Selection Box: West Scotland

The final region, West Scotland, has one major eye-opener: the emerging contest in Renfrewshire North & West. Sitting MSP, Trish Godman, is standing down here, and her replacement is Stuart Clark. Up against him are Derek MacKay, the Leader of Renfrewshire Council, and Tory Leader Annabel Goldie. Now, this throws up a few interesting questions. Firstly, how well will Cllr MacKay's candidacy be received? His position will make him a well-kent face, but is this good or bad? Renfrewshire Council have, like many others, had to take some tough decisions even before the recession, so there's the possibility that he could well end up as a Peter Grant-type figure. Or his profile could carry him to top spot.

But breathing down his neck is the Tory leader, Annabel Goldie, the only sitting MSP to be standing in the seat (unless Ross Finnie decamps), and let's not forget, reasonably high-profile as the Leader of her Party. QIB would potentially turn this seat into a clear three-way marginal (it's possible that just 6% could end up separating first and third). Who will prevail? This one is worth watching next May...

Meanwhile, Jackson Carlaw is the Tory candidate tasked with 'defending' the re-drawn Eastwood, but thanks to Cunninghame South entering the region, there are still two notional Tory Regional seats, so even if Carlaw gets ranked second on the List, the big question is, who'll get third? An early figure to watch is Maurice Golden of the Glenrothes By-Election, who has been selected for Cunninghame North, but it's early days yet.

Of course, all of these, in this and the previous five posts, are just the tip of the iceberg and there are many more selections now in place. But even so, there are all sorts of twists and turns that could take place between now and next April, when the candidacies will be formalised. Anything could happen.

Selection Box: South Scotland

South Scotland isn't devoid of a few interesting contests.

For Labour, there's the vexed question of who to replace Cathy Jamieson as candidate in Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, particularly as a QIB would make this seat highly marginal. But there's another interesting decision for the party. With Cunninghame South leaving the region, and SNP-held Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley coming in, there's now a notional Labour Regional seat, and a vacancy to fill. Moreover, the theory that the spot might prove tempting for a defeated Labour MP has been blown part by the somewhat frustrating failure on the part of any Labour MP to be defeated, so unless Lord Browne fancies doing a Foulkes, it's not clear who might come forward.

But in terms of constituencies, all eyes should be on the Borders: the new boundaries of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale are favourable to SNP candidate Christine Grahame (suggesting that Jeremy Purvis might have to decamp to the List), while the Tories have, somewhat surprisingly, selected former Tory MP Peter Duncan ahead of Derek Brownlee, who stood in the old Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale seat. Brownlee will have to make do with fighting East Lothian instead, but this throws up another intriguing battle: with only one Regional seat (and even that's in doubt if Gillian Dykes succeeds where Murray Tosh failed and beats Elaine Murray in Dumfriesshire), and two strong candidates for it, what will the Tories do? Will they opt for old standard-bearer Peter Duncan, the former Party Chairman and Shadow Secretary of State, who quite literally put the Tories back on the map in Scotland back in 2001? Or will they choose the up-and-coming Derek Brownlee, whose negotiation during the budget process has delivered the implementation of Tory policies for the first time since devolution? It's a tough call, and there's going to be one hell of a bloody nose for someone.

(Incidentally, a correspondent who, sadly, didn't leave a name assures me that in fact, Brownlee secured the East Lothian selection before Duncan was chosen in Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale. I must confess to being surprised by that particular alignment of events: while neither seat is a particularly appealing prospect, respectively being the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition and an SNP-LibDem marginal with the Tories shut out, but Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale was Brownlee's base for the last two elections. Does he just fancy a pop at Iain Gray?)

Meanwhile, we have the re-match between Tory MSP John Lamont and the man he defeated, LibDem Euan Robson, in Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire.

Finally, there's the SNP List, with Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley coming into the region but being absorbed into the SNP's current total of five seats in the South, and with five Regional MSPs currently, this could have been ugly for the Party. But with Mike Russell heading north, and Alasdair Morgan standing down, the SNP goes from having more candidates than slots to defend, to having a vacancy for a new face.

Selection Box: Lothian & Mid Scotland & Fife

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

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

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

The Return of the Selection Box: Central Scotland and Glasgow

Despite the hysteria over the 100-day of the Coalition, and the excitement over Charles Kennedy doing nothing, the Scottish political parties are in the midst of selecting their candidates for next year's elections. So, inspired by Malc's post on retiring MSPs, I thought I'd take a look.

In Central Scotland, all eyes are on Motherwell & Wishaw, not because there's a vacancy (yet), but because there's pressure on Jack McConnell to stand down after taking a peerage. It should be noted that McConnell is the fifth MSP Peer: Lords Douglas-Hamilton, Foulkes, Steel and Watson all went before him and Lord Watson (despite his fall from grace) provides something of a precedent in that he too was a Constituency MSP, and successfully sought election and re-election as a Peer of the Realm. However, McConnell is the first to become an MSP while sitting in the Scottish Parliament (normally the reverse is the case), and he is the first one to consider keeping a foot in both camps after 2011. This is significant for the Kelly Review, which proposed the end of dual mandates from the date of the next devolved elections. Now, the review referred only to "Westminster MPs", which suggests that only membership of the Commons was considered, but combining a working peerage with the Scottish Parliament would be dubious in the spirit of Kelly if not the letter. He may, therefore, end up feeling pressured to stand down. We shall see.

In Glasgow, keep your eye on Glasgow Shettleston, where John Mason (of the Glasgow East By-Election) has been selected for the SNP. Now, Mason is not seeking a place on the Regional List, and does require an 11.22% swing to win the seat. Of course, that's a considerable increase on the swing he achieved in Glasgow East in the General Election in May, but it's only about half what he pulled off in the By-Election in 2008, so it's not completely beyond the realms of possibility. But of course, this will have a knock-on effect for the List, and assuming that Nicola Sturgeon takes #1 billing, then none of the sitting Regional MSPs will want to come fifth.

Meanwhile, for Labour, a pressure has been eased with Margaret Curran's transfer to Westminster: they are no longer trying to fit nine MSPs into eight notional seats, and have already selected Stephen Curran as their candidate for Glasgow Southside. Then there are the Tories, who find themselves with a vacancy at the top of their List given the retirement of Bill Aitken. Malcolm Macaskill has been chosen as his replacement for the Glasgow Anniesland candidacy, but the actual list is yet to be determined. It's still possible that Ruth Davidson might enter the fold, but I understand that the Tories' one Councillor in Glasgow, David Meikle, has been selected in Southside, so he is one to watch.

The State of the Secretary

Following on from last week's Guest Post by Socialist Animal on who might emerge as Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland once the Labour Leadership and Shadow Cabinet elections have been and gone, I thought I'd take a look at the state of the actual Secretary's role as it stands, and its ramifications for Labour and the SNP.

So the first part of this post, then, the actual role as it stands, is going to be rather short.

What exactly is Michael Moore doing?

We're seeing that there are more direct interventions from the actual subject portfolios: Danny Alexander has, arguably, engaged more with the Scottish Parliament as Chief Secretary to the Treasury than he did in his brief spell as Secretary of State for Scotland, when his only notable public utterance was to confirm that he had nothing to add following David Cameron's words, and Nick Clegg has got into a direct row over the timing of the AV referendum and its clash with next year's Holyrood election. Even David Cameron and William Hague have got in on the act with their entrance into the Lockerbie row, and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee has resolved to discuss the end of the video gaming industry tax break with George Osborne directly. Michael Moore appears to be cut out of the process.

It may be that a lot of this is owed to bad timing: we know that he wants to push Calman forward, but this has been overshadowed with the continuing row with the US Senate over al-Megrahi, so he is, perhaps, just unfortunate. But even so, his interventions have been fewer in number and of a lower profile than those of Jim Murphy, whose spell in Dover House saw him pretty much everywhere, or indeed, Moore's counterpart in the Welsh Office, Cheryl Gillan, whose first act was to get into a row with the Welsh Assembly Government over the timing of the referendum on more powers for the Assembly.

Compared with Murphy and Gillan, Moore looks positively Trappist. And that means that Dover House is out of the picture.

And this spells trouble for the LibDems: with Clegg unilaterally scheduling a referendum to clash with the Holyrood poll, and with Alexander being put up to make the argument for budget cuts, it's LibDem ministers who are being forced to fight the main battles, and they're being forced onto the wrong side of the argument. This could spell disaster next year: five LibDem constituencies are vulnerable to just 5% swings; they risk losing their regional seat in Central Scotland altogether; even factoring in extra regional seats to balance out Constituency loses, the LibDem Group could find itself reduced to just thirteen members next year if the Party can't find its mojo again.

Meanwhile, it just highlights the irrelevance of the Scottish Tories: David Mundell is not helping matters by being mired in a row over his election expenses and an accusation that he planned a smear campaign against his current boss, but despite being the sole Tory MP in Scotland, he is subordinate to a Secretary of State who appears to have been drowned out of matters himself. Mundell is at best an insignificant member and at worst a liability in a Department which few appear to care about at this time.

Yet this, perversely, makes things harder for the Shadow Secretary of State. Now, the previous occupant of the post had difficulty making waves but I'd put that down to 1) the occupant being a Tory, and 2) the occupant being David Mundell, whose impact has been low. However, even Jim Murphy appears to have fallen down a black hole of late which suggests that the job is not all that big a draw. And it's not hard to see why: the occupant isn't in the Westminster Government; they aren't in the Scottish Government; they aren't the Leader of either Opposition and the Department they're shadowing isn't getting in the papers. The only Shadow Cabinet portfolio worse in that respect would be Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So it's hard to shape the news agenda, and on that basis, it hardly matters who gets the Shadow job - it's currently worthless.

Of course, this means it's Iain Gray's big moment: Jim Murphy stole the show in Dover House, leaving Gray out of the picture. Now, it's his time to shine, and with the Holyrood elections next, and Gray effectively a First Ministerial candidate, that's the way it should be. But it's only a good thing if Gray and his people use the limelight well and there seem to be echoes of Labour's post-2007 behaviour at the moment. The party seemed to get its act together, and became more professional and effective when Murphy was at the front, but under Gray it seems to have gone back to form. When in a position to make common cause with the SNP on the timing of the referendum, Gray could only be grudging, noting that he agreed with Alex Salmond "for once". George Foulkes opted to use Nicola Sturgeon's wedding as a vehicle for a venomous press release about how she ought to change her name. And Richard Baker has now told the press that it is perfectly proper for politicians to kowtow to foreign legislatures, on the basis of his protests against Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill not being willing to travel to Washington DC just to say something that they've already said about a thousand times over. So the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party is centre-stage, but on the basis of early performances, the show doesn't deserve to last too long.

In short, without Jim Murphy sitting in Dover House, Labour has gone back three years. That's not a good thing.

So this, then, is the SNP's big chance: the Scotland Office has been neutered, the UK Government ministers discussing policy in Scotland appear to be on the wrong side of an argument, and Labour have gone back to their worst. Moreover, with this being a Holyrood election, the Tory stick isn't quite as effective and besides, despite what we were told in this year's campaign, voting Labour did not keep the Tories out anyway.

But more importantly, with UK ministers directly involved, we're back to where we were before Jim Murphy's appointment. For me, a major contributing factor to the SNP's victory in the Glasgow East By-Election (though I accept that with such a close result, all factors were major contributing factors) was the party's ability to frame the contest as a tale of two governments, with each promoting and defending its record. The SNP came out on top as it had an effective frontman for that purpose, whereas the UK Government did not. It took the appointment of Murphy to spike those guns, as we saw in Glenrothes, Glasgow North East and the General Election. Although the Coalition Government has someone in Murphy's job, it doesn't have anyone performing his role as he did.

In short, Labour need a lot of creativity at Westminster and a more mature approach at Holyrood if they're to make any progress. Conversely, with a weakened Scotland Office and the Shadow Secretary of State role reduced to an irrelevance, there is a major opportunity for the SNP to seize the initiative.

But with only a little over nine months left until polling day (barring any last minute panic-driven changes to the Scotland Act), the party must move quickly.

Guest Post: Shadow Scottish Secretary: who’s in the running?

A Guest Post from an old sparring partner of mine, Socialist Animal, one of the authors at Political Scrapbook, with a Labour-eye view of who the runners and riders are for the post of Shadow Scottish Secretary once the dust has settled and the Labour Party has a permanent Leader. I'll be producing my own thoughts on the parties' Leadership structures very soon.

As though the Labour Leadership election wasn’t enough fun, shortly afterwards we’ll have the fun of shadow Cabinet elections, jostling for which is already well underway. With the Scottish elections just months away the post of Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland is likely to be a crucial one.

Naturally who gets what will depend on:

A. Who runs for Shadow Cabinet, and;

B. Who’s supporting the ultimate winner.

It’s likely that most of the candidates for Shadow Cabinet will be either present or former front-benchers. Additionally the leader can top-up the Shadow Cabinet with 4 others, though that number is amongst a number of rules currently being reviewed by a committee headed up by Margaret Beckett.

ALL of the present Scottish Shadow Cabinet members have been Secretary of State for Scotland and would therefore likely view the post as a demotion, which leaves people who’ve held lesser ministerial posts before. Of the David Miliband supporters these are Tom Harris, Frank Roy, David Cairns, and Anne McGuire. Ed Miliband is being supported by the immediately previous PUSS for Scotland Ann McKechin, as well as former Scottish Cabinet Minister Margaret Curran. Ed Balls is being supported by former Defence Minister Eric Joyce, while Andy Burnham is backed by former Culture Minister Tom Clarke and former Scottish Cabinet Minister Cathy Jamieson.

Assuming the victor is one of the Milibands the Shadow Secretary will likely be one of their supporters. Margaret Curran has made it known she is not interested in climbing the greasy pole so that leaves Ann McKechin in the Ed camp. However it could well also be that if Miliband junior emerges victorious then Jim Murphy (who’s managing David’s campaign) may not get the promotion he covets and be forced to stay put.

The more likely scenario however is a David Miliband victory. Tom Harris has probably burned his bridges with his blog, and David Cairns has proved a problematic front-bencher. Cairns’ stint as Minister of State for Scotland wasn’t exactly a stellar success either. Frank Roy, though privately very charming, is probably too abrasive a character to be Labour’s man in Scotland, especially with the Scottish elections just months away. That leaves Anne McGuire, who is a thoroughly likeable individual who could play well against Alex Salmond, while not over-shadowing Iain Gray in the way that Jim Murphy did. I would question whether or not McGuire would actually run for Shadow Cabinet, though Scotland could well be one of those posts that are filled by an appointed Shadow Cabinet member rather than an elected one.

So what about outsiders? Glasgow North East by-election victor Willie Bain stepped up to Shadow Transport Minister after the election, and is a Miliband supporter. Dumfries MP Russell Brown, another David Miliband supporter, is presently chair of the Scottish Labour group of MPs and is certainly an affable figure. While I can’t see Brown running for Shadow Cabinet he could potentially be another one of those appointees.

In any case with the Scottish elections coming up next year whoever the new Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland is has a big task ahead of them.

Frank McAveety's Mouth

There's a very attractive girl in the second row, dark... and dusky. We'll maybe put a wee word out for her. She's very attractive looking, nice, very nice, very slim... The heat's getting to me... She looks kinda... she's got that Filipino look... You know... the kind you'd see in a Gauguin painting. There's a wee bit of culture.

And with those words, what was left of Frank McAveety's political career came crashing down around him. To be honest, I'm reluctant to join the line of people criticising him. Yes, it's pervy, yes, it's creepy, but the truth is that most of us have, at one time or another, perved on someone we spotted. However, we don't usually do it when a) we're Convener of the Public Petitions Committee and b) we're standing in front of an open mic.

As it happens, David Steel got caught out the same way back in 2003: when chairing the session to determine his replacement as Presiding Officer, Steel was faced with the sight of Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie approaching his desk to cast their votes, clad in their low-cut TK Maxx tops. Steel was heard to remark, "I tell you, the view's a lot better in this Parliament!"

But that was just a fly-away comment, and Steel was retiring anyway. McAveety is still an active politician and was overheard engaged in a borderline-stalky ramble. Nevertheless, this is what happens when we ask our politicians to be human: they get caught displaying a human weakness (in this case, the horn) and we condemn them. Then we get politicians who won't even go for a dump unless a focus group approves and we bemoan the lack of independent thought and the absence of real characters from the political scene. We can't have it both ways.

Mind you, this low-level fiasco is yet another hiccup on McAveety's CV. Having become Leader of Glasgow City Council, he then got elected to Holyrood in 1999, and was appointed Deputy Housing Minister. So far so good.

But then he miscalculated: at the time of Donald Dewar's death, in the ensuing Leadership contest between Henry McLeish and Jack McConnell, the McConnell-supporting McAveety changed horses mid-stream and backed McLeish. It was therefore no longer necessary for McLeish to keep him in the Ministerial team as a sop to his rival, and so McAveety was dismissed. Then, when McConnell entered Bute House a year later, and purged the Cabinet, McAveety was overlooked, until Richard Simpson's resignation in 2002, when he finally returned as a Deputy Health Minister. Back on track.

Indeed, promotion beckoned in 2003, when he was appointed Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. But even then, there was a catch: yes, he was called a Minister, and yes he was given a seat at the Cabinet table, but he was considered a Deputy Minister, allowing opposition parties to ask whether he was a senior junior minister, or a junior senior minister.

Then came Piegate, when he failed to show up when expected in the Chamber, and later claimed that he'd been 'unavoidably detained at the Arts Council Book Awards' when in fact he'd been having his lunch at the time he was supposed to be answering a Parliamentary Question. This put him in the wilderness until 2007, when he re-appeared as a junior spokesman, for Sport. Though getting the Public Petitions Committee Convenership wasn't a bad gig at all.

Still, this sums up McAveety's post-Glasgow career: getting relatively minor posts and ending up losing them on the basis of a relatively minor error. His career as Deputy Housing Minister ended because he made a political miscalculation; his career as Sport Minister ended because he couldn't just grab a quick sandwich then have something more substantial later; and his career on the Labour opposition frontbench has gone up in smoke because for one minute, his mouth opted to speak on behalf of his cock rather than his brain.

But what does this mean for Labour? With less than 12 months until a Holyrood election, Labour need to look like a Government-in-waiting. This is far more important at Holyrood than at Westminster: yes, people were fed up with Labour in 2007, but what pushed the SNP over the line was that the party appeared to be a credible alternative government - they say that oppositions don't win elections, but governments lose them: there's something in that, but always remember that governments have to have someone to lose an election to, and this was definitely the case in 2007. Conversely, last month, people in Scotland were fed up with Labour, but they still didn't trust the Tories, and of course, a basic point of both Labour and Tory campaigns - that the SNP couldn't form the Westminster government - was basically correct. So credibility counts, and just when Iain Gray's team needs to look competent, business-like, even statesman-like, McAveety makes himself look like a complete and utter perv. Oh dear.

But with this problem, comes an opportunity: one of the big problems with the Labour frontbench is that where most parties try and advance quality, Labour at Holyrood has gone for quantity, to the extent that an SNP ministerial team of 16 is shadowed by a Labour frontbench of 24. Now, in 2007, the SNP really pushed Alex Salmond to the forefront - even putting his name on the ballot paper - but the other key figures got their moments: Nicola Sturgeon was prominent; John Swinney and Jim Mather did their business presentations; the SNP's final election broadcasts basically gave us a glimpse of the key members of the next government. We don't get the same sense from Iain Gray's unwieldy, amorphous blob of a Shadow Cabinet and that will damage Labour. It doesn't have to reflect Government portfolios - at this stage in the political cycle, better for everyone that it look like Iain Gray's vision of a prospective Labour Government than a mirror of the current SNP Government - but it has to look like the team that will come in if, somehow, Iain Gray ends up in Bute House. You can't do that with a frontbench consisting of so many people. So McAveety's departure gives Gray a chance to wield a bigger axe, and cut his Shadow Cabinet down to size... if he dares.

That said, I don't see him doing so, which will serve only to highlight Iain Gray's weaknesses as Labour Group Leader.

And frankly, those weaknesses - a reliance on far too many people, an unwillingness to respond to change, a failure to address a clear problem and worst of all, a complete failure to present an alternative Government so close to the next election - will prove far more costly than Frank McAveety's weakness for dusky-looking women.

The Magic Roundabout

This seems to sum up the state of politics at the moment. The Prime Minister - for that is what he is, remember - has announced that he is continuing merely in a caretaker capacity regardless of the outcome of coalition talks. He has announced his resignation of the Leadership of the Labour Party. However long it takes to find a new Leader, it's clear that whatever happens, the UK will have a new Prime Minister in time for the Conference season.

It's clear that, just as Con-LibDem talks have inevitably reached impasse at discussions of electoral reform, Lab-LibDem talks weren't going to seriously get off the ground if the successful outcome of such negotiations kept Gordon Brown in Downing Street. Brown has come to the same conclusion as others in his party did months, even years ago: that he is the primary barrier to continued office for the Labour Party. There will, I suspect, be more than a handful of defeated former MPs who wish that this epiphany had visited their Leader a year ago.

But still, we are where we are, and the outgoing Prime Minister (as he now is) produced a statement that was measured and dignified. I've noticed that it's often the closing moments of a Leader's tenure that brings out their best. Perhaps it's the feeling of freedom that comes with knowing that no matter what they do, the outcome is pre-determined. No one wants to breathe down your neck when you're heading for the exit. Perhaps it's the reverse, the sense that this is their last chance to make an impact. Go out with a bang. Leave them wanting more.

In any case, there appear to be four permutations of Government.

The first is the combination for which we've been bracing ourselves for the past couple of days, until the events of the past few hours blew it out of the water - the Tory-LibDem Coalition. This would (in England, at least) come with the perceived legitimacy of involving the first-placed party. But then, it smacks of a traditional first-past-the-post approach to politics: why would the LibDems support the Tories just because they're first? It would, however, be the only pairing (save a highly improbable Grand Coalition) with a majority in the Commons: 362 seats. The problem, however, is that although the maths favour this arrangement, the relations between the parties do not. It's clear that on electoral reform alone, it's been a massive stretch just to get the Tories to propose a referendum on Alternative Vote - which is still not far enough for LibDem tastes. Besides, this isn't like the Lab-LibDem Coalition in Scotland from 1999 to 2007. In that case, Labour's primary challengers in most of its constituency contests were the SNP. For the LibDems, they faced off against the Tories in their main battles. There were few Labour/LibDem contests. This time, there were a wave of battles where the Tories and LibDems were locked in combat. These contests were dotted all around Britain, but they were concentrated in the West Country and along the South Coast. Did, for example, LibDem voters in Wells just eject a sitting Tory MP to see their successful candidate support a Tory Government? I doubt it. And of course, many Tories will be horrified that the LibDems were flirting with Labour while dating the Tories. Whatever trust, whatever rapport, has been built up over the past week has surely been eroded. While expedient, this combination would not be stable and would not contain natural bedfellows.

Then there's the alternative, the First Past the Post approach: a Tory minority Government. It would be ideologically pure, and neither the Tories nor the LibDems would need to debase themselves too much in negotiations. At least, not this week. But the Tories only have 305 seats and they need 326. And while LibDems would have influence, it's questionable how well they'd be able to implement their policies from the Opposition benches - membership of a Coalition would surely get the chance to make some progress... wouldn't it? This is the dilemma the LibDems face.

But there's perhaps another way: a Labour-LibDem Coalition. The two parties are undoubtedly closer: they have clashed on matters such as civil liberties, foreign affairs and defence but the crazy thing is that most Labour supporters probably favour the LibDem approach in the first place! And on the main point of contention - electoral reform - Labour's starting point is the Tories' final offer: the referendum on AV. The party could go further (though Coalition Whips could do to lock Tom Harris in a cupboard somewhere). The scope is there. But Clegg has effectively determined who is (or at lest, who is not) Leader of the Labour Party. That ain't right: members of political parties announce who they want to lead rival parties as a joke (e.g. Labour MSPs supporting Dorothy-Grace Elder as SNP Leader, SNP Members wanting George Foulkes to lead Labour, and so on). But it's not great for the LibDems either: the person in charge when they negotiate isn't the person who'll be in charge four months down the line. And they don't know who that person is. Who will they be working with? They don't know. That ain't good. Besides, Labour and the LibDems only have 315 seats - also short of a majority. Even if you factor in the SDLP and Alliance, that comes to only 319. It's not ideal and it won't get the majority needed.

To get that, you need the so-called 'Progressive Alliance', as floated by Alex Salmond. Assume that 319 seats are in the bag: add the SNP and Plaid and you get 328. And it's certainly in the interest of the two parties to back a Lab-LibDem Coalition. At least, it's in the interest of the SNP to do so: if after 13 years in Government the Labour vote share in Scotland can increase by more than the Tory vote, then when forced to choose which side they're on, the SNP have only one way to go and this is it. Caroline Lucas would almost certainly prefer this to the alternative. So would Sylvia Hermon. Even the DUP would see this as preferable to a Tory Government given the likelihood that Northern Ireland could be on the wrong end of particularly hefty budget cuts, but on the other hand, there have been talks between the Tories, UUP and DUP before now and with both Peter Robinson and Sir Reg Empey having a bad night on Thursday, the path is clear for new leaders who might make the first tentative steps towards Unionist unity. Given UCUNF's poor showing, however, what links such a movement would have with the Conservatives is unclear. Whatever happens, the votes for such an alliance are there, but the amount of negotiation involved would make it unwieldy. It surely wouldn't last very long: it wouldn't take much for one part of the grouping to get pissed off and trigger its downfall. Then there's the principle: if you argue that the Tories don't have a mandate to govern Scotland and Wales on the grounds that they didn't come first there (there's that FPTP politics again), you have to accept that Labour don't have a mandate to govern in England. Then there's the sight of a wave of parties who have spent the last 13 years opposing the Labour Government jumping on board to support it, particularly when the Labour Party is sufficiently weak that its Leader announces his intention to resign four days after polling day. It seems... off, somehow.

So we have four options, all of which have strengths and weaknesses. It's going to be a while before this gets sorted out, and we know who's in charge - at least for the Spring. But by Parliamentary standards, it's not going to be long at all before we do this all over again.

And that's another calculation: 18 months in opposition for Labour could see them back in Government if the Tories struggle on. An 18 month Progressive Alliance could end up ushering in another 18 years of Tory Government at the end. Whatever the parties decide now, they should surely understand that what plans they make for this Parliament will impact on the course of the next one.

But then, under the circumstances, perhaps we should be grateful that one leader at least is looking as far ahead as this year's Party Conferences.

So what about this 'Progressive Alliance' then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate Prep

In which I take a look at what the performers in the upcoming Prime Ministerial Debates need to do to get the edge.

Brown: Be more confrontational

This one sounds counter-intuitive, even after I explain that I don't mean 'aggressive'. But I'm not suggesting that he be confrontational towards the other candidates, but towards the issues. When someone heckles Gordon Brown, he just sweeps past them - he can surely hear them, but he's rather good at pretending that he doesn't. When someone asks him a question he doesn't like, he ignores it. When someone presents him with a fact, a truth, a reality that isn't convenient to him, he completely dismisses it no matter how ridiculous it makes him look (I recall how David Cameron brought up Wendy Alexander's infamous, "Bring It On" moment, and Cameron quoted verbatim, only for Brown to reply "that was not what she said" despite the fact that Cameron was quoting the transcript).

So Gordon, if you're reading this, when a question comes, answer it. When a point is made, respond to it. When a fact is brought up, address it. Don't avoid it. Don't sidestep it. Don't ignore it. And only deny it if it's patently untrue. You'll gain respect by being honest (let's face it, Blair's masochism strategy worked to an extent), and the papers will pan you more if you brush anything uncomfortable aside than if you try to tackle it.

After all, this is a debate: that means engaging with the other side's points.

Cameron: Think on your feet

For someone who likes to pace around the stage without notes, David Cameron is a highly programmable speaker. His Conference performances don't show a man who's speaking from the heart and doesn't need notes, but a man with a good memory, who can recite lines on cue. One may as well stick a parrot in front of the ITV cameras. The downfall comes when everything's committed to memory, Cameron has learned what points and lines he wants to get in and when, but the argument moves in an unexpected fashion or the other side's response was not what he planned (rather like how Paul Le Guen appeared to plan how the opposition team would play, then couldn't understand how Falkirk wouldn't stick to that plan and would win 1-0), and he's been caught cold like this a few times.

So he should try a more free-form approach. OK, the lines might be less polished and there may even be the odd 'Um' and 'Ah' in there but that's not as bad a mess-up as trying to steer a debate back to territory it left a while ago, or trying to make a point that's already been shot to pieces by the other side. One error like that, where his over-preparedness makes him look semi-detached from the debate, and it's an open goal for Brown and Clegg.

Again, this is a debate, go with the flow.

Clegg: Be less emotional

Again, this may seem counter-intuitive, but bear with me. Remember last week's PMQs, where Nick Clegg opened with that disdainful "He and he...", and it sounded like a cross between a hissy fit, and an exasperated Eric Morecambe introducing Ernie Wise and Andre Previn's interpretation of Greig's Piano Concerto for the fifth or sixth time (the point at which he gave up naming them and exclaimed, "With him and him!". Now, it may well be that it's a matter that genuinely frustrates Clegg, but the truth is he doesn't seem to render them in a natural way. Perhaps because, at times, it looks like he's getting narky about procedure rather than policy. But whatever the reason, his anger, however genuine it may actually be, appears contrived, synthetic. So, don't do anger!

Besides, there'll be plenty of heat exchanged between the other two, so there's scope for Clegg to be the Voice of Reason, leaving the playground to the children and actually making serious points. That'll set him out as being different in a good way, rather than just appearing to be a crap actor.

The others: Better off out of it?

Imagine. It's 10:01 on Thursday night. The debate was inconclusive. No one was the winner. The losers were the unfortunate viewers who did their best to stay tuned in to the end but ended up watching the commercials and making a brew during the programme instead of the other way around. The bulk of the debate centred around England-only issues (or even issues that might be reserved but seem to matter more in England than in Scotland, or perhaps where the perspective is different in any case) and the three candidates tore into each other without actually discussing relevant points.

It's possible that these debates might put people off all three parties, especially as Nick Clegg's "the other two are the same, we are different" line can't be sustained in the programme. The minute the other parties disagree - which they will - his line about them being the same is blown out of the water. The minute he agrees with either Brown or Cameron - and he will have to on something sooner or later - his line about the LibDems being different is undermined. And if he just disagrees with everything anyone else, he'll look like a complete muppet. Plus which, if the other two parties do agree on something, his choice is to either join the grey, cosy consensus, or be the one who breaks that consensus and creates division. The "Labservative" line will look increasingly shaky come Friday morning and advantage will fall to a party that wasn't on the platform. And one party in particular - the SNP, of course - will have a spot on BBC Scotland which will provide a window to go through all the material gathered on the Thursday night debates.

Basically, if this debate turns out to be a damp squib, if neither leader satisfies people's expectations, if there's no clear winner or loser, that generates a massive opportunity for the SNP, for Plaid and for the Greens - even for UKIP in Tory areas.

If Brown, Cameron and Clegg can't conquer their demons, they can't conquer each other. If they can't conquer each other, they can't capture votes. And if they can't capture votes, there are others who can.

By the end of April, they may all rue these debates.

In Which I Take No Pleasure In Being Right

This is what I said in November, when it was Open Season on SNP bloggers:

However, those sneering at the Cybernats, those calling this the SNP's Drapergate should realise that the loudest SNP voices in the blogosphere are a standing rebuttal to every allegation thrown at the SNP (well, I would say that, wouldn't I?) and that we are the first to wonder how to deal with those who (rightly) draw the criticism. And we should all realise that when the original Drapergate scandal hit, we all got tarnished. Every blogger, regardless of party. So if I were them, I wouldn't be dancing on the graves of these blogs or any other. Instead, I'd be standing beside them, in quiet reflection.

Why? Because we don't know which one of us could be next. Let's clean up our own houses first, before we slag off other people's.

Well, that's where Stuart MacLennan, now ex-Labour candidate for Moray comes in, and probably ex-researcher for Pauline McNeill (will Iain Gray expect her resignation as he did Mike Russell's for what Mark had written?) with a bewildering array of tweets, using assorted swearwords to describe David Cameron and Nick Clegg, but also party colleague Diane Abbott (he also talked of a 'good day to bury Stephen Byers'). He also referred to being 'stuck' in the constituency he was standing in, described people as 'chavs' (flying in the face of the class war strategy, perhaps?), referred to people who were basically his neighbours as 'Teuchters' and described the elderly as 'coffin dodgers'.

Now, I'll be honest, if politicians being called rude words is the worst thing that's ever happened to them then they've led sheltered lives. If it needs all this hysteria then frankly, our politicians do need to grow a thicker skin. You are public figures. You are not universally popular. Some people will use naughty words about you. Some will do so on the internet. Get over it.

But to slag off the elderly, and to slag off your neighbours, that's something else. And for a Parliamentary candidate to do it is beyond the pale.

As it happens, Stuart went to university around the time I did and had other foul mouthed pals (including one who was so foul-mouthed that he scarred a friend of mine for life). I also seem to recall him being in the Diagnostics Society. Now when I was at Uni, I was the Debates Convener who had to fend off accusations that the Debates Union was out of touch with... well, the rest of the universe. The Diagnostics Society, however, was in another dimension altogether. And I have to confess, my first encounter with MacLennan did not go well: he was backing a student election candidate who'd make the mistake of announcing in advance his plan to piss all over the election rules and regulations (then complained about being disqualified), a man was also the first student election candidate not to take his own nomination form around for support, having a lackey do it for him. MacLennan was the lackey in question and I, who was not well disposed to his chosen candidate anyway, sent him away with a flea in his ear. Other encounters, however, were affable enough, and I can only assume that he saw the internet in a way that so many people do, as a chance to unleash your inner tosspot.

Well, this is where it's got him.

And look at where it's got Labour: all that protesting about those nasty CyberNats, when they were harbouring their own vicious online attack dogs for far longer - and making them candidates! What will George Foulkes do now?

All that calling on Alex Salmond - who has repeatedly called on the SNP's online supporters to think about what they're posting - to crawl on his hands and knees across Scotland, begging forgiveness for what someone else with a bad mood and a laptop did when they combined the two, when Jim Murphy and Iain Gray instantly dismiss any calls for MacLennan's resignation - until they realise just what a row it's turned into!

All that demanding Mike Russell should be punished for something written by an employee who had a blog of his own - will Iain Gray punish Pauline McNeill in the way he expected the FM to punish the Education Secretary?

I take no pleasure in seeing the torpedoing of Stuart MacLennan's career. He was, at the end of it, a young, daft guy, doing a daft thing, and a wave of utterly idiotic comments have basically ruined his life. That's not something to gloat about.

And I take no pleasure in being right in my warnings that every party should be careful both in its own online dealings and how it deals with the mistakes of other parties.

Stuart thought he could carry on with his daft tweets indefinitely.

Labour thought they could carry on preaching about other people's shortcomings without any of their own coming to light. They saw the various 'CyberNats' as justification to brand the whole SNP as the nasty party - now they're tarred with their own brush. Nasty and hypocritical.

They were both proven wrong, so let me say this again, before anyone else is stupid enough to head for the pulpit about their party's online purity, or daft enough to mouth off when so many people have come a cropper for doing so:

Next time, it could be you.

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

We are, of course, nearing the Final Act, and over the next few weeks, across the UK, the last scenes will be played out. Will the curtain fall, or will there be a sequel that few of us were expecting?

I'm in a dramatic mood today (hence the rejig and the culling of the blogroll) and there are times when such urges just have to be indulged. After all, tomorrow Gordon Brown will almost certainly go to the Palace and seek a dissolution of Parliament. It's going to be tomorrow: it's either then, or next month, anyway.

I was never convinced by the wave of expectation, sweeping us all towards an early General Election back in Autumn 2007. Let's face it, Brown had spent thirteen long, agonising years plotting and scheming to eject his colleague Tony Blair, and having had all sorts of golden opportunities over the period, never quite managed it: Blair went of his own accord, having announced of his own initiative that the 2005 Election would be his last. Brown's acolytes got the concession that the 2006 Conferences would be his last, but again, Brown himself was not in a position to land the final blow, and it was Blair who set his final departure date and somehow, despite everything, left the stage with the audience wanting an encore.

No, Brown had spent the time waiting, plotting and hoping, but never quite having the bottle to make the ultimate decisive move that would bring about his move next door at a time when he wanted. Why, then, having waited so long, would he risk it all in an election that could have seen him leave 10 Downing Street before his feet were properly under the desk? Why, after 13 years of cautious inaction, would he blow it on one massively reckless move? That wasn't his style and that election was never going to happen. Still, we all planned for it - just in case.

Then 2009 came. And went again. That's how it was always going to be: after an ugly git of a 2008 for the Government, and Labour (not completely fairly) getting the blame for the expenses scandal, he was never going to go last year. Again, it wasn't his style.

So why, then, am I sure that, with a choice between going to the Palace tomorrow, and leaving it a month, he'll go tomorrow?

Image. It's what did for Callaghan in the end: he thought Prime Minister 1976-79 looked better in the history books than 1976-78. Similarly, Brown didn't want the 2007 Election as he didn't want to have the shortest term of office since George Canning, who had the excuse of dying in office. Of course, Brown has metaphorically died in office many times over, but that's beside the point. Image counts, and going tomorrow gives Brown at least some dignity and credibility. Wait another month and he'll spend the next four PMQs getting filleted.

Besides, there are elections anyway on 6 May, to local Councils (including the London Boroughs), and recent history is very clear: the polls will be timed to co-incide. It used to be that Governments tried to avoid that at all costs, it was a factor in the timing of Polling Day when the Callaghan Government fell; Margaret Thatcher went to the country just over a month after local elections in 1983 and did the same in 1987; John Major's re-election took place just four weeks before local elections and European elections, until 2004, always fell a few weeks after council contests.

But it was John Major's departure from office when the approach changed: the 1997 General Election coincided with County Council elections in England; and Blair repeated the process in 2001 (delaying both due to Foot and Mouth) and 2005. He even brought forward Northern Irish local elections so they'd take place concurrently with the Westminster campaign. The 1999 Council Elections in Scotland coincided with the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament passed the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002, which changed the terms of office for local Councillors from three years to four so that they would continue to coincide (and thanks primarily to the Gould Report, that decision will be undone soon). Local elections were moved back in 2004 and 2009 to coincide with the European Elections, and even the London Mayoral and Assembly elections were moved back in 2004 for the same reason. Indeed, the last time two sets of major contests were held just a few weeks apart was 1999, when the European elections took place just five weeks after elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly (as well as local elections).

It would be a major break with this recent approach, and an act of cowardice to delay any longer.

And what of the outcomes? One gets the feeling that Gordon Brown spent so long plotting to be Prime Minister that he never actually bothered to work out what he'd do once he got the job, and we've had platitudes where there should have been a plan, as the Government has spent the last few years bouncing from fiasco to crisis, like a ping pong ball in a tumble dryer. But still, the polls aren't as unfavourable as they could be - or indeed, have been. The Tories lost half of their seats in 1997, while Labour lost just under a sixth of their seats in 1979. The reality, I guess, will be somewhere between the two and the marker for Labour is 237 seats, a loss of 119 seats or one third of the 2005 actual total. Anything higher than 237, and they can claim to have held off the worst (though as Labour found out to its cost in 1983, the worst could still be to come). Anything lower, and Labour are in disaster territory.

By contrast, you get the feeling that all the Tories stand for is winning elections and there's still no real sense as to what a Tory Government will mean. It seems that David Cameron has been trying so hard to get into Downing Street that he doesn't really know what he'll do when he gets there either - that the Party seems to face both ways on - well, basically everything - makes the sense of uncertainty even greater and that might explain the blip in the polls. Voters like policies they can reach out and touch, and the Tory Government still has this intangible quality that doesn't help its cause. The electoral maths aren't helpful either: a net increase of 107 seats on the Tories' actual 2005 total would be broadly equivalent to the gains made by Tony Blair. That increase would still deliver a Hung Parliament. With a Hung Parliament increasingly likely, 274 (an increase halfway between those of Thatcher and Blair) is the target and anything short of that would be an embarrassment. Anything higher, and the Tories are at the very least on track, and would have the necessary momentum to get their majority in 2011.

For the LibDems, the actual numbers are irrelevant: it's their position relative to everyone else that matters and their requirements are frighteningly specific. There has to be a Hung Parliament, and they - and only they - should be able to carry one party or (preferably) both over the line. If the Tories get a majority, it doesn't matter whether there are nine LibDems or ninety: it's all been for nought. And their campaign doesn't inspire confidence: vote for us, because our spokesman successfully predicted economic doom (I won a bet on Saturday that Bristol City would draw with Nottingham Forest - does that make me an ideal candidate to be Minister for Sport?). Vote for us, and our clunky slogan that's a mishmash of everyone else's. Vote for us, because the other parties are actually drawing up a manifesto specifically designed to make your life a living hell (that's the upshot of "We are the only people who believe in fairness" line). Vote for us, because, really, you shouldn't give a shit about that other lot (that's the upshot of all the SNP-bashing, despite their apparently being irrelevant, and in any case, that's a rather daft claim from party that lost its deposit in the last three Westminster By-Elections in Scotland). And I still haven't forgiven my local LibDem Councillor for saying that he's "not bothered" how I vote in a General Election as long as I vote for him to keep his seat on the Council and get a pretty community garden across the road from his house while a current beauty spot gets flattened for just two houses.

Then there's the SNP. Again, the numbers shouldn't matter too much, but the number 20 does still loom large. It's some way off in the distance, but the number is there. The SNP premise is a clear one: it won't be the Government but it can influence the Government better than its own backbenchers can. And the slogan ("More Nats, Less Cuts") is simple and effective, albeit ungrammatical. The big problem is, with the party basically cut off from the UK-wide media, how does it make sure that its message gets across to the maximum number of people? That's the challenge.

And what of the other parties? Can the Greens make the breakthrough? They can. Will they? We don't know. Can UKIP's Nigel Farage oust John Bercow? I doubt it. Can Nick Griffin get into the House of Commons? Well, if press reports are to be believed he'll have done well getting to polling day without his publicity officer murdering him.

Here are a few early calls:

1. The Tories will have the most votes, and will probably have the most seats. But unless David Cameron is capable of going without oxygen for a fortnight, he shouldn't hold his breath before getting into Downing Street. He will have to wait a while.

2. Nick Clegg will find himself with a lot of explaining to do, either to his Party not getting the result they wanted, or to the press and the public for a cack-handed reaction to getting the result he wanted.

3. No more than 1,000 votes will determine whether or not Caroline Lucas enters the House of Commons.

4. Esther Rantzen's challenge will come to nothing: the main reason Martin Bell won in Tatton in 1997 was that the opposition to Neil Hamilton coalesced around him. That isn't happening in Luton and the vote will be too badly split for her.

5. Nigel Farage will still be an MEP at the end of it all. He'll accuse the main three parties of a 'cosy European consensus' that prevented a fair fight.

6. The SNP will make a real progress in votes and seats, but Labour will attempt to portray the result as a personal disaster for Alex Salmond.

7. This is as much hope as expectation, but if there's any justice, Anne McGuire will have done to her by the people of Stirling what she did to thousands of disabled workers at Remploy.

Now, let the drama begin...

Scenes from a Campaign

Jeff is not the only one turning his attention to Livingston today.

Livingston enjoys a fascinating presence in UK political history: for the first 22 years of the constituency's existence, it was represented by Robin Cook, until his death just a few months after the 2005 Election. Now, it should be possible to eulogise and not idolise someone, and Cook was by no means a saint, but he was an impressive performer and of course, presented the most effective case against the Iraq War that anyone could have done during his speech announcing his resignation from the Cabinet. And that departure, incidentally, marked the last principled resignation from the UK Government: the only ones to come close to being based on principle were Clare Short's delayed reaction to the Iraq War and James Purnell's prediction that Gordon Brown would hand the upcoming General Election to the Tories. So Robin Cook, MP for Livingston, former Foreign Secretary and the last member of the Cabinet to resign on principle, enjoys a special place in the books. Whatever his faults, he'll be remembered as an intelligent, high-powered politician and an independent mind. And Livingston will be associated with him.

How tragic, then, that his successor, Jim Devine, should end up in the dock for fraud. That he should have falsified receipts for his expense claims, and worst of all, that he should have defended his actions by claiming that a Whip told him to do that (if the Tommy McAvoy had told him to lie face down on the Westbound carriageway of the M8, would he have done that?).

Yet now we come to the man who would be his successor, Graeme Morrice. Now, he will probably avoid the complete downfall suffered by Devine, but the omens are not good if this leaflet is anything to go by:

Now, it looks like standard fare: the memories of the Thatcher years, and the carping about the SNP - nothing unusual for a Labour leaflet. Nothing positive, nothing hopeful, a quick CV and then the usual attempts to dismiss the SNP as irrelevant while at the same time devoting a large part of the missive to slating them.

But then there's this:

Ah, yes, those memories of the Thatcher/Major years. Such a shame that a Labour Chancellor and Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury have both come out and said that they'd be far more brutal with the Budget than any of Thatcher and her Chancellors were. How ironic: he could stop George Osborne, but would he even try to stop Alistair Darling or Ed Balls when they start wielding the red pen?

And the rest? Well, see for yourself:

In short, two pages in which he misrepresents who's in charge of West Lothian Council by describing it as an SNP/Tory Council (which will be news to COSLA, who see West Lothian as an SNP/Independent Coalition: the independents in question being Action to Save St. John's Hospital, who have been airbrushed out of political history by Councillor Morrice) and poses for photos on issues which either relate to Holyrood (so he'll be able to do nothing about it) or the local Council (so he'll actually be able to do more about it if he loses and stays on the Council).

It's strange. In a way, Devine is more impressive: he, like his predecessor, has become an icon of the big political question of the day, albeit for all the wrong reasons. And Morrice's photo might not be a police mugshot, but still, his leaflet really ought to be gracing the pages of Glum Councillors. Maybe Livingston could use some anonymity, an MP who won't make waves in the Commons but will turn up at railway stations with an MSP, a placard and a photographer.

Or maybe not...

I had the pleasure of reading Lis Bardell's guest post on Jeff's blog. Lis is the SNP candidate for Livingston and managed to sum up quite exquisitely just how the scandal has hit the area. As it happens, I had the good fortune of meeting Lis at the SNP Spring Conference and found someone who knows her area and knows the people, and clearly relishes chewing over the big issues. She's clearly someone who'll be at ease with local campaigns, but will be incredibly adept at handling the wider questions that go beyond Livingston and affect all of us. In short, I spent an evening at Conference in the company of an intelligent, articulate person with an independent mind. Remind you of anyone?

Maybe a spell out of the limelight isn't what Livingston needs. Maybe, instead, what's needed is a return to the things that connected that part of West Lothian to the wider political scene for all the right reasons.

That, I think, is where Lis comes in.

Bo, Selecta!

Well, you have to admire Labour's eagerness. At a time when there are still vacancies unfilled (and a situation in East Lothian where the local party is seeking to create a vacancy) for an election this Spring, some activists are looking forward to next year's Holyrood elections. Well, the ones with the potentially messy selection contests.

And the one for Renfrewshire South did have the capacity for a mess: the seat is effectively a new one, created with offcuts from West Renfrewshire, Paisley South and Eastwood. Now, the sitting MSP for the first of these, Trish Godman, is probably in a wiser position to stand in Renfrewshire North & West. The sitting MSP for the second, Hugh Henry, could have easily fought Paisley but that would have involved a selection contest with Wendy Alexander if she is a mind to stand again, so Renfrewshire South perhaps seemed the better bet. And the MSP for the third, Ken Macintosh, could stand again in Eastwood, but that seat sees some very unfortunate (for him) boundary changes, which mean he has to be sure of a 3.15% swing from the Tories to Labour just to hold onto his job. So Renfrewshire South was always going to be a battle between Messrs Henry and Macintosh.

Hugh Henry has won that battle.

This is significant, not least for Ken Macintosh, whose wish to get re-elected has become considerably more difficult (remember also that the notional Tory majority of 2,018 in Eastwood is, if anything, lower than it ought to be thanks to the intervention of an independent, former Tory, candidate in the last election, who prevented Jackson Carlaw from winning the seat on the old boundaries).

But more importantly, everyone likes to talk about Jim Murphy swooping to Holyrood like an avenging angel should he be beaten by the Tories' Richard Cook in a few weeks' time. But where? With Trish Godman in Renfrewshire North & West, Wendy Alexander in Paisley, and Hugh Henry in Paisley South, there ain't no room, particularly with Ken Macintosh's plans for a chicken run thwarted.

And the Regional List is no help to either of them: Labour's constituency performance means that the party is, notionally, over-represented in West Scotland: by rights, they ought to have seven seats rather than eight, and the SNP ought to have six seats rather than five. That means that any Labour hopeful on the List needs a swing from Labour to the SNP of 4.63% on the Constituency Vote (enough for the SNP to win Dumbarton and Cunninghame South, taking out Irene Oldfather and Jackie Baillie in the process) yet at the same time, has to hope that Labour's Regional vote losses are minimised. A difficult position to be in.

So, before we have the Westminster election out of the way, we have the opening, internal manoeuvres in the Holyrood election. And they aren't good for the Shadow Minister for Schools and Skills.

The Strange Case of Steven Purcell

I'll start by going through what we all know:

We know that Steven Purcell has resigned as Leader of Glasgow City Council. We know that despite early indications to the contrary, he has now taken the step of resigning as a Councillor altogether.

We know that Purcell has left the country, though we do not know where. The tabloids can't decide if he's on the other side of the North Channel (in Donegal), the other side of the Atlantic (Florida) or the other side of the world (Australia).

We know that Purcell attended a rehabilitation clinic. We know that he briefly went missing from there last weekend. We know that he was being treated for 'chemical addiction' and we now know that he has taken cocaine. Further, we know all this despite the initial statement citing 'stress and exhaustion' as the reasons for his departure.

We know that Council Deputy Leader Jim Coleman is in charge temporarily. We now know that Coleman refused to put his name to the statement drafted by Purcell's lawyers and PR firm as the Council (or at least, the Labour group) had drafted a different statement referring to the addiction.

We know that the police, specifically the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, turned up at the City Chambers to discuss the risk of blackmail to him, and that following that discussion, Purcell upped sticks to the West End.

We also know that Labour were made aware of the situation in the run-up to the Glasgow East By-Election, but chose to do nothing, save prevent him from being the candidate.

And that's where we are. When it was stress, everyone was wishing him well, singing his praises and hoping for a speedy recovery. Now, it's like they're all talking about someone different. Was this not the same guy who helped to bring the 2014 Commonwealth Games to Glasgow? Apparently not, that was a team effort. Was this not the same guy who was tipped to be a future Labour Leader and First Minister? Apparently not, because we say this about every Leader of Glasgow City Council. Granted, the precedents are Frank McAveety (who got into trouble for choosing eating a pie over Parliamentary duties) and Charlie Gordon (whose approach to fundraising ended up causing the downfall of Wendy Alexander), so if we were shooting for the moon beforehand, we didn't even manage to hit a star on those occasions.

But Purcell was different: he did secure the Games and he did have something about him. While a number of the decisions taken on his watch were unpopular (the school closures spring most readily to mind), he was capable and was highly adept at banging the drum for Glasgow in the way that we expect Alex Salmond to bang the drum for Scotland.

Plus which, I have to confess to a respect for Purcell which I'd imagine not many of you will be surprised by: while there are a good number of 'out' politicians these days, there are very few who would make decent role models - who wants to emulate Peter Mandelson, for heaven's sake? Purcell, on the other hand, managed to navigate the rapids of Glasgow Labour, get to the top there, and seemed more than ready to go to the next level. Even though he attained the Leadership before he came out, he sought and won re-election as himself, and the actual announcement seemed to come and go without any big thing. So of course seeing someone like Purcell getting there and staying there is a boost, a cause for optimism and a reason to be ambitious. After all, if he can get there, why not anyone else? Speaking from my own perspective, there are a couple of practical barriers (being 100 miles away from the border is the primary obstacle) to my wanting to put myself forward for something in the short to medium term, but thanks to people like Purcell, sexual orientation isn't one of them.

So what happened?

Well, at the risk of understatement, it looks like Purcell made some bad choices. Most of us do, but then, most of us don't lead Scotland's largest local authority. So when they caught up with him, as happens to everyone, then they were absolutely going to hit him harder and heavier than usual. And let's face it, a sequence of events which, if some reports are accurate, leads to you leaving the Northern Hemisphere altogether is pretty earth-shattering.

And of course, it seems that Labour were sitting on a timebomb for eighteen months. There was never going to be a good time for this one to go off, but having had that long to draw something up, they've contrived to destroy Purcell when they were seeking to protect him. We've gone from "Leave the man alone!" to "What the hell has happened here?" in one move and it's exasperating, but it's not hard to see why. In fact, the two aren't mutually exclusive: there is nothing that can be achieved by hounding Purcell except prolonging the agony that he's surely in. Rather, the questions are to be asked of his colleagues and basically boil down to, "Who knew what? When did they find it out? What did they do about it?" The answer to the last one is, apparently, naff all. Bravo.

And it was the silence that did it in the end: when the story did finally break, the instinct to circle the wagons took over, but it was done to such extremes that rather than leading everyone to believe that Purcell just needed time, it led everyone to reckon that there was more going on than we were being told. And so it proved. It's like trying to move up (or, indeed, down) a flight of stairs quietly: the steps seem to be creakier and you end up making more noise tiptoeing than if you'd just blundered up normally.

The result? A few days ago, everyone was talking about there being nothing more than a temporary vacancy in the City Chambers, now Purcell is out of politics altogether and probably for good. The Lazarus act required for anything else to happen would have to go beyond even Mandelsonian proportions.

And of course, Glasgow Labour is starting to turn in on itself, with people jockeying for position and various figures looking to hang Purcell out to dry. This suggests that the outlook for the Labour Group could have been ugly whether the former Leader's trajectory was the upward vector we were expecting or the downward vector we got: there doesn't seem to be an obvious successor and given Jim Coleman's caretaker status, Scotland's largest local authority is left basically rudderless for three months, plenty of time for a lot of in-fighting and back-stabbing. Moreover, this happens in the run-up to what has, of late, been a rare beast: a Westminster General Election where Glasgow has the potential to surprise. Can John Mason succeed where Robert McIntyre, Winnie Ewing, Margo MacDonald and Jim Sillars all failed and consolidate a By-Election win against Labour? Can Osama Saeed beat the Labour machine and the hostile press coverage to win Glasgow Central? Can either the SNP or the LibDems get that breakthrough against Labour in Glasgow North? You have to go all the way back to 1992 to find even one reason to be at the count in Glasgow, but this time, we have at least three, and now we're going there against the backdrop of a Council likely to eat itself.

And of course, a potential Scottish Labour leader is now out of the picture, which has broader ramifications at Holyrood: either they have to hope that Jim Murphy loses East Renfrewshire but manages to sweep into the Scottish Parliament next year like an avenging angel, or they have to find the personality that Iain Gray left down the back of a couch somewhere. The former isn't ideal as a) he actually has to lose his seat, which isn't set in stone; b) he would then come in as a loser rather than as a winner, and c) the last person to switch like this was Alex Salmond, and he got the Party Leadership first having announced he was seeking not just to be SNP Leader but also First Minister, then getting step 1 achieved, had more than two years to find and win a seat at Holyrood. Jim Murphy, on the other hand, would have to get elected to Holyrood before even being eligible to stand in a contest to be Labour Leader, which means finding and winning a seat (not easy when the equivalent seat to his own is, notionally, already in the hands of the party he would have lost to by then and the other seats are likely to have sitting Labour tenants), then there has to be a vacancy for the group leadership, which requires Labour to lose the 2011 Election, and only then can he stand, and before he can utter the words 'First' and 'Minister', would have to endure a lengthy period as Leader of the Opposition. So unless Labour manage to pull something out of the bag this Spring, then in three months time, Iain Gray will basically be the uncontested Leader of Scottish Labour. And I really don't think that's good for them.

One last thing: am I just being insecure/paranoid about some of the press reporting? My hackles were raised when the Scotsman used the word 'lifestyle' in one of its pieces - the L word is one of those god-awful euphemisms and seems like a decent corroboration of the "nudge nudge wink wink you do know he's a poof" approach described in an excellent post by Clairwil. Maybe I'm just seeing a demon that isn't there, but if I'm not, then it seems the press have learned nothing from the outcry following Jan Moir's attempts to dance on Stephen Gately's grave.

I hope Purcell is in Australia because I know that if I were in his shoes it would be excruciating to watch what's now unfolding. The spotlight has been shone on his personal demons, and in the melee that's developing, we're in danger of giving into our own.

A Thirst Unquenched

One of the most fascinating aspects of this Scottish Parliament is the SNP Government's unerring ability to pull rabbits out of the deepest hats. For a while, it looked as though that skill had deserted the leadership, but today, fortune opted to smile on the SNP. And I'm not talking about the reaction to Jim Murphy's "We do do God" speech, which managed to piss off everyone, of all faiths and none, by alarming the secularists who want religion not to come within five miles of politics and government, and the religions themselves, who find the idea of a Government which has ignored a fair number of their teachings preaching to them somewhat sickening.

No, what I'm talking about is the basic smothering of two '-gate' scandals.

First, we learn that the Standards Commissioner has decided that there is, in effect, no case to answer regarding Lunchgate:

"Having fully considered the terms of the complaints and the terms of your own response (jointly with Ms Sturgeon) and other evidence, I have concluded that – for the purposes of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 – the complaints, as submitted and insofar as within my jurisdiction, are not relevant and that there is no evidence of sufficient substance warranting further investigation. I have, therefore, dismissed the complaints for the reasons set out in the attached Note of Decision."

Now, I said at the time that in politics, facts take second place to appearances. The reality is that the lunch auctions are basically a whisky roll writ large but they looked like some sort of Cash for Access scandal, and as I said, I'm stunned that no one thought to look at how auctioning off time with a Minister would look, regardless of the good intention and target audience - who basically want lunch with someone they respect and support. Nevertheless, the background doesn't matter: what matters is the Standards Commissioner sees nothing worth looking into. The appearance now favours the SNP. Lunchgate is now pretty much off the menu (so to speak) though I suspect that a new fundraising approach may well be developed anyway - just in case.

Secondly, Nicola Sturgeon came before Holyrood today to account for her part in Lettergate, or Nicolagate, or whatever this one was called:

"In short, I assisted a constituent in good faith and for what I considered to be the right reasons, but in doing so I did get some things wrong and for that I am sorry."

It would appear that most took her statement of contrition for what it was and were content to leave it there: they were happy to accept her good faith, that she made a mistake. And I think it's cheering for a politician to admit to being human, and to hold their hands up for doing things wrong. It's now hard to see where this one can actually go, so it too is off the menu.

Except that while the Tories and LibDems opted for magnanimity (though couldn't resist a pop at Alex Salmond's characteristically boisterous defence of his Deputy), Labour still tried to go on the attack. Well, it doesn't seem to have worked, if Caron's reaction is any indicator:

So, would her gracious words have dragged the Labour Party up to a decent standard of debate. Nah. I think they realised that she had done enough to keep her job but many of them insisted on sticking the knife in to both her and Alex Salmond. I'll tell you what, I'm so glad Johann Lamont isn't my MSP. It seems that if I went to her I'd have to fill in a disclosure form at the door of her surgery. She seems to only want to represent the blameless. She asked if Nicola had performed background checks. I'm sure her staff have enough to do without turning into private detectives.

In a way Johann Lamont's words seem to sum up Labour's attitude to people. Most people who seek help from elected representatives are good people who tell the truth. Many are really vulnerable and desperately need help. Unless you have a good reason to doubt it, you have to take people's word for what they're telling you.

Iain Gray then asked her to withdraw the letter - which seems a bit daft seeing as she'd just publicly said that she'd change things and that the hearing was over and done with anyway. How can you take something off the public record as if it had never existed? A bit strange.

And there we go - everyone else is happy to draw a line under an unfortunate incident, but Labour still try to find a fight to pick, even if it means taking things to the ridiculous extent of insisting on background checks on constituents before taking up their case. But, as we already know, personal attacks are OK as long as a) they're made by Labour, or b) they're aimed at someone other than Labour politicians.

Here's something else to consider. This is what Yousuf said almost two weeks ago, as Lettergate was brewing:

And I would advise any Nationalists who feel she is being hounded to look back to what happened with Wendy Alexander.

And there it is. For Yousuf has, I fear, rather hit the nail on the head (albeit inadvertently). It speaks volumes that whatever Nationalists and others were looking at - probably the case in question on its own merits or otherwise, I'd imagine - Labour people were looking at what happened to Wendy Alexander.

That the Electoral Commission took the view that Wendy Alexander broke the law doesn't come into it.

That she was found to have breached rules on the declaration of gifts doesn't come into it.

That the only sanction she faced for breaking the law and breaching what are in effect anti-corruption rules was a one-day suspension from Parliament proposed by the Standards Committee which was subsequently quashed in the Chamber (compare and contrast that with Frances Curran, Colin Fox, Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie being banned for a month for acting like prats and one can't help but feel that MSPs' sense of proportion is somewhat skewed) doesn't come into it.

The only real punishment was the one she inflicted on herself: she chose to resign as Labour Leader. She was pushed out not by other people, not by procedures, but by circumstances, nothing more.

But as far as Labour are concerned she was taken down, and that's all that matters.

And they have to see someone else taken down in revenge.

After all, their attempts to lever themselves back into office in the wake of last year's Budget debacle fell apart almost within minutes, and their attempts to use Lockerbie as a crowbar with which to prise Kenny MacAskill out of office failed, but after a year and a half of searching they thought they had it. But Lunchgate, it transpires, doesn't even merit a serious investigation. So comparisons with Wendy Alexander - who endured several investigations (though was fortunate to escape prosecution) - don't hold. And Nicola Sturgeon's response to Lettergate was to stand up, apologise, and admit that she got it wrong. Again, comparisons with Wendy Alexander - who dug in and ended up surrounded by acolytes who expressed horror that anyone might want to criticise their Dear Leader for, you know, breaking the law until her position became untenable - simply don't stack up.

But that doesn't matter - since Wendy Alexander's resignation, Labour have had a thirst for blood.

It's the same petty, vindictive personal politics that they've been playing at for years. The same mean-spirited vitriolic ad hominem attacks that they're crying foul over in this, the week when Gordon Brown is on the receiving end of them.

Yet even when they're saying how appalling it is when these things happen to their man, they're still trying them on others.

Quite simply, they deserve to fail.

Let this thirst of theirs continue to go unquenched!

A Bitter Taste in the Mouth

It's been an ugly weekend for Gordon Brown. First, details of Andrew Rawnsley's book emerge, including passages alleging that Brown bullies his staff. And then everyone goes doolally.

First, Iain Dale publishes art by Louis Sidoli comparing Brown with Hitler.

Then, attempts to counter the allegations of bullying on Labour's part backfire spectacularly when the head of the National Bullying Helpline declares that staff members at Number 10 have accessed her service.

Now, Labour figures are apoplectic and I have to be honest here: it's hard to disagree.

Firstly, let me make this absolutely 100% clear for the avoidance of doubt: it's not cool to compare your opponent to Hitler. Whatever you think about Gordon Brown, he has not tried to annex half of Europe and has not sent six million Jews to an early death. Let's get a sense of perspective here.

Second, like many others, I'm disturbed that Christine Pratt decided to blow the whistle as to where some of her service's users work. It's a confidential helpline. It has to be. And she's blown that confidentiality out of the water for what? To make a point? It's an ill wind: I know for sure that I wouldn't want personal details like that, particularly over something so distressing as a feeling of harassment strewn out across the media, used to pick over by the commentariat: I wouldn't want my anguish to become a piece of a political puzzle. Yet that is what Pratt has turned the stress of those workers into. Sickening.

And indeed, the reaction of the media resembles the same bullying that we're accusing Brown of and condemning him for. Not a good way to make a point.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to be sympathetic.

After all, it was a Labour MP (Anne Moffat) who said this:

"Proportional representation gave Germany Adolf Hitler and in Scotland to a lesser degree we've had the member for Banff and Buchan".

So it's a little rich for Labour to cry foul at comparisons with Hitler when they've been only too happy to dish them out in the past.

Further, while the current campaign against Brown leaves a bitter taste, consider this.

Which party superimposed the faces of Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin on a pair of pigs with wings? Labour.

Which party's Holyrood campaign included a cartoon of another party's leader as a petulant (and somewhat slow) child? Labour.

Which party arranged for an activist to follow a rival By-Election candidate around in a top hat and tails? Labour.

Which party bizarrely sent out leaflets accusing an SNP candidate of - heaven forfend! - supporting independence?! Labour.

Which party criticised a By-Election candidate for being a member of the same religious sect as a former Minister from their own party? Labour.

Which party lost a spin doctor as he planned to make up stories about the opposition for an attack blog? Labour.

Which party has, in government, seen ministers and aides brief against each other in a ridiculous display of political chicanery and pisspoor attempt at machismo? Labour.

Which party saw one of its Councillors describe his then-Ministerial namesake (and party colleague!) as the 'runt of the litter'? Labour.

Which party saw another of its Councillors deride women as 'thick' on his blog? Labour.

I don't like this new political culture, where spite and bile replace debate, where personal insult is used as a substitute for policy discussions. It's the style of tabloids like the Sun, and politicians should steer well clear of it. So I take no joy in the current pelting Gordon Brown is getting as it's needlessly vitriolic and turns attention away from some of the real catastrophic points of the present Government: Trident, the erosion of civil liberties, the 10p tax debacle, tuition fees, foundation hospitals, PFI, the continuation of Thatcherite housing policies and worst of all, Iraq. Those are the real attack points, not the fact that Gordon Brown behaves in a manner similar to, for example, Sir Alex Ferguson.

But it's a culture brought to us by the same people who are now complaining about it, and I had to laugh at this post by Terry Kelly who has a reputation for being hostile to anyone who has the temerity to be in another party than Labour, and who only ever described the First Minister as "Salmond (the Spiv)". But slag off Gordon Brown, and my, doesn't he get precious?

As I said, I don't like what politics is becoming, and on that, I agree with those in Labour who have thrown their arms up in dismay at the events of the past few days. But it's their colleagues who have set us all on this awful, awful course.

Labour have spent years happily dishing it out, but now it's being thrown back, they can't take it. And that appalling display of hypocrisy and cowardice is what leaves the bitterest taste in my mouth.

Brown: "The Future is Ours To Win" - McAvoy: "I'm Offski!"

It's surely embarrassing that as Gordon Brown was trying to turn this year's contest into a "Them" and "Us" election, blow as many dog-whistles as he can through the repeated use of buzzwords like "progressive" (remind me how well the 'dog-whistle' strategy did for Michael Howard?), while talking in his peroration of how the future belongs to Labour (a slightly creepy mantra, I feel), it's reported that Labour Whip Tommy McAvoy (Rutherglen & Hamilton West) has opted not to be a part of that future.

Now, McAvoy was blamed is some circles for Janis Hughes standing down as MSP for Glasgow Rutherglen, so I imagine she'll be pretty hacked off: all she needed to do was hang in there for three more years. And Iain Dale refers to the Jim Devine affair: Devine told Channel 4 that a Whip told him how to fiddle his expenses, and an internal inquiry has been launched into which member of the Whips' Office it was. Although we can't yet say for certain, it's not hard to join the dots: McAvoy is the likely candidate.

And now he's not a candidate at all.

Still, with March being pretty much ruled out as an election date (Brown may as well have stood there in Warwick and started singing Waiting at the Church as one of his predecessors did at the 1978 TUC Conference), Labour have around two month to find a candidate.

Surely, with time so short, and little or no time available to put an AWS in place, the likeliest figure is Tom McCabe, the former Finance Minister. McCabe is no longer on the Opposition frontbench at Holyrood (though he is Labour's representative on the Corporate Body) so while he's a big-hitter and it would be grim for Iain Gray to lose him as well, it won't be as embarrassing as losing yet another member of the Shadow Cabinet. It would, however, further drain the pool of talent open to Gray in the most important year of an Opposition's life: the year when it has to start looking like a Government. And no matter what optimistic Labour figures would say, when Labour MSPs start to opt for the Westminster back benches over the Holyrood front bench, as they have done, there is no way on Earth that those remaining can look like anything other than the "Second XI". They certainly can't look like a credible alternative government.

But I digress. McCabe is presently MSP for Hamilton South, which has an electorate overlap of around 31,000 with Rutherglen & Hamilton West (focusing mainly around Blantyre), so will know a decent sized part of the area, and was rumoured to be looking for selection to Airdrie & Shotts when it was announced that John Reid was standing down. He would, therefore, be the logical choice: in the short term, his move south creates a vacancy for the SPCB, which is neither earth-shattering nor a major blow, he's relatively local and he knows the area. And the new Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse constituency at Holyrood - roughly analogous to Hamilton South - requires a Labour-SNP swing of 6.28% for it to be lost (especially tempting and achievable if, as is likely, the SNP candidate is a sitting Regional MSP and Tom McCabe seeks and wins the Rutherglen candidacy), while the Westminster seat requires either a 16% Lab-LibDem swing or a 21% Lab-SNP swing. McCabe would be daft not to go for it.

And that too is good news for the SNP: leaving aside the Dennis Canavan result (which, given his status as an Independent, defied swing projections), there have been four instances of a sitting Constituency MSP standing down and a Regional MSP from another party vying to take their place. The aforementioned Janis Hughes was one (Robert Brown of the LibDems stood in Rutherglen); the others being Susan Deacon in Edinburgh East & Musselburgh (where Kenny MacAskill was the SNP's challenger); Henry McLeish stood down from Central Fife in 2003 (the SNP's Tricia Marwick was seeking that one); and Ian Jenkins in Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale, standing down in 2003 (the SNP's Christine Grahame sought to succeed him). On average, the four Regional quasi-incumbents picked up a 'bonus' swing of 6.08%. That effect, if borne out in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, turns the seat into a supermarginal, before a single vote has been cast.