Glasgow North East: The aftermath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baillieston By-Election

The By-Election to replace John Mason MP on Glasgow City Council took place yesterday, and the seat has been held by the SNP. This ought to be something of a surprise as Labour were the largest party in Baillieston ward last year, but the Glasgow East result meant that the SNP were arguably in a stronger position. It was a close one: David Turner was a mere 151 votes ahead of Labour's Andy (Who?) Muir, though this lead had increased to 198 votes by Stage 8 of the count, at which point Muir was eliminated leaving Turner as the only remaining candidate.

The SSP's progress at the Westminster By-Election appears to have stalled, as the party ended up in seventh place, behind the BNP and Solidarity - suggesting that their own demise may be, somewhat exaggerated as yet.

But for now, forward momentum appears to remain with the SNP, and Labour have lost another election in their heartland. Now comes Glenrothes...

Miaow

Having found herself in a tight rhetorical spot, from which backs out gracefully, Kez makes a good point:

It's the kind of playground bully boy tactics that you can expect from by-elections -and the kind I'd usually try to rise above - but this campaign is tribal and the beat of the drums brings out the worst in us all.

Now, I made a point that given the apparent "two-horse race" nature of the campaign, combined with the venom exchanged between Labour and the SNP exchanged over more than seven decades and compressed into three weeks, as well as the high stakes for both parties, egg-throwing is inevitable. And so it has proven. Between Solidarity and the SSP anyway.

From the Daily Record:

"A bizarre fight has broken out between rival socialist candidates in the Glasgow East by-election. Solidarity claimed their candidate Tricia McLeish was 'disciplined' by SSP hopeful and former MSP Frances Curran when they were at school together.

"A Solidarity source said: 'Tricia went to the same school as the SSP candidate. Tricia was younger and was a rebellious mod who was often disciplined by the blazer-clad prefect Frances Curran. Frances clearly showed early signs of collusion with authority. However, maybe the class rebel will win the final victory.'

Curran said: 'I'm not even going to dignify that with a comment.'

Time, it seems, heals no wounds, and perhaps Ms McLeish's defection to Tommy Sheridan's new endeavour has less to do with personal loyalty to the Tanned One and more to do with a grudge against Prefect Frances.

Jumping from one sinking ship to another?

Via Tartan Hero, we learn that Solidarity's one Councillor in the whole of Scotland - Ruth Black, a Glasgow Councillor - has surprised people not by standing down from the Council as some had predicted, but by defecting to Labour. This now increases Labour's majority on the Council - and is a small publicity bonus for Stephen Purcell at a time when Labour as a whole are not coping well either in Scotland or the UK.

However, it does spell the end for Solidarity. Their leader will soon be in the dock (and will be defended by Donald Findlay, whose other clients include Luke Mitchell - found guilty of murdering his girlfriend - and Peter Tobin - found guilty of murdering Angelika Kluk then discovered to be a serial killer - so Tommy Sheridan's omens are not favourable), and they now have no elected representatives. The SSP, who looked dead and buried in May, now outstrip Solidarity by having a Councillor and a Convener who has not been charged with perjury.

Perhaps my title was a tad melodramatic: at Westminster, Labour have had several crises to go through but have until 2009-10 to patch things up, Wendy Alexander has bought time with the Electoral Commission inquiry which won't report back until the new year (and Tory attacks on her are blunted by the news that David Cameron took £7,000 from other donors who are not on the UK electoral roll), and obviously, Labour are a Councillor up. Labour certainly have a future and in Scotland that depends largely on what the Electoral Commission says about Wendy Alexander. But the worst case scenario is that they lose their leader. At the moment, Solidarity may be teetering on the brink of oblivion, losing their Councillor to Labour and their Leader to a perjury trial.

An arresting development

At about 1:10p.m. today, broadcaster - well, he presents a radio show on an Edinburgh station - former MSP and Leader of Solidarity, Tommy Sheridan, was picked up by three plain-clothes police officers and taken away, in connection with in enquiry into perjury allegations.

This is the latest chapter in a very long-running saga.

For those who don't know the story - i.e. have had absolutely no contact with Scotland at all since late 2004 - here is a quick summary. In November 2004, Tommy Sheridan abruptly resigned as Convener of the SSP. Allegations were then made about a rather colourful private life on the permatanned MSP in the News of the World, and it later emerged that the SSP were aware fo these allegations and forced him to resign. Sheridan successfully sued the NOTW for defammation of character, picking up £200,000 in damages, despite key members of the Party testifying against him. Given that the pro-Sheridan and anti-Sheridan camps gave vidence that contradicted each other's testimonies, it was clear as soon as the verdict was reached that one side had committed perjury, and an investigation was launched. This is the latest chapter in that story.

On the political side of things, following the trial, Sheridan subsequently announced his intention to challenge Colin Fox - his successor as Convener - for Leadership of the SSP, but then decided to lead a breakaway party instead. So Solidarity was born, taking Rosemary Byrne (then MSP for the South of Scotland), the SWP and CWI with Tommy. The election campaign was an acrimonious one, with Sheridan branding the SSP 'scabs' who co-operated with Rupert Murdoch, and SSP players such as Carolyn Leckie referring to Sheridan as a liability. The election, inevitably, proved to be a disaster for both: Sheridan narrowly missed out on re-election; Byrne came nowhere near, and the SSP were wiped out completely. It looked as though Sheridan had won.

But was it over? Solidarity won one Council seat in Glasgow - Ruth Black - and the SSP still had Jim Bollan on West Dunbartonshire Council. Forecasts of the SSP's demise have not yet come to fruition, and a recent YouGov poll had the SSP on 3% of the Regional Vote - which by my reckoning, would give them one MSP in Glasgow - to Solidarity's 1% - which would give them nothing. And Sheridan's allies, the SWP, have been drawn into a row in England as Respect, George Galloway's leftist party, which was allied with Solidarity, are splitting following a row between Galloway and the SWP Leadership. Now the police have come for Sheridan.

The SSP must no doubt feel vindicated tonight. But can they ever turn that smug sense fo self-satisfaction at events (which they're entitled to) into actual success? Will we ever see SSP MSPs again? Can SSP Parliamentary candidates hold on to their deposits?

And what of Solidarity? If Sheridan goes down, can the party survive?

It seems the story of the Left in Scotland, which I thought had ended - or at least ceased to be significant - will in fact be carrying on into 2008.

PS Anyone looking for an excellent, detailed tracking of the saga as it unfolded should check out Scott's archive over at Love and Garbage.

The crowded Socialist marketplace

The Herald informs us that the pact between Respect and Solidarity, that Scotland was Solidarity's turf and Respect would not cross the border, has expired. This might not necessarily lead to Respect candidates being fielded in Scotland immediately, but the fact is that this represents the fourth Socialist party to organise in Scotland.

Have these people learned nothing? The Solidarity-SSP split deprived the Left of a seat in Glasgow and a unified, single party would probably have attracted more support than the two split parties did, as it would have made a more attractive proposition. Galloway's Respect would have to compete with three parties, who between them took less than 3% of the Regional Vote in May. Solidarity is the strongest of these, woth 1.5% of the vote, Tommy Sheridan and a Councillor in Glasgow. But Solidarity is supported by the SWP, who have backed Respect in England. If they switch, Sheridan is in trouble. Then there's the rump of the SSP, who at least have the saving grace of a Councillor in West Dunbartonshire, and the Arthur Scargill personality cult, the Socialist Labour Party, which will die when he does. Now we can add George Galloway to the mix.

Four parties, fighting for three percent of the vote. I know they don't like market economics all that much, but really, common sense has to kick in sooner or later.

The Left in Scotland

Thw writing was on the wall for the demise of the Left in Scotland: even without the split, opinion polls had the combined SSP & Solidarity showing at around 5% - the sort of level which wold cause a near-wipeout, save for the unified SSP's stronghold in Glasgow. So it proved. The only place where either party had even a sniff at a seat was Glasgow, where Solidarity missed out by a whisker. To make matters worse, the combined vote of the SSP and Solidarity would have been enough for one of them to win a seat at the expense of Patrick Harvie. This goes to prove how damaging the split was: both sides have almost destroyed themselves in fighting with each other, and the electorate's view has been very clear: "A plague on both your houses!". But the Left will re-emerge, in some form.

Solidarity are the likeliest to survive and re-build, as long as Tommy Sheridan is still involved, but will that mean anything by 2011? My guess is that it will: the Party has a Councillor in Glasgow (Ruth Black), so still has a platform to advance Tommy, who took 19.3% of the vote in Pollok in the 1992 Westminster Election, 7.6% across the city in the 1994 European Election, 11.1% in the re-drawn Pollok in 1997, 21.5% in Pollok in 1999 (with the SSP taking 7% across the city on the Regional Vote), and 27.9% in Pollok in 2003 (with the SSP taking 16% across the city on the Regional Vote). So the 4.1% support for Solidarity in Glasgow is the worst level of support that a Tommy Sheridan candidacy has received, well, ever. Even combined with the SSP, he'd only have scored 5.3%. Basically, Glasgow doesn't necessarily like Tommy, but people at least know who he is. So the personality, combined with the chance to develop the Party's organisation over the next four years, and the presence in the City all mean that we haven't seen the last of him.

Socialist Labour are now the second leftist force in Scottish politics. They don't have (and have never had) the electoral success of the unified SSP, or the presence in any Council chamber. They haven't ever had representation in Holyrood either. Their main asset comes from their UK head: Arthur Scargill. As long as he's still going, they're still going. Not necessarily successful, but still going. They might never be successful, but they'll be hard to shift. Until Scargill snuffs it, when they're screwed.

The SSP, on the other hand, are toast. They are now the third force in Socialism, rather than the largest, with major debts, few backers, and no MSPs contributing from their salary. The have one Councillor in West Dunbartonshire (Jim Bollan), but that's it. The only place where the even managed to get 1% of the vote was Glasgow, the Party's original birthplace, and even there they were outpolled by Socialist Labour. And both Christian parties. And the Senior Citizens' Unity Party. And the BNP. They're in real trouble.

Brother, can you spare £27,000?

As well as reporting on the possible defection of a Labour MP, the Sunday Herald also has an article on a £27,000 loan to the SSP by the Party's former deputy Treasurer, Gordon Morgan. Morgan wants the money back in full, and is taking the Party to court to get it.

Morgan apparently started the action when he discovered that the SSP had sold their HQ again to keep themselves afloat. Oh, and did I mention that he has defected to Solidarity?

This is the latest (and perhaps most destructive) skirmish between the parties: Solidarity leaders Tommy Sheridan and Rosemary Byrne withdrew from an agreement to pool the cost of hiring researchers; a Solidarity activist has called on the SSP to disband; the SSP have called on the Standards Commissioner to investigate whether or not Sheridan should have declared a stay in a hotel paid for by a tabloid newspaper. This one, however, is the big one, and could damage the SSP heavily, leaving them with little or no resources to fight the campaign. The SSP simply say that they are 'prepared', claiming that, 'Solidarity think they can ruin us but it won't happen'.

I would say that Solidarity are about to win the battle for the Scottish Left, but I suspect that with the vitriol that's going into this row, there will be no winners, only a lot of disenchanted voters who threw their lot in with the SSP in 2003, but either won't bother voting or will support someone else entirely this time around. And they will be the biggest losers in this affair.

Is "Solidarity" in breach of the Trades Descriptions Act?

We now know that Tommy Sheridan is pretty much certain to quit the SSP and set up a new group called "Solidarity". We also know that quite a few activists and SSP Branches are going with him, including the SWP and the CWI (as expected). The most important defection though is Rosemary Byrne's. This gives Solidarity two MSPs, and leaves the SSP with four. You need five MSPs to be given a seat on the Parliamentary Bureau and a slot at FMQs. Neither of them have this, so Tommy has just made both groups significantly weaker. Nor is either group likely to join the group of Independents as long as Brian Monteith is in it. Now, you can't really blame them for this, but it seems a strange position to take when Campbell Martin (who launched recently a broadside at the SNP for being too right-wing) is comfortable enough within the group.

If you want a wager, here's my tip: within Holyrood, it'll be Solidarity who are isolated (though they'll take most of the SSP activists and voters with them over the next few weeks and months), and the SSP will be making doe-eyes at Campbell Martin just to keep them at 5 MSPs. If he has any sense, he'll ignore them: they need him more than he needs them, and while he has nothing to lose or gain right now whatever he does, he'd probably do better next May as an Independent than as an SSP candidate.

In other news, Tory activists in Mid Scotland and Fife have suggested to Party members that the wisest course of action would be to de-select all of the Party's MSPs. This hasn't a chance of succeeding (though a couple might find themselves in the wilderness, as Keith Harding and Lyndsey McIntosh did last time around), but it is slightly embarrassing for Annabel Goldie to have this row played out in public. If they go back to internecine warfare (and it's been ages since they've had enough people to do that), then they can wave goodbye to any prospects of progress next year.