The Fallout

Firstly, it's only proper to congratulate Lindsay Roy on pulling out of the bag a result that no one predicted: even those who thought Labour might just do it probably never anticipated that margin of victory. It's also a lesson to campaigners of all parties - it's never over until the votes have been counted.

In terms of swing, it's just under a 5% swing to the SNP. My adjective of choice for this would be 'mediocre'. I'll come onto the other adjectives later. But in terms of Scottish seats for Westminster, the changes here would reverse Labour's By-Election losses: they would also gian East Dunbartonshire and Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey from the LibDems, but significantly, they would also gain Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale, once again making Scotland a Tory-free zone for Westminster purposes. For the SNP, the swing would be enough to gain Ochil & South Perthshire from Labour, and Argyll & Bute from the LibDems.

Let's take things a little further and apply this to the next major test of public opinion: the European elections. The swing would in fact be enough for the SNP to overtake Labour and come first, with three of Scotland's six seats. Labour would stay on two. The Tories would hold one. The LibDems would be fortunate to come fifth, behind UKIP. They might even end up behind the Greens as well. They'd come lower still were it not for the split in the Leftist parties.

In general terms, the notable part of this result was the extreme polarisation of the vote, which took place to an even stronger degree than in Glasgow East. Only Labour and the SNP kept their deposits, and between them, those two parties scored 91.6% of the vote. The question is, does this show that the next election in Scotland will be a Labour vs. SNP contest, or a Labour vs. A.N. Other contest? Have the other parties fallen away to create a new two-party structure in Scotland, or would voters happily support the Keep Clackmannanshire Smiling Party if it presented the best chance of beating them? Clearly, the SNP hope it's the former, while the others hope it's the latter. We'll find out the answer in 2010, when the Westminster election in Scotland will either be one contest, unique to Scotland but common to (nearly) all parts of it, or, in effect, 59 separate By-Elections.

Labour

Back when the SNP won the Moray By-Election, I said this:

A good night for them: to increase their poll... and share of the vote in a seat they're defending... is a stellar achievement. It's exactly the sort of momentum-building, morale-boosting victory that the party needed and hasn't had for so long...

That holds true for Labour in Glenrothes, but is enhanced: Labour have been in Government for 11 years, so to still do all those things, in the face of a far more credible challenge than anything that was thrown at Richard Lochhead in April 2006 and after having been in power since 1997? Well, you can't argue with that.

The campaign focused on two main issues: one global, one local.

The Credit Crunch concentrated minds. Perhaps a global economic crisis made people re-assess Gordon Brown and ask if this really is all that good a time to change horses. You could argue that the last people who you want to lead you out of a crisis are the same people who led you into it, but that's by the by. Labour have handled themselves well at this time and have, to a degree, stolen a march on the SNP. That was reflected in the result. But if they're seen as good hands in a crisis, does that means it's in Labour's interest for the downturn to be prolonged? Welcome to Paradoxville, population: us.

The local issue was the Homecare one. Now, it was personally sickening to see Anne McGuire, the Former Minister of State for the Destruction of Remploy, trying to re-invent herself as a champion for disabled people, but there you go. Also, while we learned that Labour opposed Fife Council on this issue, we learned nothing about a) what Labour would do if they were in charge in Fife or b) what Lindsay Roy would do about it. Nevertheless, the lamentation by Jim Sillars about the intrusion of local issues onto a By-Election campaign seemed unfair: the people of Glenrothes were electing a representative. MPs and MSPs represent their Constituents 24/7, not just in the Parliament to which they were elected, and the average Parliamentarian's caseload will include things that they need to lobby the Council about. Therefore, while the tone of Labour's campaign was wrong, the raising of local issues seems entirely legitimate.

But even if it weren't, Labour did enough to win. The night is theirs. Like it or not, that's the bottom line.

SNP

This need not have been quite so catastrophic as it appears in the press. The night did see a 13% increase in the SNP vote share and a 5% swing. But while the increase is decent, that swing is the smallest swing to the SNP in a Westminster By-Election since Coatbridge & Airdrie in 1982. As in Dunfermline & West Fife, somehow the distinction between "can" and "will" got blurred and people who should know better (step forward one Mr. A. Salmond) started using the latter, making this result look far worse than it actually is. So all the valid points Nicola Sturgeon made about the performance being credible were blown out of the water by the fact that hours earlier, Alex had been predicting victory.

Obviously, there does need to be a change in approach, but trying to copy Labour's negative tactics would be the wrong way forward. Here's how to solve it: the First Minister needs to delegate - Alex Salmond should let the candidate be the candidate. Now, having the Party Leader inseparable from a By-Election candidate isn't a bad thing, but it becomes a problem if the Leader does all the talking. On the stump, the television only reported on what Alex Salmond said, not what Peter Grant said.

That's the key to the next By-Election: let the candidate off the leash. Trust him or her to be on the campaign trail what they promise to be at Westmnister: an effective voice. If Alex Salmond cannot trust them to speak on their own then there have to be questions as to whether or not they should be the candidate at all. If, on the other hand, they're perfectly capable of presenting an effective campaign, then they need to do so. Yes, Alex is good, but if he's not the candidate, he shouldn't act like it. He needs to be active but a balance needs to be struck and it's overly weighted in favour of the FM's intervention.

Get a candidate we can trust, and trust them. That needs to be the SNP's approach.

Conservatives

Perhaps this seat isn't a fair test of the Tories, but it shows that beyond the Parliamentary Calculus of Holyrood, the Conservatives are having zero impact among real people in Scotland. Third place almost by default and a lost deposit are not causes for celebration and this By-Election highlights the complete lack of impact David Cameron is having North of the Border. Now, things might have been different had this By-Election been in, say, Dumfries & Galloway or East Renfrewshire, where the Tories actually have a shot of winning, but they still have much to do.

LibDems

The LibDems were in a creditable third place here in 2005. Now look: third place, sub-1000, a loss of 10% of the vote share (the biggest decrease in the LibDem vote share in a UK Parliamentary By-Election since Mid Staffordshire in 1990) and a lost deposit. There are no positives there. Again, if they were as strong, influential or as meaningful as they claim, they could have maintained their vote. That's the test of a strong third place: can they hold up their vote against a squeeze, as the SNP did in Dunfermine & West Fife? The LibDems didn't, so they are doomed. Nick Clegg has had no benefit. And if Tavish Scott is the answer, then what was the question?

SSCUP

Still active. Maybe a return to Holyrood is a very long shot, but the SSCUP may still have a role to play in the long term. Keep your eye on them.

SSP

A swing against them, but that's two consecutive Parliamentary By-Elections in which they have come in ahead of Solidarity. They may defy all forecasts and outlive Tommy Sheridan's party. Like the SSCUP, they may stiil find that Holyrood is a long shot, but make no mistake, we haven't heard the last of them. Though of course, without the split, they'd have come fifth.

UKIP

They saw a swing against them and they aren't strong in Scotland anyway. Maybe that's just a reflection of the fact that Scotland's relationship with London is more of a hot-button issue than the UK's relationship with Brussels. On that basis, Scotland is never going to be natural territory for UKIP.

Solidarity

Scotland's Socialist Movement? No. And on a performance like this - behind UKIP - they aren't even a decent vehicle for Tommy Sheridan's ego. With no Councillors, no MSPs, and seemingly no hope, it may be time for Solidarity to head quietly into the night. Certainly the voters of Glenrothes seem to think so.

Not to be this time

It seems that Labour have held on in Glenrothes. Further, it would appear that Labour have retained Baillieston and Forth on Glasgow and Edinburgh Council respectively.

It seems that the majority in Fife is to be reduced, but the talking heads are correct, it's placings that count and we're not in the gold medal position. Sadly, I do suspect that it's going to be harder to be an SNP blogger as of now. But we press on.

It's easy at this time to point to the likely swing in favour of the SNP, and argue that the Party is still on track. Tomorrow I'll crunch the numbers and do a more detailed analysis. I'm still posting ahead of the result.

But we have to bear in mind that momentum is a fickle mistress, as I mentioned after Glasgow East: I recall the LibDems' cry of momentum in 2006, and it's worth bearing in mind what happened to them in 2008. Momentum alone isn't enough. We have to realise that.

The state of the Council, and Council policy, has counted against the SNP.

The quasi-incumbency factor hit the SNP.

Labour are in a stronger position now than they were in advance of Glasgow East. If a chunk of the SNP vote was based on not being Labour, then that is no longer enough.

The LibDems believe that they have lost their deposit. Where did their vote go?

What of the Euro Elections? The SNP were clearly favourite a few hours ago. Are there any snap judgments available now, or will it all come down to the relative popularity of Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond?

From Minnesota to Markinch

Well, as we saw last night, Barack Obama is the next President of the United States. And what was his secret? He appealed to people's better nature, he had a positive vision, the idea of the city on the hill, or as he put it, "Change We Can Believe In". The Obama/Biden campaign's message was "Yes, We Can", and those were the three little words that a nation was waiting to hear.

By contrast, What did the McCain/Palin campaign offer? Scare stories. Obama the Socialist. Obama the Tax-Raiser. Obama the Muslim (the fact they use that as a smear says more about thier own narrow-minded bigotry than it does about Barack Obama). Obama the Terrorist Sympathiser. Obama, the Destroyer of Israel. Obama, the ally of Chavez and Castro. And so on. Baiscally, their argument was "Vote for us, because we're not him!"

Well, that failed. And it shouldn't come as a surprise. I've been saying for ages, that negative campaigning is flawed, that it's better to put your case across than thrash your opponent's.

And indeed, that was the point that shone through from the elections in Scotland last year: the SNP highlighted the ideas and policies they had, and people rallied to them. Labour tired to give people the heebiejeebies about independence. Labour lost.

They didn't learn that lesson though. In Glasgow East, the SNP fought a positive campaign highlighting the impact that electing an SNP MP could have. Labour just slagged off Alex Salmond and accused John Mason of supporting independence (well, duh!). Then they tried waving the Tory Stick around. Labour lost.

And they still haven't learned: worldwide, belts are being tightened and life is tougher than it was a few months ago. The SNP Government produced a six-point plan to deal with that and campaigned in Glenrothes on issues like energy bills. Labour have let Jim Murphy off the leash, and his message sounds disturbingly like some sort of Unionist protection racket. You can almost hear him saying, "Nice little bank you've got here... be a shame if anything were to happen to it!"

So on both sides of the Atlantic, the idea is the same: appeals for support, offering an idea of positive change that makes you want to follow the candidate, always win the day. Scares and smears no longer work: whether the election is for the Presidency of the United States, the Scottish Parliament, or a Westminster By-Election.

And that's the choice for voters in Glenrothes tomorrow: they can stick with Labour's status quo of spite, or turn to the SNP's ambitious agenda for the future.

What do the LibDems want?

Given my last post - that the SNP might find it advantageous to cut the LibDems a bit of slack in Glenrothes - this one might appear strange. But it's based on the reflections of LibDem bloggers discussing Glenrothes.

And it hit me: they're talking more about the SNP than about Labour. They're challenging us more than Labour. They're more interested in attacking the challenging party (for remember, everyone, this is what the SNP is in Glenrothes) than the incumbent Labour party or even discussing their own campaign in any great detail. Instead, their eyes turn to Peter Grant.

Now, any publicity is good publicity, but I still have to ask - why?

At first glance, the answer is clear: the LibDems are third, the SNP is second, so this By-Election might not deliver the goods in terms of winning the seat, but a second place would enable the LibDems to put out those bar charts they love come the next Westminster election. But it's not going to come to that as 1) they have been sidelined from a lot of the press coverage - they have a fair point and an understandable reason to be hacked off about that - and 2) the LibDem campaign machine is not in the A1 condition we remember from Dunfermline: after over-reaching itself in Moray, the party's promises looked increasingly hollow (perhaps even bizarre) and the so-called Party of Real Momentum ended up making a net loss in 2007. The LibDem challenge in Crewe fizzled out; plans to unseat the Tories in Henley didn't even come close to fruition, making the battle for third place more interesting; and the party lost its deposit in Glasogw East, being overtaken by the Tories. Which, given the fact that both Labour and the SNP took time out to stick the boot in to the last Tory Government, shouldn't have been possible. But it was, and it happened. So what's really going on?

Could it be that the LibDems are terrified that the SNP will squeeze their vote again, and this is a rearguard action to hold on to what they have? If so, it seems suicidal: if former LibDem supporters are tempted to make the switch, pouring scorn and vitriol over the SNP and SNP policies isn't going to help. Labour have tried this several times and it's stopped working. If anything, it's self-destructive: if LibDem voters are getting interested in SNP policies, then attacking the SNP and everything it stands for is only going to re-inforce the point that the two parties are different animals, then with previous LibDem voters looking more interested in what the SNP has to offer than what the Liberal Democrats have to offer, highlighting the gap that exists will serve only to persuade voters that it's worth crossing that gap and voting for SNP policies that they agree with.

But there's another matter: I recall the polling in advance of Glasgow East, when voters across Scotland were asked who they wanted to win that By-Election: Margaret Curran or John Mason. The Tories saw the delicious chance to embarrass Gordon Brown, and went in the SNP candidate's favour. LibDem opinion was more evenly split but Curran had the edge. If our LibDem bloggers are anything to go by, we're seeing the same factor come into play.

Now, I hate to break it to my LibDem friends, but the Coalition is over. Tavish Scott went on the Politics Show and killed it the Sunday after the Election. He wasn't Leader then, but he is now, so that pronouncement carries even more weight than it did 18 months ago.

In fact, in Fife, the LibDems seem more at home supporting the SNP in Coalition, but that, apparently, is by the by.

Nevertheless, while the Council and Holyrood dynamic are in play to a limited degree, this is a Westminster By-Election.

Labour have been in charge of the Westminster Government since May 1997. And the LibDems have been in Opposition that whole time.

So looking at all the bodies to which Fifers send elected representatives, the Liberal Democrats work in partnership with Labour in precisely none - count 'em, none - of them.

And yet, one cannot help shake the feeling that they would prefer to see Labour's Lindsay Roy represent Glenrothes rather than Peter Grant.

If this is the case, what does this mean?

It means that they support the Party that dragged the UK into Iraq - which they opposed, as the SNP did.

It means they support the Party of tuition fees - which they opposed, as the SNP did.

It means they support the Party that has had its hand on the econmic tiller and having claimed credit for everything that's gone right, cannot escape blame for the things that are now going wrong - which their own Finance spokesman predicted.

It means they support a Party that offers nothing more than the grey, lumpen status quo.

And they prefer that to a Party which has been working to deliver real, positive change. A Party that their colleagues in Fife have been working with.

They prefer things as they are. Things are in a bad state but they prefer them as they are, with Labour.

And they call themselves Liberals.

Well, let them keep supporting the status quo. Let them keep attacking the SNP and letting Labour off the hook. Because if the bloggers are a reflection of LibDem members and the party's campaign, the voters who do want change will realise that they won't get it with the Liberal Democrats. And they'll know that change is what the SNP is seeking. On their present course, the LibDems may themselves deliver the squeeze that I advised the SNP against applying.

Better to cuddle than to squeeze

This started life as a comment on Stephen Glenn's fine blog, but it was turning into an essay so I'm putting it here instead.

Brian Taylor has been considering the SNP prospects in Glenrothes, and has considerd that the LibDems are stronger in Fife than in Glasgow, so their vote will be harder to squeeze. Now, I'd have thought that seeing as there's a larger LibDem vote (but the party were still third in Glenrothes, and behind the SNP by a wider margin than they were in Glasgow East, I'd have thought that it would be easier to squeeze rather than harder. However, that's balanced out by the LibDems' Council strength in Fife: they are the junior Coalition partner with the SNP, but they are only the jnior partner by one seat. And, of course, they have the Willie Rennie victory under their belt, consolidated by Jim Tolson gaining Dunfermline West at Holyrood. Nevertheless, a Council By-Election in the Glenrothes constituency (Markinch & Woodside East, to be precise) before the 2007 Election showed a 30% Labour-SNP swing, and of course, Tricia Marwick unseated Labour's Christine May a year and a half ago. So it;s finely balanced: the LibDem local structure appears robust, but so does the SNP's.

However, there's less of an onus to squeeze the LibDem vote. In Glasgow East, the close result meant that the squeeze on Ian Robertson helped to carry John Mason over the line; that's not the case in Glenrothes.

Rather, an inverse of what happened in Dunfermline & West Fife would work out for the SNP: with Labour losing a sizeable chunk of its vote, the bulk of it heading Peter Grant's way and the LibDems, if anything, enjoying a slight increase (as opposed to the LibDems taking the lion's share of former Labour voters and the SNP vote share going up by 2%). In fact, were there to be a Glasgow East-style swing against Labour, the SNP and LDs could split that vote almost equally (50.5%:49.5%) and the SNP would just squeak home. Even a fall in the Labour vote along the lines of D&WF, could be split by just over 70% of ex-Labour voters to the SNP against just under 30% to the LibDems and still the SNP would gain.

And it might not be desirable to hit the LibDem vote quite so heavily: the SNP and LibDems are in Coalition in Fife, and the situation is particularly fragile, not just because of the small advantage that the SNP have over their partners, but because Labour are the largest party, and if Peter Grant's campaign really pisses the LibDems off, they can walk. And even if they don't go straight into Coalition with Labour, they would surely be in a position to depose the remaining SNP part of the administration and take charge as a minority. So it's not in the SNP's local interests to go toe-to-toe with the LibDems.

Obviously, every vote matters, but the trends from Glasgow East and Dunfermline show that the SNP's priority has to be picking up disaffected Labour voters rather than trying to hoover up the LibDems. And the risks of hitting the LibDems particularly hard - i.e. inadvertantly giving Labour new momentum in the form of a new Council administration - could outweigh the benefits.

So all in all, the SNP might not want to roughly squeeze support from a party whose backing they need. A gentle cuddle might be better.

He's been linked with everywhere else...

So why don't Labour select Dimitar Berbatov for Glenrothes?

This attempt at a football-politics crossover comes with apologies to Kez, who is currently waiting to find out whether or not she'll be on the ballot paper in Fife.

UPDATE: Obviously Labour weren't willing to offer Spurs the £30million required for Berbatov - and they've plumped with the favourite: Lindsay Roy. We now have candidates from the four main parties... All we need now is a date.

Talking the Talk 2

David Cairns, after the Glasgow East By-Election result:

“People have given us a message. The issues have been overwhelmingly about the cost of living, about food prices, petrol prices, utility bills. People understand the global situation but they look to the Government to sort things out...But the message to the entire Government is that people want to know that we understand that they really are feeling the pinch. The entire Government has to reflect on that and bring forward policies that take on their concerns.”

Today's Scotsman:

"Labour proposes to focus on Mr Grant's record as council leader in Fife, a post he took on after the 2007 Scottish council elections."

So the lesson was to have answers for the problems that people are actually facing, Labour promised to learn the lesson and now in their next electoral test, they're intending to do the same thing that cost them first place in Crewe & Nantwich and in Glasgow East.

Someone once said that the first sign of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. After Glasgow, Labour even claimed to know why things went wrong, and put them right. And yet, once again, here we are.

Of course, the one of the first things that the SNP Government did was get rid of the Forth & Tay Bridge tolls - which were basically a tax wanting to get into or out of Fife. Then the first SNP Budget saw Council Tax frozen - which in a time of rising prices, helps to ease the burden on families who are finding it harder to pay the bills. Labour increased tax on the lowest wage earners so everyone else could benefit.

Labour are in Government. They're supposed to be able to do things to help, but instead they find ways of making life worse for people. Then they sit there and carp at the other parties like they're the ones in Opposition.

Well, because of that, they're in Opposition in Fife. And in Scotland. They seem destined for Opposition at Westminster. And still they're doing the same old thing.

It didn't work last May. It didn't work in Crewe. It didn't work in Glasgow.

It won't work in Glenrothes.

Can Labour ever find a candidate?

With public mourning now over, serious thought can be given to the candidates to replace the late John MacDougall as MP for Glenrothes, and once again, Labour seem to be in a bit of a pickle. In fact, it may even be worse this time as there's no obvious choice. Not yet, anyway. Though to be honest, rumours kept darting about regarding the SNP candidate in Glasgow East: John Mason's name wasn't in any of them but when he was selected, he seemed like the obvious candidate, and he got a fair wind when Labour's obvious choice decided he didn't want the job after all. Perhaps the same thing will happen to Labour but that would require the Leader of Fife Council, Peter Grant, to fall down a hole somewhere.

But the list of potential names for Labour has been interesting. Alex Rowley seemed like a sensible choice: close to Brown, on the Council, and interested enough in the seat to have sought the selection for Central Fife when Henry McLeish stood down. But he's said no. Why? Because he's close enough to Brown that if he loses, it reflects horrendously on the PM. Now, that's true whoever the candidate is, but it's a mark of the Labour attitude now. Despite Andy Kerr's assurances on the Leadership campaign trail that, don't worry, it's just a blip, voters will come back to their senses and kiss and make up with Labour, people in the party are now thinking about the dire consequences of defeat rather than the prospects of victory. That tells you a lot about the party.

Henry McLeish's name popped up but appears to have gone back down again - too many enemies. And the two advantages cited for him aren't great: he's well known, but he's well known for resigning from public office in disgrace; he's close enough politically to the SNP for it to be impossible for the party to rubbish him, but that in turn means he's too close to the SNP to attack them effectively, and attacking the SNP is the only tactic Labour seem willing to use. Plus which, with more attention being paid to MPs' expenses and their office arrangements, how bone-headed would it be to choose a candidate who was hounded out of office over his expenses and his office arrangements?

Christine May's name keeps floating around but she carries the stigma of having lost her Holyrood seat to the SNP: not the sort fo publicity you want.

Regional List MSPs John Park and Claire Baker have been mentioned. Both are new to Holyrood, but both seem to be moving quickly, Regional MSPs are ideal candidates - in the area, in politics, but they can resign their Holyrood seat without triggering a By-Election if they win - and Park in particular may have good things ahead. He was touted as a possible Deputy Leader of the Holyrood Group until he decided not to do it, and I seem to recall that his most vocal cheerleaders came from Westminster. Could they, the electorate willing, be calling him southwards? And why turn down a chance to go for the Holyrood Deputy Leader's post at this stage, unless something better might come up soon after? Park is worth watching.

But the ideal candidate is staring them in the face. A man with Leadership experience, leading a Government since 1999. A man who is available. A man who the Government quite likes, who supports their stance on the "War on Terror" and is equally cack-handed in his approach to it. A man with suitable contempt for the judiciary and civil liberties to sit on the Labour benches:

Step forward, Pervez Musharraf!