Five Days

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.

Read more...

A wolf in sheep's clothing

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?

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...

The First Cut is nowhere near the Deepest...

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.

Read more...

(Life) time in opposition

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.

Read more...

The future is orange (and blue)

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.

Read more...

Working with the numbers

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.

Read more...

Who would be Nick Clegg?

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...

Read more...

Predicting the unpredictable...

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?

Read more...

May the fourth be with them...

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.

Read more...

Election Manifestos

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.  

Read more...

Will people get what they want?

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.

Read more...

Consider the lily

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.

Read more...

One in Four Labour MPs to Quit

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the fact that 10 Scottish Labour MPs will not be standing at the next election (approximately 1 in 4).  At a UK level that figure is 88 of the 346 current Labour MPs (which is also, 1 in 4).

Which, in fairness, makes sense.  Labour have held power for 13 years.  Before that, they were in opposition for 18 years.  Some of the Labour MPs have experience of politics stretching back to the early 80s, some even longer.  Labour lost successive elections in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, with many MPs spending several long years on the opposition benches.  So it makes sense then, particularly among those who remember that experience well, to step down at an election that Labour are not expected to win rather than sit on the opposition benches again.  It makes sense in the respect that - for most of them - their careers are behind them, their time in Parliament has seen them hold ministerial office and the chance of doing so again is slim.

Which is why Jeff's post yesterday makes quite a lot of sense.  Jim Murphy is a young(ish) guy.  He's had ministerial experience in Europe before re-invigorating the post that Labour didn't really want (Scottish Secretary) before the SNP went and spoiled their plans by winning power at Holyrood.  He's facing a big challenge in East Renfrewshire from the Tories (which I think he'll hold on to, though I do see Jeff's point).  I guess my point really is, what does the guy stand to gain from winning? 4-5 (9-10?) years of being an opposition MP, no ministerial pay off, no high profile, no minions in Holyrood to boss around...  It'd make far more sense for him to get into the Scottish Parliament - where Labour need better leadership, more heavyweight politicians and experience, and where they have an opportunity of returning to power much sooner.

But something I cannot fathom at all is the attitude of Margaret Curran, Cathy Jamieson and (potentially) Jackie Baillie.  Why shift from a seat that you've held since the parliament was instituted - where in one year you could potentially be promoted to a Cabinet-level post - to one in which you are likely to be the opposition party for a number of years?  Talk about lacking in political judgement!  Sure, its an opportunity for Labour to maintain gender balance, to get women in to replace retiring male MPs.  But in terms of their careers, I fail to see the logic in it.  Okay, they get a pay bump (from the 56 grand MSPs make to what, 64 grand as a MP?) but its not like the job is any better - and the commute is certainly worse.

88 Labour MPs have already seen the writing on the wall.  Why haven't this trio of Labour MSPs?  Mind you, I guess when you resort to using blog posts from an SNP supporter as "evidence" that the SNP want to defend even the worst offenders from prison time then your political judgement has already gone.

Read more...

Good news for Labour?

Thanks to Will, I learn that the number of Scottish Labour MPs who will not be standing for the party at the next General Election is now in double figures.  They are:

Jim Devine (Livingston)

Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh South)

Gavin Strang (Edinburgh East)

John McFall (West Dunbartonshire)

Anne Moffat (East Lothian)

Des Browne (Kilmarnock & Loudoun)

Mohammed Sarwar (Glasgow Central)

Adam Ingram (East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow)

Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East)

John Reid (Airdrie & Shotts)

I don't know that I have a huge amount to add to Will's excellent piece surrounding the state of Labour in Scotland at the moment, other than to note with some disbelief that 10 out of 39 Labour MPs (that is, 25% or one in every FOUR) is - for one reason or another - not standing for the party again next time round.

I'm not here to suggest that each (or indeed any) of these "retirements" will result in the loss of the seat for Labour.  But in certain places the result could be affected by the standing down/ de-selection of the sitting MP.  Think particularly of Livingston, where Jim Devine has been de-selected and may stand as an independent.  Or indeed, the fractures in the East Lothian Labour party which may result in many Anne Moffat supporters failing to turn out in support of another Labour candidate.  Or the tight race in Edinburgh South, where Nigel Griffiths "kent face" may have helped Labour hold onto a slim majority - now that seat is very much a wide-open three horse race.

On the face of it, I'd suggest that 10 MPs standing down won't help Labour hold onto marginal seats.  It has the aura of a party in decline - a party ceding power, with major players finding their way out before they are pushed.  On the other hand, this could be an opportunity for the party to blood some new, younger MPs during a period of opposition, giving them some experience as MPs before the party has another opportunity to govern.  But that, as a strategy, would recognise that Labour are probably not going to win the election, a message which isn't exactly useful on the doorsteps.


And, of course, if all Labour do is replace those retiring MPs with MSPs then that isn't really going to be of much benefit, either to the party at Westminster or under Iain Gray's leadership at Holyrood.

So perhaps this purge of MPs may have a favourable outcome for Labour in the long run.  I guess, like so much else in politics, we'll just have to wait and see.

Read more...

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...

Opening gambits

The New Year diet has barely started but Jeff is already getting stuck into the Scottish budget stuff. Which is probably still more than some at the Scottish Government are doing.

Remember last year? The Scottish Government thinking the thing was locked down, the late negotiations with the Greens - and the resultant collapse of the process on the deciding vote of the Presiding Officer.

So, in the midst of a continuing economic recession and with a General Election anything from 3 to 6 months away, what price the same happening again? Opposition parties in Scotland bringing down the Scottish Government over their budget. Likely? Not in my book.

Jeff has already done the number crunching - and estimates that the Tories and the Greens will provide enough support for the SNP to get their budget through. I suspect he may be right. But maybe it isn't the final result that is interesting this time - its how we might get there.

I can't see Labour lending their support - not with their position on GARL. But they may enter into negotiations, which is more than they have in the past. The Tories, on the other hand, may play a slightly bolder hand than they have in the past - try to get more value for their vote on the basis that their position is likely to be strengthened in negotiations next year by being the UK Government. I'm with Jeff on the Lib Dems - ask Mystic Meg what she thinks they'll do, because there's really no predicting it (but I'll come back to that). Which leaves the Greens.

Now, I have some sympathy for the way they were shafted in last year's negotiations (not that I showed it at the time - a year is a long time in politics after all) but I reckon they will have learned much from it. They are, if nothing else, a year older and a year smarter. Which means 2 things: 1) if they don't get what they want, they don't vote for it (take note Mr Swinney) and 2) it is important not to bank on their vote without first offering something they want. However, with their sister party in England and Wales primed to win their first (ever) Westminster seat at the next election, any perception that Green parliamentarians are immature or reckless may harm those chances. This may play a part in how they approach negotiations.

The Green position, curious though it is, leaves the door open for the Lib Dems. If the Swinney/ Salmond combo can get the Greens on board, then they can ignore Tavish Scott (which is what they thought they'd done last year). If they can't, they'll have to persuade someone who really doesn't like them (and that, I think, is an understatement) that they can do something for them.

Ah, partisan politics. Let the games begin.

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...