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...

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...

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...

Fame at last!

I sent a message to the BBC's Brian Taylor on an issue I'd written about not that long ago.  Apparently it was a good question, 'cos it made it into his interview with Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell.


Here's the link to the interview.  Scroll forward to 9.00 minutes in for my questions - "if a Tory government is elected, do you expect to be appointed SSS?" and watch Mr Mundell squirm a little!


Anyway, amused me somewhat!

Read more...

Actually, what if the Tories win?

This is less of a "what if" than my previous post on Labour winning, but there's some questions I'd like to put in the (likely) event of David Cameron becoming Prime Minister this year.

Now, if the Tories take power, it will likely be on the back of a majority in England. Despite their European revival in Wales, the likelihood of them winning more than the three constituencies they currently hold is minimal. And in Scotland, where the party has been good - if unspectacular - in the Scottish Parliament (which they originally opposed) the FPTP electoral system makes it unlikely that they will return too many Scottish MPs. The party are targeting 11, I give them a shot at 5 or 6 on around 20% of the Scottish vote - but that is well short of having anything like a mandate from the Scottish people.

Not that that matters in a UK electoral context. The party will still govern the whole of the UK - the House of Commons is constituted of 600+ seats and majority of seats is all you require to govern. However, let me look a wee bit further at the difficulty facing the Tories in Scotland.

For a start, they have only 1 MP at the moment in David Mundell, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. That role has been given to him largely on account of his being their only MP for a Scottish constituency (but not their only Scottish MP - I'll come back to that). I don't think it is outwith the realm of possibilities that the Tories win a couple more Scottish seats - perhaps Peter Duncan will return in Dumfries & Galloway and John Lamont MSP will have a decent shot at Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk while there are a few other seats (Edinburgh South, West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, Argyll & Bute, Stirling, Ochil & South Perthshire) where they may spring an upset. That said, even with 6 MPs representing Scottish constituencies, the party may face a problem: who to make Secretary of State for Scotland.

Now, David Mundell should be favourite (given his current status as shadow Sec State) but he holds that position only because he is the sole Tory MP north of the border. He is not perceived as a strong candidate. Similarly, while Peter Duncan has been shadow SSS previously, he was in the same position. John Lamont - if elected - would be a brave choice, given his youth and relative inexperience. But the mark against him would be he'd still be an MSP and combining 3 jobs a la Alex Salmond won't cut it. He may be a better bet for under-secretary (again, if he is elected). Alex Johnstone would be in a similar boat, but he hasn't made too many waves at Holyrood (and he's been there a good while) and indeed, is perhaps unlikely to win the seat. Any of the other newly-elected Tory MPs would be just that - newly-elected and inexperienced, hardly the commanding figure the party would want going up against Salmond.

Which leaves them in a quandary. Already facing the perception that they don't have a mandate in Scotland - a democratic deficit if you will - they now don't appear to have any MPs in Scotland fit to fill the Secretary of State's role. Which leaves them 2 - not particularly attractive - options. The first is to appoint an MP for an English constituency as Sec State. An English MP as Scottish Secretary? You can imagine how that would go down in the Scottish Parliament. But there are a couple of MPs with links to Scotland. Liam Fox would be an example, or Malcolm Rifkind - who does have experience of the role. However, the latter lost his Scottish seat in 1997 and the Scottish media are unlikely to let him forget that.

Which leaves a second option - one which Labour have availed themselves of recently, subconsciously indicating a dearth of talent on their benches. Appoint someone - with experience, gravitas, a heavyweight - to the House of Lords. Someone, perhaps, who is leading their campaign in Scotland.  Lord McLetchie of the Taxis? Perhaps not. But presumably it is an idea circulating in Tory HQ. 

Of course this move leaves them with several difficulties - not least the democratic deficit of having a Sec State for Scotland who cannot be questioned in the Commons. Equally, would he continue to sit in the Scottish Parliament? His Pentlands seat is one the Tories fought hard to win back (and he ousted Iain Gray in the process) and winning the seat without McLetchie's considerable personal vote may not prove easy in a by-election. Or could he keep his seat - and sit quietly while Annabel Goldie questions Alex Salmond at FMQs, who, presumably, would fire everything back at him as Sec State - and he'd be unable to respond.

It's an implausible situation.  How bad would it make the Secretary of State look?  How powerless?  And for Annabel Goldie, overshadowed by her predecessor - and superior in the UK party?  Would it signal her demise as leader - a position she was reluctant to take in the first place?  Of course, there might be the comedic value of a party leader asking when the FM will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland, to which Salmond could look to McLetchie and say something like "garden lobby, five minutes time?".  The press, the public, the MSPs themselves would have a field day mocking McLetchie - it'd be worse than the taxi stuff.

So yes, while some questions may be answered if the Tories win (the likelihood of Gordon Brown staying on as Labour leader is minimal) many more remain.

Read more...

Compassionate Conservatives...

A friend passed this on. Couldn't resist. Captions?

Read more...

UK politics comes full circle

First we had Tony Blair's Third Way, leaving Clause IV socialism for "New Labour" and a sharp move to the centre right.

Now we have the "progressive" Conservatives (and isn't that a contradiction in terms?) and Dave Guevara (courtesy of The Spectator).

Whatever next - George Osbourne as Robin Hood?

Read more...

Stat of the day

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

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

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

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

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

How does that work? Two reasons:

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

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

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

Read more...

Does Holyrood matter to the Tories?

I learn from Andrew Reeves and Tory Bear that John Lamont MSP has been selected to replace Chris Walker as the Conservative candidate for the Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Westminster constituency.

He becomes the second Conservative MSP to seek a House of Commons seat at the next election - Alex Johnstone being the other, in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine.

I would suggest that John Lamont may have a better chance given that he overturned the Lib Dem majority in the corresponding seat in the Scottish Parliament while Alex Johnstone lost out to the SNP's Andrew Welsh by a considerable margin in Angus.

Both stood as candidates in the 2005 UK election in these respective seats - Johnstone dropping the Tory vote in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine by 2% while Lamont increased the Tory vote in BRS by nearly 7% (and took advantage of that by winning the Scottish Parliament seat in 2007) albeit those figures are notional given boundary changes.

Couple of questions though. What does this say about the Conservative party's commitment to the Scottish Parliament when 2 of their 16 MSPs - that's 12.5% of their representation in the chamber - want to turn their back on Holyrood for a life of moat and duck-pond allowances at Westminster? And what does this say about Annabel Goldie's leadership - that she could potentially lose two key members of her parliamentary group because central office thinks they'd have a better opportunity to win UK constituencies with MSPs as candidates?

Also, Annabel Goldie has been fairly vocal in shouting down Alex Salmond as a dual mandate MP MSP, despite the First Minister's commitment to stand down at the next UK election. If either of the two Tory MSPs were to win a House of Commons seat, where would this leave her ability to challenge Salmond on this?

The bottom line is, I think, that all hands are on deck for the Tories. They are taking nothing for granted despite polls placing them well into 40+% UK-wide. The disproportionate FPTP system means that, even if they dominated the vote (and won over 45%) they still may only have a Commons majority of 20 or 30 seats. Which means that any seats that they can gain in Scotland to add to David Mundell's sole seat at the moment is a much-needed bonus for David Cameron. Selecting well-known, experienced candidates is a means to that end and if it undercuts the Tories in the Scottish Parliament, what does that matter? I mean it's only Scotland, right Maggie?

Read more...

Budget: Analysis of the parties

Having taken time to sleep on the budget outcome - and not instantly chuck accusations of skullduggery around - I've come to the following conclusions about what happened and how it looks from the outside (at least to those that are watching closely).

So, in order of how they voted, how do the parties look this morning?

The SNP Government will survive this setback. Depending how this is portrayed in the media, they will be made to look like victims of the big, bad opposition parties (their line) or hapless, unprepared and, well, bungling (everyone else's line). The truth, I think, lies somewhere in between. Yes, the SNP have been kicked in the teeth by the failure of their budget bill to pass. But it was oh so avoidable... and I think in their heart of hearts they know that.

The spectre of an election in the middle of a recession looms large over the upcoming negotiations, and though Salmond knows he cannot call one, he also knows that if he resigns, they may be able to kill enough time before the deadline for a new FM passes. So, though it is being portrayed by some (mostly Lib Dems) as throwing the toys out the pram, an election - were the government to resign - seems the most logical outcome.

The Tories got from the budget they came for, and are now seen as a constructive opposition party - and not, as so many thought on the creation of a Scottish Parliament, a roadblock to progress. Derek Brownlee has worked sensibly with the Finance Secretary and extracted the concessions the party wanted so they could vote for the budget. If none of that changes - and I don't suspect it will - they will vote for a revised budget.

And then there's Margo. Well, she bled the Finance Secretary dry of money for Edinburgh (and still, truth be told, wanted more) for her solitary vote in support, which, ultimately, proved fruitless. She comes across as a shrewd, hard-nosed operator but - as I heard David Whitton complaining about on Radio Scotland last night - she only represents one city. The parliamentary arithmatic makes her vote relevant - but only if Labour maintain opposition to the bill. She should remember that (and so should the SNP).

And so, to those in opposition to the bill. The Greens have been lambasted left, right and centre for their role in this but, like the SNP, their press could still go either way. They could be portrayed as budget-wreckers, making unreasonable demands and hijacking the budget for their own ends (as has in fact been the case in serveral quarters) or they could be viewed as principled, standing by the fact that they didn't get what they wanted out of it and voting it down. I think there's a bit of both there. They know their position as potential kingmakers here and tried to get something into the budget that they wanted - partly because there was so much in it that they didn't like. But I think this shows the new direction the Green Party will take under new co-leader Patrick Harvie. I think previously, under Robin Harper, they would have swallowed it and abstained, allowing it to pass... now, Harvie's Greens must be taken at their word.

Labour in opposition too, but more passive opposition than I think they could have been... this leaves open an opportunity for Swinney to circumvent the Greens and Margo. I reckon some kind of deal on skills training might be enough to see them vote for it (I don't think we'll see them abstaining again in a hurry). Labour bloggers have been somewhat restrained in their analysis, with Ewan Aitken, like me, holding out for the day consensus politics takes hold at Holyrood. I fear that day might never come!

Which brings me nicely to everyone's favourite consensus politicians - the Lib Dems. Will's analysis of their position is probably about right. I don't see how any party who demands massive budget cuts then walks out when they are told to stop being daft can now turn round and say they are "open to negotiations" over the revised budget. I'd suggest that Mr Purvis doesn't wait by his phone.

With that in mind, it is a bit surprising that I agree with Stephen Glenn (but only a wee bit) when he says minority government is about consensus, about listening to others. That's what the SNP Government have to do now, to pass this revised budget. Otherwise... well, interesting times ahead.

Read more...

Tense times at Holyrood

Will the Scottish Government survive the budget vote today?

There's only one game in Edinburgh town today, and that's the Scottish budget. Appears to be on a bit of a knife-edge... just like last year.

Here's my take on it.

Obviously (barring any slips of fingers) the SNP MSPs will vote for the budget. That's 47 votes in the bank. And I think that the Tories, despite playing coy with it, have probably secured enough in the way of concessions (and probably much more than they would have done had the negotiations been with a Labour Finance Secretary - which they will no doubt realise). Their 16 votes will also probably go with the budget. That makes... 63.

Here's the problem. The Lib Dems are... probably certain to vote against it. Which makes it 63-16. And with the mess that Labour made for themselves by abstaining last year, they will probably end up voting against the proposals. Which makes it an ever so tight 63-62 with three votes (Greens and Margo) to go.

I'd suggest, despite not being an easy woman to please, John Swinney has sweetened the deal somewhat for Margo MacDonald, giving her all the money she wants for Edinburgh (and some for Glasgow too!). Her vote would make it 64-62 in favour.

And then there are the two Green votes. According to James, their votes are in no way locked down. And I don't think they will be. Partick Harvie has made it quite clear that there are a lot of things in the budget that the Greens don't like - certainly enough to vote against it.

And indeed, were they to vote against (making it a 64-64 tie) the Presiding Officer should vote with the status quo - that is against the budget (as Stephen notes).

But I remember the stage one process this time last year. The vote at that time was 64-62, with the Greens getting enough from the Government and abstaining.

What money the same vote again? I wouldn't be surprised if, with all the through-the-night negotiations going on, the Greens have been given something - not the £100m per year scheme that they wanted, but something - to let them abstain from voting.

I guess we're about to see how well (or otherwise) John Swinney and others have played their hand...

Read more...

Glenrothes: Analysis

Well, after Glasgow East I indulged in a spot of analysis, so I thought I'd do the same for Glenrothes. I think my immediate post-match analysis (so to speak!) pretty much covers it, though I'll go into a bit more detail here.

Labour - undoubtedly a good night. By winning more votes than his popoular predecessor John MacDougall (19,946 to 19,385) Lindsay Roy ensured that Labour would hold the seat next door to the Prime Minister's. Based on the huge turnout and the upturn in economic circumstances (with Labour coloured glasses on of course) Roy was able to hold off a 5% swing to the SNP. The Scotsman attributes the win to a "Brown Bounce" which I'm not sure really exists. I just think Labour were very much able to get their vote out. Also don't think people were quite as willing to give the Prime Minister another kick - especially after he was kicked so hard in Glasgow East.

SNP - For the SNP it was a disappointing night. After suggestions (promises?) from the First Minister that they were going to win the seat, they had to settle for slashing Labour's majority from 10,000+ to 6,700. Not quite the result they had hoped for. Despite falling short, the party have succeeded in increasing their vote share by 13% and adding 5,000 votes to the SNP's pile in Glenrothes however, which is a good result. The BBC questions whether this result has burst the SNP's bubble. I'd argue not really, for a couple of reasons - and this is not spin.

First up, as an academic, it is easy to spot electoral trends. In Westminster elections - which voters still treat as primary elections - they look for a party that can act on the UK stage. They are much happier to give their vote to the SNP in Scottish Parliament elections where they see that the party can make a difference. Second, Glenrothes is vastly different from Glasgow East, both in terms of the make-up of the seat and the political circumstances. The SNP run the council here (in Glasgow it is Labour) which has contributed to the perception of incumbency - and they've had to defend their record. Plus the urge to kick the Prime Minister was not as pronounced here.

Conservatives - for the Tories, well it was a mixed night. They did well to overturn the Lib Dems and finish third, but they lost their deposit. However, Glenrothes is not exactly fertile voting territory for the Conservatives, and the fact that they've beaten out the Lib Dems for third suggests something for them to cheer about.

Lib Dems - Oh dear. Without attempting to bait Stephen or Caron, where to start. For the second by-election in a row the Lib Dems have fallen to fourth and lost their deposit. And I could replicate this post here. Apparently there was even talk that the Lib Dems - with nearby seats in North East Fife (Menzies Campbell) and Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) could even win the seat. With that in mind, how did the party only end up taking 947 votes? I know - it was a classic two-party fight (something which I pointed out here) which squeezed their vote. But for a party that claims to be the third party, the "real alternative" government, surely this is not just a bad result, its an unmitigated disaster?

I know I'm a bit unfair to the Lib Dems in criticism sometimes - and this may look like I'm diverting attention from a disappointing night for the SNP. You'll have to trust me that is not my intention - for I even did this after Glasgow East (when the SNP won). I'm just struggling to see what the Lib Dems stand for now - and I think, so were the voters in both Glasgow East and Glenrothes. Much was made of their win in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, but if the party are not careful, Willie Rennie probably won't be returning to Westminster after the next election... and Ming Campbell won't exactly have a cakewalk in North East Fife (though he should be safe enough). So Stephen and Caron, I know you guys were both out in Glenrothes and for that I'll praise your dedication. But two lost deposits in a row - are you fighting a lost cause?

So here we are. Congratulations to Lindsay Roy MP on winning the election (and proving my hunch correct!). Each of the parties has lessons to learn from Glenrothes though.

Read more...

Tories show liberal side

"Gays have a duty to vote Conservative."

This is an interesting take on the Tories evolution.

The words "gay" and "Tory" used to only crop up in sentences with the verb "bashing" somewhere in the mix. But now - at least according to several Conservative candidates - the party is much more inclusive.

According to the BBC piece, there are 2.5 million gay electors in the UK.

2.5 million new Tory voters? Probably not. But progress for the Tories.

UPDATE: I see that the Tories appeal doesn't stretch to some...

Read more...