It's not often that idle speculation hits the mark but the cautiously predicted Glasgow North East by-election is, already scheduled for some time in September.
The parallels with Glasgow East speak for themselves. A long abandoned Labour stronghold of a constituency with an MP stepping down after a mess of their own making. A deeply unpopular Prime Minister and an SNP party riding high. It all sets it up marvellously well for a Nationalist win to be honest. (Sorry, I know I should be dampening down expectations etc etc)
I suspect we will also have the pleasure of seeing a Labour selection fiasco. I don't see Paul Martin wanting to stand for this constituency under the current circumstances and I would be surprised if he was even allowed to by the party establishment given the clear charge of nepotism this would bring. The good people of Springburn deserve someone other than a 'Martin' beside the Labour rosette given the monopoly the family has enjoyed over Holyrood and Westminster in recent years and decades respectively.
For the SNP, the PPC is Grant Thoms of Tartan Hero fame. I see his blog has somewhat sensibly been taken down, increasing the probability that Grant will be standing or is at least considering it. I hope so, I have only ever heard compliments about the Councillor for North East and my brief chat with him at this year's Conference only served to increase my esteem of the man.
So an enthralling contest awaits, albeit one that I daresay a lot of people do not have the energy, the money or the inclination for but I, for one, plan to be all over it.
2005 Result for Glasgow North East:
Speaker Michael Martin 15,153 53.3%
Scottish National Party John McLaughlin 5,019 17.7%
Socialist Labour Doris Kelly 4,036 14.2%
Scottish Socialist Graham Campbell 1,402 4.9%
Scottish Unionist Daniel Houston 1,266 4.5%
British National Scott McLean 920 3.2%
Independent Joe Chambers 622 2.2%
Majority 10,134 35.7
Turnout 28,418 45.8 +1.9
Rigged
5 hours ago
15 comments:
Brown just said at his press conference that whether or not Martin stands down as an MP is up to Martin.
Doesn't sound like this is a guarantee after all.
Does Martin still get the £100,000 handshake if he stays until the GE? If the pressure is off him now, then I assume he would want to stay on and trouser that amount as a final garnish to his life of tireless public service.
If there is an election, though, I don't rate the SNP's chances. Martin's official majority is 35%, but you really have to add to that the 14% for Socialist Labour. Which makes the seat invulnerable even to a swing of Glasgow East proportions. In this constituency, the L-vote attracts votes like shit attracts flies.
Martin has only yet said he will be standing down as an MP -- he aint yet said when, could still tough ity out until the next election.
Why? That £100k for starters, bur also labour's selection proceedures. For a by election the candidate is in effect appointed by the leadership, who ( for good resons) would not go near one of the Martin clan,
Instead Martin might be inclined to hang on until the GE so as the local Springburn Labour party can select in the normal way - all the votes in the martin family's pocket, free from Scottish Labour HQ or NEC influence
This is impartant to what is in effcet a family business, a dynasty. Paul Martin's long term postition and along with it the family's would for example be undermined if some big hitting external labour candidate were to come in an win it - hero of the hour in Labour circles. Indeed if
there is a by election the Martins would probably prefer anyone other tha Labour to win on the not unresonable assumption Labour (the candidatee selected by them) would retake the seat at the General election
Good luck to Grant Thoms - but neither assume there wil be a by election, and if there is one dinna give up your day job. Im near certaim Michael Martin will, before he resigns as an MP seek assurances from Brown on who the Labour Candidate is - hell want a de facto veto
Another factor i am not sure of is who calls the by election, who decides its timing. Normally of course it is the sitting party - but there is none in this case. Probably the, the new speaker, likely a tory with a clean up politcs agenda. So were martin to resign as an MP on 21 June, Id expect a near immediate by election in July - just when all these other excess details start to get officially published and the economy is still on the downswing. And if Martin dont resign as an MP that day, stays on a bit to "help labour" how does that look? Better just to sit it out on the backbenches until a General elevction, using his free time to fix the Labour selection with son Paul, for Paul I reckon - who has nae chance of getting the byelection candidate nod. And the Ma for the vacant Holyrood seat.
No net loss ar all in family income for the Martins plus the £100k payoff for Michael
All specuklation - but I know springburn I know the Martins - they think they own it!
Weve all got some thinking time between now and 21st June - but so too does Michael martin. And in 40 years in politics, he aint lost yet
Sean,
I believe Martin's spokesperson confirmed that he would be standing down as an MP aswell. And a Speaker sitting on the backbenches would be as bizarre as it would be unprecedented.
Colin,
the addition of Lib Dems and Tories does make it difficult to predict what may happen but I reckon that Socialist vote is likely to either stay Socialist or go SNP. Would someone who didn't vote Labour before be any more likely to vote for them now? Doubt it. So I'm not sure why you are adding on the 14%.
Another way of looking at it, it's a free shot for the SNP to get another MP before next year's election. Nothing to lose.
Incidentally, they need less of a swing than they achieved in Glasgow East to win this one.
Jeff - Labour didn't stand in 2005. The massive vote for "Socialist Labour" (whoever they are - did they save their deposit, or even stand, in any other seat?) can be attributed to voters scanning the ballot for the word "Labour" and finding that to be the closest thing. If they had really wanted to vote socialist, surely they would have gone for the SSP.
So the de facto swing required is about 25%: 3% more than was achieved in Glasgow East. Perhaps miracles happen, but one would certainly be required in this case.
Colin,
it is a tough one. I totally see your logic this time around. But at the same time, if these voters were dispirited with Labour's credentials and went for the hardcore leftwing vote then I still think they could hop onboard the SNP bandwagon for one by-election.
What are the classic socialist policies? Anti Iraq, anti nuclear wepaons, free school meals for kids and no PFI. Sounds like the Nationalists to me! In particular, it's SFT that I think could bring many of these voters onboard.
But if it's as you say, they were just looking for the word 'Labour', then the SNP's task is much tougher than I give it credit for and you're right about that swing increasing massively.
Jeff delighted that you have only ever heard good things about me!
I should probably point out that Grant is the Councillor for ward 21,North East, rather than my ward of Baillieston.
Aren't 'Socialist Labour' affiliated with Arthur Scargill?
Still couldn't tell you where else they've stood/how well they've done though.
Thanks David, I am suitably chastised.
I did suspect I had that wrong. My Google search led me to this page which had me confused and I just lazily went along with it:
http://www.bailliestonsnp.org/page10.htm
And yes, Socialist Labour are the Scargill bunch. Registered in Yorkshire apparently. Glasgow NE last time around was, far and away, their best showing seemingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Labour_Party_(UK)
I thought it was the convention that the seat of the Speaker was unapposed by the main parties at a General election. I'm sure that was the case when Betty Boothroyd was speaker. Has it changed since then?
if there are 'conventions' at Westminster why would the SNP follow them? Only the three Unionist parties observe this rubbish.
Just as they observed the ability to claim for most cleaning.
If following that sort of convention is the choice....... No thanks!
Sorry, that should gave read 'MOAT CLEANING', silly me.
Mea culpa n all that.
Damn the spell check on these iPhones!!
Rapunzel,
that has been the convention for the main 3 parties but I don't think there was a robust enough reason for the other parties for them to follow it.
It makes sense that every constituency gets a choice of who represents them at Westminster.
And it's a moot point now anyway as there'll be no such convention when a Speaker steps down.
I don't think anyone is suggesting poor form from the Nationalist or Socialist parties in elections gone by.
It's a rather silly convention really that the three big UK parties follow. Effectively it disenfrachises the people who live in the Speaker's constituency. All I suspect, part of the gentlemen's club that Brown has just realised exists at Westminster and which, suddenly, he has found unacceptable.
No guarantees about who would win. Martin is vey popular in his consitiuency it would seem from vox pops on tv. Apparently he "speaks to people in the street" just like he was an ordinary person.
How gracious of him.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3634773/michael-martins-byelection-chaos.thtml
Post a Comment