, saying that they won't share a platform with them. Why the hell not? It it that downright lack of belief in the ability to defeat these racist views in a public forum that has meant the BNP have not had to defend these views.

For goodness sake, treat them like any other political party - which, in case you haven't noticed, with 2 MEPs and a handful of councillors across England, they have become. Take them on in the democratic game they want to play. Get Nick Griffin on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman and let him rip him to shreds. Debate with them. Let them have their say and then shout it down - politely and democratically. Above all, let their views out in public so that voters can see them for what they are - and, ultimately, won't vote for them again.

Rant over.

Read more...

Euro-election liveblog

Jeff & Will are liveblogging the European election coverage. Don't want them to get lonely so I may join them now and again.

2312: Right, I can't be bothered any more. I'm still hopeful the Greens might nick the last seat but it is looking increasingly likely that the Lib Dems will take it. UK-wide it is still early, but I don't think my predictions on Wed will be too far off. I'll wait and find out tomorrow morning. Until then, enjoy my graphic one more time...

2258: I've just flicked from BBC News 24 to BBC Scotland (which I didn't realise was on!) so now I'll be able to focus on Scottish seats... unless I decide to go to bed!

2250: Those previous figures were solely for North & Leith. Edinburgh-wide, figures are:

SNP - 24,417
Con - 21,823
Lab - 20,330
LD - 19,799
Green - 15,589
UKIP - 4,104
Oth - 4,000

Massive for the SNP winning that (21%) with the Tories second (19%) and Labour rolling home in 3rd (18%) Lots of Labour MPs in Edinburgh looking pretty concerned I would think.

2240: According to Tory Westminster candidate for Edinburgh North & Leith (where I stay for Westminster but not Scottish Parliamentary elections) Iain McGill, the vote was tighter than a duck's hind quarters:

SNP - 4965
Lab - 4324
LD - 4201
Con - 4199
Green - 4014
UKIP - 753

Five parties within 1,000 votes of each other?! Where does that happen. Can't wait to see the Lib Dems' "only we can beat Labour here" bar charts for Edin North & Leith now!

2235: Patrick Harvie seems to now believe that the Greens will fall short in Scotland. Judging by Brian Taylor's comments before, he may be right.

2225: Brian Taylor has the SNP on 29% across Scotland with Labour on 21%. He is predicting 2 SNP seats, 2 Labour, 1 Tory and 1 Lib Dem. We'll find out soon enough I guess.

2200: Answer to that could be YES if BBC reports from Wales are to be believed. The Tories topping the poll there?! Gordon Brown is such a bad PM that he's lost Wales to the Tories? Surely not...

2158: Will has the SNP topping the poll in Renfrewshire (seat of Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy) and in South Lanarkshire. Two areas not exactly known for SNP voting. Could this bad night for Labour be an absolute shocker?

2145: First result in from North-East England region. Labour top the poll. Seats breakdown:

LAB - 1
CON - 1
LD - 1

No change. Though the share of the vote is interesting. -9% for Labour in an area where they have 28 of the 30 Westminster seats. Not much to look at trend-wise I don't think.

2135: Jeff has the result from Glenrothes count for Fife:

Lab - 21,248
SNP - 21,043
Lib - 10,613
Con - 10,110

Marginal win for Labour. Decent news for them there... but not amazing. Would the SNP have expected to win the vote there? No word on the Green vote there yet.

2025: According to the Lib Dems on Twitter, they've topped the poll in Burnley by over 1,000 votes from Labour. Big BNP vote in council elections there last time out - they would have expected a big Euro vote too. Is it too hopeful to think that might not happen for them?

2018: Green MSP Patrick Harvie spreading rumours on Twitter.

18% vote for the Greens in Glasgow? That'd be huge for them.

2106: Brian Taylor on BBC - advising Iain Gray he may want to consider his position on the back of Labour's showing in the European elections. He is suggesting that the SNP win the poll fairly handily and that Labour may have done badly. Very badly.

2101: Yousuf says Labour will only get one MEP in Scotland. Would that constitute a disaster? Assuming he is basing his findings on Glasgow - if they can't win there, where can they win?
Feel free to use my graphic...

2100: I have what constitutes a result for you from the Moray Scottish Parliamentary constituency.

SNP - 6960
CON - 4078
LAB - 1760
LD - 1744
UKIP - 1532
Green - 1532

SNP vote up 8% from 2004 EU election, only party vote up. Good share for UKIP and Green, as well as the Tories. I know this is the SNP heartlands... but anything we can draw from it? Perhaps the Green vote increase might reflect a national trend.

2050: A note for any Labour voters from Aled off The Chris Moyles Show:

Good to know that there is someone to help you if there is anything upsetting you tonight...

2038: Yousuf lets us know (via Twitter) that "Glasgow is bad. Really bad." Now, he might just be confirming what us Edinburghers already know, or he might be talking about the Euro vote. But bad in what way? Turnout? Or Labour numbers. I suspect the latter...

2016: Some early tidbits for you.

I hear that in Moray, where the SNP could stand a sheep with a yellow & black rosette as a candidate, their vote is up 9% from their 2004 Euro vote.

Remember though, the SNP's vote share in 2004 dropped so badly that John Swinney stood down soon afterwards.

Read more...

Things can only get better... right?

It's all going wrong for poor Gordon, isn't it?

Not only have three high profile Cabinet ministers resigned in the last three days leaving Gordon Brown without a Home Secretary, a Communities Minister and now a Work and Pensions Minister the third of those - James Purnell - has signalled the start of open season on the PM by publicly telling him to resign.

Alan Johnson, while being as loyal as he can in public, in private he is apparently gathering a team together to campaign for the leadership if when the PM resigns.

The BBC are reporting the Brown will shuffle his Cabinet today (as if he has a choice really) but that Alistair Darling will remain his Chancellor after refusing to move elsewhere in the Cabinet. Added to the two "big hitters" from Blair's Cabinet that refused to take up positions in the Brown's Cabinet, Darling's refusal to go emphasises the weak position Brown now finds himself in.

Added to that, as of 9am this morning, with three council results in, Labour have already lost 23 councillors and couldn't muster a single one (from the SIXTY SIX on offer) in the new Central Bedfordshire unitary authority.

With a lot more council announcements plus the European poll result on Sunday, things are going to get a whole lot worse... before they start getting better.

Read more...

The moral of the story

Just read this "joke" on Labourlist. Thought it rather appropriate for today:

"While on his morning walk, Prime Minister Gordon Brown falls over, has a heart attack and dies . So his soul arrives in Heaven and he is met by Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates.

"Welcome to Heaven," says Saint Peter, “I would love to admit you straight away but under our new ‘HEAVEN CHOICES’ policy designed to empower you, the deceased, you have to spend one day in Hell and one day in Heaven. Then you must choose where you'll live for eternity."

"But I've already made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," replies Brown. "I'm sorry... But we have our rules and performance targets," Peter interjects. And, with that, St. Peter escorts him to an elevator and he goes down, down, down ... all the way to Hell.

When the doors open Gordon is amazed. He finds himself in the middle of a lush golf course. The sun is shining in a cloudless sky. The temperature is a perfect 22 degrees. In the distance is a beautiful club-house. Standing in front of it is Harold Wilson and thousands of other Socialists - John Smith, Michael Foot, Jim Callaghan, etc. Everyone laughing, happy, and casually but expensively dressed. They greet him and reminisce about the good times they had. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar. The Devil himself comes up to Brown with a frosty drink, "Have a tequila and relax, Gord!"

They are having such a great time that, before he realises it, it's time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves as Brown steps on the elevator and heads upward.

When the elevator door reopens, he is in Heaven again and Saint Peter is waiting for him. "Now it's time to visit Heaven," the old man says, opening the gate. So for 24 hours Brown is made to hang out with a bunch of honest, good-natured people who enjoy each other's company, talk about things other than money and treat each other decently. No fancy country clubs here and, while the food tastes great, it's not caviar or lobster.

The day done, Saint Peter returns and says, "Well, you've spent a day in Hell and a day in Heaven. Now choose where you want to live for Eternity.”

Brown reflects for a minute... Then answers, "Well, I would never have thought I'd say this - I mean, Heaven has been delightful and all but I really think I belong in Hell with my friends and former colleagues."

So Saint Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell.

The doors of the elevator open and he finds himself in the middle of a bare, toxic industrial wasteland. He is horrified to see all of his friends, dressed in rags and chained together, picking up the roadside rubbish and putting it into black plastic bags. They are groaning and moaning in pain, faces and hands black with grime.

The Devil comes over to Brown and puts an arm around his shoulder." I don't understand," stammers a shocked Brown, "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a club-house and we ate lobster and caviar and drank tequila. We lazed around and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and everybody looks miserable!"

The Devil looks at him, smiles slyly and purrs, "Ah but yesterday we were campaigning; today you voted for us!""

Appropriate, don't you think?

Read more...

I've voted... have you?

Just this minute (well, depending when you are reading this, anything from a minute to 10 hours or longer...) back from the polling station in Stockbridge where voting has been described as "steady."

And after all the humming and ha-ing I actually did cast a vote for a party on a ballot paper than was as long as my arm. No word of who I voted for though...

If I can get over my apathy to go vote then so can you. So... um, go forth and vote in your, erm, hundreds. Or something like that.

PS - I don't know why, but the text has somehow gone green...

Read more...

Brown in bother

The "Blogfather" is reporting that, in a week of resignation after resignation, a fairly disastrous PMQs yesterday and a poll showing Labour in third for today's European election, some more bad news for the "embattled" PM.

According to Iain Dale, Gordon Brown is trying to put together a new Cabinet (I wonder if he is struggling with the pictorial instructions a la Ikea?) with some big hitters of the Blair era. Unfortunately for him, none of them want to play ball.

He apparently interviewed Celtic chairman John Reid for the vacant Home Secretary position last night and asked him to be the new Home Sec. Reid apparently refused. Then told by Brown that he must support him, Reid's response was:

"No I don't. I have to support my country and my party, and that means you have to stand down."

Ouch. I mean, if that is an accurate representation of the conversation, then Brown's time must surely be at an end. I'm expecting a resignation any time soon.

Interestingly though, I love Alan Johnson's quote defending the PM:

"He is doing the job and there is absolutely no one who could do that job better."

Right. So, when the guy is forced out - which he inevitably will be - Johnson won't be a front-runner for the position? I mean, he couldn't possibly "do that job better," could he?

There's a bad moon rising...

Read more...

A manifesto for Europe

Given my apathy regarding the EU election, a friend of emailed me with some advice regarding who to vote for. Well, he passed on some guiding principles. Not his own you understand, those of the Scottish Social Enterprise Coalition.

The SSEC, for those who don't know, is a lobby group whose primary focus is social enterprise - that is, business that is driven by a social or community focus and not by shareholders trying to maximise profits.

Anyway, it seems that its not only political parties who produce a manifesto in time for an election. The SSEC has put one together here - with several main principles, including:

• Fairer funding for social enterprises
  
  
• Partnership working across Europe
  
  
• A year of social enterprise

The organisation are basically asking people to use their vote (and parties to use their MEPs) to advance these principles - ideals which appear to be fairly relevant given the collapse of economies around the world.

Anyway, for anyone wavering about who to vote for (or indeed, looking for a reason to vote) it might be worth having a wee look at their manifesto and finding a party who shares those principles.

Of course, you might be as well skipping the polling station altogether and heading to the pub instead. It is entirely up to you!

Read more...

EU Election: Dos and D'Hondts

Like some others in the blogosphere, I am distinctly apathetic when it comes to voting in the upcoming European election (with apologies to Yousuf, who seems quite enthusiastic about it). For one thing, the European Parliamentary election is, in a British context anyway, a "second order election" - and in Scotland and Wales, perhaps even third order. For another, with ongoing expenses scandals and MPs resigning rather than facing the electorate, the public are - rightly, in my view - pretty annoyed with their representatives and not particularly in the mood to vote some of them to gravy train that is the European Parliament.

Saying all that though, I probably will go vote on Thursday. Polling station is just across the road and all that. Plus, as a political commentator of sorts, I feel duty-bound to go vote for someone - anyone - if only so I can continue to harp from the sidelines.

So, just to get me in the mood, I've been looking at some numbers. Jeff has been doing the numbers for Scotland for weeks while James and Calum have been looking at more recent numbers which have the Greens looking good for seat number 6 here (though their working is slightly different). Basically - I think - we're looking at a fight for the sixth seat. I expect the SNP and Labour both to win two and the Tories to win one. Will the Greens be able to fight off the Lib Dems for a seat (not necessarily the last one as James' working shows) or will the SNP/ Labour manage to grab a third (as Calum suggests)? With Scotland losing an MEP due to EU expansion, its all to play for on this score.

UK-wide, it's an interesting tale. Including the (currently 7) Scottish MEPs, the situation currently is:

Conservative - 27 seats
Labour - 19 seats
UKIP - 12 seats
Lib Dem - 12 seats
(UK) Green - 2 seats
SNP - 2 seats
Plaid Cymru - 1 seat

Ignoring (but not forgetting!) Northern Ireland's 3 seats, Britain's representation falls from 75 to 69 - meaning a seat less in six of the EU constituencies (including Scotland). Which is important to remember.

Also important: The share of the vote at the last election (2004) saw the Tories win with 27.6% of the vote. Labour won 22.6%, UKIP came third with 16.1% ahead of the Lib Dems on 14.9%. The Greens won two seats with 5.8% of the vote while the BNP returned no MEPs with their 4.9%.

YouGov's latest poll (published 1st June) has the Tories out in the lead on 27% and Lab (17%) UKIP (16%) and the Lib Dems (15%) battling for second. The poll also puts the Greens at 9% and the BNP on 7% (which may actually be higher - I mean, how likely would you be to tell pollsters if you were going to vote for the BNP.

Given those figures - and to make this a little more interesting - I'm taking a stab at projecting seat numbers on a Britain-wide basis. Here's how I think it will go:

Conservative - 23 seats
Labour - 14 seats
UKIP - 13 seats
Lib Dem - 9 seats
(UK) Green - 5 seats
SNP - 2 seats
BNP - 1 seats (sadly...)
Plaid Cymru - 1 seat
(Scottish) Green - 1 seat

So, good news and bad. The "big three" will struggle, with only the Tories holding onto their poll figures while Labour might well drop down to third or fourth on vote share, but still win more seats than UKIP and the Lib Dems on the basis of their (probable) two Scottish seats. Good election for the Greens Britain-wide - multiplying their representation threefold but I think the BNP might well grab a seat somewhere. They were only 90,000 votes off getting one the last time out and, depending on the turnout, they may be well-placed to pick up the votes of the apathetic and the seriously pissed off. Let's hope not though.

So that's that. Incidentally, you still have about 20 hours to change my mind on who to vote for - not that I've made up my mind yet...

PS - with the raft of Cabinet-level, former Cabinet-level and other MP resignations, Gordon Brown might call it a day on Monday - depending how badly Labour tank in the English Council elections. I don't want to say you heard it here first... but if you did and it happens then that "might" wasn't in the previous sentence!

UPDATE - Political Betting has news of a final YouGov Poll before tomorrow's election. Scores on the doors:

Conservative - 26%
UKIP - 18%
Labour - 16%
Lib Dem - 15%
(UK) Green - 10%
BNP - 5%

Which may or may not make my numbers look good. Guess it all comes down to the turnout - which might be higher than usual for an EU election.

Read more...

New SP Constituencies revisited

Remember last year, when the Boundary Commission for Scotland published its proposals for changes to the Scottish Parliament constituencies? Well, they've taken a second stab at it - after the consultation process (read "opportunity for those with a vested interest to change their minds") closed and new plans were drawn up.

You can see the proposals in ful here.

Couple of the headline stories to come out of it:

• Central belt seats - having taken a bit of a shuffle in their first take - return to boundaries more like they are at the moment. Which means that Ochil still looks like a Lab-SNP marginal, as opposed to an opportunity for the Tories. The whole Whitburn/Airdrie seat disappears.
  
  
• The "Mearns" seat south of Aberdeen remains an opportunity for the SNP to pick up another seat in heartland territory - and put them in range of gaining another couple at the expense of the Lib Dems (Nicol Stephen & Mike Rumbles).
  
  
• Edinburgh East shuffles round, arc-like, further to the south of the city but still looks like a Kenny MacAskill SNP-hold while the Edinburgh South becomes "Southside" and a solid Lib Dem hold. Central looks slightly less Lib Dem-my than the previous take at the boundaries, but will be a difficult fight for Sarah Boyack to hold for Labour, with both Lib Dems and SNP handily placed to challenge.
  
  
• Ken Macintosh looks like the biggest loser out of it all. The boundaries of his Eastwood seat get a savage cut and the seat looks notionally Tory. An opportunity to shift Annabel Goldie over a seat (not too far away from Renfrewshire) and win a constituency seat perhaps?
  
  
• On the regional side of the ball, how's this for crazy. Highlands region will now include... Dumbarton. Really. Highland MSPs will represent everywhere from Lerwick to Dumbarton.
  
  
• Kilmarnock & Loudoun - an SNP gain in 2007 - moves into the South of Scotland region (from Central Scotland). Which, coupled with a notional SNP gain of Tweedale etc (bye bye Jeremy Purvis) would have a knock on effect on the South of Scotland list (currently 5 of the 7 are SNP MSPs, which would change if constituencies were won).

There's more, much more. But you can probably work stuff out for yourselves. Times like this, you wish Adam Smith was a Socialist still blogged.

Read more...