Selection Box: Lothian & Mid Scotland & Fife

Moving to the Lothians, Alex Cole-Hamilton has been selected by the LibDems to 'defend' Edinburgh Central (I say this as, on the notional figures, this seat moves into the LibDem column). Cole-Hamilton was first on the Mid Scotland & Fife List last time at the expense of sitting MSP Andrew Arbuckle, who came second, and would have got in had Jim Tolson not been so inconsiderate by winning Dunfermline West. For shame! Elsewhere, Labour have a vacancy to fill in Midlothian North & Musselburgh, with the retirement of Rhona Brankin.

But the List is where the action is: for the SNP, Ian McKee is standing down (and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Shirley-Anne Somerville may cross the Forth to Mid Scotland & Fife) so there's a vacancy there. George Foulkes is standing down so there's a vacancy for Labour. And Robin Harper is standing down so we see the first ever Green vacancy, with Councillor Maggie Chapman being tipped in some quarters to fill it. And of course, we don't yet know if Margo MacDonald will wish to continue.

Across the Forth, again, the Mid Scotland & Fife List is where the action may be, with Christopher Harvie retiring (affording an opportunity for Shirley-Anne Somerville to make that crossing), along with Tory Ted Brocklebank, creating a vacancy on the Tory list, perhaps for Bob Dalrymple, who came fourth on the List last time and was the Tory candidate in Stirling (designated a key seat) in May.

So what about this 'Progressive Alliance' then?

Alex Salmond has today floated the possibility of a 'Progressive Alliance', which basically would involve everyone but the Tories.

It would, of course, involve Labour (258 seats) and the LibDems (57). They still wouldn't command a majority (they'd have only 315), but it wouldn't obviously involve the SNP and Plaid, with nine seats together: that would yield a total of 324: enough under the circumstances, but would also involve the SDLP's three MPs, pushing it over the line. It would probably involve Caroline Lucas and the Alliance's Naomi Long as well. That makes 329 MPs.

And each of the parties involved has a precedent for working with others. The SDLP take the Labour Whip. I have it on the most excellent authority that Naomi Long will take the LibDem Whip. The SNP and Plaid are in close co-operation and sit together in the European Free Alliance Group in the European Parliament, which is tied up with the Greens so will have been working alongside Caroline Lucas for nearly eleven years.

As well as that, Labour are in coalition with Plaid in the Welsh Assembly, while they have been in Coalition with the LibDems in both Scotland (1999-2007) and Wales (2000-03). And as a result of the vote on the new Northern Irish Justice Minister, the SDLP's Margaret Ritchie now finds herself working with the Alliance's David Ford.

So the precedents are there. But really, it's not going to happen. And it shouldn't happen.

For this to work, it needs a massive array of parties to get round a table and negotiate - it's far too unwieldy. And it also requires a lot of people to get over a lot of psychological barriers due to the mutual hostility between some of the parties that's accumulated over the years. Plus which, as Jonathan Calder notes, Labour have basically laughed the idea out of the room and by extension, laughed themselves onto the Opposition benches. Well, after spending the campaign warning of the dangers of a Tory Government, if they would prefer to usher one in rather than work with the SNP, that's their circle to square!

But more importantly, it just doesn't seem right to keep Labour in office: they've been in office for thirteen years, and now find themselves shorn of their majority by the electorate. They may well be in first place in Scotland and Wales, and the alternative may well have come a poor fourth in Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the bottom line is that overall, Labour have lost first place in the UK as a whole.

Besides, I just argued in favour of a minority Government and I can't change my tune just because this Coalition wouldn't involve the Tories. A minority Government is the best solution and a Labour minority Government, under the circumstances, just isn't credible.

And I hate to say this, but how would the First Minister have liked it if, two days after the 2007 Holyrood Election, Annabel Goldie or Nicol Stephen had come out in favour of a 'Unionist alliance' which would have come together to deny him office as this proposal would deny David Cameron? He'd be sick, and rightly so.

So no, I don't see this idea working or beneficial. I don't want a Tory Government either, but sadly, there comes a time where we have to just bite the bullet and accept firstly that it's coming, and secondly that it has to come now, like it or not. And let's face it, if Labour arrogance is going to help bring it about anyway, then what else can we do?

2010: The Year of If

You know it's going to be an uncertain year when it starts with people arguing over whether or not we've started a new decade. So if we can't settle that, then any predictions are built on pretty shaky ground. Which is why I'm calling 2010 "The Year of If", as you'll be able to see things mapped out, but they'll all be conditional on less certain events.

SNP

So what does 2010 hold for the party of the Scottish Government? I'd say further progress, and the question is how much. You would expect the SNP to take advantage of Labour's decline - and it will - but Labour will attempt to paint the election as a choice between Brown and Cameron. Now, personally, I'd have thought that such a choice would have voters flocking to other parties in their droves, but a particularly polarising campaign could restrict the amount of opportunities open to the SNP. Similarly, you might expect the party's right flank (and seats in Tayside) to be vulnerable to the Cameron effect, but seeing as it hasn't materialised in Scotland, my money's on the SNP seeing off a Tory challenge. And on the one hand, the LibDems and SNP occupied similar political ground in 2005 but the LibDems had the benefit of a wider media profile, but the LibDem political ground has shifted and that gives the SNP a little more breathing room. So in the General Election, the SNP will advance, and the only question is how far. The 20-seat target set just under two years may have provided a hostage to fortune, but there's no doubt that SNP tails are still up.

At Holyrood, things may not go so smoothly. For the Budget, there's no hope of co-operation with Labour (they'll vote the Budget own over GARL) or the LibDems (regardless of what's in there, they'll do anything to annoy Alex Salmond). But the Tories will, for now, be amenable as their present consideration is that they do not want to put Labour into Bute House just as they're trying to eject Labour from Downing Street. That will stand, but once the Tories are in Downing Street, the landscape will change, relations may sour as the two Governments get into confrontations. So it will, once again, hinge on the Greens and it is in the interests of the SNP to listen to them very carefully.

However, with the exception of the Budget, co-operation will be thin on the ground as parties first get into Westminster election mode, then shift gears and get ready for the 2011 Election, so unless the SNP Whips know something the rest of us don't the Referendum Bill is vulnerable. But with a referendum enjoying popular support, and with the opposition policy of "Not this referendum Bill and not now" being vulnerable to fairly obvious cries of "What Referendum Bill and when?", a reverse will work in the SNP's favour.

Labour

Can you hear the ticking of the Great Clock? It's just a couple of minutes until midnight now. I see no way back for Labour and their only consolation is that the defeat might not be as bad as it might have been. But what made the Tory wilderness years so bad, and the start of Labour's time as Scottish Opposition so cringeworthy wasn't the defeat itself, but the party's reaction to it. Firstly, the jockeying for positions began before the election took place, so the parties went into the contest divided. Secondly, the parties turned completely inward and started rowing with each other in the aftermath. If Labour can avoid that, they might be back on their feet by 2011.

But the signs aren't good: Charles Clarke's trying to get Gordon Brown booted out again, there are rumours that Lord Mandelson is Unhappy. So it all hinges on a good clean Leadership contest after the election, with principles and policy at the heart of it. Unfortunately, it's going to boil down to cliques and the losing side will spend the next Parliamentary term huffing and sniping at the new Leadership, as now.

This will provide a double-edged sword for Labour at Holyrood. On the one hand, MSPs will get caught up in the in-fighting and if the new Leadership isn't enamoured with Iain Gray then he has a problem. On the other hand, if he backs the right horse, he might just cement his position. On the one hand, the departure of Jim Murphy as the effective Leader of Scottish Labour (he will either lose his seat or become Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary) will bolster Gray's profile and make him the face of Scottish Labour. On the other hand, that will force him to up his game, and if he messes up, he has no backup and no support. In a year when Iain Gray will be trying to convince us of his First Ministerial qualities (not starting sentences, "If I was First Minister..." would help), he won't need the chaos that will be going on all around him.

Conservatives

This should be a year to celebrate for the Tories, yet victory will come with a bitter aftertaste. Firstly, the enormity of the challenge they face will become very clear very quickly - I expect George Osborne's net approval rating to be something along the lines of -50% by Christmas. Secondly, the polls suggest that we're not heading for a 1997-style landslide (the Tory majority will be around 20 seats). Thirdly, this means that Cameron will have to choose between ignoring his right-wing backbenchers and losing votes in the Commons or losing the centre ground, costing the Tories votes and seats in the next Election, which may be sooner than we think - late Summer 2012 or early Spring 2013. So it will not be a happy return to Government for the Tories.

Of course, if the Tories at Westminster think they have it bad, try being a Scottish Tory! It's fairly obvious that David Mundell will not find himself Secretary of State and the words "Lord McLetchie of Morningside" appear to hove into view. Further, Scottish Tories will find themselves under pressure: on the one hand, relations between Cameron and Alex Salmond won't take long to degrade as the two Governments will blatantly wish to pull in opposite directions. On the other, the Tories will still want to keep Iain Gray out of Bute House.

This will have the greatest impact on the MSPs, who will be forced to pick one side or another: they'll either have to row with their own party, or be branded apologists for the new anti-Scottish Tory Government. But there is a way out: the election looks like yielding the slimmest of slim pickings and you will probably be able to count the Scottish Tory delegation to Westminster on one hand. The Cameron effect has never taken hold in Scotland and there are signs that Annabel Goldie's habit for keeping the ship steady and doing acceptably but no better than that is starting to wear. It may be that the Scottish Tories are de-merged with the UK Party and an arrangement not overly dissimilar to UCUNF in Northern Ireland is established, or it may be that Annabel Goldie is ditched and replaced with Murdo Fraser, with Derek Brownlee as his Deputy. Or, indeed, it may be both.

Liberal Democrats

This might be the year to be neither the Tories nor Labour, but the problem is that for too long, the only thing to stand out as far as the LibDems are concerned is Vince Cable's knack for prophesying economic doom. Aside from that, they've got nothing to go on and if the election polarises, it's the LibDems who have the most to lose, with their voters picking a side. How well they survive depends on how well they stand out and I don't have much hope of them doing that.

And at Holyrood? More obscurity, I'm afraid, and it'll be self-inflicted. At least their friends at Westminster do occasionally produce a distinctive policy or two, but Tavish Scott et al need to be told that hating Alex Salmond isn't a policy. What do the Scottish LibDems have to say on tax? "We hate Alex Salmond". Education? "We hate Alex Salmond". Health? "We hate Alex Salmond". Crime? "We hate Alex Salmond". The constitution? "We hate Alex Salmond". Fine, we get that you don't like the FM. But a political party needs to be based on something more than a visceral hatred of another man and with LibDems sounding more and more like they'd rather people voted Labour than LibDem just to dish out a bloody nose to the SNP, it does make you wonder if they could do to just merge with Labour and have done with it. But even Labour have the occasional flash of a policy. Tavish Scott offers nothing and I don't see a change in approach or emphasis a this year. Or, for those post-2011 optimists among us, next year either. They might, at some point, attempt to bring a Minister down. Then they'll blame the Tories for not playing when they fail.

Greens

This is the year of groundwork for the Greens, and with a very real possibility of Caroline Lucas entering Westminster this year, this is a chance for their profile to skyrocket. Of course, Robin Harper is to stand for the Greens in Edinburgh East - he won't be successful, but there's method in this: possibly a Green Constituency candidate in Edinburgh Central as well as Glasgow Kelvin in 2011, which is the year that counts for the Scottish Greens.

But it will come down to Patrick Harvie to back or bin the Budget, once again. After last year's fiasco, everyone will be wiser to proceedings and that will be to his benefit more than anyone else's. This will give him extra traction come 2011.

The one note of caution is this: beware another Green false dawn! In 2005, the Scottish Greens fielded 19 candidates and kept three deposits, so over-inflated expectations along the lines of every candidate keeping their deposit are to be avoided: that isn't likely to happen. The 2009 result became a disappointment when it shouldn't have been - that's the risk the Greens face this time as well. An otherwise respectable result may seem like a setback, simply because it seemed like momentum was building.

Glasgow North East: The aftermath

Well, we've had a few days to ponder the result. Congratulations are due to Willie Bain; clearly Labour have a lot to celebrate, and the SNP a lot to be disappointed about. One thing I would suggest though is that despite it being nigh-on-impossible to talk about swings and trends given the particular nature of this By-Election, and the sheer number of candidates, this is probably broadly in line with what you might expect in a General Election for a seat with Glasgow North East's history, twelve years into a Labour Government, so I don't envisage the result here next year being overly divergent from the result we've just seen.

Of course, the turnout is nothing short of appalling: less than one third of voters bothered to show up, a record low in Scotland for a Westminster By-Election, and the largest dip in turnout in four years. But should we be overly surprised? Firstly, Glasgow North East is not an area in which voters head to the polls in their droves so it's a bit rich for politicians of all hues to muse about voter engagement in places like this now: this is a long-standing problem and it says volumes about how places like Glasgow North East are viewed if they've only just noticed it. Besides, recent By-Elections - Glasgow East and Glenrothes - saw massive levels of interest and only very small reductions in turnout. But By-Elections before that - Dunfermline & West Fife, Livingston and the Glasgow Cathcart By-Election for Holyrood - saw double-digit drops in turnout. What we're seeing, therefore, is a reversion to type. Sadly, it's come in a place where voter interest is already low.

Then there's Labour: clearly their campaign hit all the right buttons. Remember Dunfermline & West Fife, when Labour dismissed the loss as a reflection of local issues? They've learned from that, finally. It's always about local issues and after their success in Glenrothes, Labour have learned to tap into that. The campaign may have been somewhat unsavoury, but it was successful, and to obtain a majority of votes - however few votes may have been cast - does represent a good result. It shows that in places like this, Labour still have a core vote that they can motivate to get out. Predictions that they can use this as a way of turning back the blue tide next year and win a fourth term do seem wide of the mark, and I would expect Labour to be toast in many of their key marginals. Nevertheless, their core supporters are still happy to show up, so a Labour apocalypse is not necessarily on the cards - something that may well worry the LibDems, who are hoping to make gains from Labour in the North of England.

And what of the SNP? Clearly the post-mortem is ongoing but for now, that 20-seat hope is receding into the distance: turnout was low and it's clear that many people saw a reason not to vote Labour, but the SNP did not offer sufficient reasons for those disaffected voters to back them, or indeed, anyone. This is why I disagree fundamentally with Gordon Wilson's analysis: going nasty won't serve any purpose and won't attract anyone. People who live in areas that seem to have been let down by their politicians already know the problems. They know the stats, because they live them. They know that 74 years of representation hasn't turned Springburn into a land of milk and honey. What they want to hear is, "What are we going to do about it?" That didn't come through. Gordon Wilson's idea of street-fighting Labour won't work as people aren't daft: they'll see the world around them and if they're still willing to vote Labour, slagging them off to high heaven won't change their minds. Nor will it attract those who are not: they already know that Labour hasn't delivered, but telling them what they already know won't work. The opposite of his suggestion is the right path: the SNP need to be relentlessly positive. The message in Glasgow East was bright: "Your vote will count!", "When the SNP wins, you win!", "Winning for Glasgow!" and so on. Labour responded with venomous attack after attack. Who won, Gordon? The party with the bright, positive message. Draw your own conclusions.

Then there's the Tories. They can be relieved to keep their deposit, but the message coming from a party that aspires to govern the whole UK has been horrifying: Scottish Tories saying that there just aren't that many Conservatives. What happened to reaching out to other people? George Osborne saying that this contest - and this seat - isn't relevant. What a disgusting message! That throwaway comment is probably the biggest recruiting sergeant that Scottish Labour could have hoped for. Still, despite the Leadership once again showing itself to be the biggest bunch of tosspots in politics, Ruth Davidson came out of this election with a great deal of credit, and should, if she wishes, be destined for progress. Bill Aitken may well have one or two more terms in him, but in the short term, the neighbouring regions to Glasgow might make an attractive prospect for an upwardly mobile, young candidate such as her: with the redrawn Eastwood notionally Tory, and the party only just missing out on a third regional seat this time, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a third Western Tory seat is still on the cards for 2011, and that she could pick it up. Nor is it overly fanciful to suggest that Davidson could feasibly displace Margaret Mitchell in East Central Scotland. She is the positive of their campaign.

As for the BNP, remember that they already had a base here, and a sense of grievance to play on, so there's a danger in talking them up, particularly those muttering about a BNP MSP. The swing in Glasgow North East, if replicated in Glasgow region, still has them falling well short of picking up a seat. Of course, that hasn't prevented the usual BNP-related hysteria from springing up - firstly, blame has been heaped on the BBC for inviting Nick Griffin onto Question Time. Again, I think that viewers saw Griffin in the light that they wanted to see him anyway so that's not it. Rather, the BNP came forward with an anti-politician diatribe at a time when politicians are held in low regard. And what we had was both Willie Bain and Ruth Davidson almost apologising for seeking office, and going to all sorts of lengths to say how they weren't politicians. That probably played into the BNP's hands: if politicians are bad, the BNP were the full-fat, red meat option. In any case, talk once again has gone onto how to 'defeat' the BNP. Sadly, I don't think it's that simple: the BNP's message plays well with the darker side of the human psyche and prejudice and discrimination aren't new ideas thought up by the BNP. They've been around with us forever and Nick Griffin's cronies merely exploit them. Trying to 'defeat' human nature will fail: rather, actually doing constructive things for the area is the answer. if people think they've got a bad lot, if they see others who they think are doing better, then obviously parties like the BNP will flourish. Better to, you know, take positive action in areas like Springburn to imporve everyone's lives. Then the whole reason for voting BNP vanishes.

Tommy Sheridan, meanwhile, did surprisingly well, when you consider that he's not quite had the same traction of late and the combined Solidarity/SSP vote was at more or less the same level as the unified SSP vote share in 2005 so the rot may have been stopped for now. Of the leftist parties, it's Socialist Labour who have the least to celebrate, as it hit home just how artificial their performance of 2005 was. Nevertheless, for Sheridan, this is quite a coup: you would have expected the SSP to run him far closer here as his stomping ground was the other side of the city and this was Rosie Kane country once upon a time. So perhaps, just perhaps, reports of Solidarity's demise are, as yet, exaggerated. It all depends on the outcome of his perjury trial.

And what of the LibDems? Well, this was nothing short of a humiliation, and it's telling that once again, they have to rely on SNP-focused Schadenfreude to get them through this one. Of course, I've been through why I find it odd that they'd happily cheer the success of such an illiberal party as Labour over one with which they have so much common ground, but then, it's hard to make sense of spite and after all the crowing we've heard from them I have absolutely no qualms in saying that they deserve to be humiliated for the third By-Election in a row, with the ignominy of not even reaching half the required vote to retain their deposit and coming behind a bunch of swivel-eyed fascists proof positive of how they have nothing relevant to offer anyone. They have kept blaming the media for portraying this as a two-horse race: that didn't stop Ruth Davidson keeping her deposit. They'll blame the attention lavished on the BNP, but Eileen Baxendale was a presence on every major By-Election programme. Doubtless they'll refer to their lack of a candidate in the last Westminster election, overlooking the fact that they fielded candidates in this area in 2007, who kept their deposit. They have no excuses, and when they crow about the SNP's result in Dunfermline & West Fife, where the SNP talked up its chances only to come third, it's worth remembering that in the SNP vote actually went up there, to around 20%, so saying that parties outwith the Top 2 are doomed to humiliation in By-Elections doesn't wash - the LibDems couldn't even manage 3%. Rather than being smug at the SNP's failure to win in that By-Election, they should reflect on the fact that the SNP succeeded in doing something that has eluded the LibDems in every Westminster By-Election after that one: keeping its vote, keeping third place, and keeping its deposit. Granted, Dunfermline & West Fife represents a zenith in LibDem fortunes - they'd better hope for their sake that this was the nadir.

The Greens, meanwhile, should probably be disappointed that they've not manged to make further inroads, particularly after such a strong performance in Glasgow in the European elections. But I've said before and I'll say again that the Greens thrive on middle-class guilt (which can be a powerful motivator for positive changes so that's far from a criticism) and this would appear to be in short supply in Glasgow North East.

So to sum up: a good night for Labour, an OK night for Tommy Sheridan, a credible but not overly credible BNP result, something to hold onto for the Tories as long as they keep George Osborne away from any microphones in the future, nothing much to shout about for the Greens but solid under the circumstances, a disappointing night for the SNP and a humiliation for the LibDems.

One last thing, which I've been sitting on for weeks: John Smeaton was never going to give Labour a kicking. At no point were any Labour activists ablaze and jumping out of a burning jeep. Thank you very much, I'm here all week.

The Negative-o-meter: 5-6 November

In the week running up to the Glasgow By-Election, and to analyse in greater detail accusations of negativity, I thought I'd look at the candidates' pieces for The Steamie, and flag up the positive and negative comments. The positive shall be marked in green, and the negative in red. Relatively neutral comments (or ambiguous points which could be positive or negative depending on how you look at it), agenda points and party-based fluff will be left alone. I like to think my readers are a pretty sharp bunch: you can interpret the situation as you wish.

Willie Bain

I'm pleased to be taking part in this great idea by The Steamie to get people engaged with this by-election online.

Although I know not everyone uses the internet to access their news - I know lots of Glaswegians who are increasingly using it to find out what's going on and keep in touch with friends and family. I hope that by writing on here that I can help some of them understand more about me and my plans.

Despite a late night in the Newsnight studio I'm keen to hit the ground running this morning - talking to voters and hearing their concerns. I've lived in this area all my life - I think I'm the only candidate that can (honestly!) say that. I'm not a politician and I've never stood for election before but I'm proud of this area and I want to do my best for it.

The issue that people constantly raise with me on the door is their anger at the way the SNP is ripping off our city. Despite the SNP's budget going up by £600m this year they are giving extra money to some projects - but shortchanging Glasgow. It's amazing how many times people raise this when you speak to them. So I'm going out and about in the constituency today - knocking of people's doors and letting them know who I am and what I believe in.

I'm also meeeting with Andrew Adonis to tell him about the importance of good transport links to the Glasgow economy and the shockingly short-sighted decision of the SNP to cancel the airport rail link at a cost of 1000 jobs.

The other issue that people keep raising with me is about the SNP candidate fibbing about where he was born. Look, at the end of the day the real issue in this story is about trust. People's trust in politics is at an all time low. We have to start trying to restore that trust and that starts with people being able to believe the people that seek to represent them.

I've been clear with people what my top priorities are:

* stopping the SNP ripping off Galsgow [sic] and dishing out the money elsewhere
* cracking down on crime and anti-social behaviour - I've been running a carry a knife go to jail petition to get automatic jail sentences for knife criminals
* helping glasgow pensioners through tough times and fighting to protect jobs
* campaigning for better shops, better homes, and better buses

Thanks to everyone who is supporting me in this campaign. If you want to get in touch with me then you can email me at willie@williebain.com.

Best wishes

Willie Bain
Labour's candidate for Glasgow North East

Ruth Davidson

Well done the Steamie for coming up with this idea. I’ve been blogging on this campaign for sometime and I’m glad now the other candidates won’t be able to run away when I ask them a question!

During the five months that this campaign has been running it has become clear that the issues in Glasgow North East are not that different from those across Britain. People are worried about their jobs, worried about Labour's recession, worried about public services, and worried about crime.

MP's from all parties have betrayed the trust that the public had placed in them. That is why David Cameron apologised as soon as the details of MP's expenses claims came out, because it was wrong and the people of Britain deserved an apology. It was then that he said he wanted a new type of politics - which was when I decided I should put myself forward as a candidate. I am not a career politician, but I do believe that politics needs new people to get involved, get stuck in, and try and change things for the better. As candidates we all need to work to restore the public’s trust in politics.

That is why the very first thing I did following selection was to promise to run a clean campaign - which I invited all the other candidates to join. I have kept to that - the Conservatives won’t use personal attacks in order to get votes. That is why I have pledged to be open about my expenses if elected. Simple things, not exploiting expenses, discussing the issues not the personalities, but I think that they help people to believe I will keep my word if elected.

David Cameron and the Conservative Party believe the same thing. That is why we have been honest about the problems with the public finances. Instead of pretending nothing needed done, the Conservatives have told the truth that there will have to be savings in Government spending. We don't want to reduce spending, but we have to be realistic and tell people the harsh truth that Labour have spent all the money – and it is up to the next Government to repair the damage.

That’s why in the Scottish Parliament we have identified ¼ billion pounds worth of savings. Take Scottish Water out of public ownership, stop this nonsense of free prescriptions and free school meals for people who can afford to pay. Some things in life are not free – we have to accept that, especially in this current climate.

This election is about which party can bring the change that is needed to Glasgow North East, and to Britain. The Conservatives have the policies that will create jobs, repair the public finances, and help to fix our broken society. Most of all, we are the party that will be open and honest with the public – that’s what is needed to help rebuild trust in politics.

David Kerr

Welcome to the Steamie's by-election coverage. It's great to be taking part in this new way of covering a by-election, putting my campaign direct to you the voters.

In the next few days I’ll use this blog to tell you about some of the amazing people and inspiring projects I have met and seen in the constituency and the kind of MP I will be if the people in Glasgow North East vote for me.

Five months after Michael Martin resigned we are now into the last seven days of the campaign and it's turning out to be closer than many people thought. Despite the lengthy delay voters haven’t forgotten the expenses scandal that caused the by-election or the five school closures in the constituency that left Labour so scared the vote was delayed for five months.

Those issues have many people, who had always voted Labour, questioning the party they have supported and looking toward the SNP.

I'll be out campaigning today with John Mason MP, in Carntyne where Glasgow East meets Glasgow North East.

John's political earthquake demonstrates the difference an SNP MP can make. When it came to school closures – Labour didn’t dare put forward any closures in John’s constituency but they took people in Glasgow North East for granted.

Residents of Glasgow East had been let down by their MP - with no constituency office and no one to vote for their interests. John has set a new standard for Glasgow MPs - accessible, available and putting his constituents first.

In Glasgow North East constituents have been in the same position - with no office for the local MP in the constituency and decades of being taken for granted by Labour in Westminster and in the City Chambers.

People in Glasgow North East deserve the same level of representation their fellow East Enders have in the neighbouring constituency. This constituency deserves an MP whose priorities will be constituents priorities and that’s what I will deliver if elected next week.

Eileen Baxendale

I think this is a great idea from the Steamie. I would love to see more newspapers and media outlets adopt innovative approaches to help get more people engaged in politics.

I want to say right from the start that I think it was simply outrageous that the Labour party have allowed the people in Glasgow North East to go without an MP for so long, well over 125 days now. This just shows that the Labour Government has lost touch with the people it serves.

Since this campaign kicked off all those weeks ago, I have been working hard, knocking on doors and listening to people right across the constituency.

The message that I am getting again and again is that people are fed up being overlooked and ignored and that they want change. They want their politician’s focus to be on sorting the economy, creating more local jobs and tackling local crime.

I believe that it is Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats that have the policies and ideas to make a real difference on these issues.

To really tackle these problems we need more than just sensationalist, headline grabbing soundbites. We need a new approach.

On the economy and banking, it is Vince Cable that has been the voice of reasoned authority over recent months. It was he who first warned about the impending economic collapse. Labour were too slow to act and the Tories were simply nowhere on sorting out the economy.

On tackling crime and creating jobs, Liberal Democrats believe that this is best done at a local level. We are committed to putting the heart back into our communities and giving local people a greater say over their own affairs.

Locking everyone up and sending our young people to prison is not the best way to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. We need more community based initiatives that tackle the root causes of why young people in our society get involved in crime in the fist place.

Labour’s recession has led to tough times for all of us. The Liberal Democrats want to sort out the tax system to give a boost to those on low and middle incomes. We want to raise the income tax threshold so those on less than £10,000 a year don’t pay tax. This would put around £700 a year back into the pockets of those on low and middle incomes.

It is the Liberal Democrats who are the only party offering real progressive change to our society. Unlike the SNP it is the Liberal Democrats who can make a real difference at Westminster and stand up for the people of Glasgow North East.

Willie Bain

Just back from the STV studios where the four main candidates cross–examined ourselves in heated spirits.

In a slightly peculiar manoeuvre, the SNP man decided to throw a two-pound coin at me. I was thinking a question might be more likely, but there you go.

Amazingly, he vigorously defended the decision to scrap the airport rail link and the loss of up to 1,300 jobs. I thought he’d want to stand up for Glasgow, but he seems he wants to be Salmond’s man in Springburn.

Earlier, I met with Andrew Adonis, the Secretary of State for Transport, to discuss the importance of good transport links to and from Glasgow. He got the train from the centre of town up to Springburn.

Like me, he was angered by the SNP’s decision to cancel the rail link. If elected I will do all I can to fight the SNP’s decision and stop them ripping of Glasgow in the future. I oppose the cuts in housing and regeneration in the SNP’s draft budget for next year and I believe that Glasgow should get a metropolitan supplement, as Edinburgh does and is proposed for Aberdeen. The SNP cannot continue to rip off Glasgow. It isn’t a by-election slogan as the SNP try to brush it off: it is a tragedy for our city.

Harriet Harman also joined the campaign this evening and was out knocking on doors with me – first with the cameras, and then just the two of us later on. We stopped for a quick coffee in Dennistoun.

It really was all hands on deck today. Tomorrow I’ll be out and about again from first thing to late.

David Kerr

Less than a week to go and the SNP campaign is in full swing.

SNP activists are out across the constituency - with more coming to join the campaign this weekend - including a visit from the Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.

Today I'll be joined on the campaign trail by Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop to meet some of the young people that are benefiting from the SNP's investment in education in this constituency.

A few weeks ago we visited Glasgow North College and today we'll be heading to John Wheatley's campus. These colleges have received record levels of investment from the SNP and with help from the Scottish Government are providing extra places to support people during the recession.

That's the kind of investment we need to bring opportunities to this constituency, to ensure a bright future for our young people.

There's another sign of the SNP's commitment to Glasgow today. In the face of serious budget cuts from Labour in London the SNP has had to take some tough decisions over how we allocate Scotland's budget. I'm proud of the fact that the SNP's priorities are health, education and making our communities safer.

Today Nicola Sturgeon will announce the next step toward a new £840 million Southern General - built entirely with public funds - as the contracts are signed. Alongside it will be a new children's hospital for Glasgow.

That's the kind of investment I want to see across the city - and that's the kind of investment the SNP will continue to put into Glasgow.

David Doherty

Over the last few years, Glasgow has become one of the Greenest parts of Scotland, and Glasgow North East is no exception.

Glaswegians are represented at Holyrood by Patrick Harvie MSP, and the city has returned five Green Councillors, one of whom, my colleague Kieran Wild, represents Canal Ward here in Glasgow North East.

In the Euro-elections Greens came third in Glasgow North East, ahead of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, although it'd be dishonest to put out a leaflet saying "only Greens can win here".

It's not hard to see why Glasgow's increasingly backing the Greens. Our major campaign at Holyrood over the last year has been to try and insulate all of Scotland's homes, cutting bills, boosting jobs, tackling fuel poverty and beating climate change all in one go. As a volunteer I'm on the board of a building renovation charity, and I'm only too aware of the problems in this area across the city. The parties who've governed Glasgow, locally and nationally, should be ashamed of themselves for letting people continue to suffer in damp, unhealthy and expensive homes.

What's more, Labour and the SNP may be bickering about GARL, but only the Greens have consistently opposed the M74 currently being bulldozed through the South East of the City. We could have had Crossrail built by now for a fraction of the cost of this motorway, but sadly only Greens continue to make that case.

Finally, Glasgow's economy has taken a serious blow from the credit crunch and the recession, and people are understandably reluctant to back any of the parties who celebrated the risk-takers, backed the deregulators and handed over vast amounts of our money to the bankers. Pretending it all never happened isn't a long-term response to this crisis, nor is it a sustainable one.

So, let me be the first candidate to admit this election isn't in the bag for us, but we are part of the world's fastest-growing political movement, and we have confounded the naysayers who said we couldn't get MSPs, MEPs or Councillors elected. Sometime soon I'm confident we'll make that Westminster breakthrough, and people in Glasgow North East can be the first to deliver that radical change.

Willie Bain

I was delighted to welcome the Prime Minister to the constituency this afternoon.

Gordon and I visited North Glasgow College – a shining example of what Labour has achieved in the area. I’m proud that Gordon was so impressed with the building, and the opportunities that the college provides for people in my area.

It’s sad that some people want to talk down our community, but I think the college is a great example of the changes I have seen in my life here.

I’ve put some more information up on my website. The man in the photo with the Prime Minister is my dad (also Willie). He was really proud to meet the Prime Minister.

It was taken inside our campaign centre, which is in the old college building over the road from the new one. The building was opened by a former in 1909 by Earl Rosebery who was Prime Minister in the 1890s. The foyer contains a moving and sobering war memorial to the college students who died in the First World War.

So, after Days 1 and 2 of this endeavour, that's where we are:

Three posts by Willie Bain, one of which laden with ambiguous comments and innuendo which I can't properly brand as either positive or negative, one of which was basically a hatchet job, and the third fairly anodyne;

Two posts by David Kerr, one of which offering a point/counterpoint format - a negative point balanced by a contrasting positive one - followed by one that was mostly good news;

One post by Ruth Davidson, which was generally positive with the occasional dig;

One post by Eileen Baxendale, which was broadly positive with slightly more frequent digs;

And one rather bleak post by David Doherty, which seemed to identify a number of key problems but, to me, looked light on actual solutions.

Let's now see what the weekend brings...

A Green Gain

As of yesterday, Councillor Debra Storr (one of the Aberdeenshire Four) followed in Martin Ford's footsteps and joined the Greens, though she'll remain in the Democratic Independent Group on the Council. Even so, that gives Aberdeenshire two Green Councillors out of ten nationwide, making Aberdeenshire something of a Green growth area, even if the new officials are coming from defections.

The thing that the LibDems need to be worried about is this: while it is obviously the Trump affair - and the LibDem group's handling of internal dissent surrounding the future of the Menie Estate (which is why they have only themselves to blame for this) - that triggered the move, this may well alert present LibDem supporters to the possibility that the party is less in tune with their values than they thought, and that the Greens are a more logical destination. Certainly as the LibDems professionalise and try to look more like a mainstream party of potential power than a pressure group for - and I apologise for the old stereotype here - beardy sandal-wearers, those who would be more inclined to tell Donald Trump where to stick his golf course, regardless of their facial hair situation or choice of footwear, will have difficulty recognising the LibDems at this time and may feel less than comfortable in the party.

And this is what they want to watch out for: although we can't work out how people might have voted under other circumstances, looking at the swing to the SNP in Dundee East in 2003, where there was neither a strong independent nor an SSP candidate, then looking at the swings against the SNP in the Regional Vote that year, it's not too great a leap to suggest that the SSP under Tommy Sheridan cost John Swinney's SNP about a quarter of the support it could otherwise have got.

If the Greens manage to take a quarter of potential LibDem support in Scotland, the party has a problem next year. For quickness, i've resorted to using Electoral Calculus, but using their present predictions for the Scottish consituencies, and subtracting a quarter of the projected LibDem vote, we see that potential LibDem gain Aberdeen South would stay Labour, while four other seats that the LibDems would hold on the present projection would be lost: West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine and Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk to the Tories, and Gordon and Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey to the SNP. So the defection of two Aberdeenshire Councillors has the potential - and I emphasise that potential is all it is - cost the LibDems their two Aberdeenshire MPs.

Then there's 2011. James is excited at the prospect of the North East once again sending a Green to Holyrood. That might not be the only one. If nothing else were to change, other than a loss of a quarter of the LibDem Regional Vote to the Greens (a Scotland-wide swing of approximately 2.8%), the results for the LibDems would be a major problem.

Firstly, that Green North East MSP would be a reality, at the expense of Alison McInnes, the LibDem North East MSP. But the Greens would end up with one MSP in each region, with differing results:

In East Central Scotland, it would be a straight swap: Hugh O'Donnell out, a Green in.

In Glasgow, the LibDem fall in support would cost Robert Brown his seat, which would be gained by the SNP.

The Greens would cost Labour a seat in the Highlands and Islands, as they did in 2003.

Lothian would, unless the Greens started to field constituency candidates in Edinburgh, be the only region to see no change on the notional figures.

the Greens would cost the Tories an MSP in Mid Scotland & Fife.

Labour would lose a notional Regional MSP in South Scotland.

And the Greens would replace Ross Finnie in West Central Scotland.

What this means is that the LibDems would have no MSPs at either Constituency or Regional level in three of the eight regions: East and West Central, and Glasgow. When you add to that to the gaps created where the LibDems have Constituency MSPs but no Regional ones (the Highlands, Lothian, Mid Scotland & Fife and the North East on this projection), that's a lot of constituencies without LibDem representation: in 54 out of 73 notional Constituencies, a LibDem vote will not result in any kind of LibDem MSP - that's exactly three times the number of Constituencies on the new boundaries that won't have access to a Liberal Democrat at Holyrood. By contrast, the Greens, on this supposition, would achieve Scotland-wide representation with one MSP in every Region, despite winning fewer votes and seats than the LibDems. That must surely be a galling notion for the Liberal Democrats.

What I'm trying to say is that a couple of Aberdeenshire Councillors falling out with the LibDems over Donald Trump might not seem like a big deal, but if the idea that current LibDem supporters have, as Martin Ford and Debra Storr feel, a more comfortable home in the Green Party, then the impact they have on the LibDems (and other parties) certainly is a big deal. And the onus is on the LibDems to find a way of keeping the supporters they currently have - before they too are lost.

UPDATE The above figures were worked out on a straight LD-Green swing of 2.8%. Ironically, one quarter of the present LibDem support in each individual region would be better for them, even though some of the swings would be far heavier. On a more localised analysis, Messrs, O'Donnell, Brown and Finnie would retain their seats, and the Greens would not gain an MSP in those regions, but they would cost Labour an MSP in both the Highlands and South Scotland, the Tories an MSP in Mid Scotland & Fife and would eject Alison McInnes. So the biggest casualties of a Green resurgence from LibDem votes could end up being Labour. But the threat to the LibDems is still very real, especially in the upcoming FPP election, even if the Greens aren't the winners from that!

Man of principle?

I recently quoted from the text fo the agreement between the SNP and Greens after the Budget debate. Let me do so again:

Therefore, the Scottish Green Party is committed to supporting the Scottish National Party in the votes for First Minister and Ministerial appointments. For their part, the Scottish National Party agrees to consult Scottish Green Party MSPs in advance regarding the broad shape of each year’s legislative and policy programme (together with any key measures announced in-year), and in relation to the substance of the budget process. The Scottish National Party also agrees to nominate a Green Party MSP as Convenor of a subject committee for which the SNP is the nominating Party.

Yesterday, Green MSPs voted to abstain on the motion appointing Keith Brown, Roseanna Cunningham and Alex Neil as Junior Ministers. Abstaining is not supporting.

That means the deal is off.

And as the SNP should be the nominating party for the Convenership of the Transport, Infrastructure & Climate Change Committee, that makes Patrick Harvie's continued presence in the chair illegitimate: it is based on an agreement that no longer stands. He has disregarded an agreement but continues to hold an office based on the outcome of that agreement.

Now, Patrick Harvie has, in recent weeks, been lauded as a man of principle. I've been happy to go along with that.

Therefore, as a man of principle, Patrick Harvie has only one course of action available to him. Failure to take that course would expose him as a charlatan.

He must resign as Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

LIT put to bed

(A gold star to the first person to state why I might find that title mildly amusing)

Sadly, it seems as though the Local Income Tax will not be coming forward to Holyrood until 2011 at the earliest. It goes without saying that I am disappointed: out of the three models of local taxation put forward in the Chamber - LIT, LVT and the status quo Council Tax - LIT is by far and away the fairest as it's based on the money that householders have coming into their income. Land Value Tax is self-explanatory, and Council Tax is based on what your house would have been worth in 1991. Neither of those are progressive: you cannot 'spend' the land on which your house is built, so its value is absolutely meaningless as to whether or not you can afford the tax, and you cannot 'spend' the bricks and mortar either - especially not at 1991 prices. LIT, meanwhile, is based on actual, genuine, cash money.

Unfortunately, Labour and the Tories take the view that because you took out a financially crippling mortgage a while back to buy a nice pad, you must be minted - don't they know there's a credit crunch on these days? - while the Greens appear to be of the opinion that living in prime development land equals rolling in cash. Neither is the case.

Still, we are where we are. The three parties have made it abundantly clear - and did so in a Parliamentary debate, remember - that LIT is not their thing and as such, any Bill introducing it would die. Questions you know the answer to, you need not ask.

And even if it could get through, would it be right? The SNP thought that there would be money in the bank. And they weren't the only ones: no sane party with a prospect of forming a government wants to issue unrealistic promises, and that's partly why all the parties talk to the Civil Service in advance of an election, so that the administrators can work out how their policies can be implemented. If the SNP policy were unworkable, civil servants would have raised a red flag, and the party would have been absolutely stark raving bonkers to proceed under those circumstances. Therefore, we can assume that the folk at Victoria Quay also thought that LIT was do-able.

What no one was banking on was the elimination of £500 million from Holyrood's expected annual budget. Nor did people expect that a pot of money geared towards supporting ratepayers would stop supporting them in Scotland simply because the devolved Parliament decided that the rates should be paid differently. Frankly, I thought that was the point of devolution, that Scotland could employ its own policies, but he who pays the piper calls the tune, and Scotland, alas, is saddled with the Barnett formula: the political equivalent of a chauvinistic husband giving his downtrodden wife a tenner and telling her to get something nice. In this case, hubby decided that he didn't want LIT, so wifey couldn't have it either.

So the Government has neither the financial nor the political capital to deliver LIT at this time. And the Opposition have raised their hackles, as one would expect. Labour's reaction is borderline absurd: Julie sums up the madness more elegantly than I'm capable of doing.

But the LibDem reaction sticks in my craw. Firstly, they're blaming "SNP intransigence" over the point of variability. Now, they can't credibly claim that as even with LibDem support, the Bill is dead, and John Swinney went out of his way to hold out hope of LibDem support. That suggests that at least some form of variability would have ended up in the Bill: if it could have passed just on the basis of SNP/LibDem co-operation, the LibDems would have had serious questions to answer had they not backed the general principles of the Bill, while the SNP would have had to support the introduction of variability in either Stage 2 or 3. They'd also have had to take it to the Finance Committee rather than Local Government and Transport: an SNP casting vote would have advanced the Bill in the former; a Labour casting vote would have killed it in the latter. But my point is that the final Act would surely have set up a more localised tax than would have been proposed in the draft Bill. And in fairness to the LibDems, it would have been all the better for it.

Further, LibDem accusations of cowardice don't wash either. No party in its right mind would ditch their headline policy unless it proved absolutely necessary. But seeing as it wouldn't have been viable to set up the LIT now, John Swinney made the tough call and put the plans on hold. The cowardly thing to do would have been to keep stringing Parliament and taxpayers along, asserting that we'll get round to it at some point during the four-year term. John Swinney bit the bullet and admitted that it wouldn't be possible. That takes guts.

Finally, this LibDem zeal for the policy is sudden and unexpected: where was the rush when they were in Government? It's interesting, I think, that when they're negotiating with the SNP, they'll make one outrageous demand and flounce out of the room if they don't get it, whether it's the dropped of the SNP's very reason for being, or wiping £800 million out of the money available to the Government. Yet for Labour, they'll drop their pants for a cop-out on tuition fees (righted by the SNP) and a change in the voting system to Councils. Now, having Councils more closely resemble how people voted in the last election is a big step forward, but I can't imagine many struggling householders saying, "I'm skinning myself to pay my tax bill, but at least I have a fairer Council voting system!"

So my question to the oh-so righteously indignant LibDems tonight is this: where was your stroppy, fist-banging attitude in 1999? Where was it in 2003?

If their claim to being "the only genuine LIT-supporting party in Parliament" were even remotely true, this wouldn't be an issue now as the Local Income Tax would already be on the statute books, having been implemented in one of the two Partnership Agreements at the LibDems' behest.

Yet for eight years, they couldn't be arsed to press this. And now they're in Opposition, they expect us to do it for them even when it's not possible for anyone to do it at all.

They put this to one side when they were in Government. Sadly, they, like the rest of us, will just have to wait a little longer for the political and economic barriers to be cleared up. Gabriel García Márquez but it better than I did.

Él que espera lo mucho espera lo poco.

Here's £33 billion, buy yourself something nice!

At last! We have a Budget!

For the SNP, it's a relieving moment: to follow the first ever failure of a Holyrood Budget with a set of proposals which achieved almost unanimous support is surely a good thing. Moreover, once deals had clearly been achieved with the LibDems, the Government could have simply pulled the ladder up and ditched any negotiations with Labour and the Greens. Wiser heads prevailed, at least so far as discussions with Labour are concerned. That's precisely as it should be.

And it help that wind was in the SNP's sails: a poll carried out in the aftermath of the Budget suggested that the Opposition had the most to lose (denting conventional wisdom somewhat) in blocking the first attempt and that the only party leader to have a net approval rating (as opposed to a net disapproval rating) was a certain Mr. A. Salmond.

The lesson here is not to trust conventional wisdom: we've had three long, dull months of commentators waxing lyrical about the end of the honeymoon period, that the sheen was off the Government, and the failed Budget was part of that. Well, if the honeymoon is over, then so much the better for the SNP: it would show that the Government's ability to pull a rabbit out of the hat when you least expect it is, in fact, permanent. That it should be John Swinney displaying that particular skill might seem somewhat ironic to the casual observer - during his spell at the top of the Party, he was not noted for his miraculous strokes of good fortune. But his current role suits him, which helps.

Labour have something to cheer about too: 7,800 new apprenticeships. That's got to be good news, especially for the 7,800 apprentices. And it shows that engagement actually pays off: they could have stayed in a huff, but they'd have got nothing. Instead, they got something good, along with the possibility of a further 7,800 in 2010-11.

Of course, that possibility - it's not a promise by any means - is a double-edged sword: if the SNP deliver, then Labour at last have a theme (the party of apprenticeships and everything that follows from that), and will (reasonably) attempt to claim the credit for demanding it. On the other hand, the SNP will (equally reasonably) claim the credit for actually delivering them, and it binds Labour hands: how could they not support the 2010 Budget, if it includes such a long-standing policy? Conversely, if the policy isn't in next year, then Labour have a clear attack point and total justification for opposing the Budget outright on account of their aims being known for twelve whole months, but Parliamentary arithmetic could see them being sidestepped anyway, and even if the Budget (No. 4) Bill falls, this week suggests that public opinion could easily punish them instead of the Government.

And indeed, they have been just as fortunate as the SNP with events: had the process collapsed, it's clear that they would have lost out, and could have been bounced into an election they didn't want with grim results. Further, there is gossip suggesting that Labour were trying to assemble a new coalition involving the LibDems and the Greens (which couldn't have worked, for reasons I'll explain later) and we know that George Foulkes was trying to use this as an excuse to oust the Government and abandon the Budget process altogether, giving credence to my initial suspicion that the main point of contention regarding the Budget was that it was being delivered by John Swinney rather than Andy Kerr. Luckily for them, wiser heads prevailed, who realised that the contents of a Budget are more important than who presents it. All the same, a clip on tonight's Reporting Scotland showed the applause that Labour offered when the Budget passed: it was half-hearted at best. Now, no one likes being in Opposition, but you'd think that having voted for the thing, and having secured those apprenticeships, a couple of the frontbenchers would have at least smiled. Sadly, one of them - I think it was John Park but I couldn't tell - applauded whilst apparently attempting to hide under his desk. Things like that are just plain embarrassing: they can do better than that.

And what of the Tories? Well, we knew they were more likely than not to support the Budget, and it's not a stretch to imagine that they'll be willing to back the 2010 Budget as well (the 2011 Budget, which will follow a CSR, is another matter entirely). But Annabel Goldie's approach at FMQs was telling:

For Iain Gray and the Scottish Labour Party, this was not about addressing Labour's recession; instead, it was about trying to stage some bloodless debating chamber coup to ensconce him as First Minister. Let me make it clear: I shall have no truck with such antics.

This begs the question: if it had come down to a confidence vote, would the Tories have voted with the Government? Because it looks like it there! Is this the start of a verbal confidence-and-supply agreement? Not necessarily:

Does the First Minister agree that Scotland is already badly served by one Labour Government and that we certainly do not need two?

That's the key: Goldie and the Tories have one eye on Westminster. Whether the General Election is this Spring or next year, we are heading into the concluding part of a Westminster election cycle, in which Labour and the Tories are in a state of direct clash over which one forms the UK Government. Their campaign to eject Labour from office at Westminster would become far more difficult and far less effective were the Scottish Tories to install Labour in office at Holyrood. The SNP and Tories don't necessarily share common policies and viewpoints, but they do share a common adversary.

And what of the LibDems? I wasn't a fan of the tax cut proposal - the talk of a stimulus is all well and good, but with people losing their jobs, there's less taxable income anyway so less money coming into public coffers and more people needing help that only the Government can afford to provide: while tax cuts might provide a stimulus for those who are just about holding on, keeping tax levels as they are maintains the present safety net for those who need it - but I'm intrigued by what the LibDems have got in this negotiation.

Firstly, the letter to the Calman Commission. Now, a letter from the Government stating the obvious (of course the Government wants borrowing powers - it wants every power the UK Government has!) might not seem like much, but as the SNP have been aloof from the Commission (no wonder really, when its terms of reference effectively freeze a pro-independence party out anyway), getting the Government to engage with it on any level is something of a coup. Of course, the LibDems haven't been getting the best return from Calman, so this might steer things in their direction or might serve to alienate them further. Even that may not be a bad thing: it would provide them with an out when the signposts suggest that Calman might not be all that close to what the LibDems want to see. Obviously, there's the joke that the LibDem position has shifted for the price of a stamp, but that stamp yet turn out to be significant.

The public spending review is another odd beast, and may prove less fruitful for the LibDems. Firstly, it sounds like it's going to be little more than a consultation with shoulder-pads, and consultations don't always deliver. And if it's carried out by the Parliament (which would make more sense) the likely people to do so would be the Finance Committee, where an SNP/Tory combination could freeze the LibDems out. So the LibDems should prepare for disappointment here. Even though they both want to travel in the same direction - a reduction in spending - the SNP are aiming for efficiency savings in preparation for a cut in the available budget, while the LibDems are looking for tax cuts.

Further, the LibDems want greater roles for the Council of Economic Advisers (an SNP creation) and Financial Services Advisory Board (of which SNP Ministers have been members for eighteen months), the latter with a view to protecting jobs in the financial services sector - an issue where the two parties are once again on the same page.

Lastly, the LibDems want to see movement on the Scottish Futures Trust - a brainchild of the SNP. That isn't surprising either, since neither party is all too enamoured with PPP/PFI.

That's the thing with the LibDems: there's a massive overlap between what they want and what the SNP want, but the two parties just don't seem to be speaking the same language at all. Are the underlying beliefs of the two parties so irreconcilable, or is it just a holdover from the Lab/LibDem Coalition?

Finally, the Greens. I feel sad for them, in a way, in that they seemed to be the fairest of the parties to vote against the Budget, while a lot of the vitriol that went their way following last week's vote was unfair: they were one of three parties to oppose the Budget, yet seemed to get a larger share of the blame despite being genuinely unhappy with proposals after negotiation when the LibDems didn't even try to get a viable deal and Labour were, it seems, looking at opportunities for intrigue. A deal with them would have made the most sense.

Instead, they got less Government funding for insulation - £15 million instead of £22 million - and more from other sources - £15 million instead of £11 million - though not enough to make the £33 million the Greens wanted. Moreover, if the Government finds at least £11 million of that extra outside cash, then Patrick Harvie will be made to look like a total chump: John Swinney said they'd get it and if he's proven right, then Harvie's opposition to the last Budget was for nothing. And even if Harvie is proven right instead, then there would still have been more money available to the project in the first version of the Budget, so his vindication would cost the scheme £7 million. I think Patrick Harvie realised this at the end, and the two Greens looked like rather forlorn figures today.

Moreover, the rumours are that Labour was making doe eyes at them. Now, it would be strange for the Greens to want to back a pro-Nuclear, pro-Trident, anti-Referendum party, when they are the exact inverse of all of those things and so are the SNP but there's something more practical standing in the way - the Greens' signature against this:

Therefore, the Scottish Green Party is committed to supporting the Scottish National Party in the votes for First Minister and Ministerial appointments. For their part, the Scottish National Party agrees to consult Scottish Green Party MSPs in advance regarding the broad shape of each year’s legislative and policy programme (together with any key measures announced in-year), and in relation to the substance of the budget process. The Scottish National Party also agrees to nominate a Green Party MSP as Convenor of a subject committee for which the SNP is the nominating Party.

Now, the SNP met their end of the deal: they consulted with the Greens - "consult" does not mean "agree with", remember - and Patrick Harvie is still Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, so with the letter of the agreement still in play, for the Greens to vote to replace Alex Salmond with Iain Gray and SNP Ministers with Labour and LibDem Ministers before an election would be a massive tactical error: they would be the first party in Holyrood to tear up an agreement. They would be going back on their word and Iain Gray would be wise to bear that in mind. If he does, they're totally frozen out: the Scottish LibDems were frozen out in 2007 through intransigence, the Welsh LibDems through indecision. The Greens would be the first to be isolated for not sticking to an agreement and while that might not have any impact outwith the Holyrood village, a total lack of influence on proceedings definitely would (people did at least notice and think about the Greens this week) and it wouldn't be a positive one. If they have been thinking about a deal with Labour, they might want to think about the deal they already have with the SNP as well.

But then, the important thing tonight is that we have a Budget. And 123 MSPs (plus the three who were AWOL) have something to smile about from it.

Green Team

Via James, we learn that Eleanor Scott, former MSP for Highlands & Islands will be the Greens' Co-Convener, along with Patrick Harvie.

As I outlined previously, Scott would not have been my first choice - that would have been Maggie Chapman - and it does give off a slight 'back to the future' approach that I wouldn't expect of them. Having said that, she does provide a balance to Harvie, besides the obvious gender balance, insofar as he represents an urban part of the world, where her patch is more rural; he is in the Central Belt, whereas she was the only female candidate from outside it; he has a youth and dynamism about him, while she is an experienced campaigner in the Party. So whatever the individual merits of the female Co-Convener candidates, Scott, on reflection, balances the Green ticket well.

Nevertheless, with Patrick Harvie effectively acting as Leader, certainly in terms of his prominence at Holyrood (compared to Robin Harper, his predecessor), it will be a challenge to Scott to have an impact with the general public. Certainly Alison Johnstone was not successful at doing this, and Shiona Baird had some prominence, but was eclipsed by Robin Harper and relied on her place at Holyrood to a degree. Eleanor Scott has a tough job on her hands and the Greens may find themselves sleepwalking into a single Leader structure. That wouldn't be the worst thing for them but, like their English and Welsh colleagues, they need to reflect fully on the matter.

All change for the Greens

Patrick Harvie is the sole nominee for the Green male Co-Convener's post. This is unsurprising as he was the only credible male candidate.

But a rather garbled BBC News report appears to suggest that Alison Johnstone is bowing out as female Co-Convener, after just a year in the job. According to the story:

The second co-convenor, who must be a woman under the Green Party's rules, will be chosen from three candidates.

They are former MSP Nina Baker, Glasgow councillor Maggie Chapman and Edinburgh councillor Eleanor Scott.

Now, the credibility of this report is stretched by the fact that the reporter has mixed up the biographies: Baker is the Glasgow Councillor; Chapman is the Edinburgh Councillor; Scott is the former MSP. (UPDATE: As confirmed by James, the BBC have cleaned up the mess.)

But assuming the rest of the story is correct, then this blogger intends to make an endorsement.

Nina Baker would have been a viable candidate if Robin Harper were continuing as Male Co-Convener, or if Patrick Harvie were not standing for the role. As things stand, a win for Baker would create an all-Glasgow Leadership team. Now, if gender balance is right for the party, why should geographical balance be ignored? How comfortable would other Greens feel as the party centred on Glasgow? How can they attract more voters from other sources across Scotland, if the Party's most important people represent the same city?

Eleanor Scott has been a previous Principal Speaker of the Party, and was an MSP for four years. But her time at the front of the party was overshadowed by Robin Harper: she did not have the impact to break through and become the Greens' standard bearer. If she can break through in her own Party, how can she help the Party as a whole to break the mould?

This leaves Maggie Chapman. For me, the downside is that she is perhaps the least SNP-friendly of the candidates (Scott, whose partner is SNP MSP Rob Gibson, is obviously the most SNP-friendly). But that would enable the Greens to have a "good cop, bad cop" system, with Harvie engaging in dialogue and compromise with the SNP, while Chapman shored up the base and made sure that the Party's individual voice wasn't lost in the way that the LibDems appeared, and continue to appear, submerged by Labour. Plus which, I have had personal dealings with her. I guarantee that she is a mile smarter than anyone else you'll meet, she's sharp, she can cut through the BS and get to the heart of the matter. She will ask tough questions. She can be very vocal when she chooses to be, and she is incredibly effective. She has the strengths and the potential to be a powerful figure in the Party.

At this stage, if I were a Green, I'd be backing her.

Leadership Saturday: It's not easy being Green

Roughly twelve months ago, I forecast the likely departure of Robin Harper from the joint Convenership of the Greens, either in 2008 or 2009. I then backed this up a few weeks ago, when I argued that his departure had to take place this year. In an interview to the Herald, Robin Harper has confirmed that this will in fact be the case.

Patrick Harvie is the only logical choice, and any challenger would be strictly cosmetic: Steve Burgess is an Edinburgh Councillor like the other Co-Convener Alison Johnstone, so is not an option; Danny Alderslowe, Stuart Clay and Kieran Wild are Glasgow Councillors but as such would be overshadowed by Patrick Harvie; Martin Bartos was the Greens' standard-bearer in Glasgow Kelvin but again, would be overshadowed by Harvie. Former MSPs Chris Ballance, Mark Ballard and Mark Ruskell are former MSPs, and the loss of MSP status is most likely what led to Shiona Baird stepping down as Co-Convener last year.

But the key of Harper's exit was the call made for a single leader, a decision just taken by the Green Party of England & Wales. Now, leaving aside the fact that Alison Johnstone's apparently subterranean profile and Patrick Harvie's status as an MSP would combine to make him a de facto single Leader, it makes sense. Indeed, it makes greater sense for the Scottish Greens to go this way than it does for their colleagues South of the Border: given that the Greens managed to stay in Holyrood when other smaller parties didn't shows they have staying power and some potential. It's not inconceivable that there could at some stage be Greens in a Coalition at some point in the future, or at the very least that the Greens could bounce back an restore their status as a recognised Parliamentary group with a spot at FMQs. So it makes sense to have a single, recognisable figure at the helm. How can two Leaders be Deputy First Minister, for instance? ASWaS makes a good case for change.

But will the Scottish Greens go for it?

The Sack Race

With two Opposition parties' Leaders gone, tongues are being placed firmly in cheeks as discussions about Annabel Goldie's future begin. However, it's a mark of how well she's done that the lines are in jest: no one, save the rather unsurprising figure of Brian Monteith, is seriously suggesting that her time is up. Contrast that with eighteen months ago, when the Scottish Tories were perceived as limping towards the finish line, and Goldie would be gone almost immediately after the election. The Tories did OK - not great, but OK - and Goldie has exerted a large amount of influence in Session 3 of the Scottish Parliament. She'd be mad to go.

Besides, there's a more obvious target if you know where to look. I am looking at Robin Harper, Co-Convener of the Greens. Let me begin by asking: when was the last time you spotted Robin Harper anywhere? By contrast, haven't you noticed how often it's Patrick Harvie speaking for the Party? That's the first sign that Harper's foot is slowly coming off the pedals.

Secondly, remember who the other Co-Convener is: Alison Johnstone, Green Councillor in Edinburgh. That's an Edinburgh City Councillor and MSP for the Lothians. See the problem there? I know I do. An all-Edinburgh Leadership strikes me as being unsustainable and something has to give. No, Johnstone's ascent marks what I believe is a phased transition: the first step of Harper's withdrawl.

Shiona Baird had to go first - there's no doubt about that and her main asset was her Membership of the Scottish Parliament. When she lost that, her position was untenable, particularly when there were Green Councillors in Scotland's two largest cities who could take her place. But why did the Party go East - where Robin Harper is - rather than West - balancing the party in geography as well as in gender?

The answer is the concluding phase of Harper's departure: Patrick Harvie is the obvious choice to succeed Harper. Where is Harvie based? Glasgow. So electing a Glaswegian woman to the joint Convenership in 2007, then having her be joined by a Glaswegian man a little while later would concentrate power in Glasgow, and on the basis of a longer term than the current Edinburgh concentration will now provide. No, it was impossible to elect a Glasgow Councillor in 2007, when the Glasgow MSP is on the way in. It is, on the other hand, logical to turn to an Edinburgh Councillor, when the Edinburgh MSP is on his way out. In short, Johnstone in means Harper out, and Harvie in.

Then there's the timing? Does it really have to be this year? Yes, it does. We are entering an active phase in Scottish politics: 2009 is the year of the European election; 2010 the Westminster election (and maybe the Referendum); 2011 is the year of the next Holyrood Elections and 2012 appears to be when the local Elections will be held. Now is the time to go: before the cycle starts and just before the point in the cycle about which, to be blunt (and I apologise to MEPs who may be reading), the fewest people care. The Autumn Conference is the best time to depart for Robin Harper.

Which is why he's next to go.

On leeching off the popularity of others

I note with interest the report in The Herald that the new gender-balanced SSP Leadership team of Colin Fox (the National Convener before they changed their constitution, and former MSP for the Lothians) and Frances Curran (former MSP for the West of Scotland who didn't want to return to Holyrood anyway in 2007) have announced that they're in co-operation with the Greens. Now, had this co-operation been in place before the election, it would have yielded them a sum total of no extra seats. So you wonder what either party has to gain.

Certainly, the Green party has nothing to gain from this but baggage: the damaging split the SSP faced in 2006, the Party's playground approach to politics (think of the temper tantrum they held in the Chamber when they weren't allowe to ask a question about the G8; or Rosie Kane's slogans on her hand; or Colin Fox's mediocre singing voice); the hard-left tack that jars with the middle-class guilt which makes up the Party's appeal to soft Labour and LibDem voters.

(And, incidentally, middle-class guilt isn't necessarily a bad thing: rather, it shows that those who are doing OK for themselves - not badly, not magnificently, but OK - care about the world they live in and want to do things to make it better, even if they're not sure how to go about it. Ron Ferguson once wrote, "Three cheers for middle-class guilt" and he had a point.)

So it's no surprise that the Green Leadership is lukewarm to this idea. They say that they'll work with anyone who shares their beliefs on certain issues - hence their agreement with the SNP, though arguably, all that's delivered for them so far is a Committee Convenership - and Robin Harper says that no proposal has emanated from the Green leadership that would sanction joint working on this scale: that suggests that the SSP's claims that talks have been informal are bang on the money: in fact I'd go so far as to speculate that it consists of a drunken chat between Colin Fox and a Green activist in a pub somewhere, with the Green slurring something along the lines of "we could work together on this", only for Fox to hear that as a cast-iron agreement that the two would get hold a joint Conference later in the year - a stance which the SSP Conference has backed, though no doubt caused Greens to choke when they read the online version of the Herald.

The SSP in this case remind me of a co-worker of mine, X, who has managed to rub the entire office up the wrong way. She is desperate to be everyone's friend, but she takes the wrong approach to making that happen, and the most positive reaction that anyone seems to have towards her is to blank her, but she acts in a way where that is impossible, so disdain is the general feeling towards her. She has a real need to be validated - she burst into tears when she was told that there were no plans to have her analyse the bank statements, then took the huff when she was indeed asked, only for someone else to be asked as well - and has tried all sorts of ways of getting into various social circles.

For instance, the guys in the office tend to go to the pub for Friday lunch, and I'm told that one Friday before I worked there, as the guys headed down the stairs, she ran after them, caught them up and joined them at the pub without an invite (I waited till I was invited before I started going). I'm told the conversation was a bit unsettling, but in January, her interest revived. "I'm inviting myself!" she announced to me, having been angling for an invitation from me for weeks (it wouldn't have been forthcoming as I'm not fond of her, and anyway the guys wouldn't have forgiven me).

"Mm-hmm!" I grunted, while frantically typing an e-mail to the supervisor who was the ringleader of the trip, with the subject heading "AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Fortunately she proceeded to talk herself out of the idea, and I cancelled the e-mail, and cracked a joke about our not having to pull the treehouse ladder up. She cackled maniacally, and I related the tale to the guys later, who uttered a collective "Oh, Jesus!"

So where am I going with this? Well, the SSP seem to be behaving like X. It's clear that the Greens aren't overly enthused by the idea but the SSP have got it into their heads that the Greens love the thought of being shackled to them, and that their contribution will be valued. All the while, the Greens are silently panicking, ready to make any excuse for this not to happen.

But one word of warning: recently, X has begun to realise that she is not Miss Popularity, and the reaction has not been a good one. She heard another co-worker, Y, announce she was going on a diet, and inferred from that a jibe by Y on X's weight. There followed a blazing row where X effectively pinned Y to her desk, and Y refused to continue any further conversation with her until a manager was present. We now factor into everything we do the possibility that we may offend X.

The SSP could handle a rejection of their overtures equally badly - when being liked is all you care about, to be told you aren't is undoubtedly a crushing blow - and we could have a ding-dong on our hands. Except that there's no manager present to pacify this one.

Green politics

"Very often I hear Greens say things with the best of intentions like 'our single greatest asset is that we're right' as though that will simply result in eventually everybody realising we're right. Being right isn't enough either."

Thus spake Patrick Harvie, Green MSP for Glasgow. Now he's correct to say that just saying that they are right won't win them votes, because they will say - and honestly believe - that they are right. But then, so will every other political party. Each party will, or at least should, say why they think that they are right, in an attempt to persuade people. Just being there and being right won't win votes.

But the way Patrick Harvie talks about being right, he makes it sound like an absolute. He believes the Greens are right. But I believe the SNP are right. Terry Kelly believes Labour are right, and so on. No one, therefore, has a monopoly on being right. Patrick Harvie thinking, and saying, that the Greens are right doesn't make the Greens right.

The Greens have influence, despite having only two MSPs - the Parliamentary arithmetic has seen to that. They also have a staying power, highlighted in the fact that they held on and retained Parliamentary representation when other smaller parties lost their places in Holyrood. Tommy Sheridan's Solidarity party now has just one Councillor in Glasgow. The SSP have just one Councillor in West Dunbartonshire. The two parties combined, therefore, are weaker in terms of national politics than Action to Save St. John's Hospital, who have three Councillors and a seat on the Executive in West Lothian. The SSCUP are no longer in Parliament, while of the Independents, Jean Turner's bid for re-election failed, the best that can be said of Campbell Martin's attempt for a mandate of his own was that he kept his deposit, and Margo MacDonald managed to get re-elected, but even her share of the vote went down. The Greens, however, survived, with two MSPs, and eight Councillors - five in Glasgow and three in Edinburgh. Plus which, they were formed to campaign on an issue that is gathering more and more momentum with every passing day. As a result, they should be here to stay, and they should have the potential to become a force to be reckoned with.

But they have to drop the sanctimonious, superior "We're right" tones - they did for Labour just as they did for the Greens, remember - and find a better way of putting their approach across. "Climate change is a problem, so vote for us" will never bring them support. The same message can be presented using more positive language, like "Together we can deal with climate change". Simple alterations like that make them sound less like preachers and zealots, offering sermons from lofty positions, and more like activists who want to do something positive and take some sort of useful action.

Can they rise to that challenge?

Another change in Leadership

This one is in the Green Party: Shiona Baird will no longer be one of the Greens' Co-Conveners. Alison Johnstone has been nominated in her place, pending approval by the party membership. Johnstone is one of the Greens' three Councillors in Edinburgh (where she represents the delightfully named Meadows & Morningside ward), and one of eight nationwide (the other five are in Glasgow).

This is significant, as Robin Harper remains as Co-Convener: both people at the head of the Scottish Green Party are based in Edinburgh, as Harper is the MSP for the Lothian Region. In the short term, this could potentially be disastrous - the Greens can now be accused of being an Edinburgh-led Party, with little to offer other parts of Scotland. I'm sure that the five Councillors in Glasgow would take issue with that, but the accusation can stick, just as Labour have suffered from perceptions that they are a "West of Scotland" party. Similarly, commentators a few years ago were looking on the SNP and seeing it as a party that can only play well north of the Tay - this was of course disproven in May, but it was, for a while, a real concern. And the Tories have to put up with being branded an "English" party, with no real prospects or relevance in Scotland! Whether or not any of those perceptions bear any relation to reality doesn't matter: perceptions they are, and the Greens could now have a problem with theirs.

There's merit in having both Co-Conveners as elected officials: the Greens have two prominent flag-carriers in Robin Harper and Patrick Harvie, who can use their MSP status as a vehicle for their concerns and their Party. This worked to their advantage in 2003, when Robin Harper found himself with six Green colleagues. It worked less well in 2007, when five of them lost their seats, but the deal with the SNP gave them something to cheer about. Alison Johnstone can do the same, using her new position (if she is confirmed in the post) to raise the profile of Green Councillors, creating the idea that you aren't wasting your vote by putting the 1 next to the Green candidate's name in Council elections, and highlighting what the eight they currently have are doing.

That being the case, would it have made more sense to nominate someone from among Glasgow's pool of five, rather than Edinburgh's pool of three? Well, in the short term, the answer would be yes: Nina Baker's name immediately jumps out, and I believe Martha Wardrop was the second-placed candidate in Hillhead ward - no mean feat, even if this area, with Martin Bartos coming third in Glasgow Kelvin as the Greens' first ever Holyrood Constituency candidate, is fast becoming a key power base for the party.

However, therein lies part of the rub: the Green Co-Convenership is designed to promote gender balance, not regional representation. There are two female Green Councillors in Glasgow, Baker and Wardrop, and two in Edinburgh, Johnstone and Maggie Chapman. So the size of the pool of elected officials, if you want your Conveners to be elected, is the same in both cities.

And there's the long term. Robin Harper has been nominated again for the Convenership, but realistically, how many more times will that happen? I don't think it will be that many, and until 2011, when the elections may yet change the look of the Greens once again, Harper's logical successor is indeed Patrick Harvie, Convener of the Transport Committee at Holyrood and MSP for Glasgow. Of course, I'm assuming that they won't win a Westminster or European seat in Scotland - most of the Green Westminster candidates in 2005 lost their deposits, and the number of seats available to Scotland in the European Parliament means that the required share of the vote for representation is not in the Greens' reach right now. However, the fact remains, electing Nina Baker or Martha Wardrop this year, then Patrick Harvie after that, would create an image of the Greens as a Glasgow-centric party, with Edinburgh, it's traditional base, increasingly marginalised.

Johnstone is a nomination for the long-term, and Harper? He'll definitely be out by 2009, but it depends on what the Greens' priority is: the Westminster election, or the European election. If the Greens focus on Westminster, and Brown calls an election before next Summer (so the next few weeks or next May, it's appearing), then next year will see Green Party members voting on whether or not to approve Patrick Harvie along with Alison Johnstone. If it's Europe, or if Brown delays, then 2009 presents them with their last realistic chance to make the switch, as 2010 is cutting it fine with regard to the next Holyrood elections.