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?

Memo to LibDems: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

This started life as a comment on Caron's post about her attitude to a Con-LD Coalition, and her preference for no deal and a minority Government. I have to say that if I were a LibDem, I would agree with her.

Firstly, it's political suicide. It's my observation that the party probably views Labour as its preferred partner, if it has one. That's certainly been the case when it's had to choose between the SNP and Labour, and I'd be very surprised if it were not the case in the UK context where the choice is between the Tories and Labour. To see their party ally itself with the Conservatives would be a sore one for many supporters, I suspect.

Moreover, my feeling is that many of the converts to the LibDems over the last decade went there because they saw the party as one (or both) of two things: a viable, progressive alternative to Labour (so left-leaning voters), and a change that wasn't the Conservative party (people who might not like Labour anymore, but can't stomach the Tories). Neither of these groups would be overly chuffed if the LibDems joined a David Cameron Government. By my reckoning, that could call anything up to one fifth of the LibDem vote into question.

But they might put up with it, right? Don't bank on it. Because for the LibDems, there is now a ticking time-bomb on the green benches, and her name is Caroline Lucas. The SNP know all too well that one Green MSP in 1999 led to seven in 2003 (and indeed, that one SSP MSP in 1999 led to six in 2003). And indeed, what marked the start of the SNP's advance to the mainstream of Scottish politics? Winnie Ewing's win in Hamilton in 1967, augmented by Donald Stewart, the first SNP MP elected in a General Election in 1970. That was the sign that the SNP had 'made it' and provided the foothold for Margo MacDonald's win in Glasgow Govan in 1973, then the election of seven MPs going up to eleven in 1974. As the SNP gained its foothold four decades ago, so the Greens have their foothold now. If the LibDems start looking right, the left-leaning voters, and the ones who want a real change and wish to 'break the mould' as the saying went, might, in their eyes, have a new, credible destination should they feel that the LibDems, in dealing with the Tories, no longer offer what they expected. In short, it's a big political risk.

And I advise LibDems rationalising that a Coalition with the Tories is less bad than the alternative - to whit, a Tory minority Government with DUP support - that this has only 313 seats (doubtless 314 after the Thirsk & Malton By-Election). That's still short of a majority (with the Speaker not usually voting, but backing the Government in a tie, and with Sinn Fein boycotting the chamber, the required number is 322). The SNP have, sensing that anyone who touches the Tories will be severely punished at the ballot box in next year's Holyrood election, ruled out any deal with the Conservatives and have proposed a progressive alliance which basically encapsulates everyone else. Plaid, on the other hand, have not ruled out a Tory deal, but their three seats take the Tories only up to 316-7. Sylvia Hermon ruled out working with the Tories, and Carolne Lucas won't fancy the idea either. Even if they did, that would still be 318-9. The Tories need the LibDems for a majority. End of.

But more importantly, what about the principle? And this was the basis of the comment I would have left for Caron. By accepting the 'national interest' line of these talks, the LibDems are in real danger of accepting the Cameron-Osborne premise that 'strong government' is the answer. I see three flaws with this.

A Coalition is not necessarily a 'strong' government. Obviously, there's always the possibility of backbench rebellions in two parties, but more than that, in the rush to chew over the state of the Commons, we are all overlooking the current state of the Lords: out of 707 members of the Upper House, 186 are Tories and 72 are LibDems. That makes a total of 258, putting a Coalition some 96 seats short of a majority unless David Cameron and Nick Clegg agree to create a lot of peerages. That means we still have a minority Government in one House and I'm not sure how the Salisbury Convention would stand up to a Coalition agreement. Budgets won't be a problem but every other piece of legislation would be at risk. It would get on the statute books eventually, but would require the use of the Parliament Act so delaying the passage of any controversial legislation by a year. As a consensus-based, issue-by-issue approach is going to be needed in the Lords whatever happens, so it may as well be the default option for the Commons.

And even if the Coalition is 'strong', is it a 'strong' government that's best, or a stable one? The reason Coalitions worked in Scotland, the reason the One Wales Government looks to be capable of reaching the end of its term next year, the reason they work so well in Germany, is that the Parliamentary term is fixed so the Government can set out a clear, detailed, four-year (or however long) work programme, and where there is an impasse, the parties get that they have a clear mandate to respect and either a mid-term change of government or early election seems improper unless (as in Germany in 2005 when the SPD-Green Coalition lost its majority in the Bundesrat) there is no viable way forward. As elections can be called (or not called) on Prime Ministerial whim in the UK system, the obvious concern is that any impasse could be broken with the nuclear option, either by Cameron going to the Palace or Clegg and his colleagues crossing the floor, tabling a No Confidence Motion and forcing an election. As snap elections called by Prime Ministers (and, as we know all too well, ones forced by opposition parties) over just one issue are not without precedent, there's no guarantee that Coalition will lead to a sustainable Parliament or enduring Government. By contrast, a minority Government can be stable as Scotland again has shown, as it forces opposition parties to be responsible and act in the national interest rather than cynical opportunism. When they don't live up to that expectation, they're the ones at risk of punishment at the ballot box. In short, a minority Government that can reach deals with other parties on individual pieces of legislation might be more stable than a Coalition existing in a system that wasn't designed for them.

Next, even if a Coalition is both strong and stable, is it a strong government that's best, or a strong Parliament? Let's face it, strong governments gave us the Poll Tax, tuition fees and worst of all, the Iraq War. A government that can simply take unilateral action and just Whip legislation through Parliament is a government destined to make wrong decisions: one that has to either persuade others of its case or makes compromises has a better chance of taking the people with it and retaining their support over tough decisions, while one that isn't capable of, or interested in, agreement from outwith its own camp surely shouldn't be allowed to press ahead with its plans.

In short, if I were a LibDem, the everything would be telling me to back out of this. The only thing is, to walk away and retain credibility, the LibDems need to do so with a positive approach. The circumstances that are leading us to where we are look remarkably similar to the circumstances surrounding the LibDems in 2007: Labour have lost votes and seats; the LibDems expected real progress only to be disappointed in the end; a Labour-LibDem majority isn't possible. There are only two different factors: this time, the leading party is the Tories and not the SNP (obviously), and the LibDems can actually form a majority with the Tories, whereas barring a Grand Coalition of the SNP and Labour, a three-party Coalition was needed in Scotland. And the negativity that came out of the LibDems the weekend after that election was staggering: Tavish Scott unilaterally dismissed a deal with Labour as out of hand on the Politics Show, and his party decided to demand a major policy U-turn from the SNP before negotiations had even begun. I always thought the point of negotiations was that you used them as tool of settling the big issues, either with a compromise or a quid pro quo arrangement, but the LibDems apparently had other ideas.

So instead of the huff that they went into in 2007, they need a different approach, as I argued then. This time, something along the lines of the following should do it:

"Although the electoral system has obviously distorted the views of the electorate, it's clear that they have expressed a view for a balanced Parliament and a new approach to politics. We have come to the conclusion that the best way to honour and respect the wishes of the people is the formation of a minority Government, held to account by a stronger House of Commons. Although we will take our place on the Opposition benches, we pledge not to oppose Government measures simply because we sit on the other side of the House. By remaining outside the Government, we will be free to support it where we agree, and challenge it where we do not. In these difficult times, the Government has a duty to build consensus and work with others across the political spectrum; a Coalition will make this less likely and will serve only to sustain the confrontational politics that has served the country so badly for so long. A minority Government will force all parties - whether in Government or Opposition - to raise their game, see beyond partisan advantage, and work together for the good of the people. We believe that is the way forward."

See? Broadly positive, stressing the advantages of minority Government. It can be done, and for the LibDems, it would be a sight better than either risking being branded "Dave's Little Helpers" or letting negotiations get so far, then flouncing off in a huff.

But let's see what happens...

Scaling back ambition

Nicol Stephen appears to have done this: recently he was talking about becoming First Minister himself, but now he's got dragged into the row over whether the LibDems should support Jack McConnell's re-election as First Minister. This comes on thwe back of McConnell's gloriously barking prediction that Labour can get 55 or more seats, enough to ditch the LibDems and form a viable minority government, which he considers the preferred option to a three-party Coalition with the LibDems and the Greens. Stephen has made the schoolboy error of accepting the premise of McConnell's argument (that the LibDems are more likely to join a government than lead one), and so his earlier predictions are now wiped out.

Even if you leave that aside, this is a major own goal for Nicol Stephen, who has already painted himself into a corner by insisting that he would not go into an Executive that a) was led by McConnell and supported nuclear power, or b) was led by Alex Salmond and included a referendum on independence. By saying that he will actively vote against Jack McConnell's candidacy for the FM post, and all Labour nominations for ministerial positions if Jack goes it alone, Stephen is forced into either a U-turn on his new-found hostility to Labour (which will last until 4 May, one day after the Elections), or his position on independence. It also increases the likelihood that Labour will look to the Tories for support. While they reacted to this development by criticising the LibDems, they have not rejected the idea of supporting Labour. In fact, in the past, a number of key figures have advocated that as a means of preserving the Union.

And of course, this whole debate centres on 1) whether Labour will be in a position to form a viable minority government (unlikely); and 2) whether Labour could form a stable majority with either the LibDems from within the Executive or the Tories from outwith it (unlikely at the present time). The electorate can still turn any row on its head.

In other news, Davie Hutchison is reporting that the race to succeed McConnell as Labour leader has already begun, with backbenchers jumping on bandwagons to support prospective candidates Andy Kerr and Tom McCabe. If this is true, it seems that the only person who still believes that the First Minister can hang onto his job is the First Minister.

If he'd said this two weeks ago, he'd win the Comical Ali award

I'm speaking about Jack McConnell's intentions to go it alone in a minority single-party government, as reported in the papers today. At a time when most Labour analysts are bricking it about May, and even forecasting a loss of 12 constituencies (though offset by Regioanl gains, so most people have them around the 40 mark), McConnell predicts a net GAIN of 5 seats!

He wants a looser agreement, where he can get a majority with different parties on an issue-by-issue basis. A very risky strategy, considering that a) the SNP will sniff a possibility to make his life a misery for four years, or it will give them the full life of the Parliament to get a majority together that will oust McConnell and install either Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister; b) McConnell's support for Trident has just destroyed any possibility that he can get Green support; and c) the Tories will probably have Murdo Fraser as their leader after the Election, and so will take a more neo-Con approach in terms of economics, and more sympathetic towards additional powers for Holyrood - the exact opposite of McConnell's stance. Of course, McConnell would have to get personal support in the Chamber in the first instance, which won't be an easy task.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the LibDems will be the big winners in this affair: with Labour's popularity at Holyrood and Westminster at a serious low, the accusation that they are 'Jack's Little Helpers', and the view that Nicol Stephen is pretty much the permanent Deputy First Minister to either Jack McConnell or Alex Salmond is probably hampering them. By effectively setting them free, McConnell is allowing the LibDems to oppose Labour freely, safe in the knowledge that they won't face 1,000 U-turns after the election. This could see yet more votes move away from Labour, this time towards the LibDems.

Marriage of inconvenience

The Coalition is facing one of its periodic difficulties at the moment, thanks to two rows. The first concerns Karen Whitefield's Bill to prevent large stores from opening on Christmas or New Year's Day: Labour backbenchers are supporting the Bill, where the LibDems are cooler towards the idea. The Executive are trying to compromise, by suggesting that trading be banned only on Christmas Day and not New Year's Day. Labour backbenchers are threatening to revolt against any such plan.

The more serious tensions, however, come over the differing parties' plans for the Local Elections' ballot paper next May: Labour want candidates to be grouped by party. Other parties, including the LibDems, see this as a ploy to help ensure that First Preference votes for one candidate from a party transfer more to other candidates from the same party. Seeing as it's Labour who are more likely to have multiple candidates in Council wards, this is more likely to benefit them. You can see why the other parties smell a rat. However, the situation is so serious that Labour is now courting the Conservative MSPs for support. I don't see them getting it, unless the Tories have completely taken leave of their sens... never mind.

A few continuing stories (Updated)

A quick glance through the weekend's papers (and a look at the TV programmes) tells me that this is a week to look at stories that I've already covered, and how they're progressing.

Firstly, on stock transfer: Malcolm Chisholm has been interviewed today, informing viewers that he has personally visited all of the Council areas where the Council Tenants have been balloted on having their housing transferred over to an association. Obviously, Edinburgh (his home patch) was the first of these. The tenants voted No. He's visited Stirling. They voted No. He visited Renfrewshire. They voted No, which could possibly gift two marginal constituencies to the SNP next May. He's also campaigning in Inverclyde and Highland, no doubt to the abject terror of local Labour parties in those areas. Having admitted that he is now the Zelig of stock transfer debacles, he's effectively cursed any future plans while he's Communities Minister and now seems to have "Sack Me" written on his face.

On party funding there are two interesting stories worth considering: the first is the RMT's decision to end its affiliation to the SSP, as discussed here. They haven't as yet announced their support for Solidarity, but I suspect that this will be a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'. Meanwhile, the £2.4 million donated to the LibDems by convicted perjurer Michael Brown is causing consternation: reports abound that the party will have to return the cash, and the Scottish LibDems have opted against disclosing how much of that money went their way, but seeing as their 2005 Election expenses were more than double their 2001 figures, I'd guess that it was quite a bit. But if there is a forced repayment, it'll leave the LibDems' 2007 campaign in tatters.

Finally, The Greens will be discussing Coalition options (a subject I like to come back to occasionally) at their Conference next week, with Patrick Harvie taking the initiative by circulating a paper on what part the party could play in propping up any potential Executive next year. Although he's tight-lipped on what policies will have to be part of any deal (though he has re-stated the party's opposition to nuclear power), he did mention his preferred option for how the deal would work. He's seeking the activists' backing for the 'Confidence and Supply' model, where the Greens would take no ministerial seats and would not be expected to support the Executive on most matters, but they would support another party's candidate for First Minister, back the Executive in confidence motions and vote for the Executive's Budget in exchange for concessions on policy over the four-year term.

Harvie says this will allow a more exciting form of politics, where an Executive will have to win an argument before it wins the vote. I think it'll lead to more U.S. Congress-style 'pork barrel' politics, with Executive whips having to negotiate with other parties, and individual members of all political hues (including their own), in order to get votes passed, where the only question Ministers will have to answer from MSPs will be, "What's in it for us?" Or perhaps I'm getting cynical.

UPDATE: According to Kenny Sheerin's blog, the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement has also disaffiliated from the SSP, apparently citing concerns that the party isn't giving enough weight to the Independence argument. However, a number of SRSM members will stay in the party as individuals, so I don't think they're switching to Solidarity.

Confidence and Supply... again?

The Sunday Herald is reporting that the Tories are willing to prop up a Labour minority government by voting for McConnell as FM, support Executive budgets and protect Labour in no-confidence votes in exchange for a couple of policy concessions and no formal Coalition. This has echoes of the SNP-Green chatter that appears to be manifesting itself, but its main purpose would be to prevent an SNP-led administration, on the grounds that Tory activists would prefer Labour to the SNP (I'm pretty sure I hinted at a possible Unionist alliance at the start of the year, well, here it is).

Also interesting is that, while mocking the Tories, the Labour spokesperson didn't say 'No'...

Eck tells Bella where to go

...in which the Eck in question is Alex Salmond, and the Bella (there can only be one Bella!) is Annabel Goldie, who has called on the SNP to work with the Tories informally after 2007.

Salmond, though, has re-stated SNP policy: that they do not do deals with the Conservatives. He is, of course, trying to seal the confidence-and-supply deal with the Greens, while also performing the rather precarious balancing act of wooing the LibDems as potential Coalition partners (the LibDems themselves have hinted at this following the Labour internal poll I mentioned yesterday, which would give the two groups combined a majority in Holyrood) while attacking them for being Labour's partners and trying not to lose votes to them.

On second thoughts, the 'balancing act' is entirely the wrong metaphor. I should perhaps have gone for something involving yoga.

Indecision 2007?

It seems that Labour have pressed the self-destruct button on leading any meaningful majority Coalition government: reports in The Scotsman suggest that Labour will pave the way for new nuclear power stations in their election manifesto.

Firstly, next year was always going to be difficult for them: even the most optimistic predictions had them losing enough seats to have to find support from a third party as well as the LibDems, who were themselves beginning to think that a third term of Coalition wasn't such a good idea. Given the LibDems' opposition to nuclear power, the gulf between the two Executive parties has now widened. This could mean that Labour have to turn to the Conservatives (they've voted together on some social issues in the past), but hardly anyone in either party (outwith the Holyrood group) would wear that, and the Tories claim to be against Coalition. Besides, it's looking unlikely that the combined strength of those two parties will reach 65 seats post-2007. So whether Labour got into bed with the Conservatives or pulled off the shock of the decade and maintained the partnership with the LibDems, they'd need a third party involved. The likeliest (well, the only) candidate would be the Greens, who have all but agreed an entente cordiale with the SNP, and oppose nuclear power. So basically, Labour are in trouble.

But the SNP-Green understanding probably won't be any good on its own either: the prospects of either party advancing to a point where they had a majority are slim, so an SNP-LibDem-Green Coalition, basd on opposition to nuclear among other things, could be on the cards. Or at lieast it would be, if Nicol Stephen hadn't come out against an independence referendum, which the SNP will insist on and the Greens will support.

In short, Nicol Stephen has to make a very severe U-turn between now and 2007. He either has to let nuclear in, or support the idea of a referendum on independence, which, let's face it, isn't the same as supporting independence.

Whatever happens, remember the two-thirds rule: a two-third majority of the Parliament can vote for its dissolution and the holding of fresh elections. That means that a party needs 43 seats or more to block a dissolution if it wants to. If no one gets that, and there doesn't seem to be the prospect of a stable government (minority, Coalition or both), then it's going to be an odd four years.

Expect hysteria from your blogger during that time.

A political engagement?

Back in January, I reported on preliminary post-2007 talks between the SNP and the Greens. It now seems that these talks are developing, with the Greens agreeing to prop up an Alex Salmond-led Executive by not taking Cabinet seats, but supporting SNP Budgets, and voting with the Executive on no-confidence votes, in exchange for concessions on policy issues, such as nuclear power (where the two parties are in agreement anyway, as are the LibDems, who could find themselves as the SNP's formal Coalition partners next year). The Greens would also be free to oppose the Executive on other issues.

The SNP are happy with this, and the Greens are almost satisfied, but there is one obstacle: the smaller party is unhappy with Fergus Ewing holding the Transport portfolio in the SNP Shadow Cabinet. He's viewed as a "petrolhead" at odds with Green Party attitudes. My guess is they'll either move him to something safer over the Summer, or keep him in place but assure the Greens that he won't be making Transport policy should the SNP form the Executive.

A match made in Heaven?

It's being reported in The Herald (and by the BBC) that the SNP and the Greens have been in informal talks over a possible Coalition after the 2007 Election.

I have to say that the SNP are probably the ones who gain the most from this: they have plenty of common ground with the Greens, on issues such as independence (the big issue, of course), nuclear power and rendition of terror suspects, so they have a good basis to start negotiations. This also makes discussions after the Election (if they're needed or even remotely useful) more productive. They're helped by the Greens' tactic of only standing on the Second Vote, preventing a challenge to the SNP in their target constituencies. Let's not forget that the SNP, as members of the European Free Alliance, sit with the Greens in the European Parliament. Not only that, but the alternatives aren't really palatable. Although it's likely that the only viable two-party agreement would be a Grand Coalition between Labour and the SNP, this would fail simply on the enmity between the two parties and the fact that neither would want to be the junior partner. The Party has constitutionally ruled out a pact with the Tories, who are just too Unionist, despite their agreement on some economic matters. As for the SSP, well, even if you discount the death spiral in which they're currently engaged, they aren't particularly fond of the SNP either, dismissing them as a 'fearty party'. The LibDems, of course, rule out independence and have, from an SNP viewpoint, soiled their hands through their pact with Labour.

There are risks, of course. Firstly, in spite of Alex Salmond's aggressive targeting of 20 constituencies, they need to keep their Second Vote up if they're going to bolster their number of seats in 2007. It was their failure to pay attention to this vote that damaged them so badly in 2003, letting in the Greens and the SSP. Also the two parties are surely rivals for the remains of what is likely to be the SSP's carcass at the Election. While an SSP collapse might gift the SNP a handful of constituencies, their List votes might head more easily towards the Greens, thus making life more difficult for Alex Salmond's party. Of course, my dire predictions regarding the Socialists might be wrong, and an SNP-Green alliance might well have to turn to the SSP for support. Even if they do fade into irrelevance, this new Coalition might not have enough combined strength to command a majority. This might well either force the two parties to seek LibDem support (an unpleasant option for both, particularly the Greens who would have the most to lose in terms of influence from their involvement), or, to prevent that, persuade the Greens to break this pact and support the current Lab-Lib executive in a 'traffic light' Coalition in exchange for major concessions on policy.

But what of the Greens? Well, this gives them a credibility bonus. By planning for the aftermath of the next election now, they put together a list of outcomes that they would expect from any deal, helping them to 'get real' (their task for the year). It gives them opportunities to advance on the List vote. However there are a number of circles to square: can the Greens' pro-environment approach sit well with the SNP's current pro-business line? Can the two parties' varying attitudes to oil (for the SNP it's black gold, for the Greens it's the spawn of Satan) be overcome? And of course, it could potentially burn one of the Greens' bridges: the 'traffic light' pact, in the event that neither (as I suspect will happen) the Lab-Lib pact nor the SNP-Green entente command a combined total 65 seats or more. In that case, we could see a Unionist pact involving Labour, the LibDems and the Tories.

Whatever happens, the next Election is shaping into a fascinating contest. So fascinating that I might have to create a spin-off blog for it.