100 Days... and counting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more...

Bought & sold for Lib Dem Gold

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

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

Nick Clegg - Deputy Prime Minister

Vince Cable - Business Secretary

Chris Huhne - Energy/ Climate Change Secretary

Danny Alexander - Secretary of State for Scotland

David Laws - Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Plus the junior positions too.

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

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

But they have also agreed:

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

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

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

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

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

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...

Clegg's moment of realisation

"Cannae dae that any mare, there's nae money."

So says Lib Dem leader (for how much longer?) Nick Clegg. According to Clegg, an extension of free childcare, rolling out free personal care for the elderly across England, a citizen's pension and cutting tuition fees are all too expensive while there is a recession on.

Is it just me, or does that beg the question as to what the Lib Dems are actually for? I mean, before Clegg's realisation (apparently a year after Vince Cable predicted it) that we're too skint to do anything, I probably couldn't have told you many Lib Dem policies, but I could have told you that they were for cutting tuition fees and... erm... um... yes, changing the electoral system to PR. But now what do they stand for? I can see their new slogan now:

"Vote for us 'coz we're, um... not as red as Labour. And not as blue as the Tories. And we're more yellow than the Nats!"

Maybe Howard (Russell, not Michael) was right...

(Incidentally, I meant to write this last week when I first realised Nick Clegg had just realised there was a recession on - looks like my timing is just as off as his).

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...

Democracy, thy name is Tavish

I was going to write a post criticising the Liberal "Democrats" for the position taken at their conference yesterday.

I was going to, and then I read Will's post, which makes the point far more eloquently than I could, so I won't bother.

Except to say this. The SNP's preferred wording for a referendum is not the only option. If the Lib Dems wanted a referendum - as some of their membership apparently wished though seem to have changed their minds - couldn't they have negotiated a question with the SNP? I seem to remember a three-option question was - and remains - on the table.

Then again, wouldn't that mean being democratic? Something it appears that the Lib Dems are pretty incapable of. And that's where Will's terrific post comes in.

Read more...

Guest Post: Lib Dems - supporting a referendum?

Another guest contribution, this time from Linlithgow's favourite Liberal Democrat, Stephen Glenn. He is a Lib Dem, so be gentle with him. But he is writing about an interesting subject, so get torn in!

Malc has kindly asked me write a guest post looking at the role that Ross Finnie has undertaken, looking at the position the Liberal Democrats in Scotland on the question of a referendum. Some have pointed argued it is a sudden change in direction. This being Malc’s blog I thought I’d best do some research into the historical context to see if that argument holds water.

A Scottish Parliamentarian once rose from the green benches of the House of Commons and said:

“The demand exists, and is becoming so urgent that it will no longer be ignored. That demand is reasonable. I do not know that I should need to make that point, for the simple reason that the Scottish people themselves are so reasonable that you could not imagine them taking up such a demand unless it were itself reasonable...

“The Scottish people never voluntarily renounced their ancient Parliament. It was filched from them by methods scarcely less discreditable than those which accompanied the parallel transaction on the other side of St. George's Channel at a somewhat later date.”

No it wasn’t Alex Salmond. It was however someone who in their career represented Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire (no, not Nicol Stephen!). It was in fact William Cowen, the Liberal MP for Aberdeenshire Eastern, moving his Government of Scotland Bill in 1913.The move was a step to fulfil Grand Old Man William Gladstone’s promise from the very start of his Home Rule campaign:

“I will consent to give to Ireland no principle, nothing that is not upon equal terms offered to Scotland, and to the different parts of the United Kingdom.”

But before the Nats jump up and down and cry out for a Scottish Free State that wasn’t on the table at the time but came in subsequent legislation. Cowen cited the backing for his bill from the Liberal Association in Scotland. In 2007 there was no discussion with the membership, which led to the refusal of the Lib Dems to even enter talks with the SNP.

Many in the membership, myself included, believed it was possible to allow a referendum without supporting the same side in that campaign as the SNP. Others considered it was possible to not have that as plank of coalition governance but leave room for the SNP to bring a bill forward. Yet the decision was taken and many in Scotland - Malc included - saw it as the Lib Dems being undemocratic and failing to live up to our name.

To 2009 then, and a new leader is in charge but the same position. A debate on devolution saw questions asked, dilemmas posed. First Kevin Lang (Lib Dem PPC in Edinburgh North and Leith) then new Lib Dem MEP George Lyon both called for a referendum in Scotland on the question of independence. I could have got up and said the same thing.

Tavish Scott was clearly flustered. In last year’s leadership campaign, one of the key separating factors between the three candidates had been their willingness to listen to the membership on key issues like this one. In fact Mike Rumbles had promised to revisit this very question with the membership in very clear terms - just as Tavish is doing now. It is not going against party policy: there wasn’t really a firm policy on the issue, and there hadn’t been a discussion about the possibility of a referendum in many leading members time within the party.

So is this discussion in Liberal/Lib Dem circles sudden? Looking at the historic context no, we’ve been having it for over 100 years. Will it, as some online Nats have been suggesting, bring down Tavish Scott? No. He’s called for the formalising of the discussion, maybe as a result of the wake up call provided in Bournemouth, maybe at the behest of others. But Lib Dems are a forgiving lot. However, what he does with the resultant consensus going forward will be the key.

The big question of course that everyone is asking is ‘What will the outcome be?’. I really don’t know. One thing I do know is that post-Bournemouth and post-announcement of this consultation more people are coming forward saying that the time for the referendum is right. There is certainly a feeling of let’s get it over with. I don't know what the outcome will be, but what I do know is that when we gather in Dunfermline on Saturday (31 Oct) to start that process, it will be an interesting session. I’m prepared to be shocked this time, if that is possible, unlike the time I was sitting in the hall back in September.

If a week is a long time in politics, how much more six of them?

Read more...

Ross Finnie to decide the future of Scotland

Okay, so that headline is not entirely true. But it does sort of encapsulate the position of the Scottish Liberal Democrats at the moment.

It seems that Tavish Scott's merry men (and two women - so much for gender balance!) have decided upon a "policy review" on the issue of an independence referendum. The issue will be explored by Ross Finnie before a behind-closed-doors debate at their conference at the end of October.

Now this, to me at least, makes a bit of sense. The party were none too happy during the Calman Commission (particularly with the Interim Report when it looked like it was going nowhere) and the recommendations did nothing to improve their mood. And when an MSP (JFM), a PPC (Kevin Lang) and an MEP (George Lyon) have all declared their support for a referendum (not to mention top Lib Dem activists/bloggers) it is only right that the party conduct an internal review.

Jeff is sceptical about the review, wondering if Tavish might just be holding it in order to appear to be listening to his "young thrusting" PPCs but has already made up his mind on the issue - and it's a no from him.

I have to say, I'm not so sure. This might be a genuine attempt to change party policy. Having spent the last month reading "constitutional" documents relating to A National Conversation, the Calman Commission and The Steel Commission (pdf), my view is that the review is a genuine attempt to shift the Liberal Democrats position on the issue. We know where they stand on the constitution - and what powers they would like to see devolved (the Steel Commission showed that clearly). We know too, that the recommendations contained in it were much more like some of the discussions of extended devolution in the Scottish Government's Choosing Scotland's Future than the final report of the Calman Commission - with which the Lib Dems (particularly Lord Wallace, who served on the Commission) were not overly impressed. And we know too that, of the Unionist parties, the Lib Dems are the most likely to back down from the "not a chance in hell of a referendum" position - they apparently do like democracy after all.

For me, I suspect there may have been a quiet meeting between Alex Salmond and Tavish Scott. Or maybe John Swinney and Jeremy Purvis as Finance folk. Or maybe it wasn't even on that level. Maybe just a quiet whisper somewhere, a "name your price" deal which would see the Lib Dems agree to a referendum - probably a multi-option one - in exchange for something in the budget. Because this affects more than the Lib Dems. This is core SNP stuff. They promised a referendum. If - if - the Lib Dems decide to back it at their Conference (late October), then the SNP can deliver, as planned, their White Paper on a referendum on St Andrew's Day, safe in the knowledge that they will have the support to pass it.

So that referendum, that opportunity to decide the future direction of our nation really does lie in the hands of Ross Finnie. But for now, we wait.

My title wasn't as daft as you thought.

Read more...

Too many tweets...

Great email from Twitter a couple of days ago, letting me know of a new follower:

Okay, it's not big Arnie, but it is quite funny...

Where Malc leads, the Lib Dem leader follows. Or something equally childish...

Read more...

Referendum: "Bring it on"?

The SNP are due to announce their legislative programme for the coming session this week. This is apparently the cue for the respective party leaders in Scotland to come up with hysterical soundbites in the hope that the newspapers pick up the quotes... and that people start to recognise who they are.

It's the proposed Referendum Bill that has the opposition parties' knickers in a knot. This is despite the fact that the Scottish Government set out their plans for this when they entered office and detailed their proposed referendum in the White Paper "Choosing Scotland's Future" (pdf - page 44). So we've known for a couple of years - at the very least - what the SNP planned to do when they got an opportunity: hold a referendum on independence. But that hasn't stopped the hysterics. No no.

Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament, Iain Gray:

"Over a year ago, Labour offered the SNP a referendum on a straight question, and they ran away. Alex Salmond will only ever consider a referendum that is rigged."

"Of course people want a say in how the country is run, but right now I think they are saying that their top priority is economic recovery and protecting jobs."

Right. On point one, I think Iain Gray's memory is failing him slightly. When Wendy said "Bring it on", Gordon slapped her down, saying "Not on my watch, Missy." On point two - the idea that the referendum is rigged - total tosh. Opinion polls with the SNP's preferred question see independence do no better that on other polls. And on point three, is Iain Gray really trying to speak on behalf of other people? And how will he ever know, if he never asks them? And, presumably, if people are, in fact, more concerned with their jobs, they'd let you know that in a referendum - by voting no? Just a thought.

Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie:

"At home and abroad, Alex Salmond's government has been found wanting. Fewer than a quarter of the key government indicators are on track."

"Alex Salmond is leaving a trail of broken pledges and promises in his wake. On the domestic stage as on the international stage he is letting Scotland down."

Okay. I wonder what she defines as "key government indicators"? If it is key policy pledges, I'd say its probably 50/50 - for every abolition of tuition fees there's a ditching LIT. But that is minority government. And she has pledged that the Tories will support the SNP on an "issue-by-issue basis - except on a referendum."

Lib Dem leader Tavish Scott couldn't be found to give an opinion, so instead chief whip Mike Rumbles said:

"The SNP's Referendum Bill is dead in the water. This is a futile waste of taxpayer money and parliamentary time. We already know that there is strong cross-party, majority opposition to the Referendum Bill."

Which is typically undemocratic from everyone's favourite Illiberal Undemocratic party. Why bother testing public views in a referendum when we can just make the decision for ourselves? Excellent use of democratic values right there. (Quotes from Scotsman and Herald).

What is my point? Well, former Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth sums up my view rather well, when he suggests that a referendum should be held as soon as possible to end the uncertainty surrounding Scotland's future. Of course he thinks it would "call Alex Salmond's bluff" to do so. And I'd probably be inclined to agree - if opinion polls are anything to go by at the moment, independence is looking less and less likely as the constitutional preference of the many in Scotland. At the moment.

Which makes the opposition parties' opposition to a referendum all the more bizarre. Here's an opportunity for them to make huge political capital out of something, the ability to have actual, physical proof that Alex Salmond and the SNP do not speak for the majority of Scots when they call for independence, yet they prefer not to allow the people a voice.

If you've read this blog before, you'll know two things about me - that I broadly support independence for Scotland and that I am a PhD candidate examining Nationalist parties in government. The second point gives me more licence to say this: I have absolutely no idea what the opposition parties in Scotland are doing on this issue. I get that it is a risk to allow people a vote on something that you are not keen on. But when polls suggest that less than a third of the electorate support that which you do not, surely it is time to take a deep breath and ask them? Then, when you get the answer you want, it kills the question for at least a generation.

Ah, but there is the problem that these are self-thinking people. I mean, what if they changed their minds? Are you really willing to bet the Union on the ability of people to make a rational decision in a referendum? Tricky... very tricky.

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...

The Lib Dem Kayak

I haven't had a pop at my favourite party for a wee while... But I have found a policy that is worth a mention, and that's the Lib Dems current campaign to keep the opt-out for firefighters.

It seems that Lib Dem MEP (for the West Midlands, pictured left) Liz Lynne is fronting the "Scottish Lib Dems campaign" to keep the opt-out. Here's a quote from their campaign web-page:

"Lib Dem MEP Liz Lynne is fighting a tough battle in Brussels to keep the Opt Out after a vote by the European Parliament to scrap it. Liz Lynne is the shadow rapporteur for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe and the only UK lead for any party in the European Parliament, negotiating with government ministers from EU Member State."

Someone should really tell Scottish Lib Dem MEP Elspeth Atwooll (pictured below). She supports the campaign publicly, as this quote illustrates:

“I have made sure that the European Parliament’s negotiating team is fully aware of the situation. It is essential that we reach an outcome that allows our valuable and valued system of retained firefighters to continue to function.”

Yet somehow she still managed to vote to scrap the opt-out.

Looks like Liz Lynne's tough battle in Brussels was made even tougher... by someone in her own party!

Reminds me of a story about two Eskimos in a kayak who got a big chilly. They lit a fire in the middle of it, and it sank.

There's a lesson for the Lib Dems there - you can't have your kayak and heat it...

Read more...

A flip-flopping guide to saving the union

Hearing a little more on a - rather crazy - theory that is going around at the moment. Goes a little bit like this:

Lib Dems a little - irritated - by the lack of listening to their point of view in the Calman Commission by their larger siblings in the unionist family. This is apparently an ongoing thing (and something I alluded to in December).

Lib Dems don't see the Calman Commission going anywhere - or at least, anywhere they want it to. Lib Dems are looking around for other options.

Lib Dems see an opportunity. After voting against the SNP's budget one week, they voted for it the following week - asking only that Salmond make a submission to the Calman Commission. Salmond was only too happy to agree.

Lib Dems soften the ground somewhat on negotiation with the SNP. Arguably in May 2007, when Nicol Stephen was the Lib Dem leader it was Tavish Scott's opposition to any deal on a referendum that scuppered any coalition deal. Now that Tavish is leader, things seem slightly different (or do they?).

According to this rumour, the Lib Dems are thinking about ditching Calman, coming on board with the SNP to get a referendum on independence through (subject to an "extended powers" option on the ticket) and capitalising on what they hope will be a victory for their preferred option (extended powers) in the referendum. Lib Dems look like "thinking" party - while the other two unionist parties are roadblocks to progress and the SNP licks its wounds over a defeat for its raison d'etre. At least that is the rumoured plan.

Except there are more holes in this theory than a packet of Polos. For one thing, even with Lib Dem support, there is still no majority for a referendum in the Scottish Parliament (47 + 16 = 63) assuming that the Scottish Parliament is allowed to hold such a referendum. And there's a lack of trust thing going on - how much would the SNP be willing to trust a party to help them deliver on not just a key manifesto pledge but their whole reason for existing? And there's the fact that the Lib Dems currently seem to be making up policies as they go along - and changing their mind on everything (see - tax and spend, tax cut, abandon policy; no negotiation on referendum, Tavish as leader "we'll see", a week later "no we won't"). Not exactly conducive to seeing this idea as anything more than another Lib Dem wheeze designed to get them some publicity for five minutes in order to shore up their plummeting poll numbers.

Balancing that is the wager (and Salmond likes those) that the Lib Dems are the means (referendum) to the end he wants (independence) and despite the inherent shakiness such a deal looks like having, he might very much be tempted to "let the people decide" the constitutional future of Scotland.

I'm not convinced that a deal is likely... however, I am pretty sure that if the Lib Dems walk away from Calman - and apparently that IS pretty likely - then they need to do something drastic to save a little face. It may well be that they see an opportunity to put independence to bed for awhile and "save the union" as their particular calling.

The Lib Dems, arch-federalists, saviours of the union? An intriguing prospect!

Read more...

The politics of the possible

Swinney & Salmond enjoying better times

There's been quite a lot of absolute tosh written about John Swinney's decision not to bring forward a bill replacing the Council Tax in Scotland with a Local Income Tax during this Parliamentary session.

I'll write that bit again, just in case you didn't catch it the first time.

There's been quite a lot of absolute tosh written about John Swinney's decision not to bring forward a bill replacing the Council Tax in Scotland with a Local Income Tax DURING THIS PARLIAMENTARY SESSION.

To quote John Swinney:

"The parliamentary arithmetic means that, while we might get the support of the Liberal Democrats for our proposals to introduce a local income tax, the Labour and Conservative parties are united in their opposition.

"In short, we cannot put together a stable majority to enable us successfully to steer detailed local income tax legislation through this parliament."

"The cabinet has therefore decided not to introduce legislation to abolish unfair council tax and replace it with local income tax until after the election in 2011."

Now that, to me, doesn't suggest a huge U-turn. It doesn't suggest that the party have suddenly decided that the policy is rubbish or that they think the current system of Council Tax is great. What it suggests is that the party have recognised their position, in light of the budget fiasco, as a minority government. They've looked around the chamber, seen they don't have the votes to pass such controversial and significant taxation-changing legislation and have decided not to waste parliament's time by bringing forward a bill that is not going to pass. Yet.

They still like the policy. They'll campaign on it going into the 2011 election, telling voters that if they give them enough MSPs they'll be able to pass it. So what is this hysteria from the other parties about?

Iain Gray calls it "the day Alex Salmond's credibility died". What, because he can count to 65?

Jeremy Purvis: "The Lib Dems are now the ONLY party in Scotland that want to scrap the deeply unfair council tax." Well, that's just blatantly wrong. The SNP WANT to scrap it... but the opposition parties don't want to help them. Its the price of minority government.

Lib Dem and Labour blogs have it that its a huge U-turn, that it is another broken promise, that a key pledge is lying in tatters. Some of them don't seem to grasp the nature of minority government.

At least the Scotsman tells it like it is (and how many times will I get to say that?!!) when they say "LIT dead... for now." And Brian Taylor is his usual analytical self - pointing out, on balance, that opposition parties will attack and the SNP will defend their minority position.

You can say what you want about the policy (and I'm pretty sure I have in the past, though I can't find it on here) but if you haven't got the cards, you haven't got the cards. First the budget, now this. The SNP are learning about minority government. And I guess the other parties are too. As ever, we live in interesting times.

UPDATE: Just read Kez's take on it, which makes a good point about the issue. The SNP know there is not a majority for a referendum on independence, but they are still planning on bringing forward that legislation. That kinda puts the thing in perspective a bit. If only the LOLITSP could think on his feet like that and notice that kind of thing, then he might have a bit more credibility.

Read more...