The Sunday Whip

Well, it's the last Sunday Whip of the season, and what a corker!

Wednesday saw an all-day sitting for the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, and a whopping 15 amendments went to the vote.

Two MSPs missed the whole thing, namely Labour's Shadow Environment Minister Elaine Murray (Dumfries) and Constitution Minister Mike Russell (South of Scotland). Otherwise, it was the usual case of Members walking in and walking out again.

The Greens' Amendment 6 fell by 119 (everyone but the Greens) votes to two: also absent were Tory Deputy Leader Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland & Fife), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Labour's Shadow Sport Minister Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston), Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South), and Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South).

Following this, the SNP's Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) took no further part in voting, having donned his DPO's hat.

LibDem Amendment 11 fell by 104 (SNP/Lab/Tories) to 18 (LD/Greens). Murdo Fraser, Frank McAveety and Irene Oldfather took part in this one, but Margo MacDonald and Tom McCabe were still absent, and Duncan McNeil (Lab, Greenock & Inverclyde) missed the vote.

At this stage, Trish Godman withdrew from proceedings, with a view to chairing them later on.

Green Amendment 12 fell by 103 to 18, with the same party split.

Green Amendment 15 fell by 103 to 19: Duncan McNeil returned to the Chamber, but Malcolm Chisholm (Lab, Edinburgh North & Leith) voted in favour of the amendment. Green Amendment 17 fell by 120 (everyone but the Greens) to 2.

The first Government amendment, Amendment 18, passed by 79 (everyone but Labour) to 43. Government Amendment 20AA passed by 101 to 18 (LD/Greens). Labour's Shadow Education Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Labour's Shadow Health Secretary Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley) and Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Govan) missed this one as well as the others. For the record, Amendments 20A and 20, passed without dissent.

Government Amendment 23 squeaked through by 60 (SNP/Tories) to 59 (Labour/LD/Greens). Rhona Brankin had returned, the others had not, while Rhods Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands) was MIA.

Labour's Amendment 107 fell by 61 (SNP/Tories/Margo) votes to 60. Rhoda Grant had returned, and obviously Margo was present, but otherwise, the same MSPs were absent.

Green Amendment 108 fell by 118 to 3 (Greens/Margo). There were no surprises.

Labour Amendment 113 saw a tied vote, at 60 votes each, with LibDem Leader Tavish Scott choosing a bad time to nip out: Labour, the LibDems, Greens and Margo had voted in favour, but the SNP and Tories voted against, and convention dictated that DPO Trish Godman had to use her casting vote against her own party's amendment. Had Scott been in the right place at the right time, she would have been spared that.

It was at this stage that Tom McCabe finally rocked up, whereupon he helped to defeat the Government, whose Amendment 38 fell by 62 (Labour/LD/Green/Margo) to 60. Government Amendment 49 went the same way, with one odd variation: the SNP's Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) voted against the amendment, but was cancelled out by LibDem John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye & Inverness West) voting in favour.

With only two votes left, Cathy Jamieson and Nicola Sturgeon returned to the fray, but Margo MacDonald and Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw) withdrew from the Chamber. They missed the passage of Government Amendment 85 by 77 (SNP/Tories/LDs) to 45 (Labour/Greens), and the failure of Labour Amendment 2 by 62 (most of the SNP, all the LibDems and both Greens) to 60, where Labour and the Tories were joined by the SNP's Angela Constance (Livingston), but it wasn't enough.

So with all of that done, and the Business Motions waved through, the Bill was passed unanimously, as was the motion that the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill reach Stage 1 by 16 January 2010 (Shit, if we're thinking about 2010 already, I'd better start my Christmas shopping!) and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2009

Thursday, meanwhile, had an air of predictability about it, and was so predictable that Labour's Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central), Margo MacDonald, LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney), Nanette Milne (Con, North East Scotland), Peter Peacock (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston), LibDem Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) and Labour's Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts) all gave it a miss.

First came the motions on the Calman Commission: the SNP amendment fell by 72 (everyone but the SNP) to 47, while the motion itself passed by 69 (Labour, and most of the Tories and all the present LibDems) to 49 (SNP and Greens) with one abstention: Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland), who, it seems, knew what she was doing, refusing to back the following:

That the Parliament warmly welcomes the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution's report, Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century, which is based firmly on evidence and engagement with the people of Scotland; thanks the chair and members of the commission for their work on behalf of the Parliament and the UK Government; agrees that the commission's report is a comprehensive response to the remit approved by the Parliament on 6 December 2007; welcomes the establishment of the steering group to take forward the report's recommendations to strengthen devolution and enable the Parliament, through new powers and responsibilities, to serve the people of Scotland better in the United Kingdom; calls on the Scottish Government to make fully available the resources of the Scottish administration to cooperate in this respect, and calls on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to continue to allocate appropriate resources and funding to enable the Parliament to support the work of the steering group and consider the recommendations that apply to the Parliament.

Following that, the SPPA Committee's motion passed without dissent:

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's 7th Report 2009 (Session 3), Hybrid Bills (SP Paper 299), and agrees that changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 26 June 2009.

Finally, the Arbitration (Scotland) Bill was waved through Stage 1, and LCM regarding the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill was passed unanimously, and MSPs were happy to approve a minor SNP Committee reshuffle.

And that's it now, until September. Through the week, I'll have the Summer Whip on line.

Competition time

Via Jonathan Calder, I'm drawing your attention to the quiz he's running over at Liberal England, where two copies of Patrick Hannan's new book, A Useful Fiction: Adventures in British Democracy are up for grabs until 2359 hours on Tuesday 7 July.

For the record, I'm hoping to have a review of the book up by this Friday (my copy arrived today and I have a very small window to read and digest it for your delectation).

Also, this week, it's the last Sunday Whip of the season, and the usual Summer Whip rundown. So three things to look forward to in the coming few days, after which the blog and blogger will follow MSPs into a state of recess for a short while...

The death

Obviously, when Gordon Brown and David Cameron are paying tribute to Michael Jackson, it's time to jump on the bandwagon, with a tribute.

Of course, it'd be easy (or perhaps, not so easy) to go through his back catalogue. Instead, I thought I'd point out just how far Jacko's influence spread: not only did he have a profound impact on Western pop culture, he also found himself inspiring scenes in Tollywood films.

This is Golimar (Shoot the Bullet), from the 1985 Telegu film Donga (Thief):



Incidentally, the star of the film, Chiranjeevi, is now leader of Telegu political party Praja Rajyam, and is a member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly for the Tirupathi constituency...

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.

The Granite City Putsch

It seems that the LibDems have ousted their Leader in Aberdeen, Councillor Kate Dean. The councillor has been calling the shots since 2003 if memory serves, presiding over the budget crisis that has brought the Council and Council services to its knees.

This had to happen sooner or later: reports about Aberdeen City Council - and the LibDems in particular - were hostile, yet she was intent on carrying on. Sooner or later, something had to give, and if she didn't jump, she would have to be pushed. It appears that this is what has happened.

Her replacement is John Stewart (this has the potential to be confusing: the LibDem Group and Council Leader, and SNP Group Leader and Council Depute Leader with the same surname). There's an LGBT significance too: the Councils of two of Scotland's three largest cities are now led by openly gay men.

But the political significance takes priority: Dean also led the LD/Tory Coalition that was in charge in Aberdeen between 2003 and 2007. In a sense, her downfall represents a break with the past, and an administration that ended two years ago. As the SNP were in opposition during that time, there was an inherent tension in the Coalition: to blame past administrations for the financial difficulties plaguing the City Council since the election was to blame the Leader of their current Coalition administration.

However, there's another factor: what significance is there in the Labour Group also having a new Leader in Barney Crockett? We do have to bear in mind that the LibDems and Labour combined do have a majority on the Council. Could the LibDems join forces with the party they ousted in 2003?

What we know at this stage is that it's not business as usual in Aberdeen. What we don't know is whether this strengthens the current administration, or whether we're about to witness a change in arrangements. Time will tell, but this one is worth following.

The Sunday Whip

Well, this is an easy one, on account of the total consensus that took hold at Holyrood this week.

On Wednesday, MSPs nodded through the Business Motion, the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill was passed unchalenged and unamended, and members were all happy that Bill Aitken, Ross Finnie, David Stewart and Alasdair Morgan all be appointed trustees of the Scottish Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. Following that came a wave of SSIs:

Licensing (Mandatory Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Amendment Order 2009

Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2009

Town and Country Planning (Charges for Publication of Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Adoption (Disclosure of Information and Medical Information about Natural Parents) (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Finally, MSPs agreed that the Subordinate Legislation committee get to take a first look at the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill (lucky them) at Stage 1, with SPPA Committee also scrutinising the bill.

On Thursday, MSPs were as one that the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill should be treated as an Emergency Bill, and it whizzed through all three legislative stages (including a brief Committee of the Whole Parliament) without an amendment or challenge.

Further, the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee reported back to the Chamber and members were happy to agree to its motion:

That the Parliament agrees to the proposal for a Committee Bill, under Rule 9.15, contained in the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee's 1st Report, 2009 Review of SPCB Supported Bodies (SP Paper 266).

Finally, the following Government motion on Scotland's festivals was waved through:

That the Parliament recognises the international success of the Edinburgh festivals, along with Scotland's other festivals, their contribution to the Scottish economy, their role in the cultural life of the nation and the positive messages that they promote about Scotland's cultural confidence and ambition in this Year of Homecoming.

Has peace finally broken out? Is this the 'new politics' we've all been searching for over the course of the last decade of devolution?

I sodding well hope not, it's bloody boring.

It's not Santana, or Sultana, or Banana; it's screwed

I note that the English Premier League has opted to withdraw Setanta's rights to 46 matches for the coming season, on the grounds that the broadcaster has failed to make an expected £30million to the League before today's deadline.

This shouldn't be a surprise: Setanta couldn't find £3million for the SPL a few weeks ago, and attempts to find a buyer have failed. Significantly, we now know that the sticking point appears to have been Setanta's £50million unpaid tax bill.

Credit is due to the Premier League for acting: they had a contract with Setanta; Setanta has failed to meet its obligations in that contract by stumping up the cash; the contract was broken; the rights are no longer theirs.

It's in stark contrast to the SPL; they did the right thing in making sure that the money that would have gone to the clubs got there, even if it came from SPL funds, but we do have to ask why the SPL is sticking with this failing organisation.

It would surely be tempting for Sky to get back into the Scottish market in a serious fashion, and reports from SPL grounds on Soccer Saturday would be welcome. Similarly, the BBC might fancy getting a big draw to accompany their English Championship acquisition, particularly now Formula 1 looks like it's about to go belly up, the rights that Auntie picked up there might not be quite so useful, so the SPL might go some measure to a replacement. Sky did have the rights once upon a time, before ten of the SPL clubs took leave of their senses and decided that an SPL TV channel was the way forward. They consequently ended up with no broadcast agreement, a League at war with itself and an emergency deal with the BBC. Which is why they may also wish to step into the breach.

So what happened? Simple: Setanta had a solid subscriber base in Scotland, and with expats, thanks to the captive audience they had. If you wanted to watch an SPL match, you needed Setanta. That's how Sky did so well: they created the captive audience for the EPL which the European Commission has since objected to. They were also, in theory, a good channel for the diehard footie fans: Bundesliga, Ligue 1 and Eredivisie matches were an extra selling point. Then came the jewel in the crown: the extra EPL games.

However.

The SPL is a draw in Scotland, and among Scottish expats. However, the (ancedotal) evidence I've put together is that most of my neighbours here in England wouldn't pay to watch an SPL game. in fact, barring Old Firm matches, wouldn't overly fancy watching a game if you paid them. Now, sometimes, they're missing out on something special, but equally, there are many occasions where you can't blame them. Further, the extra games from other leagues are a point of interest, but none of those in the Setanta portfolio are particularly big draws. The one that people are especially interested in is La Liga - doubtless more so with the strength of Barcelona and the potential return of the 'Galactico' signing policy at Real Madrid - and Setanta do not have the rights to this. One also worth watching is Serie A, particularly with clubs' plans to form a Premier League-esque breakaway known as Lega Calcio Serie A. Again, this is not offered by Setanta. Then there's the Premier League package. Sadly, it's the bottom of the barrel games. On a weekend when Sky might offer Chelsea v. Liverpool and Man United v. Arsenal, Setanta might put up Portsmouth v. Sunderland. Oh dear.

In short, the package they offered didn't really do much to attract many more subscribers than they already had. And, having outbid Sky for one of the EPL packages, they paid too much for what they had.

And even if it had offered more tempting games, viewers had to put up with the crap camera work (one camera, with a lens that went unwiped when it got wet) and a signal so weak that it cut out with even the lightest of drizzle. Whatever you thought of the matches, everyone agreed that the coverage was shite.

The EPL will live without this: they'll find a buyer for the 46 matches, and despite rumblings about West Ham's new owners, the clubs aren't in any major financial trouble. Besides, there's always the Sky package.

For the SPL, however, it's panic stations: there are hints that three SPL clubs could be badly hit without a TV deal (given Kilmarnock's dire prophecies about the threat of relegation, they're probably one of them) and with no additional exposure, would be unattractive for sponsors. That's two important income streams wiped out. Never mind the armchair fan, it's the ones who go to the games who could be screwed when their club is so badly hit. If Setanta is at risk of collapse - and it's now obvious that that is the case - a new deal, any deal, needs to be worked on ASAP.

Unless, of course, someone is mad enough to buy Setanta, and take on an annual loss of £100million.

Has anyone got Mike Ashley's phone number?

The Obligatory Football Post

You thought the football season was over, didn't you? Well, it is, but preparations for the new one are underway, and we therefore await the draw for the first two Qualifying Rounds of the Champions' League and Europa League.

For Rangers, winning the League made things simple: their prize is an automatic place in the Group Stage, where the likelihood is that Pot 3 beckons for the Group Stage Draw at the end of August, unless three teams from Arsenal, Lyon, Shakhtar Donetsk, Sporting Lisbon and Panathinaikos get knocked out in the Qualifiers, in which case, Pot 2 becomes a possibility.

For Celtic, their final-day failure makes things complicated. And difficult. They enter the Third Qualifying Round, in which they will be seeded. However, as UEFA have split domestic league winners from lower-placed teams in stronger leagues, their pool of opponents is reduced to five teams: Sparta Prague, Steve "Schtop, schtop, thish acschent ish not ready yet" McClaren's Twente Entschede, Dinamo Moscow, FC Timisoara and Sivasspor.

If they are unfortunate enough to lose that tie, they go into the Europa League Play-offs, where they'll probably be seeded. If they win their Third Qualifying Round tie, however, they go into the Champions' League Play-offs, where they will not be seeded under any circumstances. They could face Arsenal or Lyon. Other possible opponents are Shakhtar, Sporting or Panathinaikos. If they get knocked out in the Third Qualifying Round, VfB Stuttgart, Fiorentina and Atletico Madrid are the next teams in line to be seeded. Celtic do not get a look-in.

If, by some miracle, they do win this tie, they'll probably go into Pot 3 for the Champions' League Group Draw. Pot 2 isn't a mathematical impossibility, but it is highly improbable, and there would have to be a lot of upsets. If they lose, they go into the draw for the Europa League Group Stage instead, and they'll probably end up in Pot 2.

For Hearts, their third place gives them a spot in the Play-off Round of the Europa League. Unfortunately for them, however, they won't be seeded, so possible opponents include, but are not limited to, UEFA Cup Runners-Up Werder Bremen, Villarreal, Zenit St. Petersburg and Benfica, but that's only the tip of the iceberg: there are 38 potential opponents, many of which we can't yet identify and won't be able to until the Qualifying Rounds start. If they get through that, they'll go into the Group Stage but they'll more than likely end up in Pot 4.

Meanwhile, Aberdeen sneaking fourth place gets them a spot in the Europa League Third Qualifying Round, where they will be seeded. They have 35 potential opponents (well, assuming that Falkirk and Motherwell a) get there and b) aren't seeded, 33) coming from countries such as Serbia, Israel, Cyprus, Sweden, Slovakia, the Republic of Ireland, Slovenia, Poland, Croatia and Finland. Assuming they win that tie, they go into the Play-off and aren't seeded. If they do get into the Groups, they too are probably going to end up in Pot 4. Mind you, an awful, awful seeding didn't pose that big a problem for them in the 2007-08 campaign under Jimmy Calderwood.

Falkirk's Cup run gets them a place in the Second Qualifying Round, where they will be seeded, with any one of 40 possible opponents coming from places such as Belarus, Bosnia, Hungary, Georgia, Moldova or Iceland. And whatever happens, they will go into the hat for the Third Qualifying Round as the draw for that tie takes place between the first and second legs of the Second Qualifying Round. Therefore, we know already that Falkirk will not be seeded in the subsequent game (assuming they get to play it). They have 39 possible opponents (they can't meet Aberdeen), including AS Roma, Hamburg, PSV Eindhoven and, closer to home, Fulham.

Meanwhile, they say that nice guys don't win football games, and perhaps Motherwell's failure to get into the Top Six last season proved that. However, they were rewarded for their pleasantness with a UEFA Fair-Play League place in the Europa League First Qualifying Round, in which they will be seeded: possible opponents come from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Albania, Kazakhtan, Armenia, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Faroe Islands, Luxembourg, Montenegro and Malta. As the draws for the First and Second Qualifying Rounds take place on the same day, we know that Motherwell will be seeded should they win, but, like Falkirk, will not be seeded for the Third Qualifying Round draw.

So for Scottish football fans, the competitive football season begins in less than two weeks, on 2 July, when Motherwell play their first match. How time flies!

PS I should, of course, credit Bert Kassies for this, who does all the hard work so schmucks like me can just take a look at it without having to work it all out for themselves...

Devine Retribution?

It looks like the Sunday Herald's penchant for political hatchet jobs has rather neatly combined with the Telegraph's political reporting being sub-contracted to the Witchfinder General, and Jim Devine, MP for Livingston, has been ditched by the Labour Party's NEC.

Devine's deviation was two-fold: firstly, he claimed two grand in expenses for re-wiring work done to his flat. The problem was, the company that billed him didn't exist. Devine claims that the electrician was to blame for this. It might have been possible to give him the benefit of the doubt were it not for another £2000 claim relating to 66 metres of shelving, bought from a local pub landlord. The shelving turned up not in Devine's office or home, but in the cellar of the aforementioned pub, and didn't resemble the specifications given for it. As Karen Dunbar used to say, "I smell shite!", and so did the NEC. Despite the support of his local party, Devine will now no longer be considered a Labour candidate for the next election.

It's fair to say that Robin Cook's successor, elected in the September 2005 By-Election, has taken this badly. He protests his innocence and asserts that he has been hung out to dry. He is therefore tempted to exact revenge on his party, and follow Ian Gibson by quitting, and forcing an early By-Election.

So, Labour faces contests in Glasgow North East, Norwich North, and potentially Livingston as well: the latter would be significant for the second By-Election in one Parliament. The last time this happened was Bootle, which saw By-Elections in May and November of 1990, when the winner of the first poll, Michael Carr, died just 57 days after his victory.

This might not be as bad for Labour as they think: I'd wager that Norwich North will go blue, if the Council elections this year are any indicator; Glasgow North East looks guaranteed Labour on paper, especially given the European election results showing Labour on top here, but still, with momentum behind the SNP (and against Labour), bearing the current mood in mind, and remembering that Glasgow East looked guaranteed Labour on paper, I wouldn't put any money anywhere near that By-Election.

Livingston, however, is a different kettle of fish. Angela Constance slashed the Labour majority in the 2005 Election, and now represents the Scottish Parliamentary constituency of the same name. On paper, given the present state of the parties, this looks to be a hotter prospect for the SNP, and if the two Scottish seats are ranked in priority order, Livingston surely comes first. Indeed, the SNP had a more successful result in that By-Election than in the Glasgow Cathcart By-Election for Holyrood which was held on the same day, and where it looed like victory was being handed to the SNP on a silver platter. That didn't happen, but the strong result at the other end of the M8 deflected concerned eyes from that outcome. Again, the two battlegrounds would be Glasgow and West Lothian, but a smart strategy would see the SNP aiming at the seat that gave them a better return the last time that happened.

So with progress in Livingston begetting further effort begetting further progress (and perhaps victory) for the SNP in Livingston, the Party would be looking East. That would allow Labour to look West, and avoid the humiliation of another possible political earthquake in Glasgow.

It would, therefore, be in Labour's interest for Devine to go now, and get all three By-Elections out of the way on the same day. Norwich North, and the likely Tory gain, would take the headlines, but Labour could spin this easily - anger at Ian Gibson, 'local' issues (these always gets mentioned even if they're not defined), the recent election results showing us that this isn't anything new. The SNP could well take Livingston (especially if, as is rumoured, Devine were to stand for re-election as an Independent), giving them their moment of glory but again, spinnable for Labour - the end of the late Robin Cook's personal vote, anger at Devine, 'local' issues, recent election results showing us that this isn't anything new. But Labour could also win Glasgow North East, giving them something to crow about there. All three parties can come away with something, and would be able to dismiss the other results. If I've called this correctly, everyone wins, except the LibDems.

So for Labour, the worst political aspect of this isn't necessarily the possible By-Election, merely the morass of sleaze that accompanies the expenses row, which has triggered this wave of votes. And strangely, if they fight on three fronts, they might have a better chance of victory on one of them than if they fight on only two.

If I were in Labour now, I'd be goading Devine into Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and timing every By-Election for the same day. It's their way out of this stramash.

Yes, I know, I'm a cynical bastard, but when an MP claims £2000 for seemingly non-existent shelves, and £2000 for a payment to a non-existent contractor, can you blame me?

The Sunday Whip

I think it's fair to say that this was a good week for the Government. It's also potentially been a bad week for the writers of the Official Report, as we shall soon see.

Anyway. Wednesday saw the uual waving through of the Business Motions, before and after Stage 3 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, and the only two absentees for whle day's proceedings were Alex Salmond, who was at Westminster, and John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), who I assume was not.

First came the amendments to the Bill, only four of which came to a vote, and all of those were from the LibDems. A number of MSPs missed all of these: specifically Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire, in the Chair), LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney) and Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland, and probably trying to stay out of things in case he was needed to Chair proceedings).

The first vote was Amendment 121, and we know for a fact that Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South) missed this one. However, this is where things get hairy: the result was announced as 77 votes in favour (everyone but Labour) to 45 against, but the Official Report only lists 44 MSPs voting against it, with Deputy Finance Spokesman David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden) missing from the list. Either this is an oversight, or Trish Godman got her sums wrong, but as she was aided by the computer systems at Holyrood, I'd suggest that someone at the Official Report goofed and Whitton's name should not have been omitted.

Next came Amendment 122, which passed by 77 (everyone but Labour) votes to 44. Nicol Stephen was in the Chamber for this, but Malcolm Chisholm (Lab, Edinburgh North & Leith) and Jamie McGrigor (Con, Highlands and Islands) were not.

Then came Amendment 124, which passed by 77 to 43 (only Labour): Messrs. Chisholm and McGrigor were back, but Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) and Labour Shadow Transport Minister Des McNulty (Clydebank & Milngavie). Amendment 125 passed by 78 to 45.

With all the amendments out of the way, the Bill passed by 121 votes to 0 with one abstention, in the form of Green Co-Convener Patrick Harvie. The absentees (other than Munro and the FM) were Robin Harper (Green, Lothian), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothian), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw) and Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland).

The day was rounded off with three SSIs passed on the nod:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Constables in Scotland: Code of Practice) Order 2009

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations: Code of Practice) (Scotland) Order 2009

Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2009

Thursday, meanwhile, saw Holyrood back to its egg-throwing best, though right now, the mood seems to be to give Labour a kicking. The absentees were: Labour Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Labour Shadow Health Secretary Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Labour Shadow Schools Minister Ken Macintosh (Eastwood), Duncan McNeil (Lab, Greenock & Inverclyde), Jhn Farquhar Munro, Housing Minister Alex Neil (Central Scotland), Cathy Peattie (Lab, Falkirk East) and Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston).

And the Tory motion on a UK Genral Election passed by 78 (SNP/Con/LD/Margo) to 42 (Labour/Green):

That the Parliament believes that the interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom would be best served by holding a general election for a new House of Commons as soon as possible.

Following this came the SNP motion on the National Waste Strategy. The Labour amendment was waved through. The Tory motion passed by 78 (SNP/Tory/LD/Margo) to 40 (Labour) with two (Green) abstentions.

The LibDem amendment fell by 64 - most of the SNP, the Tories, Greens and Margo - to 56 - Labour, the LibDems and Kenneth Gibson (SNP, Cunninghame North). After this, Margo MacDonald clearly left the Chamber, but the Greens still had an amendment and it passed by 65 - the SNP, Tories, Greens and Nicol Stephen - to 54 - Labour and the remaining LibDems.

Following that, the amended motion passed by 79 (everyone but Labour) to 1 - Charlie Gordon (Lab, Glasgow Cathcart) with 39 abstentions - the rest of the Labour Group:

That the Parliament notes Scotland's achievement of its share of the 2010 landfill diversion target 18 months early; encourages the Scottish Government to continue working with stakeholders to further improve recycling rates, increase reuse and do more on waste prevention; recognises however that the provisions of the EU-revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) are required to be transposed into Scots law by 12 December 2010; notes the forthcoming consultation on the new National Waste Management Plan; believes that the new plan must fully address the waste hierarchy of prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal, as described in the National Waste Plan 2003 and the revised EU framework directive; notes that, in order to meet medium and long-term targets, the issue of developing further waste infrastructure must be tackled, as a priority, to better address the management, reduction, recycling and disposal of commercial and industrial waste in Scotland, and believes that, given the good progress being made so far, there should be no necessity for any large-scale waste-to-energy plants to be built in Scotland and that reuse, reducing waste creation and recycling are the best way forward.

Three Myths About PR

With the European election result, and Labour's reaction to it, having re-opened the debate about PR, it's time to take a look at three particular myths which are going around.

Myth One: PR lets the BNP in.

This is being peddled by David Cameron, among others. And we do have to concede that PR voting systems saw the election of two BNP MEPs last week and one BNP London Assembly Member last year. However, there are more than fifty BNP Councillors in England, all of whom were elected by first past the post. Fifty under FPP, versus three under PR.

Further, there have been thirteen elections carried out in mainland GB under PR systems since 1999. The 1999 elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and European Parliament saw no successful BNP candidates. Three elections, no BNP members let in. The 2000 London elections saw no BNP candidate elected. That's four.

The 2003 elections in Scotland and Wales saw no BNP candidates winning a seat. That's six, while elections to the London Assembly and European Parliament saw no BNP candidates elected. That's eight.

Further, there were Scottish Parliamentary, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Local elections taking place under PR in 2007, after which there were no BNP MSPs, AMs or Scottish Councillors. That's eleven separate elections taking place without BNP success.

But because the last two have seen BNP candidates elected, the history of those eleven votes has been forgotten and PR is now seen as an instant meal ticket for the BNP. It shouldn't be.

Myth Two: PR drives down turnout.

This is a favourite of Tom Harris, and of course, the fact that the advent of PR elections co-incides with a huge slump in turnout anyway is ignored. Consider this: turnout for a Westminster election between 1945 and 1979 hovered in the 70-80% bracket. In more recent years, from 1997 onwards, it's been in the 50-60% section.

And even in 1979, the turnout at the European Election that June - held under a First Past the Post system - was less than half what it had been at the General Election a month earlier. it was also the worst turnout in the EEC, most of which was using PR. This was true again in 1984 and 1989.

Indeed, turnout in 2004 was the highest ever for a European election - under PR, though helped with the all-postal ballots in several regions. But even the 2009 contest, at a time when people were hacked off with politicians anyway, turnout was still higher than in 1979 and 1984. And even barring the abysmal 1999 turnout, participation levels are at around the same level as you'd expect for a local election. This suggests that it's not PR that's turning voters off, but something else.

Sorry, Tom, you're still patronising people, and you're talking shite.

Myth Three: PR allows losers to win seats through the back door.

This is a favourite Labour chestnut, and refers to the AMS system at Holyrood, which permits candidates who come second or lower to stand, and win, on their party's Regional List.

Of course, it ignores the "exceptional circumstances" which saw a number of their List candidates standing in constituencies as well in 2003, but, hey, that's beside the point.

In any case, while it may seem exasperating that someone who barely scraped a deposit can get in on a List (and I admit to being uncomfortable at MSPs defending a Constituency and being on the list as well), the fact is they secured the support of their party for the region, and that party earned a seat there, just as Constituency candidates (with the exceptions of Dennis Canavan and Jean Turner) gained the backing of a party and won their respective seat.

Besides, there's an aspect of FPTP that's also flawed: First Past the Post is exactly that, and it's all about where you come, not how much support you get. A candidate can win fair and square under FPTP despite not having the full and total backing of voters, and it's common for more people to vote against the winning candidate than for them. But because they are the least unpopular person standing, or because opposition to them is split two or more ways, in they get. Indeed, at the last election, the voters of Edinburgh South cast their ballots by a ratio of two to one against Nigel Griffiths, but still he was re-elected, not because he was well-liked, but because Marilyne MacLaren got 405 fewer votes than he did. And their are MPs and Constituency MSPs and AMs of all parties across the UK who owe their position not to their popularity, but to the fragmented nature of the opposition they faced. People have been sneaking in under FPTP for years, and that's with a Parliament that doesn't represent the actual balance of public opinion in the UK. PR may have its disadvantages in that regard, but so does FPTP, and PR delivers fairer overall results.

So PR has delievered BNP representatives on only two occasions out of a possible thirteen, while the BNP has First Past the Post Councillors dotted around England; turnout for European Elections is crap whatever the system, and our highest Euro turnout has been under PR; and whatever system is used, some Parliamentarians will always find a way to sneak in to office without getting a ringing electoral endorsement.

So all the supposed flaws about PR aren't quite as serious as some suggest, and they're present in the status quo, which has one flaw which PR doesn't: hugely distorted national results.

It's time to make the change.

Tom Harris MP: Dangerous when Cornered?

Tom Harris, Scottish Labour MP for Blogosphere North West - sorry, Glasgow South - has made an intervention in the latest round of Brown-bashing, voicing his opinion that it's time to go, and suggesting that there's a reason why David Cameron is supporting Gordon Brown's leadership.

Now, Anseo has congratulated him for putting his head above the parapet, but like Jeff, I reckon that there's more going on than meets the eye. Like, the breakdown of how votes were cast in Glasgow South.

For the record, the SNP polled 5,192 to Labour's 4,451.

Perhaps Gordon Brown is doomed: not because of Tom's intervention, but because he's seen the numbers. Perhaps, just perhaps, other MPs will be looking at their own numbers, just as he has. Perhaps they'll reach the same conclusion.

Perhaps this is a case of "enlightened self-interest" on Tom's part: he argues that Brown should go so that the Party can win. And, by a rather happy co-incidence if you're the MP for Glasgow South, Tom himself would more than likely get back in as well if that happens.

As the dust settles

The results in Scotland:

SNP 321,007 - 29.06% and 2 seats
Labour 229,853 - 20.81% and 2 seats
Conservatives 185,794 - 16.82% and 1 seat
Liberal Democrats 127,038 - 11.50% and 1 seat
Greens 80,442 - 7.28%
UKIP 57,788 - 5.23%
Others 102,590

As we can see, the SNP have come first in this election, for only the second time in the party's history and the first time in an election where Scotland is one part of a UK-wide (and, in this case, EU-wide) poll. The party hasn't succeeded in gaining a third seat, but this result is symbolic: this shows that 2007 was neither a flash in the pan nor an aberration: there is now a real trend showing the SNP in pole position. This is augmented by the fact that the SNP came first in 22 of the 32 local Councils. This might not be the biggest vote share in SNP history (in fact, this result is the fifth best in the party's history, behind the 2007 Constituency result, the 1994 European election, the 2007 Regional result and the October 1974 election), but it's loaded with symbolism.

It's loaded with symbolism for Labour as well. This result is the worst for decades and the party leads in only three Council areas: Glasgow, North Lanarkshire (which both have Labour majorities in control at council level) and Fife (Gordon Brown's backyard). In Edinburgh, Labour are third. That's alarming for Alistair Darling and for Sarh Boyack. In East Renfrewshire - Jim Murphy's stomping ground - Labour are third. In East Lothian - Iain Gray's backyard - Labour are second. Tom Harris, the blogging MP, will be particularly perturbed: in Glasgow South, his Constituency, the SNP came first. Labour came third in South Ayrshire and second in East Ayrshire - bad news for Cathy Jamieson. In South Lanarkshire, Midlothian, they came second - bad news for Andy Kerr and Rhona Brankin. The one saving grace for Iain Gray's leadership - now that he's flunked his first nationwide electoral test - is that he's been overshadowed by Labour at Westminster so much, all of the blame lands at Gordon Brown's door. This would not be a good time for Gray to emerge from his den of insignificance.

For the Tories, it was another case of holding the line: Annabel Goldie seems rather good at this, but an actual advance seems a distant prospect. Do the Tories have anyone among them who could make it happen? Right now, it looks like Tory progress at the General Election in Scotland will come solely on the back of a Labour collapse. For the Government-in-waiting, that's not good enough and the Conservatives UK-wide have to do more than simply wait their turn.

For the LibDems, meanwhile, the result is indifferent: they've held on but they're missing opportunities to capitalise on Labour misfortune. If Labour do somehow manage to recover, the LibDems have a problem. Right now, their strong position at Westminster hinges on Labour being crap. Again, that's not good enough.

For the Greens, the result is neither a cause for despondency nor a cause for celebration. Compared with the knockback the party got in 2007, to make progress now is an excellent result and Patrick Harvie must be happy. However, there is one fly in the ointment: like in 2007, polls in the run-up to the election showed a major Green advance and real progress in terms of seats, only for that not to materialise at the ballot box. Greens can be happy at the result, but may wish to be wary at this tendency towards false dawns. Nevertheless, third place in Glasgow, 5-6% in the North East, 7% in Highland among other results shows the possibility of expanded Green representation once again. They are not there yet, but these results tell a broadly positive story and Patrick Harvie should be chuffed. All they need to do now is get beyond their False Dawn Syndrome.

Now a few wider points:

We really, really need to find a way of dealing with the BNP. Ignoring them hasn't worked. Going around telling people they're nasty hasn't worked. The reality is they've gone into places telling the (straight white) voters that the other parties have been ignoring them and they'll be their voice. So here's a nutty idea, instead of no-platform policies and leaflets saying that the BNP will eat your baby, why don't the other parties - and here's a radical proposition - actually propose, you know, doing things for the people instead of simply defining themselves in terms of not being someone else? Why not offer a positive agenda that gets people listening instead of trying to fight hate with hate? Is that too shocking for the main parties? Instead of wringing your hands about the presence of fascists, why not sidestep them completely, engage directly with the voters and get stuff done?

Also, we are once again hearing that old chestnuts that PR lets fascists in. Tell that to the people of Padiham and Burnley West, the Lancashire County Council ward where the BNP won on the First Past the Post system. The voting system doesn't let the BNP in. The voters let the BNP in when the other parties don't do enough to work for them. End of.

For Labour, things are particularly humiliating: they are first in none of the UK nations. That's a first for Labour since WW1, and it's something that happened to the Tories in their wilderness elections: 1997 and 2001. The immediate prospects for Labour UK-wide look very bleak indeed on that basis.

Meanwhile, in England, we have the situation of a right wing body politic emerging, with a majority for the right - the Tories, UKIP and BNP among others. Wales shows a three-way dogfight between the Tories (first for the first time since universal suffrage), Labour (second for the first time since WW1) and Plaid. Scotland, meanwhile, shows a clear SNP-Labour faultline with advantage and momentum firmly with the SNP. That's three different nations with three very different political outlooks. Even in the 1980s, Scotland and Wales had a lot in common with each other, and with industrial Northern England. No longer.

And that, for me, is the key point: people thought that the 2007 elections - with the SNP assuming the Government of Scotland, Plaid joining the Government of Wales, and the DUP/SF Executive in Northern Ireland - was the biggest marker towards independence. Some will see the SNP's victory this week in that light. For me, it's the fact that the three mainland nations of the UK are now pulling in different directions. That's where we are now.

EuroLiveblog

I thought I'd join the happy few who are covering the event - so far it looks like it could just be Jeff and me exchanging updates. However, Malc has now joined us.

2:09 That's it - there's nothing more to stay up for. Labour are third behind UKIP in England and Wales. Labour are, on the whole, lucky to stay in double figures. The BNP are now Parliamentarians. I'm off to bed now, right after I've sewn a pink triangle onto all of my clothes.

2:05 North West: Con 3, Lab 2, UKIP 1, LD 1, BNP 1. LibDems lose a seat through the re-allocations, Labour fall back to second place, UKIP overtake the Liberal Democrats and Labour lose a seat to the BNP, with BNP Leader Nick Griffin going to the EP. As someone who voted for the Green candidate in this region, I'm physically sickened that I'm now represented by a member of the BNP. Let us only hope that the publicity vacuum that is the European Parliament as far as the UK media is concerned sees Nick Griffin fade into obscurity rather than being able to use his position as a bully pulpit. Let us also hope that any group he cobbles together collapses under the weight of its own bigotry, as happened the last time it was attempted. What a grim way to end the evening.

1:55 West Midlands: Con 2, UKIP 2, Lab 1, LD 1. The Tories lose a seat to the re-allocation, Labour lose a seat and UKIP gain one, overtaking them. Only the North West left from the overnight counts now, then Scotland in the morning...

1:37 Orkney: Labour came sixth behind the Greens and UKIP...

1:25 South East: Con 4, UKIP 2, LD 2, Green 1, Lab 1. No change in the allocation of seats, but the Greens overtake Labour here as well. Labour lose 5%, with the Greens gaining 4. Dan Hannan inadvertantly compares Gordon Brown to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I'd quite like it, personally. Now he's quoting Doctor Seuss. Nurse, the screens!

1:20 South West, presented by a Returning Officer who is clearly relishing his moment in the spotlight: Con 3, UKIP 2, LD 1. Labour wiped out in the South West. Greens overtake Labour, though that doesn't win them a seat. Mebyon Kernow, representing just one part of the region outpolled Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party, Bob Crow's No2EU, Declan Ganley's Libertas and the Jury Team. Ouch!

1:05 From HP:

the snp have incredibly won labour heartland in greenock by 160 votes. get it blogged!

More than happy to.

12:53 East Midlands: Con 2, Lab 1, UKIP 1, LD 1. Labour overtake UKIP, who lose a seat. The LibDems hold a seat and do not gain one, as the BBC report: the region simply loses an MEP. With the absence of Kilroy, the UKIP vote has collapsed, but the Labour vote has still fallen.

12:40 London: Con 3, Lab 2, LD 1, Green 1, UKIP 1. Labour lose a seat to the reduction in available MEPs. Only minor swings here, but the Greens do overtake UKIP. Hurrah!

12:30 Computer problems in the South East, complaints about the ballot paper... See? It's not just Scotland!

12:19 BBC GB-wide projection: Con 27%, UKIP 17% Lab 16%, LD 14%, Green 9% BNP 6%. Ay, ay, ay...

12:04 A thought occurs: to the best of my knowledge, in post-war politics, perhaps even post WW1 politics, Labour have come first in at least one nation of the UK. In this election, unless there's something REALLY unexpected round the corner, Labour have come first in none of them. This is where the Tories were in 1997, but with one significant difference: Wales is now a three-way open contest with the Tories on top, England is dominated by parties of the right, and Scotland shows a clear SNP lead. Three different situations in each of the mainland UK nations, and a radically different situation in Scotland. Although the Scottish share for the SNP might not necessarily suggest a concrete vote for independence, this highlights just how much Scottish politics has decoupled from the rest of the UK. Is this, therefore, a more significant milestone on the road to the end of the Union than the outcome of the 2007 Elections? Perhaps...

11:46 Wales: Tories, Labour, Plaid, UKIP one MEP each. Tories now in first place ahead of Labour - when the hell did that happen? Labour shed 12% of the vote here, distributed relatively evenly.

11:28 Yorkshire & The Humber: BNP win a seat, at the expense of Labour. Tories 2, Labour 1, UKIP 1, LD 1, BNP 1. It would have to be Yorkshire, wouldn't it? This is the moment no one wanted, and now it's here. Let's just hope that Nik Griffin is kept out in the North West.

11:21 Dumfries & Galloway: Tories first, SNP second, Labour third.

11:14 Rumour has it SNP came first in the Glasgow South Westminster seat - Tom Harris may be just ever so slightly unsettled by that...

11:10 Seems Labour might have come fifth in the South West of England, and sixth in Cornwall behind Mebyon Kernow.

11:08 East of England: Con 3, UKIP 2, LibDem 1, Labour 1. No change in the seats, but Labour fall to fourth place from third. Labour lose 6%, Greens go up 3%, BNP go up 2%.

10:52 Oh, good. Labour have put Anne McGuire on the BBC Scotland programme. That's Anne McGuire, the sacker of disabled workers. DIE DIE DIE YOU COLD-HEARTED BITCH FROM HELL!!!!!! Sorry, I've calmed down now...

10:49 SNP take Highland, LibDems 2nd, Tories 3rd, Labour 4th.

10:46 Labour hold Glasgow by about 3%; SNP take Stirling.

10:42 European Parliament projects EPP at 263-273, Socialists at 155-165, ALDE at 78-84, Greens/EFA at 52-56, United Left and UEN at 33-37 each, Ind/Dem at 15-19 (end of group, basically) and Non-Inscrits at 83-89.

10:34 SNP appear to be ahead in Aberdeen City as well as in the Shire.

10:24 It seems official: Labour third in East Renfrewshire, behind the Tories and the SNP. SNP ahead in the popular vote by about 8%.

10:19 SNP pick up Aberdeenshire and Falkirk; Labour hang on to North Lanarkshire; Tories take South Ayrshire and also the Borders, where Labour may have come fifth. The question is, is it the Greens who have gone into the Top 4, or UKIP?

10:11 Rather naughty of the BBC to have Charlie Falconer on the panel after this morning...

9:57 SNP win in Edinburgh? Tory win in Wales? Mutterings suggest so...

9:52 Further info: SNP first place in South Lanarkshire?

9:50 Word is the SNP have come first in Renfrewshire...

9:46 Malc and Jeff have Labour leading in Fife by a gnat's bollock - SNP vote has gone up by about 8%.

9:42 First UK seats in the North East of England: looks like Lab 1, Con 1, LD 1. No change in make-up of representation, but Labour are down 9%.

9:07 France: UMP (EPP) 28 (up 11); Socialists 15 (down 13); Greens 14 (up 8); Democratic Movement 6 (down 3); Leftist parties 6 (up 3). Good for Sarko, the Greens and the Left; bad for the Socialists, Francois Bayrou and Jean-Marie Le Pen - the Non-inscrits in France go down from nine to three.

9:05 Brian Taylor predicts a first place for the SNP; Yousuf (the yapping one) reckons Labour will lose an MEP.

9:00 First results indicate major gains for the Greens, heavy losses for the Socialists.

8:30 Hungary: EuroNews has opposition Fidesz Party (EPP) on 67%, to Socialists' 19%.

8:28 I can tell you that EuroNews has Labour 12% ahead of the Nationalists. In Malta, that is.

8:25 EuroNews exit poll: Governing Spanish PSOE (Socialist) have been gubbed by the Partido Popular (EPP) - 21-22% for Zapatero's party, 43% for the Centre-Right.

8:19 EuroNews exit poll in UK puts Tories on 26%, UKIP on 18%, Labour on 16%. They don't give the LibDem share so this may suggest that they've avoided fourth place (but third to UKIP is still bad enough). LibDems may well have a problem - could the Greens have siphoned off votes from them?

8:13 As we know, the Scottish result won't be out until tomorrow morning, thanks to the Western Isles count result being delayed. However, it's already been counted (on Friday) and all that we'll be waiting for in the morning is the actual announcement. One SNP activist at the count described himself as "rather pleased".

8:09 Greens polling strongly in France, with joint lists involving Regional Parties (effectively a Greens-EFA list). Joint list apparently polling 18% in South East France, with Savoy regionalist François Alfonsi elected to the EP.

7:56 EU-wide turnout reported at 43%, down on 2004.

Anyway as things stand at 7:50, Germany has a commanding lead for the CDU/CSU, about 17 percentage points ahead of the SPD. Greens on 12%, FDP on 11%, Left Party on 7%. If this were a Bundestag election (and there's one coming up in the Autumn), we'd probably be looking at Angela Merkel getting the Coalition she wanted in 2005 - with Guido Westerwelle's Free Democrats.

The Sunday Whip

This won't take long at all, given how brief the Parliamentary week was.

The Business Motions were waved through.

Patrick Harvie's Offences (Aggravation By Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill was passed at Stage 3 without amendment and without dissent.

The Waste Batteries (Scotland) Regulations 2009 were approved without any quibbling.

Finally, Parliament was happy with the Finance Committee taking the lead in scrutinising the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill at Stage 1, with the Education, Health and Rural Affairs Committees all chipping in.

And that, really, was it. Sorted!

The Beat Goes On

Let's just go through how things have turned out so far, starting with a few key points from the English County elections:

Labour have called the shots in Lancashire for 32 years. Yesterday more than half of their Counciilors lost their seats. They have controlled Nottinghamshire for 32 years as well: a group of 35 Councillors is now just 12.

In Norfolk, Labour were the main opposition group. They are now in fourth place, behind the Greens.

The most devasting result, however, is Staffordshire: Labour have controlled the County Council since 1981, and had 32 Councillors elected in 2005. They now have just three, and are in fourth place behind UKIP.

In Doncaster, meanwhile, they lost the Mayoralty to the English Democrat candidate.

And to make matters worse, Ian Gibson is forcing a By-Election in Norwich North. Which is why Labour's fall to fourth place there should be viewed with alarm: fourth place was precidely what they got in the County wards which (either wholly or partly) comprise the seat. The Tories came first with 12,531 votes; the Greens 6,030; the LibDems 5,702 and Labour with just 5,561. If the various swings displayed this week were repeated in the upcoming By-Election, Labour would lose the seat, coming second (which is less humiliating than fourth arguably) to the Tories. The Greens would come third and the LibDems fourth. UKIP, meanwhile, would come fifth, but would save their deposit.

With the wave of Cabinet departures, Brown's reshuffle did not go as planned: Smith, Blears, Purnell, Hutton, Hoon, Paul Murphy have all gone from the Cabinet, and Caroline Flint's temper tantrum at not receiving a promotion overshadowed proceedings somewhat. Incidentally, her outburst makes Labour the first party to be accused of sexism by both genders. And in her case, it hardly sticks: Smith was fundamentally damaged by her expenses (including darling hubby's porno flick) and probably had to go; Blears too was causing more harm than good and her resignation (coupled with that "Rocking the boat" badge) was an attempt to destabilise Brown further. Yvette Cooper has been promoted and Flint's petulant strop highlighted why she was pretty much unfit for office anyway.

But even without that, eyebrows should be raised. A number of ministers chose the timing and manner of their departure (that's not a good thing) and others have apparently put their foot down and made it clear that they too would head for the exit door if asked to move departments. As a result, continued briefings that Alistair Darling would be leaving 11 Downing Street proved to be wide of the mark. Unfortunately, this wasn't idle speculation by commentators, this was fed to journalists by key sources, suggesting that circumstances forced Darling and David Miliband to remain in situ.

Then there's the role of Peers. Leaving Alan Sugar aside, the one portfolio (besides Leader of the House of Lords, which really has to be held by one of its members) that you'd expect to to be held by someone from the Lords is the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary. It's held by a Commoner, Jack Straw. However, the Attorney General continues to be a Peer, Baroness Scotland, while the new Europe Minister is Glenys Kinnock, who will gain a Peerage. The new Transport Secretary is a Peer, Lord Adonis. And the Business Secretary is still Lord Mandelson, whose department assimilates the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and who assumes the title of First Secretary of State - a de facto Deputy Prime Minister.

How strange it is that Peter Mandelson, a man trailed by what cartoonist Steve Bell described as a personal miasma of low-level sleaze should become the Willie Whitelaw of the Labour Party. But that is where we are.

But there's a wider point: as things stand, he has twenty slots to fill from the House of Commons not including those posts which attend Cabinet despite not having Cabinet rank, such as Europe Minister. He has 348 people to fill those slots. That has not proven possible.

Which, with European election results and the possible reaction to them, begs the question, is Brown not trying hard enough or are the failings that will probably lead Labour to defeat at the next election failings not exclusive to the Prime Minister but shared by the whole PLP?

Even the Peers aren't immune from criticism however: Labour has 214 members of the House of Lords, yet Brown has had to create a new peerage for his new Europe Minister. Barring the twenty two Cabinet appointments (including those posts that typically go to Peers), that makes a total of 540 possible candidates.

348 people to fill twenty Cabinet jobs. 540 potential candidates for Europe Minister. And Brown has to find a 349th person for a Cabinet post, and a 541st person for Europe.

Maybe, under those circumstances, getting rid of Gordon Brown won't solve anything for Labour.

Here Come The Drums

The polls have closed. And Gordon Brown has lost another member of the Cabinet: Jacqui Smith's intention to depart emerged two days ago; Hazel Blears quit yesterday in a departure timed to offer the most embarrassment to her now former gaffer; James Purnell has gone at a slightly less awkward time but with devastating effect.

Frankly, Jacqui Smith's been on borrowed time for ages - no one would have noticed had she just gone.

Blears, on the other hand, did herself no favours. By leaving 24 hours before polling day and just a short while before Prime Minister's Questions, her departure was nothing short of a political suicide attack, and her pledge of support for Labour in the elections rang hollow. It certainly rang hollow in her constituency, whose residents were vox popped on North West Tonight last night. Every last one of those shown on film was hostile to her.

But Purnell? Well, firstly, he was direct: he has made it clear that he wants Brown out and will no longer serve in his Government. And, compounding his claim that he has done it for the Labour Party, has waited until 2201 hours before going public, showing a little more decency than Blears and casting himself as a knight in shining red armour. And Brown is reportedly stunned by the decision.

I think everyone was expecting a Macmillan-esque Night of the Long Knives to take place on Monday, with perhaps a third of the Cabinet being sacked following an embarrassing election result, just as in 1962. Instead, those same knives have been turned the other way: members of the Cabinet are planting them in Gordon Brown's back.

Now, before it has even begun, Brown has three vacancies to fill: he can anticipate Jacqui Smith's departure, while he now has Blears and Purnell's to respond to. Further, rumours tonight indicate that David Miliband could go tomorrow. That creates four slots, and it's not clear who would fill them.

And Brown faces conflicting pressures.

Firstly, think about who has already gone: Blears and Purnell, in charge of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Work and Pensions respectively. Now, we hear how the government is "getting on with the job" in this time of recession. Yet when dole queues are growing, and more people on benefits, when people are still in need of decent housing and in the wake of local government elections to higher-tier councils and new unitary bodies such as in Cornwall, some of the two key departments at this specific moment are rudderless. Therefore, one can argue that Brown has to fill the gaps immediately.

On the other hand, this reshuffle was inevitable and it was going to be triggered by the elections, the results of which are not yet known and won't be fully known and understood until Monday. Now we may have a broad idea of how things are going and we may well know that it's bad for the Government, but it will be around 84 hours before we really know just how bad bad has got for Gordon Brown. On that basis, Monday evening is when the reshuffle ought to happen, and junior ministers will just have to pick up the slack over the weekend.

So now, we wait and see. Will the reshuffle take place on Friday or on Monday? Will Miliband quit? Just how bad have the results been for Labour? Will anyone else emerge from the woodwork? Will Gordon Brown opt to shuffle out? Will circumstances force the General Election that the SNP and Plaid wish to see?

And with him being linked to everything else, will Roberto Martinez end up in the Cabinet?

Of course not: he'll head back where he belongs, to the warm, welcoming arms of Dave Whelan and the Latics.

Well? Have you?

The deed is done.

In the somewhat understandable absence of an SNP list in the North West, I opted to vote for the Greens and hope that Peter Cranie gets in on Sunday night.

Though as I said before, I had a choice of two candidates for the County elections. Labour, whose performance at County Hall has been long-standing but less than sparkling, and whose candidate has been the sitting Councillor for four years of complete and utter anonymity; or the Tories, who, if their experience of running the Town Hall is anything to go by, would actually be worse, and whose candidate is one of the Borough Councillors who are failing to set the heather alight. As I've said before, I presently compare the choice between Labour and the Tories to being asked to choice whether I wish to be shot or stabbed. Neither appeals, and neither of the two candidates have made me sit up, take notice, and wish to give one of them at least a chance.

So there was, on reflection, only one thing I could do.

I wrote "NO THANKS" across the ballot paper.

Futile? Yes. Arsey? Yes.

But none of the options seemed palatable, so crap as it is, a spoiled paper was the way forward.

Anyway. The deed is done, there's two and a half hours for you to do the deed if you haven't already.

And once it's over, all we can do is wait until Sunday...