Filling a gap

Much has already been said about the decision of Grant Thoms not to fight the Glasgow North East By-Election, and most of it seems to revolve around his blog: the conventional wisdom has it that despite having taken the site down, others have got hold of the posts and some of the more forthright views would get repeated. Well, traduced.

By co-incidence, Stephen has read this post by Charlotte Gore about why her being a blogger would rule her out as an effective PPC.

To be honest, I disagree. After all, with only limited print resources (money, paper and ink are all finite) and no local media access (save the local papers' letters page or maybe 2 seconds on regional news), a blog does give candidates a chance to get the message out. Certainly, Kez started blogging in the run-up to the 2007 election; Christina McKelvie had a blog; Chris Stephens still blogs occasionally; Julie McAnulty's blog was doubtless a useful tool in her campaign as an Independent back in 2007; and in the run-up to this month's Euro election, Labour's Kirsty Connell was blogging fairly routinely. Meanwhile, Richard Thomson may be the SNP PPC in Gordon, but his blog goes from strength to strength. And of course, Stephen's role in the Scottish blogstablishment may never have come about had he not been the PPC in Linlithgow & East Falkirk in 2005.

So a blog has its advantages for your campaign, and as the battle in each constituency is effectively one micro-campaign in a network of such contests up and down the country, perhaps being a blogger of some note may generate a little extra media interest in the seat in question, but not enough to be a major liability: if an SNP blogger is a candidate in the next Westminster election, they'll be one of 59. Labour and the LibDems will have 631 candidates, so being a blogging PPC for one of those parties is to be a drop in the ocean. While a Tory blogging candidate will be one of 649 (albeit with 18 fighting under the UCUNF banner). 650 if they decide to challenge John Bercow. So a blog offers PPCs an advantage, gives perhaps a little extra coverage to their local campaign, but is ultimately one contest of many so there's limited scope for scrutiny.

Which brings me back to Grant.

The Glasgow North East By-Election is due very soon, and the candidates will be fighting in that and not necessarily in a Westminster General Election. Indeed the maximum number of campaigns taking place concurrently could, at the moment, be no higher than three: Glasgow NE, Norwich North, and potentially Livingston. More than 600 battles in a normal Westminster election will have been condensed and concentrated into no more than three. Where the Scottish media is concerned, no more than two of those will matter.

That changes the game.

Digging through everything Grant has ever said to anyone at any time since primary school might seem pointless when he's one of 59. When he's one of two, or on his own, everything becomes fair game for his opponents. Moves that may seem excessive or unacceptable in a General Election become par for the course in a By-Election. Conversely, things that would never have seen the light of day in a General become front page news for days in a By-Election: for example, who would have given a shit about where Margaret Curran lived had her candidacy for Glasgow East been in a General Election?

In short, Grant probably had to do what he's done. But there's something else.

I'm speculating wildly here, and I apologise profusely in advance if I am wide of the mark, but what if Grant, who has done and is continuing to do a good deal for the SNP's LGBT wing, Out for Independence (this is the primary reason that I am gutted for his withdrawl - not only would it have been a good thing for the movement for him to fly the flag, but I can tell you now that he's a sharp political operator and would once again make an A1 candidate and damn good constituency Parliamentarian), feared a Bermondsey-style campaign? As I said, things that are unacceptable in a General Election (such as homophobic abuse, like that meted out by the Liberal campaign regarding then Labour candidate Peter Tatchell) become just a tactic in a By-Election. Similarly, things that no one would surely pay all that much attention to (like, for instance, a candidate's sexuality) become massive news. Did Grant see the writing on the wall?

After all, every Party has its own heroes and villains where the LGBT community is concerned: Labour has the likes of Peter Mandelson and Stephen Twigg on one hand, and Michael McMahon and Jim Dobbin on the other; the Tories have Iain Dale and Alan Duncan on one side against Anne Widdecombe and, I daresay, a higher percentage of the membership than the leadership would like. Even the LibDems have Simon Hughes on one side, and, err, Simon Hughes' By-Election campaign team (oh, the irony in their slogan, "The Straight Choice") on the other. For the SNP, it's a case of Grant, among many others, against the likes of Brian Souter. Would that be commented on? Of course it would.

And would Grant's own life be commented on? Sadly, that too is likely. And in a city led by Stephen Purcell, it would be rank hypocrisy. But unfortunately, I still think we'd see it.

Like being a blogger, we may still at a stage where being openly gay or bisexual is fine when you're one candidate of many, but problematic when you're one of one.

And, if I'm right, I guess the challenge to that situation will have to come another time.