Looking forward to May 2011 and the Scottish Parliamentary election, I think the smart money is probably on a minority Labour administration (assuming current poll figures and mentalities within the ‘Scottish’ Labour party – and also a backlash to the lack of a referendum, though I seem to be in the minority in thinking this). Nevertheless, here’s a concept I’m floating, in the main because it seems so crazy: a Labour-SNP administration.
It’s crazy right? I mean, at the grassroots level they hate each other. Their campaigns are aimed at drawing votes from the other, most often in negative slogans and attacks on policies; their representatives have engaged in such Punch-and-Judy politics (see, Foulkes, G. who could not even bring himself to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on her marriage) that you can’t even imagine them sitting next to each other in the canteen never mind around a government table; and, well, they won’t even engage with each other (see budget negotiations 2008, 2009, 2010). They also have the added distraction that at the moment their combined parliamentary representation would total 93 of the 129 seats in Holyrood – 28 more than required for a minimum-winning coalition. A coalition of these two parties on this scale would be utter madness.
But… it’s not like we’ve not seen this before. Remember the 2005 German Federal election? No?  I forget you’re not all geeks like me. Well, it resulted in the first Chancellorship of Angela Merkel. The two largest parties – Merkel’s (Christian Democratic) CDU/ CSU (226) and former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s (Social Democratic) SDP (222) – won 448 of the 614 seats in the Bundestag. Neither an SDP-Green-PDS (left) nor CDU/CSU-FDP (liberal) coalition was workable, so after some negotiation, the two largest parties formed a coalition which lasted until the 2009 election.
Also, in Wales – which I guess is a more similar case – Labour and Plaid Cymru decided on coalition in 2007, despite reservations among their respective memberships and similar tension to that between the SNP and Labour at the grassroots level. Combined, they have a total of 41 of the 60 seats in the National Assembly and have worked together to establish the All-Wales Convention as part of the coalition agreement, as well as leading the charge for a referendum on expanding the powers of the Assembly.
So from the two examples above we can see that a) dominant parties in particular systems can work together and b) Labour can work with nationalists. And a Labour-SNP (or SNP-Labour) coalition would have its advantages. For a start, they could combine to offer a much stronger, united, Scottish voice against the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition at Westminster. Whatever else they are, Labour are pro-devolution (of sorts), and would like the Scottish Parliament to have more powers while the SNP… well, a gradual increase in powers is better than nothing for them. Also, for Labour, this may be their only chance to have meaningful power in the UK for the foreseeable future (opposition beckons at Westminster for a long-ish time while the Welsh Assembly hardly has the levers of power Labour are used to). And both parties are “social democrats” (in loose terms James – don’t batter me for that definition!) so their policy formulations are not too dissimilar.
I know. I know. It’s crazy talk. This is politics we’re talking about. The negatives of such a deal would always outweigh the positives. And I guess one thing I should have mentioned about the German case is that the SDP got slaughtered at the next election. So there’s always a big loser. But in so many ways this makes sense. It’s just a shame that ‘sense’ does not always dictate how politics works.
NB – This post was written before James’ post (and, indeed, before the Sunday polls came out) but after Hamish Macdonnell’s Cal Merc piece (which I never read until James’ post cited it).  It was also written before yesterday’s debate on the dropping of the referendum bill, which doesn’t quite render the idea irrelevant, but means it is moving in that direction. It probably also directly answers/ comments on Andrew BOD’s comment on James’ post.
#1 by James on September 7, 2010 - 8:32 am
I hereby promise never to batter either of my co-editors. It’s really not my style.
#2 by Malc on September 7, 2010 - 8:37 am
Haha. Well, you know what I mean. I was expecting criticism for defining SNP and Labour as centre-left and assumed you’d take me to task for it!
#3 by James on September 7, 2010 - 12:23 pm
That’s true, I class both Labour and the SNP as centre-right. Greens are centre-left. Lib Dems are out and out right wing. Tories very right wing. UKIP are the BNP in blazers. Solidarity and SSP remain hard left. There’s no party on the actual centre spot, for my money.
#4 by Jeff on September 7, 2010 - 12:43 pm
“I class both Labour and the SNP as centre-right”
James, I can’t see where that assertion comes from. My only possible thought is that Labour, and less so the SNP, don’t go far enough in pushing a more redistributive tax policy. Any specific policy areas you had in mind to back up the statement that will be sacriligeous in some parts?
Centre-right is a bit of a push, surely. Is this an attempt to make the Greens appear more mainstream in the public’s mind?
#5 by Malc on September 7, 2010 - 12:50 pm
According to Political Compass, he has more of a point with Labour (centre-right authoritarian) than the SNP (centre-left, neutral). But look where the Green are on this:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
Also, according to that, I wouldn’t say the Greens articulated a “mainstream position” if collective votes are anything to go by – the electorate appears to be somewhat further to the right!
#6 by James on September 7, 2010 - 2:04 pm
Partly I’m winding folk up, partly they both do look very neo-liberal from my perspective. It’s a pretty bogus over-simplification (see @peatworrier passim) but I might do a positioning post sometime..
#7 by Caron on September 7, 2010 - 9:39 am
There’s a part of me that really wants to see this in action now – but the bad part of me. I’d want live streaming from the Cabinet meetings, of course. They would presumably have to paint the walls of the Cabinet room red to camouflage the bloodstains from the inevitable scraps.
There’s such antipathy between Labour and the SNP (although not necessarily among their voters) that I can’t see it working.
Seriously, though, one prediction I will make – the SNP won’t make a coalition with anybody with Alex Salmond as leader.
#8 by Malc on September 7, 2010 - 9:49 am
I thought it was too early to predict what would happen after May?!
Seriously though, that may be accurate. And if, as, I think, Hamish Macdonnell speculated, Salmond leaves if/when the SNP do poorly in the election, that may remove that particular bulwark to any kind of deal.
One thing I’d mention in the opposite direction though. From what I hear of “negotiations” (though there were no official ones) post-2007, it wasn’t Alex Salmond but a prominent Scottish Lib Dem called… Tavish Scott who was opposed to any kind of deal. And I should say, I’ve heard that from a couple of sources.
Nevertheless… I don’t think its a goer. But, thinking logically (which is something parties don’t tend to do) it may well have serious benefits for both the SNP and Labour.
#9 by Chris on September 7, 2010 - 10:29 am
I think Labour with SNP tacit or explicit support might take a lot of heat out of Scottish politics and force both parties grassroots to work out that they are rivals, not enemies.
Mind you there is nothing to rule out a SNP/LibDem (+ Green) administration either.
#10 by Malc on September 7, 2010 - 10:46 am
Chris,
The “tacit or explicit” support is perhaps an important distinction. To many times this session Labour have decided upon opposition for opposition sake, rather than being constructive and engaging with a minority administration (which they could potentially bend to their will on some occasions – as the Tories did). I wonder if the SNP would fall into this model if they lost power, or if they would try to prove more constructive?
In your other point, I’d suggest there are quite a few things that would rule it out, namely:
1) Lib Dems in coalition with the Tories at Westminster
2) Tavish Scott not really wanting to deal with the SNP (see 2007)
3) The SNP not really wanting to deal with Lib Dems (except if they offer a referendum)
4) The Greens being pissed at everyone for building a new (sorry, ‘replacement’ – forgot about the SNP memo!) bridge over the Forth, and unlikely to work with parties promising to build more roads (see AWPR).
Those things wouldn’t rule it out as such, merely make it difficult.
#11 by Indy on September 7, 2010 - 10:52 am
It’s not really crazy. No matter who wins, it is going to be a very very tough 4 years. We all have a duty to try our best to manage things in line with Scottish values and to try and protect the vulnerable. Neither Labour nor the SNP can do that alone. Whether we like it or not we are going to have to find some way to cooperate. I think a formal coalition is highly unlikely but there will have to be more cooperation. Of course this won’t kick in until after the election – it will be business as usual up to that point. But I am sure that both SNP and Labour members realise we’re going to have to work together a bit more effectively post-election.
An SNP/LibDem coalition is a total non-starter. At the end of the day a regrouping of the centre left in Scotland in the face of the Tory Government is possible – indeed likely – but the Lib Dems don’t come into that category do they? They are the ones who put the Tories back into power. I don’t think they realise yet what a price they will pay for that.
#12 by Malc on September 7, 2010 - 1:58 pm
I think that makes sense – less formal coalition, more confidence and supply, constructive opposition. That makes sense. Which is problematic, because, as I said above, anything that makes sense generally gets ignored.
Fair point on the Lib Dems. I think that’s probably how they are viewed by both the SNP and Labour, so they are unlikely coalition partners. And see Jeff’s next post for the Tories (which I think is equally unlikely!).
Pingback: Is an unholy alliance the divine intervention that SNP and Tories need? « Better Nation
#13 by Dougthedug on September 7, 2010 - 1:43 pm
Malc, it doesn’t matter what voice Scotland has, under devolution the Holyrood Government’s main function will be to deal with the reduced block grant assigned from Westminster which is based on English spending. I’m also curious to know why you think that Labour want the Scottish Parliament to have more powers. Calman was a Labour creature and all it came up with was to change the existing 3p in the pound tax variation powers to a 10p in the pound power. It threw in airguns and speed limits but in the face of the coming spending cuts, so what? Calman was an exercise in showing Scotland the Emperor’s new clothes. When you take a look at the funding increase, (none), the transfer of powers, (trivial), and the flagship assigned tax proposal, (unused 3p in the pound limit goes to 10p), it’s just a bag of wind thought up by Labour as a distraction.
The next incoming Government in Holyrood, whoever they are or whatever combination they are, will just be managers for the cuts and the SNP should stay well away from coalition Government. The SNP will be campaigning on ditching Westminster and the Union for an independent and wealthy Scotland but the campaign for the other three will be on which party promises to deliver the cuts in the most efficient manner in Scotland.
Whether in opposition or in Government the SNP can point out quite truthfully that Labour were fighting tooth and nail to keep Scotland under the Tory Prime Minister David Cameron and to implement his cuts and I can’t actually see anything that Labour can offer which would entice the SNP into a coalition with them. More powers for the Scottish Parliament? Only the current Tory/Lib Government in Westminster has the power to grant more powers to Holyrood even if Labour wanted them. An independence referendum? Labour are far too British nationalist to even contemplate one. The only thing the SNP would get from a Labour/SNP coalition as the junior partner would be a large share of the blame as public services in Scotland take the hit from the spending cuts decided on by the Westminster parliament Labour is so desperate to hold onto.
#14 by Malc on September 7, 2010 - 1:56 pm
DtD,
Calman was THEN – ie, BEFORE Labour were turfed out of office in London. This is now. They want meaningful power. And the only way they’ll get that in the next few years is through further devolution. Okay, I may have been a little optimistic calling them “pro-devolution” but if you speak to Lab MSPs (not MPs) you’ll find that most want the Scottish Parliament to have more powers.
On your second point – this is interesting. What your basically saying is that, coalition or minority administration, the SNP should have NO PART of governing after May because they’d have to implement Tory cuts. I’m inclined to agree, which makes yesterday’s “tactical” ditching of the independence referendum even more baffling – when will they get an opportunity to present it again?
#15 by Dougthedug on September 7, 2010 - 2:54 pm
Malc, further devolution is in the gift of the Tory/Lib coalition in Westminster. Only Westminster can give powers to the Scottish Parliament.
It wouldn’t matter how fervent the Labour party branch in Scotland were about gaining more power for the Scottish Parliament, they can’t deliver on it. Even if Labour MSP’s want more powers it will be dependent on Labour getting back into power in Westminster and getting the rest of the British Labour party to go along with the idea.
I’m of the opinion that Labour as a party don’t want more powers for the Scottish Parliament and losing power in Westminster hasn’t changed that.
I’m puzzled and a bit angry that the SNP have ditched putting the Bill before parliament but that’s my heart. In my head I know that the chances of getting it through in this parliament were similar to the Devil needing a snowplough to get to work.
The only reason I can see for the SNP going into a coalition is the promise of an independence referendum. It’s not impossible but not very probable. Anything else would not be worth the blame attached to the cuts.