Last night's leaders' debate was pretty drab, I certainly didn't think the immigration 'British Jobs for Bigot Workers' section needed a third airing but that's Brits for you I suppose.
One thing that I did notice during the proceedings was Clegg's liberal use of the line 'In my constituency of Sheffield', as if this was a badge of honour that would endear him to the local Birmingham audience and indeed the watching public at large. Forgive me, but I couldn't help but think that it is the perceived griminess of the constituency that Clegg was using to his advantage. 'Sheffield!? That's almost as bad as here. I like this young chap, what's his name again?", some might say.
David Cameron certainly didn't make any mention of his constituency of Witney, presumably because it sounds too posh, and Gordon Brown didn't mention his constituency of Kirkcaldy, presumably because it sounds too, well, Scottish to be honest.
Perhaps Brown saw all of this coming and was looking to outgrunge Clegg last night. A Monday Labour HQ pow-wow could have included Brown asking: 'Where's scummier than Sheffield Ed?' to which Balls may have replied 'Well, there's Blackpool but that's Peter's territory. How about Rochdale? Was there in 2005. God awful it was too, solid Labour'.
That plan however was somewhat ramroaded by Ms Duffy. Brown was never going to get away with 'I met a lovely lady in Rochdale yesterday and she told me...' in the debate yesterday, even if it had been part of the original script.
Brown of course tried playing the Arctic Monkeys card a while back to give him some Northern street cred but the idea of him waking up to 'Mardybum' was quite rightly laughed off.
Anyway, I have no point to make here, just noting a possible hint of inverted snobbery and wryly suggesting that if any young turks reading this have aspirations to be a PM possibility on a future leader debate one day, it might be worth making sure you're the MP for Skidsville first.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
BBC Leaders' Debate
Here we are then, the end of the trilogy of Leader Debates. Will we be feeling unsatisfied and short-changed as we were with The Matrix Revolutions, pleasantly entertained as we were with The Bourne Ultimatum or blown away and desperate for more as we were with The Lord of the Rings – Return of King? I’m going with Bourne (I’ve always been a Matt Damon fan) but perhaps, all in all, we’ll just be glad to have closure over this whole glossy affair and relieved that politicians will only pop up in the more escapable news bulletins and newspaper headlines from here on in.
Economy
The most important aspect of tonight’s debate is how open the party leaders will be with regard to what spending cuts and/or tax rises will be implemented in order to balance Britain’s bruised and battered books. The recent IFS report clearly stated that cuts not seen since 1979 are required from Labour and the Lib Dems and not since WW2 from the Tories but the parties have only given us a small glimpse of the future decisions that will need to be taken, if they haven’t already away from public consumption. I don’t expect any party leader to reveal more than they already have in terms of cuts and tax rises but it would still be the decent thing to do.
Labour
Gordon Brown needs to win big in tonight’s debate, it needs to be a game-changer. The pressure is all on the Prime Minister as he tries to hold an increasingly despondent Labour pack together. The only time Brown was ahead of Cameron in the polls in the past 3 years was when the financial crisis was at its worst. With the Greek tragedy available to be leveraged as an issue and a potential return of the ‘no time for a novice’ message, Gordon has a glimmer of hope to have voters thinking the same as they did back in the Autumn of 2008. He has an awesome challenge on his hands to frame the debate in his favour though and I don’t think he has the capacity to do it when anything from Clegg or Cameron repeating his ‘no more boom and bust’ to the mention of the disastrous gold sales can bring him back to square zero.
Liberal Democrats
Nick Clegg is on easy street right now given he blew the ceiling of his party’s (and probably his own) expectations for this election and consequently has the least difficult evening ahead of him today. The Lib Dem’s position as Britain’s second party has been cemented in poll after poll for a week now and only an uncharacteristically catastrophic performance from the likeable leader will see him and his party spiral back down to third. There is not as much of a difference between the Lib Dems getting 90, 100 or 110 seats given that the system is counting against them and they can take their grievance into the next Parliament with the public behind them. I predict Clegg will mention Vince Cable as many as ten times this evening and receive a spike on ‘the worm’ on each occasion.
Conservatives
David Cameron has a sizeable task on his hands, though nowhere close to the gargantuan challenge Gordon faces. There is one week to go, Cameron is the strong favourite to be the next Prime Minister but there is still no sense of inevitability surrounding his charge to Number 10. Cameron has had years to ‘seal the deal’ with the British public so what chance is there that he can do it tonight? Slim I would say. The rehashed themes of we’re all in this together and reheated warnings of not cutting soon enough will be received with the same approval ratings in the lousy low 30s. However, with polls showing a clear gap between the Conservatives and Labour, even a mediocre performance from the Tory leader, exaggerated by a fawning press, could deliver a majority for his party. It may ultimately be a victory won out of default given the abandonment of Brown and Labour but right now Cameron has a lot to gain without too much to lose, which is not the worst position to be in at the moment.
Bigot-gate
Neither Clegg nor Cameron will get away with raising Gillian Duffy as an issue tonight. Shoe-horning her into a debate on the economy will look cheap and opportunistic and do more damage to themselves than it will for Labour. The best bet is to hope that an audience member raises it as a question and then they can watch Brown squirm in talking about a short, toxic incident that took place a full 36 hours earlier. At the end of the day though, bigot-gate is yesterday’s news and Gordon Brown shouldn’t feel obliged, as many are urging him to do, to make an apology for his comment during tonight’s debate.
Scotland
The SNP can only watch on from the sidelines now that all legal challenges to get involved tonight have been unsuccessful. The best hope in terms of this debate having any direct impact on their fortunes is that Scottish voters are unimpressed by all three leaders on the show and decide to turn to the SNP instead. Not ideal but not entirely hopeless either. There is also the comfort of knowing that the BBC Scottish Debate is still to come and minds can still be changed. Also from a Scottish context, I daresay Bella Caledonia’s impressive #ScotlandSpeaks campaign will be in full flow tonight on Twitter and elsewhere as it was in the past two debates.
Chairperson
David Dimbleby, lest we forget, has a starring role in tonight’s proceedings too. I have little doubt that he will marshall the process admirably and objectively but the man knows his stuff and is not above delivering the odd cutting, glib remark to chop someone down if he is not impressed with their answer, as he so regularly does on BBC Question Time. Will David be tempted to do the same this evening and prove to be an unlikely deciding factor in who is seen to be the winner or, more pertinently, the loser?
Conclusion
The most likely outcome of tonight’s debate is an earnest, well-meaning discussion that contains no telling blows and no lasting gaffes. In other words, 90 minutes of battle resulting in a three-way score draw that does little to affect the current polling figures. After all, with such a strict format, there is little scope for a significant impact to be made but the best bet for a moment of seismic proportions is for one of the leaders to hit their stride with a certain answer or closing speech, to capture the mood of the country, allay fundamental public concerns and deliver a short speech steeped in depth but with searing rhetoric that leaves millions of the watching undecideds thinking ‘yep, he’s the man for me’.
Of the three leaders, Nick Clegg is best placed to do so and he is my out and out favourite to win tonight’s debate.
Economy
The most important aspect of tonight’s debate is how open the party leaders will be with regard to what spending cuts and/or tax rises will be implemented in order to balance Britain’s bruised and battered books. The recent IFS report clearly stated that cuts not seen since 1979 are required from Labour and the Lib Dems and not since WW2 from the Tories but the parties have only given us a small glimpse of the future decisions that will need to be taken, if they haven’t already away from public consumption. I don’t expect any party leader to reveal more than they already have in terms of cuts and tax rises but it would still be the decent thing to do.
Labour
Gordon Brown needs to win big in tonight’s debate, it needs to be a game-changer. The pressure is all on the Prime Minister as he tries to hold an increasingly despondent Labour pack together. The only time Brown was ahead of Cameron in the polls in the past 3 years was when the financial crisis was at its worst. With the Greek tragedy available to be leveraged as an issue and a potential return of the ‘no time for a novice’ message, Gordon has a glimmer of hope to have voters thinking the same as they did back in the Autumn of 2008. He has an awesome challenge on his hands to frame the debate in his favour though and I don’t think he has the capacity to do it when anything from Clegg or Cameron repeating his ‘no more boom and bust’ to the mention of the disastrous gold sales can bring him back to square zero.
Liberal Democrats
Nick Clegg is on easy street right now given he blew the ceiling of his party’s (and probably his own) expectations for this election and consequently has the least difficult evening ahead of him today. The Lib Dem’s position as Britain’s second party has been cemented in poll after poll for a week now and only an uncharacteristically catastrophic performance from the likeable leader will see him and his party spiral back down to third. There is not as much of a difference between the Lib Dems getting 90, 100 or 110 seats given that the system is counting against them and they can take their grievance into the next Parliament with the public behind them. I predict Clegg will mention Vince Cable as many as ten times this evening and receive a spike on ‘the worm’ on each occasion.
Conservatives
David Cameron has a sizeable task on his hands, though nowhere close to the gargantuan challenge Gordon faces. There is one week to go, Cameron is the strong favourite to be the next Prime Minister but there is still no sense of inevitability surrounding his charge to Number 10. Cameron has had years to ‘seal the deal’ with the British public so what chance is there that he can do it tonight? Slim I would say. The rehashed themes of we’re all in this together and reheated warnings of not cutting soon enough will be received with the same approval ratings in the lousy low 30s. However, with polls showing a clear gap between the Conservatives and Labour, even a mediocre performance from the Tory leader, exaggerated by a fawning press, could deliver a majority for his party. It may ultimately be a victory won out of default given the abandonment of Brown and Labour but right now Cameron has a lot to gain without too much to lose, which is not the worst position to be in at the moment.
Bigot-gate
Neither Clegg nor Cameron will get away with raising Gillian Duffy as an issue tonight. Shoe-horning her into a debate on the economy will look cheap and opportunistic and do more damage to themselves than it will for Labour. The best bet is to hope that an audience member raises it as a question and then they can watch Brown squirm in talking about a short, toxic incident that took place a full 36 hours earlier. At the end of the day though, bigot-gate is yesterday’s news and Gordon Brown shouldn’t feel obliged, as many are urging him to do, to make an apology for his comment during tonight’s debate.
Scotland
The SNP can only watch on from the sidelines now that all legal challenges to get involved tonight have been unsuccessful. The best hope in terms of this debate having any direct impact on their fortunes is that Scottish voters are unimpressed by all three leaders on the show and decide to turn to the SNP instead. Not ideal but not entirely hopeless either. There is also the comfort of knowing that the BBC Scottish Debate is still to come and minds can still be changed. Also from a Scottish context, I daresay Bella Caledonia’s impressive #ScotlandSpeaks campaign will be in full flow tonight on Twitter and elsewhere as it was in the past two debates.
Chairperson
David Dimbleby, lest we forget, has a starring role in tonight’s proceedings too. I have little doubt that he will marshall the process admirably and objectively but the man knows his stuff and is not above delivering the odd cutting, glib remark to chop someone down if he is not impressed with their answer, as he so regularly does on BBC Question Time. Will David be tempted to do the same this evening and prove to be an unlikely deciding factor in who is seen to be the winner or, more pertinently, the loser?
Conclusion
The most likely outcome of tonight’s debate is an earnest, well-meaning discussion that contains no telling blows and no lasting gaffes. In other words, 90 minutes of battle resulting in a three-way score draw that does little to affect the current polling figures. After all, with such a strict format, there is little scope for a significant impact to be made but the best bet for a moment of seismic proportions is for one of the leaders to hit their stride with a certain answer or closing speech, to capture the mood of the country, allay fundamental public concerns and deliver a short speech steeped in depth but with searing rhetoric that leaves millions of the watching undecideds thinking ‘yep, he’s the man for me’.
Of the three leaders, Nick Clegg is best placed to do so and he is my out and out favourite to win tonight’s debate.
Beware of Greeks bearing gilts
The Greek crisis has suddenly jolted back into life and if it does 'spread like the Ebola virus' as some claim, then it may be cold hard economics that does it for Gordon Brown rather than 'bigot-gate'.
One clear solution is to provide a stimulus package and let Greece drop out of the Euro to allow its currency to devalue which should aid the recovery.
However, Spain has had its credit rating downgraded as 'El Crises' bites harder, same too for Portugal. If the first financial storm was focussed on banks, this one will be Governments.
I don't know what the 'stress test' is for Darling's budget but the UK has £100bn of exposure to these three countries and doesn't have its problems to seek.
A week of financial contagion in the lead up to the General Election would be extraordinary and on the face of it would kill off Labour's chances.
However, the issue would also draw George Osborne out from whichever cupboard the Conservatives have locked him away in and the idea of this man running our country's finances may crystallize some minds into voting Labour or Lib Dem.
One Telegraph quote on the Greek disaster is "There are some senior figures who would like to see the gangrenous leg of Greece chopped off". Indeed, there are some senior figures in the Tory party who have thought the same about boy George for some time now.
A financial hurricane wreaking havoc in the UK would kill one of the two main party's chances. I just don't know which one.
One clear solution is to provide a stimulus package and let Greece drop out of the Euro to allow its currency to devalue which should aid the recovery.
However, Spain has had its credit rating downgraded as 'El Crises' bites harder, same too for Portugal. If the first financial storm was focussed on banks, this one will be Governments.
I don't know what the 'stress test' is for Darling's budget but the UK has £100bn of exposure to these three countries and doesn't have its problems to seek.
A week of financial contagion in the lead up to the General Election would be extraordinary and on the face of it would kill off Labour's chances.
However, the issue would also draw George Osborne out from whichever cupboard the Conservatives have locked him away in and the idea of this man running our country's finances may crystallize some minds into voting Labour or Lib Dem.
One Telegraph quote on the Greek disaster is "There are some senior figures who would like to see the gangrenous leg of Greece chopped off". Indeed, there are some senior figures in the Tory party who have thought the same about boy George for some time now.
A financial hurricane wreaking havoc in the UK would kill one of the two main party's chances. I just don't know which one.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Bigot-gate
There are a lot of moments during election campaigns that are mistakenly held up as game-changers. The Prime Minister calling a widow and (until very recently) a Labour voter a “bigoted woman” is a bona fide one.
There’s not much else to say about it other than to sit back and watch Labour’s poll figures slide but it’s important to remember that this isn’t a mistake that could happen to just anyone.
For all that Gordon Brown likes to wear his moral compass as a badge of honour; Cameron, Clegg, Salmond, Lucas and even Farage would all have the respect and decency to never make such a regrettable comment, even under their breath.
Brown just finished digging his own political grave in Rochdale. It’s Clegg, Cameron or Miliband from here on in.
Here's a question though, in light of the SNP's unsuccessful legal challenge, can Salmond not just take the now discredited Brown's spot?
More seriously, I do hope the SNP drops the debate grievance. Saying Sky and BBC have got it wrong is one thing, saying the courts have is quite another. It's time to move on and focus on the issues. People will vote on Trident, they won't vote on who was or wasn't on a tv debate.
There’s not much else to say about it other than to sit back and watch Labour’s poll figures slide but it’s important to remember that this isn’t a mistake that could happen to just anyone.
For all that Gordon Brown likes to wear his moral compass as a badge of honour; Cameron, Clegg, Salmond, Lucas and even Farage would all have the respect and decency to never make such a regrettable comment, even under their breath.
Brown just finished digging his own political grave in Rochdale. It’s Clegg, Cameron or Miliband from here on in.
Here's a question though, in light of the SNP's unsuccessful legal challenge, can Salmond not just take the now discredited Brown's spot?
More seriously, I do hope the SNP drops the debate grievance. Saying Sky and BBC have got it wrong is one thing, saying the courts have is quite another. It's time to move on and focus on the issues. People will vote on Trident, they won't vote on who was or wasn't on a tv debate.
GE2010 SeatWatch - North Ayrshire and Arran
The sacking of the Tory candidate in North Ayrshire & Arran for writing online that homosexuality “is not normal” has resulted in the Conservatives fielding only 58 candidates in each of the 59 Scottish constituencies. Consequently, the rare prospect of three left-wing parties competing for the one seat is worthy of further scrutiny.
The 2005 result was:
Katy Clarke (Labour) – 19,417 (43.9%)
Stewart Connell (Conservative) – 8,121 (18.4%)
Tony Gurney (SNP) – 7,938 (18.0%)
George White (Lib Dem) – 7,264 (16.4%)
The 2010 candidates are: Katy Clark (Labour), Patricia Gibson (SNP), Gllian Cole-Hamilton (Lib Dems),
The relatively considerable Conservative vote is clearly what is up for grabs here given that Phillip Lardner is no longer standing and, consequently, there may be some ironic benefit in the ‘Tartan Tory’ jibe that the SNP suffers and could profit from here. Certainly, if those who favour Cameron over Brown judge that the SNP is better placed to unseat the Labour incumbent, then there could be some considerable tactical voting going on. It helps that the SNP were notionally second in this seat in 2005, now that the Tories have been discounted.
However, there is no getting away from Clegg-mania with yesterday’s poll suggesting that the Lib Dems may indeed be Scotland’s second party in Westminster voting intentions after all. Splitting the non-Labour vote in this constituency anywhere close to 50/50 will pretty much guarantee that Katy Clark is returned for another term.
The SNP’s candidate is Patricia Gibson who is the partner of popular local MSP Kenneth Gibson and consequently may well hive off some electoral goodwill from his record, over and above the contribution Patricia will make on her own merits. If the husband and wife dream team can work for the Bakers and Balls’, then it can work for the Gibsons.
However, a potential spanner in the works for the SNP charge for this seat is the new Hunterston coal power station that is being built here which has been met with furious opposition in some quarters. The plant is due to be ‘carbon capture compliant’ but that technology is unreliable (at best) so dirty coal seems to live on in Scotland irrespective of the ambitious climate change targets the Government has set. It is a potential ‘greenwash’, if you will. A convincing argument from environmental groups is that carbon capture should be tried and tested on existing coal power stations before being used as an excuse to build more of them. Further to that, there is concern that Hunterston was added to the list of fast-track projects on the National Planning Framework without proper consultation with the local community. Not the best way to lay the ground for a gain at the next election if you ask me.
So, despite the remarkable circumstances of no Tory candidate, I fear the existing majority is just too big to overhaul and I daresay the SNP would need the Lib Dem candidate to also drop out of the race to stand any real chance of winning through here.
SNP TV prediction – Labour hold
The 2005 result was:
Katy Clarke (Labour) – 19,417 (43.9%)
Stewart Connell (Conservative) – 8,121 (18.4%)
Tony Gurney (SNP) – 7,938 (18.0%)
George White (Lib Dem) – 7,264 (16.4%)
The 2010 candidates are: Katy Clark (Labour), Patricia Gibson (SNP), Gllian Cole-Hamilton (Lib Dems),
The relatively considerable Conservative vote is clearly what is up for grabs here given that Phillip Lardner is no longer standing and, consequently, there may be some ironic benefit in the ‘Tartan Tory’ jibe that the SNP suffers and could profit from here. Certainly, if those who favour Cameron over Brown judge that the SNP is better placed to unseat the Labour incumbent, then there could be some considerable tactical voting going on. It helps that the SNP were notionally second in this seat in 2005, now that the Tories have been discounted.
However, there is no getting away from Clegg-mania with yesterday’s poll suggesting that the Lib Dems may indeed be Scotland’s second party in Westminster voting intentions after all. Splitting the non-Labour vote in this constituency anywhere close to 50/50 will pretty much guarantee that Katy Clark is returned for another term.
The SNP’s candidate is Patricia Gibson who is the partner of popular local MSP Kenneth Gibson and consequently may well hive off some electoral goodwill from his record, over and above the contribution Patricia will make on her own merits. If the husband and wife dream team can work for the Bakers and Balls’, then it can work for the Gibsons.
However, a potential spanner in the works for the SNP charge for this seat is the new Hunterston coal power station that is being built here which has been met with furious opposition in some quarters. The plant is due to be ‘carbon capture compliant’ but that technology is unreliable (at best) so dirty coal seems to live on in Scotland irrespective of the ambitious climate change targets the Government has set. It is a potential ‘greenwash’, if you will. A convincing argument from environmental groups is that carbon capture should be tried and tested on existing coal power stations before being used as an excuse to build more of them. Further to that, there is concern that Hunterston was added to the list of fast-track projects on the National Planning Framework without proper consultation with the local community. Not the best way to lay the ground for a gain at the next election if you ask me.
So, despite the remarkable circumstances of no Tory candidate, I fear the existing majority is just too big to overhaul and I daresay the SNP would need the Lib Dem candidate to also drop out of the race to stand any real chance of winning through here.
SNP TV prediction – Labour hold
We need to drive a coach and horses through UK train policy
When this steaming, overcooked planet finally gives in and the icecaps sizzle into liquid, the tsunamis roar in and the petrol runs out for the junk-heap cars, I wonder to what point in history the fingers shall point as the mad blood stirs. Emissions need to peak in 2015 if we're to beat climate change. What are we all doing, right now, that is holding us back?
There are lots of things of course but I just wonder if placing one of the golden bullet solutions, the train industry, into private ownership is near the top of the list. Allowing profits to be the main motivating factor rather than public wellbeing surely is part of the problem rather than the answer.
The pricing structure for travelling by train is such that the closer to the date of travel you buy your ticket, the more you pay. It is classic revenue optimisation and designed in part to maximise the income from business travellers who can put the three figure cost through their expenses with barely a backward glance. Needless to say, it's not so easy for the more leisurely amongst us. I've been priced out of a train trip up to Scotland on a good few times and, well, I don't do too bad income-wise so something's not right.
And it shouldn't be this complicated and unfair. Each train has x carriages and y seats. Divide the cost of running a train by those y seats and keep the prices equal and fixed. And if you can add more carriages, then we can decrease the costs for all.
It makes sense to me and it's a more realistic way of breaking the stranglehold that airlines have over domestic travel in the country. So it is with some hope that I read about the ASLEF union's plan to buy out the Government's East Coast rail franchise with a view to running it at no profit.
I hope whoever forms the next Government just gives them the thing. Current manifesto commitments include high speed rail, reimbursing some of your ticket fare if the train is 15 minutes late and a stricter tax on flights. I fear, despite 1 and 3 being good proposals, they are missing a bigger point and it is fair standard prices that are needed before true progress in the crucial transport/environment policy area can be made. Labour has promised "an enforceable right to the cheapest fare" but what does that mean? A recommitment to the status quo?
The Lib Dems are quick to cite their green credentials relative to Labour and the Tories but they cite Global Warming as "one of the greatest challenges we face" which to me proves that even they still don't get it.
Train travel was always top priority for me going into this election but it seems a fairer, greener future is experiencing heavy delays.
There are lots of things of course but I just wonder if placing one of the golden bullet solutions, the train industry, into private ownership is near the top of the list. Allowing profits to be the main motivating factor rather than public wellbeing surely is part of the problem rather than the answer.
The pricing structure for travelling by train is such that the closer to the date of travel you buy your ticket, the more you pay. It is classic revenue optimisation and designed in part to maximise the income from business travellers who can put the three figure cost through their expenses with barely a backward glance. Needless to say, it's not so easy for the more leisurely amongst us. I've been priced out of a train trip up to Scotland on a good few times and, well, I don't do too bad income-wise so something's not right.
And it shouldn't be this complicated and unfair. Each train has x carriages and y seats. Divide the cost of running a train by those y seats and keep the prices equal and fixed. And if you can add more carriages, then we can decrease the costs for all.
It makes sense to me and it's a more realistic way of breaking the stranglehold that airlines have over domestic travel in the country. So it is with some hope that I read about the ASLEF union's plan to buy out the Government's East Coast rail franchise with a view to running it at no profit.
I hope whoever forms the next Government just gives them the thing. Current manifesto commitments include high speed rail, reimbursing some of your ticket fare if the train is 15 minutes late and a stricter tax on flights. I fear, despite 1 and 3 being good proposals, they are missing a bigger point and it is fair standard prices that are needed before true progress in the crucial transport/environment policy area can be made. Labour has promised "an enforceable right to the cheapest fare" but what does that mean? A recommitment to the status quo?
The Lib Dems are quick to cite their green credentials relative to Labour and the Tories but they cite Global Warming as "one of the greatest challenges we face" which to me proves that even they still don't get it.
Train travel was always top priority for me going into this election but it seems a fairer, greener future is experiencing heavy delays.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Populus/Times Poll - SNP slip to third
With thanks to Stuart Dickson for giving the heads up in the comments of the last post, there is a new Scottish poll out thanks to Populus/Times. On the face of it, it looks like bad reading for the SNP with the Lib Dems overhauling them into 2nd place.
The Westminster results are:
Labour - 37% (-3%)
Lib Dem - 24% (+1%)
SNP - 19% (+2%)
Con - 16% (-)
Let's be honest, it's not great, certainly a far cry from the heady heights of last year.
In terms of seats, this would result in (change from 2005):
Labour - 38 (gain Glasgow East, gain Dunfermline & West Fife)
Lib Dem - 13 (gain Aberdeen South, gain Edinburgh South)
SNP - 7 (gain Ochil)
Con - 1
The Westminster results are:
Labour - 37% (-3%)
Lib Dem - 24% (+1%)
SNP - 19% (+2%)
Con - 16% (-)
Let's be honest, it's not great, certainly a far cry from the heady heights of last year.
In terms of seats, this would result in (change from 2005):
Labour - 38 (gain Glasgow East, gain Dunfermline & West Fife)
Lib Dem - 13 (gain Aberdeen South, gain Edinburgh South)
SNP - 7 (gain Ochil)
Con - 1
Parties' last chance to be honest about cuts
The FT has analysed what cuts may be necessary from the next Government, regardless of who wins the election. In a stinging reminder of Darling’s haunting promise that the necessary cuts will be deeper than Thatcher’s, the IFS has stated that “Labour and the Lib Dems would need to deliver the deepest sustained cuts to spending on public services since the late 1970s”. For the Tories, it is since World War 2. In all cases this is after taking into account protected areas.
With Gordon Brown having to be dragged kicking and screaming into simply using the word ‘cut’ and Nick Clegg spooked into never mentioning “savage cuts” again after he clearly regretted it the first time, one can only look on in abject despair as the main party leaders balk at the financial prospects ahead. The Lib Dems have detailed 26% of cuts required, the Tories 18% and Labour a frankly abysmal 13%. So much for winning on substance. Needless to say all parties are pointing at the holes in the other parties’ financial plans without facing up to their own.
Not that I can absolve Alex Salmond in all of this given he wishes to build a new Hadrian’s Wall to protect Scotland from its share of the financial pain. We’re all in this together? Nae chance pal says the SNP (despite the massive public sector creaking away in the background). The cause for independence would be better served if the Nats got in amongst it and found some substantial and lasting savings that would make a difference, rather than removing themselves from the fray. He/she who wants the crown should be prepared to wield the axe.
Anyway, Scotland gets its ‘allowance’ via the Barnett Formula and the hard choices on the UK deficit will, Clegg-mania to one side, effectively fall to Labour or the Conservatives so it may be useful to look at the impact of these cuts per the IFS and compare them with what we’re hearing on the campaign trail:
Means-testing child benefit (I simply can’t see Brown bringing himself to do this)
Reducing prison numbers by a quarter (that should surely skewer Labour’s silly ‘carry a knife go to jail’ policy)
Abolishing winter fuel payments and free television licences (that would contradict many a Labour campaign leaflet)
Stopping school building (easy for Holyrood to match that one brick for brick)
Halving roads maintenance (a double win for the Greens and Glum Councillors website)
Withdrawing free bus passes for pensioners (contrary to Gordon Brown and David Cameron’s rather public assertions stating otherwise)
Delaying Crossrail for three years (a huge London promise down the ditch making Edinburgh trams look like badly judged skidmark)
Cutting funding to Scotland and Wales by 10% (probably long overdue but still potentially a big gift-wrapped present for SNP and Plaid Cymru so will be resisted)
We are clearly, and surely beyond any lingering shadow of a doubt, being only told a portion of the necessary story by our political leaders about what needs to be done after the General Election in order to sort out our finances. VAT will go up, probably direct taxation too. Everyone knows it but no-one’s talking about it. Efficiency savings and clamping down on tax evasion simply isn’t going to cut it. The IFS even went as far as to say that suggesting otherwise (as each of the main parties have done) is “misleading”. I daresay such language is not used liberally by such a respected think-tank.
Mandelson’s response to these figures was that the FT and IFS aren’t standing in this election. Isn’t that a shame? If they were then we might for once receive fair warning and a mature explanation about what is coming.
Our last chance for an informed choice comes on Thursday evening at the BBC Leader Debate. I won’t be holding my breath for more clarity than the abysmal shedding of light that we’ve already been afforded.
With Gordon Brown having to be dragged kicking and screaming into simply using the word ‘cut’ and Nick Clegg spooked into never mentioning “savage cuts” again after he clearly regretted it the first time, one can only look on in abject despair as the main party leaders balk at the financial prospects ahead. The Lib Dems have detailed 26% of cuts required, the Tories 18% and Labour a frankly abysmal 13%. So much for winning on substance. Needless to say all parties are pointing at the holes in the other parties’ financial plans without facing up to their own.
Not that I can absolve Alex Salmond in all of this given he wishes to build a new Hadrian’s Wall to protect Scotland from its share of the financial pain. We’re all in this together? Nae chance pal says the SNP (despite the massive public sector creaking away in the background). The cause for independence would be better served if the Nats got in amongst it and found some substantial and lasting savings that would make a difference, rather than removing themselves from the fray. He/she who wants the crown should be prepared to wield the axe.
Anyway, Scotland gets its ‘allowance’ via the Barnett Formula and the hard choices on the UK deficit will, Clegg-mania to one side, effectively fall to Labour or the Conservatives so it may be useful to look at the impact of these cuts per the IFS and compare them with what we’re hearing on the campaign trail:
Means-testing child benefit (I simply can’t see Brown bringing himself to do this)
Reducing prison numbers by a quarter (that should surely skewer Labour’s silly ‘carry a knife go to jail’ policy)
Abolishing winter fuel payments and free television licences (that would contradict many a Labour campaign leaflet)
Stopping school building (easy for Holyrood to match that one brick for brick)
Halving roads maintenance (a double win for the Greens and Glum Councillors website)
Withdrawing free bus passes for pensioners (contrary to Gordon Brown and David Cameron’s rather public assertions stating otherwise)
Delaying Crossrail for three years (a huge London promise down the ditch making Edinburgh trams look like badly judged skidmark)
Cutting funding to Scotland and Wales by 10% (probably long overdue but still potentially a big gift-wrapped present for SNP and Plaid Cymru so will be resisted)
We are clearly, and surely beyond any lingering shadow of a doubt, being only told a portion of the necessary story by our political leaders about what needs to be done after the General Election in order to sort out our finances. VAT will go up, probably direct taxation too. Everyone knows it but no-one’s talking about it. Efficiency savings and clamping down on tax evasion simply isn’t going to cut it. The IFS even went as far as to say that suggesting otherwise (as each of the main parties have done) is “misleading”. I daresay such language is not used liberally by such a respected think-tank.
Mandelson’s response to these figures was that the FT and IFS aren’t standing in this election. Isn’t that a shame? If they were then we might for once receive fair warning and a mature explanation about what is coming.
Our last chance for an informed choice comes on Thursday evening at the BBC Leader Debate. I won’t be holding my breath for more clarity than the abysmal shedding of light that we’ve already been afforded.
Will the court ruling make or break SNP campaign?
Labour believe he is just trying to win newspaper headlines, the Tories focus on his not even standing in the election and Clegg grudgingly admits he has “a bone to pick with the broadcasters”. Say what you like about Alex Salmond’s decision to mount a legal challenge over the SNP’s exclusion from Thursday’s BBC debate but the raising of £50,000 from the grassroots to make it happen was an awesome effort and says a lot for the strength and depth of the party faithful.
The next question of course is will the challenge be successful and the two outcomes could not be more stark.
If successful, Salmond will appear in bright lights and with Prime Ministerial gravitas alongside Cameron, Brown and Clegg. He will be watched by 10m+ British voters and be seen to be fighting Scotland’s corner.
If unsuccessful, the SNP will remain on the election campaign’s sidelines struggling to be heard amidst the hurly-burly of the UK media’s prerogatives with only a week to go till polling day.
The decision by the Court of Session (due this afternoon or tomorrow) may well break the SNP’s chances to make considerable gains in this election, as well as break the spirit of the empty-pocketed philanthropist activists who emptied their purses and wallets so generously this week. It may equally provide the springboard for an historic May 7th result and put a much-needed spring in the step of Nationalist door-knockers and leafletters.
For now, we can but cross our fingers…
The next question of course is will the challenge be successful and the two outcomes could not be more stark.
If successful, Salmond will appear in bright lights and with Prime Ministerial gravitas alongside Cameron, Brown and Clegg. He will be watched by 10m+ British voters and be seen to be fighting Scotland’s corner.
If unsuccessful, the SNP will remain on the election campaign’s sidelines struggling to be heard amidst the hurly-burly of the UK media’s prerogatives with only a week to go till polling day.
The decision by the Court of Session (due this afternoon or tomorrow) may well break the SNP’s chances to make considerable gains in this election, as well as break the spirit of the empty-pocketed philanthropist activists who emptied their purses and wallets so generously this week. It may equally provide the springboard for an historic May 7th result and put a much-needed spring in the step of Nationalist door-knockers and leafletters.
For now, we can but cross our fingers…
Scottish votes for English matters
The issue surrounding Scottish MPs voting on health and education matters that don't affect their constituents has always had a clear cut solution for me. Scottish MPs simply shouldn't vote on them (as the SNP generally has done). There's certainly something a bit iffy about Scottish MPs casting the deciding votes that make the difference on devolved matters (as Labour tend to do).
So I must admit that the news that the SNP may lift its self-denying ordinance on such votes raised an eyebrow. Politicians represent people first and foremost, not parties.
Of course, it's not going to be open season on voting on state schools and policing but rather Alex Salmond has signalled potential intent to exchange concessions that favour Scotland for votes on matters that don't impact Scottish constituents.
While I can see the net benefits that can arise both politically and economically for the SNP and Scotland respectively in Scottish votes for English, principle is principle and it shouldn't be uprooted when opportunity knocks. Taking whatever door is open to you is not the philosophy of a local champion.
The real incentive here may not so much be the delaying of cuts, a Scottish high speed rail link or release of the fossil fuel levy north of the border but rather the further exacerbation of the West Lothian Question. The stoking of existing grievances to wear that border thinner still.
It may not be making so many headlines but English resentment against the generous Barnett formula, the free elderly care and free tuition, not to mention he increased numbers of politicians we have looking out for us, is bubbling away with increasing ferocity.
I appreciate the objective that has long desired to be reached by Nationalists but being tempted into votes that one's constituents can't judge you on is not how this democracy is supposed to work.
Let Scottish Labour MPs vote on matters that don't even impact on Barnett consequentials if they so choose but they shall be perceived negatively for it.
The SNP is typically at its best when it takes the high road, leaving others low.
So I must admit that the news that the SNP may lift its self-denying ordinance on such votes raised an eyebrow. Politicians represent people first and foremost, not parties.
Of course, it's not going to be open season on voting on state schools and policing but rather Alex Salmond has signalled potential intent to exchange concessions that favour Scotland for votes on matters that don't impact Scottish constituents.
While I can see the net benefits that can arise both politically and economically for the SNP and Scotland respectively in Scottish votes for English, principle is principle and it shouldn't be uprooted when opportunity knocks. Taking whatever door is open to you is not the philosophy of a local champion.
The real incentive here may not so much be the delaying of cuts, a Scottish high speed rail link or release of the fossil fuel levy north of the border but rather the further exacerbation of the West Lothian Question. The stoking of existing grievances to wear that border thinner still.
It may not be making so many headlines but English resentment against the generous Barnett formula, the free elderly care and free tuition, not to mention he increased numbers of politicians we have looking out for us, is bubbling away with increasing ferocity.
I appreciate the objective that has long desired to be reached by Nationalists but being tempted into votes that one's constituents can't judge you on is not how this democracy is supposed to work.
Let Scottish Labour MPs vote on matters that don't even impact on Barnett consequentials if they so choose but they shall be perceived negatively for it.
The SNP is typically at its best when it takes the high road, leaving others low.
Monday, April 26, 2010
GE2010 SeatWatch - Glasgow South
Glasgow is largely unchartered territory for any party that isn't Labour save for the notably inconsistent Glasgow Govan area that likes to swither hither and thither at every other election. Glasgow South on the other hand has been Labour's since (somewhat bizarrely) 1979 but could this be the year that another party makes a breakthrough? Let's shed some light on that question shall we...
The 2005 result was:
Tom Harris (Labour) - 18,153 (47.2%)
Arthur Sanderson (Lib Dems) - 7,321 (19.0%)
Finlay MacLean (SNP) - 4,860 (12.6%)
Janette McAlpine (Tory) - 4,836 (12.6%)
Kay Allan (Green) - 1,692 (4.4%)
The 2010 candidates are: Tom Harris (Labour), Malcolm Fleming (SNP), Shabnum Mustapha (Lib Dem), Davena Ranking (Tory), Marie Campbell (Green), Brian Smith (Trade Unionist & Socialist)
On the face of it, blogger extraordinaire Tom Harris has nothing to worry about but perhaps there are a few factors that are giving the man a few sleepless nights.
For a start, Malcolm Fleming has been running a remarkably energetic campaign by most accounts. His Facebook presence is abuzz and word of mouth suggests that one can expect greater than the national swing in this constituency for the SNP which is always the mark of a fine candidate and ambitious campaign.
Added to that, Tom's (fairly) recent comments on single mothers and his well-known lack of regard for Gordon Brown could hurt him with his own vote. Is a vote for Tom Harris a vote for Gordon Brown or a vote for a disgruntled backbencher giving backchat to the Lib Dems who Tom holds with the utmost disregard. Speaking of Lib Dems, it has been shown that their surge in Scotland is taking votes away from Labour so 'Clegg-mania' could pull Labour's 2005 score down in order to make it a more achievable target for the SNP (who won this constituency in the European elections).
The next issue counting against the Labour MP is that he has been singled out by Power2010 as a current politician who is "failing our democracy". Tom Harris is dead set against proportional representation and all in favour of First Past the Post, not to mention ID cards, which has him swimming well and truly against the tide.
Then we have the whole Steven Purcell issue, the local expenses scandal, the schools being closed by Glasgow council and so on. Labour in Glasgow in general are having a bit of a torrid time and that is bound to filter through to the voting results.
Despite his large majority, could the good people of Glasgow South decide that Tom's time is up and he's not moving with the times, regardless of his formidable 'new media' blogging exploits?
Sadly I doubt it, but this constituency will be a lot closer than people perhaps suspect. Certainly the SNP won't be 24 votes away from falling behind the Tories this time around!
SNP TV prediction - A Labour hold
The 2005 result was:
Tom Harris (Labour) - 18,153 (47.2%)
Arthur Sanderson (Lib Dems) - 7,321 (19.0%)
Finlay MacLean (SNP) - 4,860 (12.6%)
Janette McAlpine (Tory) - 4,836 (12.6%)
Kay Allan (Green) - 1,692 (4.4%)
The 2010 candidates are: Tom Harris (Labour), Malcolm Fleming (SNP), Shabnum Mustapha (Lib Dem), Davena Ranking (Tory), Marie Campbell (Green), Brian Smith (Trade Unionist & Socialist)
On the face of it, blogger extraordinaire Tom Harris has nothing to worry about but perhaps there are a few factors that are giving the man a few sleepless nights.
For a start, Malcolm Fleming has been running a remarkably energetic campaign by most accounts. His Facebook presence is abuzz and word of mouth suggests that one can expect greater than the national swing in this constituency for the SNP which is always the mark of a fine candidate and ambitious campaign.
Added to that, Tom's (fairly) recent comments on single mothers and his well-known lack of regard for Gordon Brown could hurt him with his own vote. Is a vote for Tom Harris a vote for Gordon Brown or a vote for a disgruntled backbencher giving backchat to the Lib Dems who Tom holds with the utmost disregard. Speaking of Lib Dems, it has been shown that their surge in Scotland is taking votes away from Labour so 'Clegg-mania' could pull Labour's 2005 score down in order to make it a more achievable target for the SNP (who won this constituency in the European elections).
The next issue counting against the Labour MP is that he has been singled out by Power2010 as a current politician who is "failing our democracy". Tom Harris is dead set against proportional representation and all in favour of First Past the Post, not to mention ID cards, which has him swimming well and truly against the tide.
Then we have the whole Steven Purcell issue, the local expenses scandal, the schools being closed by Glasgow council and so on. Labour in Glasgow in general are having a bit of a torrid time and that is bound to filter through to the voting results.
Despite his large majority, could the good people of Glasgow South decide that Tom's time is up and he's not moving with the times, regardless of his formidable 'new media' blogging exploits?
Sadly I doubt it, but this constituency will be a lot closer than people perhaps suspect. Certainly the SNP won't be 24 votes away from falling behind the Tories this time around!
SNP TV prediction - A Labour hold
Scotching some election myths
There were two misconceptions laid bare during the Scottish Sky Debate that, whether they were wilful or not, ticked me off over the weekend and I noted on Twitter that they have rumbled on into today’s political discussion so I thought I would try my best to help lance the respective boils here.
Misconception 1 – Salmond’s not standing for election so why should he be in the Scottish /UK debates
This boneheaded objection is beginning to wear very thin indeed and regrettably misses the big picture.
Alex Salmond is the leader of the SNP, a party that is contesting every seat in Scotland and consequently is best placed to advance the arguments and policies of his party. Clegg, Brown and Cameron aren’t standing in 600-odd seats in the UK but no-one seems to complain that they are unfairly hogging the limelight. The reason people don’t complain is because each of these party leaders are acting on behalf of the candidates in the constituencies which their respective parties are contesting, precisely the same as Alex Salmond is doing. We don’t get to vote for Alex Salmond, true, but we don’t get to vote for Brown, Cameron or Clegg either unless we happen to live in their constituencies.
A more valid point to make, although still short of an objection, is that these debates could be a good chance for Angus Robertson to cut his teeth further with the Westminster issues that he will face as the leader of the SNP Group going forward but, to be fair, it’s not up to other parties to choose which opponent it is that they face. Furthermore, the SNP’s opponents should guard against their objections being viewed as a fear of their own party leaders taking on the formidable debating talents of the First Minister.
Misconception 2 - BNP contesting in more seats than the SNP so they have a greater claim to appear in leader debates
This nonsensical protest can be nullified fairly easily and it all comes down to size and geography.
I may be heavily paraphrasing but I understand that broadcasting rules dictate that “major parties” should receive equal air time during election campaigns in each country in the UK.
In Scotland, the SNP are a “major party”, there is surely no doubt about that. They form the Government and command between 20-30% of national support. When the Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives are given the bright lights and massive attention in the leader debates, it is clear that the SNP is missing out big time and redress should be granted.
The BNP, at any of an English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish viewpoint, are not a “major party”. I would be surprised if they received even 1% of the vote at the last election in any area and they will barely make an impact in even their target seat of Barking, let alone the rest of the country.
The SNP’s concern is that in Scotland they are not receiving equal airtime with the other three major parties and there seems to be a wide range of opinion that agrees with them. What that injustice should result in is difficult to ascertain but the breaking of the rules should at least be recognised by the broadcasters.
Good, I’m glad to have got that off my chest. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to hammer it out with me (or anyone else) in the comments section…
Misconception 1 – Salmond’s not standing for election so why should he be in the Scottish /UK debates
This boneheaded objection is beginning to wear very thin indeed and regrettably misses the big picture.
Alex Salmond is the leader of the SNP, a party that is contesting every seat in Scotland and consequently is best placed to advance the arguments and policies of his party. Clegg, Brown and Cameron aren’t standing in 600-odd seats in the UK but no-one seems to complain that they are unfairly hogging the limelight. The reason people don’t complain is because each of these party leaders are acting on behalf of the candidates in the constituencies which their respective parties are contesting, precisely the same as Alex Salmond is doing. We don’t get to vote for Alex Salmond, true, but we don’t get to vote for Brown, Cameron or Clegg either unless we happen to live in their constituencies.
A more valid point to make, although still short of an objection, is that these debates could be a good chance for Angus Robertson to cut his teeth further with the Westminster issues that he will face as the leader of the SNP Group going forward but, to be fair, it’s not up to other parties to choose which opponent it is that they face. Furthermore, the SNP’s opponents should guard against their objections being viewed as a fear of their own party leaders taking on the formidable debating talents of the First Minister.
Misconception 2 - BNP contesting in more seats than the SNP so they have a greater claim to appear in leader debates
This nonsensical protest can be nullified fairly easily and it all comes down to size and geography.
I may be heavily paraphrasing but I understand that broadcasting rules dictate that “major parties” should receive equal air time during election campaigns in each country in the UK.
In Scotland, the SNP are a “major party”, there is surely no doubt about that. They form the Government and command between 20-30% of national support. When the Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives are given the bright lights and massive attention in the leader debates, it is clear that the SNP is missing out big time and redress should be granted.
The BNP, at any of an English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish viewpoint, are not a “major party”. I would be surprised if they received even 1% of the vote at the last election in any area and they will barely make an impact in even their target seat of Barking, let alone the rest of the country.
The SNP’s concern is that in Scotland they are not receiving equal airtime with the other three major parties and there seems to be a wide range of opinion that agrees with them. What that injustice should result in is difficult to ascertain but the breaking of the rules should at least be recognised by the broadcasters.
Good, I’m glad to have got that off my chest. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to hammer it out with me (or anyone else) in the comments section…
Hanging Tough
However relatively unlikely their outcome may be, there are more than three combinations and permutations of party mixes that can add up to a majority in the next Westminster term so why Lesley Riddoch feels the need to bump her gums that the SNP needs to "get real" that only Lib Dem success in England matters for the looming hung Parliament is beyond me.
With the numbers so tight and the three main UK parties at loggerheads over a number of important issues, even if the SNP held onto seven MPs and gained no more, they could perfectly feasibly enjoy more Westminster power than they currently do.
That said, it is clear that it's Clegg's Lib Dems who are first in the queue for cutting a deal with either of Labour or the Conservatives and Clegg is receiving the customary runaround in the press as a result.
In responding to Tory warnings that a Lib Dem vote will just let Brown cling on, Clegg tried to make it clear that he wouldn't let the PM "squat" in Number 10 if Labour came third nationally. This, of course, opened up the not-quite-accurate headlines that Clegg will go to Cameron first to form a Government. The see-saw is in full flow.
Clegg is clearly in a bit of a pickle but I'm sure he isn't asking for too much sympathy while his party sits on 30%.
For me, I just can't picture a Tory-LD coalition, however loose it would have to be. On Trident, on tax reform, on voting reform, on the location of cuts and on foreign policy, I just see implacable disagreement. Add the SNP to the mix if an extra seven votes are required and it's simply unworkable. Can the SNP protest about cuts so loudly then vote alongside either Cameron or Brown to deliver them? It seems unlikely. The winning of key concessions on the other hand could be achieved much more easily.
However, public service when public expectation is so low can, with hard negotiation and a proper sense of responsibility, reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable.
We should vote for the best candidate in each of our constituencies free from the shackles of Murdoch and Riddoch's scare-mongering, be it SNP, Lib Dem, Green, Labour or Tory and trust in parliamentary democracy to take care of the rest.
Otherwise our false choices will lead to us being further from 'getting real' than we really deserve.
With the numbers so tight and the three main UK parties at loggerheads over a number of important issues, even if the SNP held onto seven MPs and gained no more, they could perfectly feasibly enjoy more Westminster power than they currently do.
That said, it is clear that it's Clegg's Lib Dems who are first in the queue for cutting a deal with either of Labour or the Conservatives and Clegg is receiving the customary runaround in the press as a result.
In responding to Tory warnings that a Lib Dem vote will just let Brown cling on, Clegg tried to make it clear that he wouldn't let the PM "squat" in Number 10 if Labour came third nationally. This, of course, opened up the not-quite-accurate headlines that Clegg will go to Cameron first to form a Government. The see-saw is in full flow.
Clegg is clearly in a bit of a pickle but I'm sure he isn't asking for too much sympathy while his party sits on 30%.
For me, I just can't picture a Tory-LD coalition, however loose it would have to be. On Trident, on tax reform, on voting reform, on the location of cuts and on foreign policy, I just see implacable disagreement. Add the SNP to the mix if an extra seven votes are required and it's simply unworkable. Can the SNP protest about cuts so loudly then vote alongside either Cameron or Brown to deliver them? It seems unlikely. The winning of key concessions on the other hand could be achieved much more easily.
However, public service when public expectation is so low can, with hard negotiation and a proper sense of responsibility, reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable.
We should vote for the best candidate in each of our constituencies free from the shackles of Murdoch and Riddoch's scare-mongering, be it SNP, Lib Dem, Green, Labour or Tory and trust in parliamentary democracy to take care of the rest.
Otherwise our false choices will lead to us being further from 'getting real' than we really deserve.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
SNP take fight for debate presence to the courts
'When shall we three meet again?' enquired the earnest of the three, 'when the hurlyburly's done' said he with the ruffled hair and 'when the battle's lost and won' said the gruffest of the group. The true answer is Thursday evening for that is when the third and final of the leaders' debates will take place but it seems the trio's best laid plans may gang aglae.In a sensational (and expensive) move, the SNP is taking legal action over the party's exclusion from the debate next week. It is a great move, a potential masterstroke with so little time to go until the election itself and a near-guarantee that the SNP will be seen fighting for what it believes in for the remainder of the race.
A wide group of people who can view the situation objectively now agree that the SNP (and the Greens and UKIP etc) have been treated unfairly in being exlcuded from these debates. One only has to look at the meteoric rise in Lib Dem fortunes to see what could have been gained if Salmond had been included. I don't think one needs to again cite the flouted broadcasting rules to press the point home, except for the SNP in the courts of course.
So this morning's Scottish Sky debate should be enjoyed as it could well be the last such event north of Gretna.
And for those who fear that the SNP's move will bring down the whole debate on Scottish screens, I direct you to that other Macbeth line: 'Fair is foul, and foul is fair. Hover through the fog and filthy air.'
In other words, nae breks.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
I'm not a Nat
The SNP's latest political broadcast is centred around the line "I'm a Nat" with celebrities, politicians and members of the public stating the line followed by a reason for why they believe they follow under that umbrella. Personally I think there is a certain irony in Bahamas-based Sir Sean Connery urging Scots to back a 'local' champion and I do worry that it will further marginalise the party more so than what the TV debates have achieved due to the rather fundamentalist edge to it and harking back to the Scottish griping and London swiping from yesteryear.
It has me personally somwhat perplexed as not only an SNP-voter (when in Scotland) but an SNP member. The problem is, I don't consider myself a Nat. Indeed I believe Martin Compton has the only accurate line in the PPB with the line "I'm a Nat because I believe in independence".
That's because, for me, a Nat is someone who is a Nationalist, in favour of Scotland being independent. So SNP voter does not equal Nat and Nat does not even necessarily equal SNP voter. It is perfectly understandable to use the terms interchangably but, per Gerry Hassan's recent 'The Modern SNP', 2% of the SNP membership are not in favour of independence so there is an imbalance. (Whether the other 98% are happy with that 2% is another question altogether!)
That's not to say that the SNP's main objective is ever in doubt but if voters (and members!) are strictly restricted to those who share in that aim then problems may lie ahead as the current centre ground will have been vacated.
As an aside, the term 'Nat' has been in a state of flux recently as even Kenny Farquharson picked up on in a recent Scotland on Sunday column:
(A small aside for people who care about language. It's now okay to call someone a "Nat" in polite company. It used to be a pejorative, dirty word used only by opponents of the SNP. But it can now be deemed a simple, value-free description of a Nationalist, after Salmond's new election slogan of "more Nats, less cuts" – the first time in the party's history it has been used in public by a senior SNP figure. It has been appropriated by the people it was used against, just as the gay community has done with the word "queer" and black rappers have done with the word "n****r".)
I don't know why, but when I read the section I thought it was quite controversial but in retrospect it is a pertinent, and now clearly prescient, point that Kenny was making.
However, language can be dangerous and there is the potential of unpardonable folly surrounding the choice in this perhaps inappropriately appropriated word.
With polls showing, particularly at Holyrood, that the SNP can attract wide support from those not convinced by independence, I just wonder about the wisdom of so clearly embracing the term Nat.
Particularly when many, perhaps many more than voted SNP in 2007, do not really associate with what it strictly means.
It has me personally somwhat perplexed as not only an SNP-voter (when in Scotland) but an SNP member. The problem is, I don't consider myself a Nat. Indeed I believe Martin Compton has the only accurate line in the PPB with the line "I'm a Nat because I believe in independence".
That's because, for me, a Nat is someone who is a Nationalist, in favour of Scotland being independent. So SNP voter does not equal Nat and Nat does not even necessarily equal SNP voter. It is perfectly understandable to use the terms interchangably but, per Gerry Hassan's recent 'The Modern SNP', 2% of the SNP membership are not in favour of independence so there is an imbalance. (Whether the other 98% are happy with that 2% is another question altogether!)
That's not to say that the SNP's main objective is ever in doubt but if voters (and members!) are strictly restricted to those who share in that aim then problems may lie ahead as the current centre ground will have been vacated.
As an aside, the term 'Nat' has been in a state of flux recently as even Kenny Farquharson picked up on in a recent Scotland on Sunday column:
(A small aside for people who care about language. It's now okay to call someone a "Nat" in polite company. It used to be a pejorative, dirty word used only by opponents of the SNP. But it can now be deemed a simple, value-free description of a Nationalist, after Salmond's new election slogan of "more Nats, less cuts" – the first time in the party's history it has been used in public by a senior SNP figure. It has been appropriated by the people it was used against, just as the gay community has done with the word "queer" and black rappers have done with the word "n****r".)
I don't know why, but when I read the section I thought it was quite controversial but in retrospect it is a pertinent, and now clearly prescient, point that Kenny was making.
However, language can be dangerous and there is the potential of unpardonable folly surrounding the choice in this perhaps inappropriately appropriated word.
With polls showing, particularly at Holyrood, that the SNP can attract wide support from those not convinced by independence, I just wonder about the wisdom of so clearly embracing the term Nat.
Particularly when many, perhaps many more than voted SNP in 2007, do not really associate with what it strictly means.
Can you spot the rogue poll?
There's a whole plethora of polls out tonight so I'm going to mention as many that I know of and (save for working on some creme brulees and meringues) hopefully have a little statistics fun with them later on in an update.
For now though, doesn't one of thew polls below look a bit funny? I wonder which one was paid for by Rupert Murdoch's News of the World. Hmm....
ComRes: Conservative 34%, Lib Dem 29%, Labour 28%
YouGov: Conservative 35%, Lib Dem 29%, Labour 27%
MORI: Conservative 36%, Labour 30%, Lib Dem 23%
BPIX: Conservative 34%, Lib Dem 30%, Labour 26%
ICM: Conservative 35%, Lib Dem 31%, Labour 26%
Also, the detail of the recent Scottish YouGov poll is out. The poll was conducted half before the debate half after. Comparing the two makes for interesting reading:
Before ITV Debate
Lab - 43%
SNP - 20%
LD - 17%
Con - 16%
After ITV Debate
Lab - 38%
SNP - 20%
LD - 23%
Con - 16%
So while this poll may well have underestimated the SNP's support (a later poll showed SNP on 26%), it is conclusive evidence that any Lib Dem surge north of the border will take votes away from Labour.
Given there are not so many target Lib Dem seats for the Nats and quite a lot of Labour target seats, perhaps a wee Lib Dem surge might be just what is required to nudge local champion SNP candidates to fall over the line in several contest come May 7th.
UPDATE: Well, I couldn't do the fancy statsy thing as I no longer know my Mann-Witneys from my chi-squareds. Another time perhaps.
Instead, a poser that I daresay will be answered by the experts on May 7th if it comes to fruition.
Here goes:
Would Gordon Brown be the first Prime Minister to have served in two separate parliamentary terms but never have been voted in by the public? (That is, voted in by his party and then coming 3rd nationally in the polls)
For now though, doesn't one of thew polls below look a bit funny? I wonder which one was paid for by Rupert Murdoch's News of the World. Hmm....
ComRes: Conservative 34%, Lib Dem 29%, Labour 28%
YouGov: Conservative 35%, Lib Dem 29%, Labour 27%
MORI: Conservative 36%, Labour 30%, Lib Dem 23%
BPIX: Conservative 34%, Lib Dem 30%, Labour 26%
ICM: Conservative 35%, Lib Dem 31%, Labour 26%
Also, the detail of the recent Scottish YouGov poll is out. The poll was conducted half before the debate half after. Comparing the two makes for interesting reading:
Before ITV Debate
Lab - 43%
SNP - 20%
LD - 17%
Con - 16%
After ITV Debate
Lab - 38%
SNP - 20%
LD - 23%
Con - 16%
So while this poll may well have underestimated the SNP's support (a later poll showed SNP on 26%), it is conclusive evidence that any Lib Dem surge north of the border will take votes away from Labour.
Given there are not so many target Lib Dem seats for the Nats and quite a lot of Labour target seats, perhaps a wee Lib Dem surge might be just what is required to nudge local champion SNP candidates to fall over the line in several contest come May 7th.
UPDATE: Well, I couldn't do the fancy statsy thing as I no longer know my Mann-Witneys from my chi-squareds. Another time perhaps.
Instead, a poser that I daresay will be answered by the experts on May 7th if it comes to fruition.
Here goes:
Would Gordon Brown be the first Prime Minister to have served in two separate parliamentary terms but never have been voted in by the public? (That is, voted in by his party and then coming 3rd nationally in the polls)
Football crazy, football daft
When I left the safety of High School and moved on to the new world of university life, I remember vividly an exchange during a Q & A on our first day.
Many of the more obvious questions were out the way before one young chap confidently piped up: 'yeah, is there anywhere to put my pole vault?'. I realised this wasn't Kansas any more.
'P.E.' for me was basically either running along the canal bank and back (I wasn't gallus enough to take the shortcut through the field) or football. There was one hockey lesson, one cricket lesson, one javelin lesson and no rugby in my six years. There was some badminton but scoring a D for that discipline in the same year that I squeaked into a national tournament on merit (I can play the trumpet seemingly) made me realise that sport was a bunch of nonsense at the school and, I could only assume, across Scotland as a whole. It's football at the state schools and rugby at the private schools and here endeth the lesson.
So I'm afraid I'm finding it difficult to get excited about the latest idea about sport from former First Minister Henry McLeish.
His plans for a "revolution" in Scottish football, although well-intentioned, continues a myopic vision that will help to exclude other sports.
Scotland could be the playground of Europe with its rugged terrain and wild seas. Surfing, biking, skiing, shinty and perhaps even pole vaulting should be amongst the priorities for Scottish sport.
Not more bloody football.
Many of the more obvious questions were out the way before one young chap confidently piped up: 'yeah, is there anywhere to put my pole vault?'. I realised this wasn't Kansas any more.
'P.E.' for me was basically either running along the canal bank and back (I wasn't gallus enough to take the shortcut through the field) or football. There was one hockey lesson, one cricket lesson, one javelin lesson and no rugby in my six years. There was some badminton but scoring a D for that discipline in the same year that I squeaked into a national tournament on merit (I can play the trumpet seemingly) made me realise that sport was a bunch of nonsense at the school and, I could only assume, across Scotland as a whole. It's football at the state schools and rugby at the private schools and here endeth the lesson.
So I'm afraid I'm finding it difficult to get excited about the latest idea about sport from former First Minister Henry McLeish.
His plans for a "revolution" in Scottish football, although well-intentioned, continues a myopic vision that will help to exclude other sports.
Scotland could be the playground of Europe with its rugged terrain and wild seas. Surfing, biking, skiing, shinty and perhaps even pole vaulting should be amongst the priorities for Scottish sport.
Not more bloody football.
Friday, April 23, 2010
By St George, I think I've got it!
Happy St George's Day! Well, I say that but I haven't the faintest idea what a St George's Day entails and, from the few enquiries I have made, neither do many down here. Thankfully I was able to see through the claim that everyone goes to work with an England flag painted to their cheek as bogus banter.
No doubt the patron day will, quite correctly, set off a bout of soul-searching on England's place in the UK and indeed the world. That position means many things to many people and I shan't speculate on what it should be given how wide that range is and it isn't my place.
It being St George's Day did make me turn to the English Democrats homepage to see what they had to say: "Our heritage is the bedrock of the future of England", "we call for an English First Minister, Government and Parliament", "Immigration is out of control.", "far too often the English are assumed as British, as if England didn't exist".
Fair enough and I daresay those views tap into a growing sentiment in this pleasant land, particularly in light of perceptions that have built up as a result of the Barnett formula, free care for the elderly and free university tuition north of the border.
These are messages that haven't really been pushed to the fore in the campaign so it did get me wondering if the SNP perhaps missed a trick by not forming a very loose coalition with not just Plaid Cymru but the English Democrats. The 'Further Devolution' group (for want of a better term) would be contesting almost every seat in the UK and consequently would then have qualified for the leaders' debates. One would think.
The English Democrats leader could have lined up last week on reserved issues, the PC leader could have lined up last night on Europe and Defence while Alex Salmond could have lined up on the BBC debate on the Economy next week.
It's perhaps not ideal for the SNP to be so closely aligned with a party that wants out of the EU not to mention other dubious, incongruous policies but it has been clear from the past week that if you're not in the debates then you'll struggle to get noticed.
Could this have been one union that the SNP might have liked to get involved with?
No doubt the patron day will, quite correctly, set off a bout of soul-searching on England's place in the UK and indeed the world. That position means many things to many people and I shan't speculate on what it should be given how wide that range is and it isn't my place.
It being St George's Day did make me turn to the English Democrats homepage to see what they had to say: "Our heritage is the bedrock of the future of England", "we call for an English First Minister, Government and Parliament", "Immigration is out of control.", "far too often the English are assumed as British, as if England didn't exist".
Fair enough and I daresay those views tap into a growing sentiment in this pleasant land, particularly in light of perceptions that have built up as a result of the Barnett formula, free care for the elderly and free university tuition north of the border.
These are messages that haven't really been pushed to the fore in the campaign so it did get me wondering if the SNP perhaps missed a trick by not forming a very loose coalition with not just Plaid Cymru but the English Democrats. The 'Further Devolution' group (for want of a better term) would be contesting almost every seat in the UK and consequently would then have qualified for the leaders' debates. One would think.
The English Democrats leader could have lined up last week on reserved issues, the PC leader could have lined up last night on Europe and Defence while Alex Salmond could have lined up on the BBC debate on the Economy next week.
It's perhaps not ideal for the SNP to be so closely aligned with a party that wants out of the EU not to mention other dubious, incongruous policies but it has been clear from the past week that if you're not in the debates then you'll struggle to get noticed.
Could this have been one union that the SNP might have liked to get involved with?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
2nd Leaders' Debate - How was it for you?
In many ways it is a shame that the second debate was on Sky as it will have been watched by considerably less people than the last one but it was considerably better. There was no killer blow, no clear winner but I personally thought Brown and Clegg shone and Cameron wasted another opportunity to seal the deal.
The big talking point will probably be Cameron stating unequivocally that he will keep winter fuel allowance for the elderly, free tv allowance, free bus travel (and more) and challenging Brown to denounce the Labour leaflets saying otherwise. Brown made a strong retort that he did not authorise such an approach and that if that's what the Tories believed then it should have been in their manifesto but that has unravelled now as it transpires, thanks to Alex Salmond having a hard copy, that Gordon Brown has a leaflet making such claims against the SNP in Gordon's own Fife constituency.
The next biggest issue for me was when Brown attacked Clegg over Trident, aggressively urging him to "Get real" and stating that Britain needed a nuclear deterrent with so much uncertainty in the world. A bomb that will never, ever be fired is not a deterrent and does not deserve £100bn being spent on it in my view. Cameron tried to gang up on Clegg with Brown and I daresay the honours were even. Clegg certainly didn't get an easy beat on suggesting tens of billions of savings as he did last week.
There was of course no repeat of Cameron's insistence that we need to keep nuclear weapons because "we don't know what's happening with China". It later transpired that Clegg has negotiated Trade with China while Cameron wants to point nuclear weapons at them. That's a big difference in my book.
On Afghanistan, Dave made a bit of a clanger with his opening remark: "I've been to Afghanistan four times and each time I am just blown away". I wouldn't say it was insensitive but it was certainly clumsy. On the detail there was little to separate each of the parties.
Immigration on the other hand was a hot topic and Clegg offered up a clear dividing line by stating that the Lib Dems would offer an amnesty to the near 1million illegal immigrants in the country right now. Why not bring these people into the system, have them pay tax, bring them out of any shadowy goings on they may be involved in? A bit Daily Mail perhaps but I agreed with Clegg's general thrust.
Brown didn't and nor did Cameron saying that having an amnesty for illegal immigrants would just be an advert for more to come over here. For one, that doesn't sound like Brown is backing himself to get a hold of immigration with the points system he is proposing and two, I don't think refugees in far flung countries are following the news cycle too closely here in the UK.
Clegg perhaps edged this segment with his closing line: "You can't deport 900,000 people if you don't know where they live".
On Europe, Cameron struggled awkwardly through the difficult issue although it was Clegg that made a potential gaffe by calling the Polish political party whose leader has just died "a party of nutters". Will an apology be required?
Brown provided an excellent line during the Europe segment, perhaps the best of the night, 'the Big Society at home but Little Britain abroad'. Sums up the Tories on Europe very well.
Gordon landed one of the best blows and got one of his messages in the clearest. "Clegg is a risk on defence due to Trident and Cameron is a risk to the economy". That's the last two weeks of Labour's election right there.
Overall it was a good, substantive debate. Clegg and Brown shone for me, yes Brown performed well. Cameron just doesn't have it and I fear this campaign is fading away from him.
One debate left and the Tories have it all to do.
The big talking point will probably be Cameron stating unequivocally that he will keep winter fuel allowance for the elderly, free tv allowance, free bus travel (and more) and challenging Brown to denounce the Labour leaflets saying otherwise. Brown made a strong retort that he did not authorise such an approach and that if that's what the Tories believed then it should have been in their manifesto but that has unravelled now as it transpires, thanks to Alex Salmond having a hard copy, that Gordon Brown has a leaflet making such claims against the SNP in Gordon's own Fife constituency.
The next biggest issue for me was when Brown attacked Clegg over Trident, aggressively urging him to "Get real" and stating that Britain needed a nuclear deterrent with so much uncertainty in the world. A bomb that will never, ever be fired is not a deterrent and does not deserve £100bn being spent on it in my view. Cameron tried to gang up on Clegg with Brown and I daresay the honours were even. Clegg certainly didn't get an easy beat on suggesting tens of billions of savings as he did last week.
There was of course no repeat of Cameron's insistence that we need to keep nuclear weapons because "we don't know what's happening with China". It later transpired that Clegg has negotiated Trade with China while Cameron wants to point nuclear weapons at them. That's a big difference in my book.
On Afghanistan, Dave made a bit of a clanger with his opening remark: "I've been to Afghanistan four times and each time I am just blown away". I wouldn't say it was insensitive but it was certainly clumsy. On the detail there was little to separate each of the parties.
Immigration on the other hand was a hot topic and Clegg offered up a clear dividing line by stating that the Lib Dems would offer an amnesty to the near 1million illegal immigrants in the country right now. Why not bring these people into the system, have them pay tax, bring them out of any shadowy goings on they may be involved in? A bit Daily Mail perhaps but I agreed with Clegg's general thrust.
Brown didn't and nor did Cameron saying that having an amnesty for illegal immigrants would just be an advert for more to come over here. For one, that doesn't sound like Brown is backing himself to get a hold of immigration with the points system he is proposing and two, I don't think refugees in far flung countries are following the news cycle too closely here in the UK.
Clegg perhaps edged this segment with his closing line: "You can't deport 900,000 people if you don't know where they live".
On Europe, Cameron struggled awkwardly through the difficult issue although it was Clegg that made a potential gaffe by calling the Polish political party whose leader has just died "a party of nutters". Will an apology be required?
Brown provided an excellent line during the Europe segment, perhaps the best of the night, 'the Big Society at home but Little Britain abroad'. Sums up the Tories on Europe very well.
Gordon landed one of the best blows and got one of his messages in the clearest. "Clegg is a risk on defence due to Trident and Cameron is a risk to the economy". That's the last two weeks of Labour's election right there.
Overall it was a good, substantive debate. Clegg and Brown shone for me, yes Brown performed well. Cameron just doesn't have it and I fear this campaign is fading away from him.
One debate left and the Tories have it all to do.
What would a Lib Dem Government mean for independence?
I daresay the vast majority of the last week’s posts on here have been about Nick Clegg and/or the Liberal Democrats and it’s not going to stop there I’m afraid.
The media and Twittersphere have been throwing the kitchen sink at the Lib Dem leader with the #nickcleggsfault hashtag used by the latter (and which, bizarrely, Lib Dem activists have joined in using, contributing to the suggestion that the chopping down of Clegg is gaining traction)
The most damagingly effective story against Nick so far is the news that three businessmen paid £250 each directly into his personal bank account to pay for a certain employee. Even Martin Bell thinks there are questions that need to be answered there, the main one for me being why was Clegg’s personal account used? The answer may well pour cold water over Clegg’s claims that he can clean up politics.
Despite this, Clegg is looking bulletproof going into tonight’s second debate and given it is on defence and foreign relations, it offers an opportunity to remind viewers that the Lib Dems were against the Iraq War from the outset and are strongly pro-EU (Nick speaks five European languages, it might even be six). Against Cameron’s clear unease on European relations given his strongly Europhobic party and Brown’s muddled stances, Clegg’s words may go down very well with the UK at large and strengthen further the Lib Dem hold on the polling.
It is difficult to gauge how such views will go down in certain parts of England of course. The Daily Mail splashed a story protesting on Nick Clegg’s Nazi slur on Britain but if you read the relevant article you will hopefully find, as I did, that far from being offended it is a spectacularly vibrant piece of writing, a translucent view of how many in Britain need to change their warped, latent mindsets. That’s leadership and you wouldn’t get such an important article from David Cameron.
I was among the many who scoffed at Nick Clegg’s conference speech when he repeated the mantra “I want to be Prime Minister because….” but my oh my how prescient those words could turn out to be. The Lib Dems need around 40% of the national vote to start being the biggest party and allowing themselves to think of majorities, not before pinching themselves of course. Honestly, I wouldn’t bet against such a result if Clegg-mania continues to take on a life of its own. ‘Vote for Change’ Cameron begs, presumably because private polling shows that’s what Britain wants. Well, PM Clegg is exactly that. And what better reason to aid and abet the Lib Dem charge than to stick the fingers up to the awful Daily Mail and the regrettable Sun who have tried, and failed, to boss the election the Conservatives way so far. There’s a Facebook campaign just waiting to be started there I suspect.
So what would a Lib Dem Government mean for Scotland, whether in its own right or with Labour as the minor partner? And in particular, what effect would this rug-pull from under the SNP’s feet mean for independence?
We could, overnight, move towards a Britain that adopted an aggressively pro-Europe stance, a Britain that had sensible policies on civil liberties, a Britain that was intent on scrapping Trident and a Britain that was significantly more serious than has hitherto been on tackling climate change? I know I should stop myself but it’s so easy to get swept up in the tantalising prospect of the next Government not being Tory or Labour. Clegg may not be the political equivalent of Jedward after all but the full Gary Barlow, the long-haul Lionel Ritchie. He could be the everlasting Diana Ross! Imagine that?
I could honestly see support for independence sink to single figures in such circumstances. It would certainly make Alex Salmond’s job significantly harder than it would have been had he been going up against the hated Tories at Westminster. How can you fight against the feel-good political result of the century?
I could even see Alex Salmond opting to retire in the face of this altered terrain. Fight youth with youth and leave Deputy Leader Nicola Sturgeon to pick up the reins and devise a new strategy to heave independence forwards. Let’s be honest, spitting out ‘Lib Dem cuts’ has even less of an impact than the Tory or Labour variety.
Then again, there is a persuasive theory out there that a Lib Dem/Labour coalition may well be the perfect result for Nationalists in Scotland. Five years of cuts, however necessary they may be, will be painful and there is a chance that Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories will be seen as three cheeks of the same bahookey, however biologically improbable that may seem. Were the fairy dust of Lib Dems in Government to evaporate quickly, Scotland may take a new look at independence and see it as an attractive option, even through a process of elimination. The Tory years were painful and the Labour years were wasteful, perhaps a separate Scotland really is the bright new dawn that we’re all crying out for.
That said, if the reasons for Scotland being independent are so that we don’t get taken into illegal wars, so that we don’t gorge on nuclear power, so that we aren’t saddled with nuclear weapons and so that we can get involved with the EU more, those arguments will surely be weakened by a Liberal Democrat Government that shares those views. You would have to search pretty hard for a clear dividing line between an independent Scotland and a Clegg-governed UK.
So, if the unthinkable happens and Nick Clegg is carried over the line on a wave of gregarious goodwill and British bonhomie, there is a real risk (if you choose to see it that way) that Scotland will sink into the warm fuzz of a Liberal Democrat United Kingdom and not look back.
Get Clegg, Vote SNP
According to some media outlets (available in all good book shops), Alex Salmomd was urging voters south of the border to plump for the Lib Dems at the upcoming General Election, the logic seemingly being that this would improve the chances of a hung Parliament and improve the chances of the SNP drawing key concessions from whoever can cobble together a working administration.
However, I found the call difficult to believe coming as it allegedly did from our First Minister whose views tend to be fixed, a little too resolutely for some perhaps, on Scotland.
I checked it out and it seems our lovely media drew its conclusions from this quote:
"Voting for the objective of denying the Labour or the Tory parties an overall majority would be a legitimate and proper thing to do. It also seems to be one idea which is gathering a great deal of strength."
A clarion call to vote orange? Mibbes aye, mibbes no, a vote for Labour in many areas is a vote for a hung parliament too after all, but the headlines out now and a hitherto unlikely but nonethess fuzzy bond between SNP and our Fib Dem friends has been formed. Oops, I mean Lib Dem. (How did that happen? F and L aren't even close on the keyboard)
Anyway, turning to tonight's Sky debate, a debate that despite only being watched by 1m is still expected to set the tone for the week ahead, it is fair to assume that the program will be dominated by 'Get Clegg'.
I do not expect Brown and Cameron to shout and bawl at the Lib Dem leader or to paint him as the devil incarnate, nor do I expect them to constantly say 'I agree with Nick' or metaphorically bring the Lib Dem leader his tea and paper like Louis Theroux did for him back in their schooldays. However, if there is any justice in the world, the many holes in the Lib Dem policies will be exposed. From how they can make the billions of savings in tax evasion to help fund a £17bn tax break to just what specifically the Lib Dems intend on replacing the current nuclear weapons with. I expect Nick will get a bit of a runaround on the EU and the Euro too.
The Tories need to break the Lib Dem surge if Cameron wants to be Prime Minister but, if successful, he may not reap the full reward on offer. Voters looking for a hung parliament will still dismiss the tired Labour and Tory messages and will have been put off the Lib Dems as a result of any successful attacks levelled their way over the next fortnight. In Scotland, one would presumably then turn to the SNP if they haven't done so already with the above scenario.
It may not harm the SNP's fortunes one little bit by being aligned (if not quite aligning itself) to Clegg-mania once the fallout begins and Salmond may not have a spot at tonigh's debate but he and his party do have a vested interest in how it plays out.
However, I found the call difficult to believe coming as it allegedly did from our First Minister whose views tend to be fixed, a little too resolutely for some perhaps, on Scotland.
I checked it out and it seems our lovely media drew its conclusions from this quote:
"Voting for the objective of denying the Labour or the Tory parties an overall majority would be a legitimate and proper thing to do. It also seems to be one idea which is gathering a great deal of strength."
A clarion call to vote orange? Mibbes aye, mibbes no, a vote for Labour in many areas is a vote for a hung parliament too after all, but the headlines out now and a hitherto unlikely but nonethess fuzzy bond between SNP and our Fib Dem friends has been formed. Oops, I mean Lib Dem. (How did that happen? F and L aren't even close on the keyboard)
Anyway, turning to tonight's Sky debate, a debate that despite only being watched by 1m is still expected to set the tone for the week ahead, it is fair to assume that the program will be dominated by 'Get Clegg'.
I do not expect Brown and Cameron to shout and bawl at the Lib Dem leader or to paint him as the devil incarnate, nor do I expect them to constantly say 'I agree with Nick' or metaphorically bring the Lib Dem leader his tea and paper like Louis Theroux did for him back in their schooldays. However, if there is any justice in the world, the many holes in the Lib Dem policies will be exposed. From how they can make the billions of savings in tax evasion to help fund a £17bn tax break to just what specifically the Lib Dems intend on replacing the current nuclear weapons with. I expect Nick will get a bit of a runaround on the EU and the Euro too.
The Tories need to break the Lib Dem surge if Cameron wants to be Prime Minister but, if successful, he may not reap the full reward on offer. Voters looking for a hung parliament will still dismiss the tired Labour and Tory messages and will have been put off the Lib Dems as a result of any successful attacks levelled their way over the next fortnight. In Scotland, one would presumably then turn to the SNP if they haven't done so already with the above scenario.
It may not harm the SNP's fortunes one little bit by being aligned (if not quite aligning itself) to Clegg-mania once the fallout begins and Salmond may not have a spot at tonigh's debate but he and his party do have a vested interest in how it plays out.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Will it be Speaker Bercow wot won it?
There are 650 seats up for grabs in the House of Commons.
However, at this General Election, there are really only 649 seats being contested as tradition rules that the Speaker of the House is not challenged by the other parties.
Irrespective of the appropriateness of such a tradition (I personally think it's ridiculous, the entire public deserves a choice of representative), it is clear that the Speaker gets a relatively free ride back into Westminster and, for the purposes of this blog post, I will be assuming that UKIP's not inconsiderable challenge to Speaker John Bercow will ultimately be as ineffective as the SNP's challenge was to Speaker Michael Martin.
Over the past decade, given that Michael Martin's Glasgow Springburn constituency was a safe Labour seat, the ruling party was effectively deprived of an extra vote over the Opposition in the last few parliamentary terms. In the event, this made little difference of course as what's the difference between a majority of 18 and 17 when you already command the Chamber anyway?
Ever since John Bercow took over as Speaker, Labour's majority increased from 17 to 19 as a result of 'gaining' an MP (Willie Bain) and the Conservatives 'losing' an MP with John Bercow moving to the Speaker's chair.
Once again, a lead of 17 or a lead of 19? The difference is small beer when a majority is already in place.
However, as recent polling shows, it is too difficult to call whether the next parliament will see a majority Government, a minority Government or a coalition. Right now the predicted number of seats for the Conservatives is right on that line of 325 which is what Cameron and his faithful PPCs would require to rule the Chamber.
The chances of the Tories missing out by one or two votes, missing out on a full majority as a result of a notional Tory seat returning the Speaker of the House rather than a notional Labour seat is still small but no longer negligibly so.
How rich a justice would it be for the Bercows, both John who is so plainly derided by so many of his former colleagues and Sally who is aiming to be a Labour MP, to be the reason for the Conservatives missing out on governing the UK and Cameron missing out on being Prime Minister.
After all the campaigning, the media thrills and spills, the leader debates, the rollercoaster polling and the pleading for votes, could it be the Speaker wot won it for Gordon Brown and his Lib/Lab coalition on May 7th?
However, at this General Election, there are really only 649 seats being contested as tradition rules that the Speaker of the House is not challenged by the other parties.
Irrespective of the appropriateness of such a tradition (I personally think it's ridiculous, the entire public deserves a choice of representative), it is clear that the Speaker gets a relatively free ride back into Westminster and, for the purposes of this blog post, I will be assuming that UKIP's not inconsiderable challenge to Speaker John Bercow will ultimately be as ineffective as the SNP's challenge was to Speaker Michael Martin.
Over the past decade, given that Michael Martin's Glasgow Springburn constituency was a safe Labour seat, the ruling party was effectively deprived of an extra vote over the Opposition in the last few parliamentary terms. In the event, this made little difference of course as what's the difference between a majority of 18 and 17 when you already command the Chamber anyway?
Ever since John Bercow took over as Speaker, Labour's majority increased from 17 to 19 as a result of 'gaining' an MP (Willie Bain) and the Conservatives 'losing' an MP with John Bercow moving to the Speaker's chair.
Once again, a lead of 17 or a lead of 19? The difference is small beer when a majority is already in place.
However, as recent polling shows, it is too difficult to call whether the next parliament will see a majority Government, a minority Government or a coalition. Right now the predicted number of seats for the Conservatives is right on that line of 325 which is what Cameron and his faithful PPCs would require to rule the Chamber.
The chances of the Tories missing out by one or two votes, missing out on a full majority as a result of a notional Tory seat returning the Speaker of the House rather than a notional Labour seat is still small but no longer negligibly so.
How rich a justice would it be for the Bercows, both John who is so plainly derided by so many of his former colleagues and Sally who is aiming to be a Labour MP, to be the reason for the Conservatives missing out on governing the UK and Cameron missing out on being Prime Minister.
After all the campaigning, the media thrills and spills, the leader debates, the rollercoaster polling and the pleading for votes, could it be the Speaker wot won it for Gordon Brown and his Lib/Lab coalition on May 7th?
GE2010 SeatWatch - Ochil & South Perthshire
Nestled in the heart of Scotland, Ochil & South Perthshire is one of only a few Scottish seats where the current margin is measured in hundreds rather than thousands. Consequently, on General Election night, this is one of the most likely Scottish seats to switch hands.
The 2005 result was:
Gordon Banks (Labour) - 14,645 (31.4%)
Annabelle Ewing (SNP) - 13,957 (29.9%)
Liz Smith (Conservative) - 10,021 (21.5%)
Catherine Whittingham (LD) - 6,218 (13.3%)
The 2010 candidates include Annabelle Ewing (SNP), Gordon Banks (Labour), Gerald Michaluk (Tory), Graeme Littlejohn (Lib Dem), Hilary Charles (Green).
On national swing alone, one would expect the SNP to have this in the bag and help redress the fairly lamentable gender balance in the current Westminster bloc with Annabelle winning through (joined by Lis Bardell amongst others, of course). However, it is a particularly difficult seat to predict as the local populace tends to enjoy contests going down to the wire. Yes, if there is a battle between SNP and Labour, Ochil is very much its front line.
The SNP has won this seat in two out of of the three Scottish Parliament elections but with majorities of 1,301 (for Labour in 1999), 296 (for SNP in 2003) and 490 (for SNP in 2007), there is not much national swing going on here. Perhaps the people of Ochil know what they want and don't tend to be swayed by external factors?
In terms of tactical voting considerations; some Tory voters may fancy Gerald's chance of a win but I daresay many who voted Tory in 2005 will vote tactically (or otherwise) for the SNP this time around given how much is at stake on a national scale. There is a sizeable Lib Dem vote there to be tapped into and I daresay, despite Cleggmania, that will largely be split betwen Labour and the SNP rather than increase.
In terms of local issues, the Beauly to Denny power line runs right through this constituency and may electrify the public into voting a certain way. The SNP, one would suspect, would have the most to lose in such a scenario as it forms the Scottish Government that ultimately gave the green light. The strength of feeling regarding this topic, as opposed to the economy for example, is difficult to gauge.
All in all, with the SNP's vote share so markedly improved at a national level since 2005 and with only 689 votes required to overcome the incumbent Gordon Banks, there is simply no way of seeing past Annabelle Ewing winning through here.
SNP TV Prediction - SNP gain
The 2005 result was:
Gordon Banks (Labour) - 14,645 (31.4%)
Annabelle Ewing (SNP) - 13,957 (29.9%)
Liz Smith (Conservative) - 10,021 (21.5%)
Catherine Whittingham (LD) - 6,218 (13.3%)
The 2010 candidates include Annabelle Ewing (SNP), Gordon Banks (Labour), Gerald Michaluk (Tory), Graeme Littlejohn (Lib Dem), Hilary Charles (Green).
On national swing alone, one would expect the SNP to have this in the bag and help redress the fairly lamentable gender balance in the current Westminster bloc with Annabelle winning through (joined by Lis Bardell amongst others, of course). However, it is a particularly difficult seat to predict as the local populace tends to enjoy contests going down to the wire. Yes, if there is a battle between SNP and Labour, Ochil is very much its front line.
The SNP has won this seat in two out of of the three Scottish Parliament elections but with majorities of 1,301 (for Labour in 1999), 296 (for SNP in 2003) and 490 (for SNP in 2007), there is not much national swing going on here. Perhaps the people of Ochil know what they want and don't tend to be swayed by external factors?
In terms of tactical voting considerations; some Tory voters may fancy Gerald's chance of a win but I daresay many who voted Tory in 2005 will vote tactically (or otherwise) for the SNP this time around given how much is at stake on a national scale. There is a sizeable Lib Dem vote there to be tapped into and I daresay, despite Cleggmania, that will largely be split betwen Labour and the SNP rather than increase.
In terms of local issues, the Beauly to Denny power line runs right through this constituency and may electrify the public into voting a certain way. The SNP, one would suspect, would have the most to lose in such a scenario as it forms the Scottish Government that ultimately gave the green light. The strength of feeling regarding this topic, as opposed to the economy for example, is difficult to gauge.
All in all, with the SNP's vote share so markedly improved at a national level since 2005 and with only 689 votes required to overcome the incumbent Gordon Banks, there is simply no way of seeing past Annabelle Ewing winning through here.
SNP TV Prediction - SNP gain
Should the SNP be pushing independence harder?
Whether one believes in the 20% level of support for the SNP per YouGov or the 26% level of support per Ipsos-Mori (and there's plenty of readers on here who believe in neither), the figure is still below the 29% or so who have been noted as supporting independence over the past year or so. Is it worth Salmond adopting a more aggressive pro-independence stance in order to wring out those extra few percentage points that could make all the difference in key seats?
There are some who back that view and fear that the SNP campaign has been lacklustre, 'anemic' even as per Jim Sillars in the Scotsman today, with the "more nats, 'less' cuts" slogan slated as being "flat as a pancake".
For me, the 'elect a champion' philosophy and promotion of Trident and high speed rail issues are spot on and the election may yet deliver gains that the media claims to not expect. I'm no particular fan of independence though of course.
After the Glasgow North East by-election there did seem to be a will, and a window, to push the positive case for independence hard, to highlight that, despite appearances, a recession was a reason for independence rather than for clinging to the union. With a Goldman Sachs creamed recovery now on the way, that window is closing and that will seemingly dissipating, or at least stifled.
The white paper for an independence referendum still sits in the drawer and the Calman proposals are stillborn. Consequently, there is little doubt that the issue of Scotland's constitutional place on these islands will be a top priority in the year to come.
It is Westminster that Nationalists wish to extricate themselves from politically so why not take the fight straight to its doorstep?
There are some who back that view and fear that the SNP campaign has been lacklustre, 'anemic' even as per Jim Sillars in the Scotsman today, with the "more nats, 'less' cuts" slogan slated as being "flat as a pancake".
For me, the 'elect a champion' philosophy and promotion of Trident and high speed rail issues are spot on and the election may yet deliver gains that the media claims to not expect. I'm no particular fan of independence though of course.
After the Glasgow North East by-election there did seem to be a will, and a window, to push the positive case for independence hard, to highlight that, despite appearances, a recession was a reason for independence rather than for clinging to the union. With a Goldman Sachs creamed recovery now on the way, that window is closing and that will seemingly dissipating, or at least stifled.
The white paper for an independence referendum still sits in the drawer and the Calman proposals are stillborn. Consequently, there is little doubt that the issue of Scotland's constitutional place on these islands will be a top priority in the year to come.
It is Westminster that Nationalists wish to extricate themselves from politically so why not take the fight straight to its doorstep?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
SNP cut Labour lead by 10% - still no gain in seats
I didn't manage to catch any of this evening's Scottish leaders' debate so I will have to make do with pontificating about polls. There is much to speculate on, thankfully.
The Ipsos/MORI poll conducted by STV, released this evening, has the following Westminster result:
Labour - 36%
SNP - 26%
Lib Dems - 20%
Tories - 14%
Sunday's YouGov poll is significantly different with Labour having double the lead over the SNP:
Labour - 40%
SNP - 20%
Lib Dem - 19%
Tories - 16%
Here is something quite ridiculous though, if both polls are applied to the 2005 result across each constituency, one would get the same result.
Labour - 40 seats
Lib Dems - 11 seats
SNP - 7 seats
Tories - 1 seat
We seem forever doomed to be locked into this breakdown of MPs in Scotland. Not even anything in between a 20% and 10% gap can break the Labour stranglehold.
There are of course local seats that can be picked off with localised effort. Livingston, Dundee, Kilmarnock & Loudon for example, not to mention targetting Glasgow resources to the East to keep John Mason in Westminster. The disadvantage is that the other seats could see the SNP slide into a lower position.
It just goes to show how tremendously difficult this campaign is for the SNP and why it may be preferable to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
Even if there are less than 10 MPs delivered for the Nationalists, the UK election is so tight that such a number could still prove to be decisive.
How fitting would it be, regardless of how the polls finally settle, if the only net gain for the SNP was south of the border at Westminster.
The Ipsos/MORI poll conducted by STV, released this evening, has the following Westminster result:
Labour - 36%
SNP - 26%
Lib Dems - 20%
Tories - 14%
Sunday's YouGov poll is significantly different with Labour having double the lead over the SNP:
Labour - 40%
SNP - 20%
Lib Dem - 19%
Tories - 16%
Here is something quite ridiculous though, if both polls are applied to the 2005 result across each constituency, one would get the same result.
Labour - 40 seats
Lib Dems - 11 seats
SNP - 7 seats
Tories - 1 seat
We seem forever doomed to be locked into this breakdown of MPs in Scotland. Not even anything in between a 20% and 10% gap can break the Labour stranglehold.
There are of course local seats that can be picked off with localised effort. Livingston, Dundee, Kilmarnock & Loudon for example, not to mention targetting Glasgow resources to the East to keep John Mason in Westminster. The disadvantage is that the other seats could see the SNP slide into a lower position.
It just goes to show how tremendously difficult this campaign is for the SNP and why it may be preferable to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
Even if there are less than 10 MPs delivered for the Nationalists, the UK election is so tight that such a number could still prove to be decisive.
How fitting would it be, regardless of how the polls finally settle, if the only net gain for the SNP was south of the border at Westminster.
New Scottish Poll and SNP Manifesto
James of Two Doctors has released news of a poll on his, em, Twitter feed of all places. I hope James doesn't think it too cheeky of me to neatly scoop up the information and repost it here. (Note, I don't know the poll size or even the polling company used)
Constituency Vote:
Labour 31%
SNP 27%
Tory 19%
LD 19%
Greens 3%
Regional vote:
SNP 27%
LD 21%
Lab 21%
Tory 15%
Green 8%
Seats
Labour 46
SNP 32
LD 27
Tory 16
Greens 7
It looks like the Lib Dems are taking votes away from Labour rather than the SNP at Holyrood (if Clegg mania reaches to May 2011, which is unlikely). Still, that stranglehold that Labour has over the First Past the Post seats will have to be broken by the SNP if they are looking to hold onto power into the next parliamentary term, particularly if the Greens follow through on this promised resurgence (as I suspect they will).
In other news (which I haven't got around to reading properly yet as I've just finished work and now heading out to dinner), the SNP released its manifesto today but the related news items seem to focus mostly on the party's aims of winning a balanced Parliament for Scotland, a balanced Parliament which now looks all but inevitable with UK polls splitting three ways.
The SNP holding the balance of power in London is not as unlikely as it once was and I suspect the twin-call to ensure there is no majority at Westminster and that Scottish 'champions' should be sent down south will be well-heeded by those north of the border.
Constituency Vote:
Labour 31%
SNP 27%
Tory 19%
LD 19%
Greens 3%
Regional vote:
SNP 27%
LD 21%
Lab 21%
Tory 15%
Green 8%
Seats
Labour 46
SNP 32
LD 27
Tory 16
Greens 7
It looks like the Lib Dems are taking votes away from Labour rather than the SNP at Holyrood (if Clegg mania reaches to May 2011, which is unlikely). Still, that stranglehold that Labour has over the First Past the Post seats will have to be broken by the SNP if they are looking to hold onto power into the next parliamentary term, particularly if the Greens follow through on this promised resurgence (as I suspect they will).
In other news (which I haven't got around to reading properly yet as I've just finished work and now heading out to dinner), the SNP released its manifesto today but the related news items seem to focus mostly on the party's aims of winning a balanced Parliament for Scotland, a balanced Parliament which now looks all but inevitable with UK polls splitting three ways.
The SNP holding the balance of power in London is not as unlikely as it once was and I suspect the twin-call to ensure there is no majority at Westminster and that Scottish 'champions' should be sent down south will be well-heeded by those north of the border.
Clegg's sting in the tale
Clearly both Labour and the Tories have decided that 'the Clegg problem' needs urgently addressed but no party seems to know for sure what to do. While David Cameron was talking about redoubling the positive, Annabel Goldie was calling the Lib Dem leader "an irritating horsefly". Charming.
I know a Clegg is an invertebrate animal of the Insecta class but even I missed Goldie's regrettable pun. Going negative on the Lib Dems, when their popularity is due to discontent with the old shabby style of politics, will only boost the Lib Dems' fortunes.
The only tactic that can work for the Tories is to remind voters that the better Clegg does, the more likely it is that Brown will stay on as Prime Minister.
But here's the thing, here's the sting in the tale that may make all remaining Tory endeavour fruitless. I sense that the British public, for all that Brown has made a poor job of being PM, have largely decided that Cameron isn't the man for the job.
The melting pot of a hung parliament with Brown somehow soldiering on as PM appears to be the settled will as we collectively close ranks against the Tory leader.
Darling and Vince at the Treasury, Clegg as Home Secretary, Miliband staying on as Foreign Secretary? Of all that we have on offer, I'd be very satisfied with that.
I know a Clegg is an invertebrate animal of the Insecta class but even I missed Goldie's regrettable pun. Going negative on the Lib Dems, when their popularity is due to discontent with the old shabby style of politics, will only boost the Lib Dems' fortunes.
The only tactic that can work for the Tories is to remind voters that the better Clegg does, the more likely it is that Brown will stay on as Prime Minister.
But here's the thing, here's the sting in the tale that may make all remaining Tory endeavour fruitless. I sense that the British public, for all that Brown has made a poor job of being PM, have largely decided that Cameron isn't the man for the job.
The melting pot of a hung parliament with Brown somehow soldiering on as PM appears to be the settled will as we collectively close ranks against the Tory leader.
Darling and Vince at the Treasury, Clegg as Home Secretary, Miliband staying on as Foreign Secretary? Of all that we have on offer, I'd be very satisfied with that.
Monday, April 19, 2010
David Cameron and the Young Britons' Foundation
I've never really heard of the Young Britons' Foundation (YBF) before but their name stood out in an interview I read recently, but we will come to that later.The YBF has been labelled by its Chief Executive as a "Conservative madrasa", it is largely known as a radical training ground for would-be Tory candidates and is known for claiming that the NHS is the biggest waste of money in the UK and that waterboarding can be justified.
The Young Britons' Foundation made significant news on March 6th when The Guardian splashed a story on the goings on of the organistion. The story was so damaging for the Tories that on March 9th the Tory Chairman Eric Pickles (a former speaker at a YBF event no less) distanced the Tory party from the radical group.
Upon release of the first story the Chief Executive of the YBF, Donal Blaney, deleted his 'Blaney's Blarney' blog. (Good news for me in the Total Politics poll though as Donal was 24th to my 25th!)
The links to the Tory party are abundantly clear. Eric Pickles, Liam Fox, David Davis, Iain Duncan Smith, Douglas Carswell, Greg Hands, Gerald Howarth, Patrick McLoughlin, Iain Dale, Jonathan Isaby and Ed Vaizey have all attended annual gatherings either to give speeches or soak up the atmosphere. Dan Hannan is a member of the YBF's parliamentary council. Tory Bear is a big fan of the group too. Indeed, Eric Pickles is pictured above speaking to YBF in the House of Commons no less!
Both the UK Conservative Future and Scottish Conservative Future websites link to the YBF.
The links from YBF to the Tories even extends to the current leader David Cameron. Christian May is the former Director of Operations for YBF. During a Radio Five Live interview in April 2009, Christian May phoned in to debate with David Cameron directly.
To be honest, I don't really care about any of the above. A group can set up to do what it likes and have whatever opinions it likes as long as it's legal, and anyone is welcome to join them on jollies or gatherings if they so choose. I am not having a go at YBF, just setting the scene for what is to come.
Speaking of which, having dug out all of the above, I was surprised to re-read the following in this week's Time Out London interview with David Cameron (not available online):
TO: 'Is it true that your prospective candidates are being trained by Young Britons' Foundation [a controversial right-wing group that trains activists]?'
DC: 'No. I don't think so. I don't know anything about the Young Britons' Foundation.'
TO: 'On their website they say they are training your members at party conferences.'
DC: 'I've no idea about this.'
TO: 'You do know about them. Dan Hannan - a Tory MEP - appeared on Fox TV last year saying that the NHS was a mistake. He is one of the leaders of the YBF, which is calling for the liberalisation of gun laws, says that climate change is a scam...'
DC: 'Dan Hannan's views about the NHS are nothing to do with the Tory party'
TO: 'So you will put an end to these people training your party?'
DC: 'I don't even know if they are. Let me find out.'
(Following the interview, I asked Cameron's press officer to clarify. She told me that his position on the matter remains unchanged.)
I'm sorry but for David Cameron to claim that he knows nothing about the Young Britons' Foundation is simply not credible. With Eric Pickles and Dan Hannan knee deep in the furore surrounding this group that seeks to train Tory candidates, Cameron must be aware of it. The Tory leader should have learned already from the Lord Ashcroft debacle that 'I don't know' isn't good enough as an answer any more.
However, the Tory leader is now on the record saying that he will look into this so if anyone asks Cameron about YBF between now and May 6th, he will not get away with denying all knowledge and will have to give his inevitably damaging opinion.
GE 2010 SeatWatch - Glasgow North
With the Lib Dem surge billowing out across Britain as speedily and as unexpectedly as Icelandic ash, it is only fair that the party’s list of target seats is expanded in this SeatWatch series and previous ‘outside bets’ which I wasn’t going to write about are brought into the fray as more realistic potential gains. The Lib Dems may take Aberdeen South, they may take Edinburgh North & Leith and they may take Edinburgh South but what about a breakthrough in Glasgow? Hold onto your hats, the sky may be about to fall upon our heads.
The 2005 results in Glasgow North were:
Ann McKechin (Labour) – 11,001 (39.4%)
Amy Rodger (Lib Dem) – 7,663 (27.4%)
Kenneth McLean (SNP) – 3,614 (12.9%)
Brian Pope (Conservative) – 2,441 (8.7%)
Martin Bartos (Green) – 2,135 (7.6%)
The candidates for the 2010 contest are Ann McKechin (Labour), Katy Gordon (Lib Dem), Patrick Grady (SNP), Erin Boyle (Tory), Martin Bartos (Green), Angela McCormick (Trade Unionist & Socialist)
The tactical voting considerations here are particularly relevant. There are 8,190 SNP, Tory and Green votes that could quite feasibly fall full square behind Katy Gordon’s challenge from second place.
I personally see little difference in voting in a Lib Dem MP rather than a Labour MP and would probably sooner see the SNP take second spot with Labour remaining in place but that’s not to say that all of those 3,614 SNP voters in 2005 will see things the same way. Many in Scotland will be actively voting for a balanced parliament rather than any specific party and if that mentality takes hold in Glasgow North, it is only really the Lib Dems that will profit from it.
Those who voted Tory in 2005 have the clearest incentive for voting Lib Dem this time around, contributing as they would be to reducing Labour’s number of seats and increasing, albeit slightly, the chances of Cameron forming a majority or minority Government.
The considerable Green vote (I believe this is the only seat in Scotland where the Greens fielded a First Past the Post candidate in 2007) may also be lent to the Lib Dems this time around. Of the main parties in the UK, it is the Lib Dems who are seen as the most environmentally-friendly so there is not so wide a gap to cross over there. Then again, if those 2,135 voters didn’t feel the need to vote tactically in 2005, why would they in 2010?
Another consideration is that 2005 Lib Dem candidate Amy Rodger, as far as I’m aware at least, is a pretty formidable performer. That’s not to take anything away from Katy Gordon who I’m sure is putting in a fine effort but one has to be careful of ignoring the particular candidates as a factor. For example, Andrew Wilson for the SNP was 520 votes away from taking Cumbernauld & Kilsyth in 2003 and the unfair expectation was that Jamie Hepburn could close the small gap in 2007, despite it being a Labour heartland. It is worth noting that the last election that Katy Gordon fought (Glasgow Kelvin, 2007), she found herself in fourth spot behind the Greens’ Martin Bartos (who is also standing in Glasgow North this time around).
The 2005 vote for the Lib Dems also reflects a strong anti Iraq War vote (Glasgow North includes Glasgow University) and the popular Charlie Kennedy as leader. For both reasons the Lib Dems should expect a small decrease off the back of these two factors being less potent and non-existent this time, irrespective of what increases they may enjoy.
The SNP too, lest we forget, will enjoy a boost in its fortunes this time around. Tactical voting to one side, a popular SNP Government and the Glasgow East result will give a good deal of impetus to those getting out and casting their votes for the Nationalists.
Overall, as nice as it would be to see Labour lose a seat in Glasgow to remind us that not everything is a dead cert, the tactical voting considerations will be balanced out with an SNP surge and a strong Green showing and there will be little change here once the votes are counted.
SNP TV prediction – Relatively easy hold for Labour
The 2005 results in Glasgow North were:
Ann McKechin (Labour) – 11,001 (39.4%)
Amy Rodger (Lib Dem) – 7,663 (27.4%)
Kenneth McLean (SNP) – 3,614 (12.9%)
Brian Pope (Conservative) – 2,441 (8.7%)
Martin Bartos (Green) – 2,135 (7.6%)
The candidates for the 2010 contest are Ann McKechin (Labour), Katy Gordon (Lib Dem), Patrick Grady (SNP), Erin Boyle (Tory), Martin Bartos (Green), Angela McCormick (Trade Unionist & Socialist)
The tactical voting considerations here are particularly relevant. There are 8,190 SNP, Tory and Green votes that could quite feasibly fall full square behind Katy Gordon’s challenge from second place.
I personally see little difference in voting in a Lib Dem MP rather than a Labour MP and would probably sooner see the SNP take second spot with Labour remaining in place but that’s not to say that all of those 3,614 SNP voters in 2005 will see things the same way. Many in Scotland will be actively voting for a balanced parliament rather than any specific party and if that mentality takes hold in Glasgow North, it is only really the Lib Dems that will profit from it.
Those who voted Tory in 2005 have the clearest incentive for voting Lib Dem this time around, contributing as they would be to reducing Labour’s number of seats and increasing, albeit slightly, the chances of Cameron forming a majority or minority Government.
The considerable Green vote (I believe this is the only seat in Scotland where the Greens fielded a First Past the Post candidate in 2007) may also be lent to the Lib Dems this time around. Of the main parties in the UK, it is the Lib Dems who are seen as the most environmentally-friendly so there is not so wide a gap to cross over there. Then again, if those 2,135 voters didn’t feel the need to vote tactically in 2005, why would they in 2010?
Another consideration is that 2005 Lib Dem candidate Amy Rodger, as far as I’m aware at least, is a pretty formidable performer. That’s not to take anything away from Katy Gordon who I’m sure is putting in a fine effort but one has to be careful of ignoring the particular candidates as a factor. For example, Andrew Wilson for the SNP was 520 votes away from taking Cumbernauld & Kilsyth in 2003 and the unfair expectation was that Jamie Hepburn could close the small gap in 2007, despite it being a Labour heartland. It is worth noting that the last election that Katy Gordon fought (Glasgow Kelvin, 2007), she found herself in fourth spot behind the Greens’ Martin Bartos (who is also standing in Glasgow North this time around).
The 2005 vote for the Lib Dems also reflects a strong anti Iraq War vote (Glasgow North includes Glasgow University) and the popular Charlie Kennedy as leader. For both reasons the Lib Dems should expect a small decrease off the back of these two factors being less potent and non-existent this time, irrespective of what increases they may enjoy.
The SNP too, lest we forget, will enjoy a boost in its fortunes this time around. Tactical voting to one side, a popular SNP Government and the Glasgow East result will give a good deal of impetus to those getting out and casting their votes for the Nationalists.
Overall, as nice as it would be to see Labour lose a seat in Glasgow to remind us that not everything is a dead cert, the tactical voting considerations will be balanced out with an SNP surge and a strong Green showing and there will be little change here once the votes are counted.
SNP TV prediction – Relatively easy hold for Labour
Are the Tories really streets ahead of Labour?
A mere glance at the polls from yesterday suggests that, from a national vote perspective at least, the UK race is tight amongst the three main parties.
We have:
ComRes: Con 31, LD 29, Lab 27
Bpix: LD 32, Con 31, Lab 28
YouGov: Con 33, Lab 30, LD 29
Pretty tight in anyone's book.
However, what if the Tories' lamentable showing in Scotland is hiding the fact that Cameron's party is way out in front in most of the rest of the UK?
A little bit of algebra is required so stay with me.
In Scotland the Tories are on ~17% while across all of the UK they are on ~32%. So to crudely calculate where the Tories are everywhere but Scotland we must solve:
32% = y.90% + 17%.10%
Answer - y = 33.7%
Similarly, Labour's true rUK showing can be calculated as:
28% = x.90% + 40%.10%
Answer - x = 26.7%
So what looks like a few points lead nationally is actually as much as a 7% lead in the group of seats that the Conservatives need to win.
Keeping in mind that the Lib Dems will struggle to translate their strong polling into a considerable bloc of seats and that Lord Ashcroft's money has been loosening up the marginals for a while now, I don't think Cameron should be as panicked that he'll miss out on Number 10 as some are currently suggesting.
We have:
ComRes: Con 31, LD 29, Lab 27
Bpix: LD 32, Con 31, Lab 28
YouGov: Con 33, Lab 30, LD 29
Pretty tight in anyone's book.
However, what if the Tories' lamentable showing in Scotland is hiding the fact that Cameron's party is way out in front in most of the rest of the UK?
A little bit of algebra is required so stay with me.
In Scotland the Tories are on ~17% while across all of the UK they are on ~32%. So to crudely calculate where the Tories are everywhere but Scotland we must solve:
32% = y.90% + 17%.10%
Answer - y = 33.7%
Similarly, Labour's true rUK showing can be calculated as:
28% = x.90% + 40%.10%
Answer - x = 26.7%
So what looks like a few points lead nationally is actually as much as a 7% lead in the group of seats that the Conservatives need to win.
Keeping in mind that the Lib Dems will struggle to translate their strong polling into a considerable bloc of seats and that Lord Ashcroft's money has been loosening up the marginals for a while now, I don't think Cameron should be as panicked that he'll miss out on Number 10 as some are currently suggesting.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Scotland on Sunday poll - back to 2005
A YouGov poll was completed by the Scotland on Sunday last week which straddled, perhaps even interrupted, the leaders' debate.The results make frankly depressing reading for any political anorak looking forward to thrills and spills on election night as it involves a net one seat changing hands. The topline figures are:
Labour - 40%
SNP - 20%
Lib Dem - 19%
Tories - 16%
Others - 5%
This would mean Labour picking up 40 seats, Lib Dems 11, SNP 7 and the Tories 1 and the only seats changing hands on May 6th would be Ochil & South Perthshire and to the SNP and Dunfermline & West Fife to Labour.
Infact, Electoral Calculus suggests that with this breakdown even Ochil will stay in Labour's clutches and the result will be EXACTLY THE SAME AS 2005. Imagine that, 3 new party leaders, a new Prime Minister, the fallout of the War in Iraq, the 10p tax debacle, the credit crunch and an SNP Government and we STILL have the same political map for the next five years.
With all the change that will be going on in England and Wales, does that suggest there is something wrong with Scotland or, alternatively, that we all know what we want?
The Lib Dem charge in Scotland
The remarkable series of polls putting the Lib Dems 1st, 2nd and a very close 3rd are a welcome sight summed up with, as the Sunday Herald puts it in its editorial today, "Good riddance to two-horse race politics".
It is perhaps an indulgent irrelevance to stop and think that Nick Clegg only won the Lib Dem leadership with ~51% of the vote and here he is being talked about, not altogether jokingly, as the next Prime Minister. His adversary in the leadership contest Chris Huhne may not have delivered the same results in this leader debate as Nick did. Infact, Chris will do well to just hold onto his Eastleigh seat in the face of a strong Tory challenge.
So this campaign, now with Lib Dems flying high, could have been so different if a few hundrend Lib Dem members had voted for Huhne a few years ago. How many party's fates have twisted in the difference of a few percentage points?
Up in Scotland it is fair to ask if the Lib Dem charge is really so potent. Today's YouGov poll has them on 19%, not quite the 33% enjoyed south of the border. Mind you, England hasn't had an SNP or Plaid Cymru to vote for before so the desperate need for that previously unconsidered 'third way' is more pronounced down here.
Indeed, the main reason Nick Clegg faired so well on Thursday evening was down to his repeated insistence that he would scrap Trident (a pledge that is becoming increasingly confused with the party's defence spokesperson contradicting his leader the next day). Even Clegg is contradicting himself as during the battle for the party leadership his position was that there is 'little point attending the next non-proliferation talks in 2010 if "we've already thrown all our cards away".'
The replacement of Trident and the nuclear weapons is, of course, ridiculous. Cameron's insistence that we need to keep the deterrent in order to keep China in check betrays that reality.
The SNP has opposed nuclear weapons for 50 years, for the Lib Dems (if that even is their policy) it has been only a few years at most. There surely won't be the same transfer of voters coming across to the Lib Dems in Scotland as a result of this policy as there will be in England.
Another consideration for Scotland's largely four-horse race is that in these UK polls it is Labour and the Tories that the new Lib Dem votes are being won from. In the many SNP vs Labour and SNP vs Tory contests in Scotland this is welcome news. Indeed many who would now aspire to vote Lib Dem off the back of Clegg's performance may now see the merit in voting tactically for the SNP, a party that after all shares similar policies.
There is of course a flip-side and one has to accept that Nationalist target seats with a Lib Dem incumbent, Gordon and Argyll & Bute, will be more difficult to gain and 3-way Labour seats Edinburgh North & Leith has now swung more in Lib Dem Kevin Lang's favour than SNP's Calum Cashley's.
Despite the above, with Labour dominance of Scotland set to continue unabated into the next parliamentary term, there are only so many seats that can realistically change hands anyway and consequently only so much of a difference in terms of number of MPs that a UK-wide surge in Lib Dem popularity can make north of the border.
The real impact on Scotland of a lasting Lib Dem charge, if it transpires, will probably be next year and the currently finely balanced Scottish Parliament. The proportional d'hondt formula will ensure that any increase in support for the Lib Dems will equate to seats and when the SNP is the largest party by only one seat, even a gain of a few percentage points for Tavish Scott and his party could have a significant impact.
With the SNP being so similar in outlook to the Liberal Democrats a simple conclusion to draw for 2011 would be that if one party's fortunes go up then the other's must surely go down.
It is perhaps an indulgent irrelevance to stop and think that Nick Clegg only won the Lib Dem leadership with ~51% of the vote and here he is being talked about, not altogether jokingly, as the next Prime Minister. His adversary in the leadership contest Chris Huhne may not have delivered the same results in this leader debate as Nick did. Infact, Chris will do well to just hold onto his Eastleigh seat in the face of a strong Tory challenge.
So this campaign, now with Lib Dems flying high, could have been so different if a few hundrend Lib Dem members had voted for Huhne a few years ago. How many party's fates have twisted in the difference of a few percentage points?
Up in Scotland it is fair to ask if the Lib Dem charge is really so potent. Today's YouGov poll has them on 19%, not quite the 33% enjoyed south of the border. Mind you, England hasn't had an SNP or Plaid Cymru to vote for before so the desperate need for that previously unconsidered 'third way' is more pronounced down here.
Indeed, the main reason Nick Clegg faired so well on Thursday evening was down to his repeated insistence that he would scrap Trident (a pledge that is becoming increasingly confused with the party's defence spokesperson contradicting his leader the next day). Even Clegg is contradicting himself as during the battle for the party leadership his position was that there is 'little point attending the next non-proliferation talks in 2010 if "we've already thrown all our cards away".'
The replacement of Trident and the nuclear weapons is, of course, ridiculous. Cameron's insistence that we need to keep the deterrent in order to keep China in check betrays that reality.
The SNP has opposed nuclear weapons for 50 years, for the Lib Dems (if that even is their policy) it has been only a few years at most. There surely won't be the same transfer of voters coming across to the Lib Dems in Scotland as a result of this policy as there will be in England.
Another consideration for Scotland's largely four-horse race is that in these UK polls it is Labour and the Tories that the new Lib Dem votes are being won from. In the many SNP vs Labour and SNP vs Tory contests in Scotland this is welcome news. Indeed many who would now aspire to vote Lib Dem off the back of Clegg's performance may now see the merit in voting tactically for the SNP, a party that after all shares similar policies.
There is of course a flip-side and one has to accept that Nationalist target seats with a Lib Dem incumbent, Gordon and Argyll & Bute, will be more difficult to gain and 3-way Labour seats Edinburgh North & Leith has now swung more in Lib Dem Kevin Lang's favour than SNP's Calum Cashley's.
Despite the above, with Labour dominance of Scotland set to continue unabated into the next parliamentary term, there are only so many seats that can realistically change hands anyway and consequently only so much of a difference in terms of number of MPs that a UK-wide surge in Lib Dem popularity can make north of the border.
The real impact on Scotland of a lasting Lib Dem charge, if it transpires, will probably be next year and the currently finely balanced Scottish Parliament. The proportional d'hondt formula will ensure that any increase in support for the Lib Dems will equate to seats and when the SNP is the largest party by only one seat, even a gain of a few percentage points for Tavish Scott and his party could have a significant impact.
With the SNP being so similar in outlook to the Liberal Democrats a simple conclusion to draw for 2011 would be that if one party's fortunes go up then the other's must surely go down.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Scottish Politics gets 'punchy' (rated 12A)
Per The Herald:
Schools Minister Keith Brown was branded a “hooligan” yesterday after he heckled the Prime Minister on the election campaign.
The minister was also involved in a bizarre row with Scottish Labour officials after the party’s head of communications claimed he was punched in the back during a scuffle.
Judge for yourselves thanks to this video:
(Incident is 1:00 in and K Brown is wearing red)
Personally I think Mr Okasha needs to toughen up a bit, particularly if he's going to go around stamping on people's toes.
Schools Minister Keith Brown was branded a “hooligan” yesterday after he heckled the Prime Minister on the election campaign.
The minister was also involved in a bizarre row with Scottish Labour officials after the party’s head of communications claimed he was punched in the back during a scuffle.
Judge for yourselves thanks to this video:
(Incident is 1:00 in and K Brown is wearing red)
Personally I think Mr Okasha needs to toughen up a bit, particularly if he's going to go around stamping on people's toes.
Tempting polling drives me spare
If you believed a certain set of poll headlines from today then you would think that the Lib Dems were 1% behind the Tories and Labour were languishing in third. If you took the poll in its entirety however you would then see that the Lib Dems are set to win a considerable, but not second placing, 70-odd seats.
Election campaigns are great for banter, one only has to watch any of Mandelson’s delightful lip-curling soundbites to be reminded of that, so fair play to the Lib Dems for making as much hay out of Clegg’s good performance last night as possible. However, the media really does need to reel itself in when it comes to reporting polls. The statistically innumerate journalists who jump on sampling results regardless of how they are sliced and diced can be sloppy and dangerous in their behaviour.
The Guardian fell short of its usual high standard by initially asserting that the poll suggesting an incredible Lib Dem breakthrough was “sensational” before backpedalling when they realised it wasn’t actually a proper poll. The BBC was mercifully more restrained with its pollster stating that the numbers only told us about the minority who watched the show and not the majority who didn’t tune in.
The actual poll results are: Con 35%, Lab 28%, LD 24%. Meaningless? No. Sensational? Certainly not. Don’t get me wrong, there has been a telling uplift . Moving to 24% is a great result for Clegg but the Lib Dems may have got there by scooping up votes from the Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and UKIP. What an affront to democracy that would be, parties getting ahead by silencing the others.
Don't get me wrong, I think the two main parties at Westminster being pushed to the side by a third party would be a welcome change even to the point where we have three parties of relatively equal size in the Chamber (though that may cause problems for the seating arrangements). That situation, if the British people so wish it, shouldn't come at the expense of fairness to all parties in the system and it shouldn't come at the expense of proper scientific polling.
There’s only one poll that counts of course, the one on May 6th, but if that poll is affected by this shabby excuse for a take of the nation’s pulse then we all lose out as a result.
Election campaigns are great for banter, one only has to watch any of Mandelson’s delightful lip-curling soundbites to be reminded of that, so fair play to the Lib Dems for making as much hay out of Clegg’s good performance last night as possible. However, the media really does need to reel itself in when it comes to reporting polls. The statistically innumerate journalists who jump on sampling results regardless of how they are sliced and diced can be sloppy and dangerous in their behaviour.
The Guardian fell short of its usual high standard by initially asserting that the poll suggesting an incredible Lib Dem breakthrough was “sensational” before backpedalling when they realised it wasn’t actually a proper poll. The BBC was mercifully more restrained with its pollster stating that the numbers only told us about the minority who watched the show and not the majority who didn’t tune in.
The actual poll results are: Con 35%, Lab 28%, LD 24%. Meaningless? No. Sensational? Certainly not. Don’t get me wrong, there has been a telling uplift . Moving to 24% is a great result for Clegg but the Lib Dems may have got there by scooping up votes from the Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and UKIP. What an affront to democracy that would be, parties getting ahead by silencing the others.
Don't get me wrong, I think the two main parties at Westminster being pushed to the side by a third party would be a welcome change even to the point where we have three parties of relatively equal size in the Chamber (though that may cause problems for the seating arrangements). That situation, if the British people so wish it, shouldn't come at the expense of fairness to all parties in the system and it shouldn't come at the expense of proper scientific polling.
There’s only one poll that counts of course, the one on May 6th, but if that poll is affected by this shabby excuse for a take of the nation’s pulse then we all lose out as a result.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The debate - who won?
Well, he was only onscreen for two minutes but Salmond had the best arguments for me.
Ok, the successful #scotlandspeaks hashtag to one side, Clegg won the 90 minutes. I thought that before I saw the thumping poll results which had the Lib Dem leader at 43% over Cameron's 26% and Brown's 20%. The clever use of picking out the candidates who asked the questions and constantly lumping the Tory and Labour viewpoints together was undoubtedly effective.
Nick Clegg's challenge was helped as Brown and Cameron were clearly competing for the Lib Dem leader's affection. At one point I was thinking Clegg should have been placed in the middle of the studio, Cameron could have called him and Brown could have called him and then we could have seen who he would have gone to.
For the majority of the event it was pretty tiresome stuff though, rehashed themes and even rehashed soundbites and speeches. As a Scottish viewer, the majority of the debate was irrelevant and a reminder that the SNP Government is doing a very good job indeed.
There were a few clangers which is always good to keep one entertained. Cameron believes we need to keep a nuclear deterrent because we don't know what will happen with Iran or, em, China and Clegg thinks elderly care is so important that we need to put people before politics on the topic. It makes one wonder why Nick's so happy to put politics before the people on other areas.
It was paradoxically absorbing but rather dull and will nonetheless help the three parties involved pull away from the remaining parties as the media pre-judge the election and implement artificial parameters on the debate.
Nick Clegg may have won but the Scottish people certainly lost.
Salmond's UK Broadcast #ScotlandSpeaks
Alex Salmond has made his two minute broadcast to not just Scotland but the entire UK, a two minute broadcast that could save us two hours if we decide we need to hear no more from Brown, Cameron and Clegg this evening. I'll still be giving the leaders' debate a watch but I thought it was an excellent message nonetheless.
The broadcast is here:
The point that Scottish viewers will have to watch discussions on health, crime, local government, housing etc when it doesn't affect them was well put with the fact that each of the three debates being held in England alluded to and then the tantalisingly suggestion of a real debate with all parties and a crowd that hasn't been silenced.
The "cosy Westminster consensus disagreeing around the edges" that is "part of the same metropolitan machine" may have helped to pull some minds open to think beyond the 2-horse, 3-horse messages that are being pushed hard and this led into the most memorable part for me, what should be cut.
A plea to cut Trident, to cut the ID scheme, to cut the House of Lords and to cut the Scottish Office before cutting the significantly more meaningful front line services. To me it is common sense, to each of the three main parties it is seemingly less so.
We were left (before the much-maligned "Scotland...." clarion call ringing in Westminster's ears) being urged to vote for a local champion and with the SNP's clever, insurgent campaign despite the stretched resources at its disposal, I suspect more than many expect will do just that.
It was a great PPB and the (non-SNP) people in the room agreed. Here's hoping we can have a proper Scottish poll to see just how much progress has been made.
The broadcast is here:
The point that Scottish viewers will have to watch discussions on health, crime, local government, housing etc when it doesn't affect them was well put with the fact that each of the three debates being held in England alluded to and then the tantalisingly suggestion of a real debate with all parties and a crowd that hasn't been silenced.
The "cosy Westminster consensus disagreeing around the edges" that is "part of the same metropolitan machine" may have helped to pull some minds open to think beyond the 2-horse, 3-horse messages that are being pushed hard and this led into the most memorable part for me, what should be cut.
A plea to cut Trident, to cut the ID scheme, to cut the House of Lords and to cut the Scottish Office before cutting the significantly more meaningful front line services. To me it is common sense, to each of the three main parties it is seemingly less so.
We were left (before the much-maligned "Scotland...." clarion call ringing in Westminster's ears) being urged to vote for a local champion and with the SNP's clever, insurgent campaign despite the stretched resources at its disposal, I suspect more than many expect will do just that.
It was a great PPB and the (non-SNP) people in the room agreed. Here's hoping we can have a proper Scottish poll to see just how much progress has been made.
Greens launch their manifesto
The latest in the flurry of manifesto launches this week is that of the Green party in England & Wales. I'm not sure when the Scottish version is released but it would be interesting to compare and contrast the two.
The fully funded manifesto includes the following:
A "living" minimum wage of £8.10 (60% of the national average)
The 50% tax rate would start from £100k rather than £150k
Abolish prescription charges and bring in free eye tests (Scotland already has these of course)
Cut subsidies for aviation fuel
Reduce train fares, bus fares and road building programmes
An end to the use of nuclear power
Free insulation for homes which need it
End to tuition fees
Hospitals no longer funded by PFI
Scrap Trident (saving £80bn)
£170/week and £300/week "citizen's pension" costing £110bn (!), funded by abolishing pension credits and ending tax relief on pension contributions.
I must admit I am struggling to see how the manifesto can be "fully funded" when it includes the pledge for such a remarkable increase in the minimum wage (currently at £5.80), particularly when cuts to budgets and jobs in the public sector is being opposed. The debits and credits on the pension promise look decidedly wobbly too. Do existing pensions, credits and tax relief really amount to £110bn?
Despite these initial concerns, it is a tremendous list of aspirations and chimes very closely with my view of the world. Scrap Trident, make income tax more progressive (that 20% band has to change somehow), no nuclear power, no to PFI and a seismic shift in funding and attitudes from domestic airfare and roadbuilding to trains and buses. The distinct 'Swedishness' where pensions are fair and taxation is truly progressive also springs to mind.
With so much effort going into the campaign and a largely first class (and notably similar to the SNP's) manifesto, it would be a shame if the Green party didn't return a single MP this time around.
Party leader Caroline Lucas is leading the charge in Brighton Pavilion of course, looking to come from 3rd to take top spot there by avoiding the Tory/Labour squeeze. I would have thought the pride in having voted for the first Green MP at Westminster would be a strong motivating factor for the constituents down there. Is Caroline Lucas Britain's answer to Barack Obama? Maybe I'm over-reaching but 'Climate change we can believe in' is a slogan they can have for free.
Indulging in a little south of the border SeatWatch, the 2005 results for the constituency were:
Lab - 15,427
Con - 10,397
Grn - 9,571
LD - 7,171
One would hope that the Lib Dems would fall behind Caroline Lucas for this election and some disillusioned Labour voters, not to mention unimpressed Tory ones, could be picked off too. It's interesting that Labour's David Lepper is standing down which nullifies any incumbency factor that may have been at play.
Of course it's not just Brighton Pavilion that carries the Green hopes of success. Norwich South, the constituency of Charles Clarke, could return Adrian Ramsay as an MP and Lewisham Deptford could place Darren Johnson in an impressive second place leaving him well positioned for next time around. I don't see Scotland and Edinburgh East's Robin Harper in particular matching those vaulted ambitions though.
Whatever the result, it is an impressive manifesto and a crucial, additional viewpoint for how the country could be governed. One does wonder sometimes if Copenhagen really meant anything to our current political representatives and it's just as regrettable that Caroline Lucas is excluded from the leaders' debates as it is that Alex Salmond isn't there.
For me personally, given I don't know how long I'll be based in England for, it's good to know that I have a party to vote for down here if it turns out to be long term.
The fully funded manifesto includes the following:
A "living" minimum wage of £8.10 (60% of the national average)
The 50% tax rate would start from £100k rather than £150k
Abolish prescription charges and bring in free eye tests (Scotland already has these of course)
Cut subsidies for aviation fuel
Reduce train fares, bus fares and road building programmes
An end to the use of nuclear power
Free insulation for homes which need it
End to tuition fees
Hospitals no longer funded by PFI
Scrap Trident (saving £80bn)
£170/week and £300/week "citizen's pension" costing £110bn (!), funded by abolishing pension credits and ending tax relief on pension contributions.
I must admit I am struggling to see how the manifesto can be "fully funded" when it includes the pledge for such a remarkable increase in the minimum wage (currently at £5.80), particularly when cuts to budgets and jobs in the public sector is being opposed. The debits and credits on the pension promise look decidedly wobbly too. Do existing pensions, credits and tax relief really amount to £110bn?
Despite these initial concerns, it is a tremendous list of aspirations and chimes very closely with my view of the world. Scrap Trident, make income tax more progressive (that 20% band has to change somehow), no nuclear power, no to PFI and a seismic shift in funding and attitudes from domestic airfare and roadbuilding to trains and buses. The distinct 'Swedishness' where pensions are fair and taxation is truly progressive also springs to mind.
With so much effort going into the campaign and a largely first class (and notably similar to the SNP's) manifesto, it would be a shame if the Green party didn't return a single MP this time around.
Party leader Caroline Lucas is leading the charge in Brighton Pavilion of course, looking to come from 3rd to take top spot there by avoiding the Tory/Labour squeeze. I would have thought the pride in having voted for the first Green MP at Westminster would be a strong motivating factor for the constituents down there. Is Caroline Lucas Britain's answer to Barack Obama? Maybe I'm over-reaching but 'Climate change we can believe in' is a slogan they can have for free.
Indulging in a little south of the border SeatWatch, the 2005 results for the constituency were:
Lab - 15,427
Con - 10,397
Grn - 9,571
LD - 7,171
One would hope that the Lib Dems would fall behind Caroline Lucas for this election and some disillusioned Labour voters, not to mention unimpressed Tory ones, could be picked off too. It's interesting that Labour's David Lepper is standing down which nullifies any incumbency factor that may have been at play.
Of course it's not just Brighton Pavilion that carries the Green hopes of success. Norwich South, the constituency of Charles Clarke, could return Adrian Ramsay as an MP and Lewisham Deptford could place Darren Johnson in an impressive second place leaving him well positioned for next time around. I don't see Scotland and Edinburgh East's Robin Harper in particular matching those vaulted ambitions though.
Whatever the result, it is an impressive manifesto and a crucial, additional viewpoint for how the country could be governed. One does wonder sometimes if Copenhagen really meant anything to our current political representatives and it's just as regrettable that Caroline Lucas is excluded from the leaders' debates as it is that Alex Salmond isn't there.
For me personally, given I don't know how long I'll be based in England for, it's good to know that I have a party to vote for down here if it turns out to be long term.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
